Electile Dysfunction (Current students plz look!)

[Kaan]

If you think everyone has a right to health care, amend the constitution. That's how the country was designed to operate.

You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights  doesnt seem like such a crazy agenda anymore...

Get it out there and pass it... they are mostly poorly written and/or defined... IMHO voter talk with no real ability to gain true traction.

[*]-The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation; (we have to define useful, and its been used in the past by the UN of all places with language like "to free choice of employment")

[*]-The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation; (we are in the debate now about a "living wage", this seems to potentially take it farther added "recreation"... free race cars? free planes? defining recreation is going to be hard)

[*]-The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living; (this is complicated but could gain traction. we are losing the small farming and moving to big agriculture every day. Farmers are usually killed by land taxes... 100 acres in VA will have a million dollar tax liability. then take into account the equipment, etc. Its easier to sell the land to a developer or big ag. we have things on the books now trying to ensure a decent living, again how do you define that... and these "corn bills" are just government subsidies or crop guarantees if they don't sell on the market)

[*]-The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad; (how can you enact this without the ability to control the foreign competition? aren't we doing this now with google, facebook, amazon, etc... and the "trade war" that no one likes?)

[*]-The right of every family to a decent home; (this was missing from the food/clothing/recreation one... to own or to rent? we already have construction codes and rules to live by with those... so even the rental should be decent right? if it isn't, did the tenant do it or did the land lord? Do we need to redefine decent?... whats the impact of having to overhaul whatever percentage of homes aren't "decent?"... see it can even get messy with this)

[*]-The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health; (lets define adequate... it will never get done FYI. also just granting the opportunity is there... people just aren't taking the opportunity and needing additional medical care. achieving and enjoying good health is much more complicated than just being able to go to the doctor "for free" or for "cheap.")

[*]-The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment; (managed by our brilliant government these are all failing... medicare, medicade, social security, etc. all examples of failing government programs. these are going to take MAJOR infusions of taxes to survive... but how many tax dollars have we spent already on the items listed above? how do we prioritize it?)

[*]-The right to a good education. (public school, private school, home school... they vary in quality across the nation and we have standards... and standardized tests. you aren't getting a good education now, how do we fix this? this is a tough nut to crack. A BS/BA is the new high school diploma in the work place... we already have education creep in the requirements... so when are free PHDs come into the plan? when do we need a degree higher than a PHD?)

---

If you think everyone has a right to health care, amend the constitution. That's how the country was designed to operate.

You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bill_of_Rights  doesnt seem like such a crazy agenda anymore...

Well the problem with "right to health care" is that health care costs money, and involves other people's labor.

We had a whole war about whether you had the right to someone's labor, turns out you definitely don't.

Everything in the economic bill of rights has a cost... every cost is tied to someone's labor... Instead of allowing the free market to work, we have bastardized it and now are unhappy with the results.

[Apoc]

As far as the "it's nice being white" comment, I'm the one who brought this up and am trying to think about it and understand it. I could go back to drinking mint juleps in my white suit and hat and just not give a shit what people who don't look like me say.

One comment using the color of your skin and national origin against you and you shut down. Do you maybe see now how being told to go back somewhere that isn't your home because you have different color skin or an accent can be bothersome?

Progressives piss me off just as much as Trump... but I refuse to accept those are my only two choices.

[Ken]

So some hear "go back to where you came from" and think of the time someone yelled that at them in a Walmart parking lot, or white supremacists marching around with pointy hats, and since that was racist, this guy must be too.

I mean, if you're saying the exact same thing White Supremacists say, in the exact same context, to the exact same type of people, how could it be interpreted as anything but racist?  In the United States for a long, long time 'Go back to Africa' has been used by racists as an attack on black people for various reasons, but mostly as a retort to black people calling out the unfairness of racism in America.

Donald Trump is someone who has been sued by HUD not once, but twice for racially discriminating against tenants.  He was forced to settle both times.  He's the guy who called for executions for the Central Park Five and to this day has never recanted even though they were proven innocent.  He's the same person who was out there pushing the birther conspiracy for the first black president.  He's said that a judge of Mexican descent (who was born in the US) can't be impartial to Trump.  And on, and on, and on.

No need to overthink it, what he said was racist.  He is racist.

Just here to say thanks to G for saying things in a much more polite manner than i was going to respond with.

[Jake]

+1, G and RJ basically just post what I'm thinking, but using nice words. I'll be over here with Ken, splitting a large popcorn.

[BLINGMW]

Well the Senate voted to condemn *The White House* since they cannot say Trump, so ok, fine, he's racist. Now what? His job title isn't "Father of the Country", and he's not here to be our moral compass, it's "Commander in Chief". As Rex stated, the dems are offering nothing, our economy is doing well, foreign relations are *ok*, and I'm much more concerned with that and other broken stuff Kaan points out. We have made a ton of progress on equality, and i don't think one guy's twitter comments are going to break that.

If a candidate came forward that wants to focus on our education system, justice system, and energy independence / climate change, I'm all ears. But I'm not going to support throwing Trump out to replace him with someone who's "nicer" but wants to take more of our rights and $ away. 

One comment using the color of your skin and national origin against you and you shut down. 

? You lost me. I'm right here in the discussion and thinking about what you guys are saying, not sure how that's shutting down.

[Apoc]

One comment using the color of your skin and national origin against you and you shut down. 

? You lost me. I'm right here in the discussion and thinking about what you guys are saying, not sure how that's shutting down.

Upon reflecting on the way I engaged with you, I've realized it was unnecessarily hostile. For that, I apologize. Ultimately, you're right in that you are trying to better understand it. I think I was annoyed by the basis on your post being just because other people use it in a racist way doesn't make it racist. 

On your point about throwing Trump out for someone nicer - I don't think anyone here is advocating that. You can have strong government/economic/social policy AND not be an asshole... contrary to current trends. I think we had both as recently as Obama, even though I didn't agree with all his policies.

If I'm honest, I'd probably vote for Trump over AOC.

[.RJ]

Well the Senate voted to condemn *The White House* since they cannot say Trump, so ok, fine, he's racist. Now what? His job title isn't "Father of the Country", and he's not here to be our moral compass, it's "Commander in Chief". 

Yes, that is their job and they are following the laws in place so they're kind of handcuffed here, until they grow a pair and impeach him.
I'm torn here - There are times that I wish they would take the gloves off, roll up their sleeves and go toe to toe with these motherfuckers and call them what they are.  But at the same time, its a no-win game, and every time they react to this bullshit they are giving it attention and air time instead of focusing on healthcare, education, renewable energy, etc - the things that will power us into the next century.  Every time team D talks about Trump, Trump wins, the attention is back on him.  
But it is definitely not "ok, fine".  Not even a little bit.  Not even because the economy is still good and no one is starting a war with us.  This is the de facto leader of the free world, racism and pussy grabbing underage girls is not OK.  I refuse to accept this as the new normal and acceptable behavior.

[Senor_Taylor]

If I'm honest, I'd probably vote for Trump over AOC.

I really hope there is a 0% chance that becomes our only two choices. 

I'm definitely naive in this regard seeing as I've only really been an adult during boom times, but I think the view point that a good economy can in any way justify the social inequalities the POTUS implies are okay is probably not ideal and really just reserved for those these inequalities don't affect.

[Kaan]

tragically this isn't "new normal and acceptable behavior."

Rhetoric, sexism, racism, etc... its historical, on "both sides." Agent Orange just uses social media to "say it."

also tragically, it only matters when "your person" isn't in the W***e House.

[.RJ]

Team D is using "The Squad" as a lightning rod. Its working well and I hope they dont fumble the football on that one while they work through a real agenda.

---

tragically this isn't "new normal and acceptable behavior."

No, this shit has always been out there. 

And I'm baffled at the level of support it gets in this day and age, I thought we were better than this and I was wrong.

[Kaan]

Team D is using "The Squad" as a lightning rod.  Its working well and I hope they dont fumble the football on that one while they work through a real agenda.

---

tragically this isn't "new normal and acceptable behavior."

No, this shit has always been out there. 

And I'm baffled at the level of support it gets in this day and age, I thought we were better than this and I was wrong.

now 20 years ago... Team D, the team of #metoo ... voted 100% not to impeach Slick Willy. How many of those folks from Team D are still in congress today?

I cant imagine the Nixon years with twitter... The Kennedy's would never be so public... but could you image Jackson, Roosevelt, etc? free to say whatever they wanted in seconds to the entire population?

IMHO this is the same old stuff with the ability for instant dissatisfaction and judgment. The era has changed but politicians have not (literally or with new politicians with crap behavior)

[*insertusernamehere*]

Wow. There's always something new to learn about people everyday... Disappointing

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

[Kaan]

Wow. There's always some new to learn about people everyday... Disappointing

Sent from my PH-1 using Tapatalk

IMHO, just because someone disappoints you, doesn't mean you shut them out. Actually, it both parties are actually civil, its the best time to gain understanding. It doesn't happen immediately but over time.

[Apoc]

Team D is using "The Squad" as a lightning rod.  Its working well and I hope they dont fumble the football on that one while they work through a real agenda.

---

tragically this isn't "new normal and acceptable behavior."

No, this shit has always been out there. 

And I'm baffled at the level of support it gets in this day and age, I thought we were better than this and I was wrong.

now 20 years ago... Team D, the team of #metoo ... voted 100% not to impeach Slick Willy. How many of those folks from Team D are still in congress today?

I cant imagine the Nixon years with twitter... The Kennedy's would never be so public... but could you image Jackson, Roosevelt, etc? free to say whatever they wanted in seconds to the entire population?

IMHO this is the same old stuff with the ability for instant dissatisfaction and judgment. The era has changed but politicians have not (literally or with new politicians with crap behavior)

I'm uncertain as to whether you believe this makes it okay or not. Yes, people have always been racist... but is "this is the way it's always been" even relevant when demanding change?

People who aren't misogynists are team #metoo, not Team D. I don't vote D and I support the movement.

[.RJ]

Clinton wasnt impeached over a BJ, he was impeached over lying about it. Compare and contrast with what we know about Trump since 2016? Seems quaint. The goalposts have moved. I hope when the tables are turned the GOP gets fucked good and hard.

[Kaan]

I'm uncertain as to whether you believe this makes it okay or not. Yes, people have always been racist... but is "this is the way it's always been" even relevant when demanding change?

People who aren't misogynists are team #metoo, not Team D. I don't vote D and I support the movement.

It has absolutely NOT okay at all. But generally outrage is left to the opposition when we ALL need to have outrage. Every side has bigots.

As I stated several posts ago... equal means equal. hold everyone to the same standard.

People should be outraged at what Ilhan Omar says about Jewish people just as much as they are outraged at Trumps tweets about the congress women.

Speaker of the House Pelosi (team d) was big on #metoo (as she should have been) but decided Bill Clinton did nothing wrong during the vote. As a woman of the House, was she playing politics then or now? or at all?

when you aren't outraged equally, how can you be taken seriously? This goes for POTUS down to a member of this forum "debating" on the internets.

[CaptainHenreh]

Clinton wasnt impeached over a BJ, he was impeached over lying about it.  Compare and contrast with what we know about Trump since 2016?  Seems quaint.  The goalposts have moved. I hope when the tables are turned the GOP gets fucked good and hard.

I mean, what Clinton (Bill) did was far worse than anything we know for sure Trump has done. But that doesn't excuse Trump. 





It's pretty clear to me that the comparison between Clinton and Trump is a good one. Both oversaw booming economies, both are old-school Democrats, both are unabashed hornballs and probably more than a little bit racist. 


Problem is we're definitely not going to be given the choice between "Person who totally understands economic principles and wants more people to keep more of their paycheck" and "Same, but also racist." 

We're going to have the choice between "Moonbat crazie commie" and "Racist pussy grabber"...AGAIN.

[Kaan]

Clinton wasnt impeached over a BJ, he was impeached over lying about it.  Compare and contrast with what we know about Trump since 2016?  Seems quaint.  The goalposts have moved. I hope when the tables are turned the GOP gets fucked good and hard.

actually "a" BJ was actually just part of a pattern of behavior outlined by Paula Stone... the accusation was sexual harassment while Clinton was governor. The blue dress and the cigar were from the white house days.

to me, both Trump and Clinton have a pattern of behavior that is unacceptable. my biggest issue with politics is how anyone can accept ones behavior over the other.

[Apoc]

People should be outraged at what Ilhan Omar says about Jewish people just as much as they are outraged at Trumps tweets about the congress women.

+1

Which is why I'd likely vote Trump over a far left candidate. If I'm going to vote for someone who doesn't like people different than them, it should at least come with lower taxes.

[CaptainHenreh]

People should be outraged at what Ilhan Omar says about Jewish people just as much as they are outraged at Trumps tweets about the congress women.

+1

Which is why I'd likely vote Trump over a far left candidate. If I'm going to vote for someone who doesn't like people different than them, it should at least come with lower taxes.

I mean, I'm gonna vote for Dave Barry but if it's between "I, a white person, pretended to be an oppressed minority to give myself advantages" vs "CHEETUS" then I'm gonna hope it's lower taxes.