Jump to content
macawake

macawake

Registered User
advertisement

Content by macawake

  1. macawake

    Mental Health Checks

    Thanks. I had the advantage of having read many of OP's previous posts and threads he's started and I've also taken part in the recent thread that was supposed to be about what nurses can do to make patients safer, but that pretty much immediately morphed into something else. That and my previous career in law enforcement, where you regularly meet people (criminals) who are quite fond of playing, or at least trying to play, mind games. I'm not the most trusting person and my radar for deceptive behavior is pretty finely tuned. That's not necessarily a good thing though, it's simply a consequence of my previous life/work experience. It's better to have more faith in mankind, so I hope no one feels bad if they assumed that OP was being honest. That's in my opinion a healthier default assumption than my cynicism. Kyrshamarks, trying to prove that people are wrong in this way is in my opinion quite underhanded and simply not nice. If you really had a solid argument to make, you could have made it in the existing thread. Without attempting to deceive people.
  2. macawake

    Mental Health Checks

    What you were trying to do was glaringly obvious to me which is why I waited to respond until you returned with your big reveal. If this yadda, yadda X 4 hadn't already given it away... This certainly did: Talk about obvious. Suicide and homicide as discussed in the other thread you recently participated in. Personally I think it's ridiculous to try to make the case that the damage one mass murderer on a shooting spree can inflict is equivalent the damage one confused voter could possibly do. Confused voters are after all only dangerous when 63 million or so of them manage to congregate at the polls in the same year...
  3. macawake

    The Caravan

    Since you simply copy-pasted the better part of an article (why didn't you include that last paragraph, I found it quite informative....) from a conservative magazine and didn't add a single comment of your own, I take it that you're not interested in sharing your own personal "nurse opinions" on this matter? Are non-medical magazines with a political, ahem..., inclination where you normally go to find medical and epidemiological data? That article that you copy-pasted mentions something that epidemiologists in Germany have supposedly reported, yet there is no link provided to the actual report. Why is that? Perhaps since you deemed this article important enough to share with us, you could find that epidemiological report? I tried and was unsuccessful. I found it quite humorous that tularemia is mentioned in that long list of scary-sounding diseases. You know how that one got its name, right? (Not from Tulare, El Salvador...) It a pretty rare disease, but it seems that the disease occurs between the 30th and 71st parallel north, so those poor Guatemalans and Hondurans are more likely to catch it if they come to the U.S., Germany or Sweden, than if they stay at home. Tularemia - Wikipedia Regarding migrant health in the European region... WHO/Europe | Page not found (For some reason it says "page not found", but the link appears to work, at least for me).
  4. macawake

    The Caravan

    What, no leprosy or smallpox :rolleyes: What's your point, nurse Mulan? I assume you have one since you posted a link and a quote here? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Did you make this post because your heart goes out to human beings living under such squalid conditions? That list is exactly what can be expected when several thousand poor people have been travelling by foot for a couple of months and living rough in cramped "tent cities". You already have all the conditions listed in your domestic population. As nurses we know there's nothing unexpected with this list, but to the public who lack medical knowledge I guess it sounds pretty frightening. It's almost as if the goal is to make migrants sound like a dangerous threat which needs to be kept out at all costs :sarcastic:
  5. macawake

    The Caravan

    I'm entirely convinced that upsetting bleedin' hearts is a goal in itself and an extremely enjoyable experience for a certain segment of Trump supporters. Of course not every conservative and not every Republican, but some of Trump's most ardent supporters, sure. I think they welcome cruelty as long as it's directed at those brown "others". I don't think they're in the least bit bothered by seeing the image of a mother in flip-flops running away from a cloud of gas dragging along her two very young daughters in her hands. Do you have any credible data to show us which supports that the "vast majority" aren't legitimately claiming asylum? I ask, because the YouTube clip that you linked to in post #141 in this thread doesn't qualify as evidence for the reasons I explained in post #147. You never commented on my post :) Of course deploying tear gas is an act of violence. Lachrymator agents are chemical weapons. As someone who's inhaled a snoutful of OC gas during training, it's a terrible experience. It causes intense pain (corneas and nasal passages/airways), increased secretions, a powerful choking sensation and causes disorientation and significant anxiety. The feeling that you can't breathe tends to do that... The question isn't if the border guards used violence or not. They did. The question is whether it was a justifiable use of force, or not. Anyone who has worked in any capacity related to law enforcement can, if they happen to be in a sharing, honest mood, tell you that some people are more likely to end up in altercations than others, more often find themselves in situations where suspects resist arrest and generally appear more talented at escalating volatile situations than at defusing them. I'm not saying that individual border agents are to blame for this, but the outcome could likely have been prevented before it ever escalated. The stage was set over a month ago, when the deliberate fear-mongering campaign about the looming "invasion" saw the light of day. In my opinion it took some skill and deliberate planning to CREATE the right circumstances for this cluster F to occur at your border. Caravans of migrants have been coming to your southern border for years, and as far as I know there's never been a situation where tear gas was used before now. So why now? What's changed? A good starting point would be to start processing asylum claims extra slow, like only a hundred per day, when you've had plenty of advance notice that thousands of migrants and asylum seekers are on the way... You then have a large group of people camping out under what's likely rather crappy conditions, with frustration and desperation increasing by the hour. Closing off a bridge, making access harder is another way to frustrate people who've walked 1,000 miles and finally reached their destination.... How many of you would voluntarily wade through what's basically liquid, stinking sewage mess masquerading as a river, carrying your kid and his/her stroller? I know I wouldn't. I see that as an act of desperation. As someone who has actually worked in riots I know not to 100% judge a situation when I wasn't present, but I can share my impressions. I'm not downplaying the damage stones/rocks can do if the people throwing them are close enough and you're unable to take cover. I've had rather largish stones thrown at me, and if they make contact they hurt like ****, even in full riot gear. If they're big/heavy enough, they can knock you over and/or seriously injure you. I've looked at the scenes at the border and I don't see anything that warrants deploying tear gas in the direction where there are clearly children present. Does anyone have any actual footage they can link to that shows a situation with significant rock throwing actually making contact and injuring border agents? I'm not saying it never happened, I'm saying I haven't seen it. Seriously? From what I saw, correct me if I'm wrong, the gas was actually deployed across the border into Mexico. The migrants I saw on TV weren't at the border or across the border in the U.S., they were still in Mexico, admittedly in close vicinity of the border, but not on it. Am I wrong? Do you seriously think that the adults with children were actually planning on STORMING the border, as in forcing their way past all the obstacles in their way, humans in the form of armed guards as well as structural obstacles? Are you aware that according to international law and U.S. law, people actually have a legal right to present at the border and request asylum. There's no guarantee that they'll be granted asylum, but they have a legal right to have their case heard. The thing is though, that a person has to actually show up somewhere along the border and talk to an official/representative of the country they're seeking asylum in, in order to do this. If a person is met by tear gas as they approach the border, that becomes a bit difficult to do.... What is it that you think should stop coming? The caravans? Every single asylum seeker? It is legal to come to the border and apply for asylum. How do you know in advance who has, and who hasn't, legitimate grounds to seek asylum? Isn't that exactly why most countries a process where people state their case at the border (like you used to have), so that it can be determined if an individual qualifies for asylum? This latest development is in my opinion extremely troubling, but sadly completely expected. I think this is a way for Trump to look "tough" and "strong" for his supporters. In my opinion, it's a wholly man-made crisis. I think this is separating young children from their parents, the sequel. Tear gassing young children. Ought to have decent deterrent value. Another low point from an administration rife with them.
  6. macawake

    The Caravan

    What's so interesting about that clip? Care to spell it out? I wish you'd stop insulting our critical thinking skills by posting links like these. As I'm Swedish I was already aware of this filmmaker before you posted the link to a more recent endeavour of his. Ami Horowitz - Wikipedia He released a so called documentary in 2016 about immigration and crime in Sweden. Many of the statements in his film seem to have been described as false by fact checkers as well as by Swedish authorities, news outlets and criminologists. The following are articles from Swedish media that cover some of the reporting on the documentary. He filmed the police interview for Ami Horowitz that Trump saw: The material was not edited ethically - DN.SE Swedish police featured in Fox News segment: Filmmaker is a madman - DN.SE Six claims and facts about Sweden: a closer look at Ami Horowitz' report - The Local As far as I understand the articles I've just read, the two policemen that were interviewed have said that the film had been edited so that their answer to a certain question the filmmaler asks, are in fact replies to a different question. So they are asked question A and they replied B. They're then asked question C and they reply D. Only according to them, the documentary shows the filmmaker asking question A, directly followed by reply D. The police's version of events appears to have been corroborated by the two cameramen hired for the filming of the documetary. One of them has reviewed the raw footage to make sure that his recollection was accurate. I never watched the "Swedish crime" documentary myself, but I'm guessing this is the same filmmaker as the one in your clip?? Please let me know if I'm wrong. Now to the YouTube clip you linked. There's a taped phone conversation/interview between 4:07 and 4:55. The woman he's interviewing doesn't even seem to be answering the questions we're hearing in the clip. To me the conversation sounds off and that yeah followed by laughter at the end, could be the response to anything. Perhaps it's only me who doesn't think the dialogue "flows naturally", I don't know. At 5:14 he says that at the base camp there's a mobile hospital stocked with enough pharmaceutical drugs to make Keith Richards blush. At the same time the camera shows a table stacked with various medications in boxes. The quality of the film is rather poor but the ones I can make out are Metronidazol, something called Bistatin-F and what looks like Indomethacin. There's also a Diclo???? something or other. Yeah, I bet they'd excite the **** out of Keith Richards. This is followed by him saying there's also plenty of doctors and nurses attending to all the migrant's needs. Imagine that... Doctors and nurses tending to people with medical needs. The world really is going to hell in a handbasket. One of my favorite parts... Directly after this at 5:25 the camera shows him standing in front of a man who may be Hispanic and who may or may not be a member of the "caravan", and he says the following to Hispanic-looking man; America also has very generous benefits for people who live in America, is that something you want to take advantage of as well? Then directly after that the camera shifts to showing ONLY the Hispanic-looking male in the picture frame giving a short reply, and all of a sudden a gigantic concrete pillar has materialized behind the man... (It's magic, I tell you). That pillar WAS NOT THERE when the man was asked the question a second before (well, a second before on the clip at least.. :sarcastic:) There are more instances in the clip where we see people (who knows who they are, how can we possibly verify who they are?) answering questions, when we don't hear the question being asked before the replies (for example 6:46 - 7:06). How can we be certain what they're giving responses to? SC_RNDude, do you think we're stupid? Please be a bit more critical of your sources. Remind me again, what did you find interesting about this clip? What do you think it shows/proves?
  7. macawake

    What comes to mind when you hear Donald Trump ?

    Could you please post links to the criminological research that shows that the political "left" are more prone to violence and commit more assaults, bombings and murders than the political "right"? I have no intention of doing that. Why would that shock me? It's what I expect. The difference is that I recognize that having these feelings towards others, is a sad thing. I don't take pride and revel in it. Again, show me the evidence that supports your claim. Because you know, I distinctly remember several occasions when I've had to fight with aggressive violence-prone nazi types. While they've healed by now, I certainly had the bruises and the busted ribs to remember those festive events by. Do you seriously think that only left-leaning perps shoot at the police? That's kind of funny. I've never posted a meme in my life. I'm not about to start now, so I'm not sure what you're saying, The crime stats I don't need to research. I already know them.
  8. macawake

    What comes to mind when you hear Donald Trump ?

    No kidding. I'm not really that bothered by your lack of civility, but somehow one expects a slightly more refined level of discourse on a nursing forum. But hey, it's kind of nostalgic. It reminds me of the white noise I'd hear from the cells back when I worked in police stations. Since this is the tone you've chosen to strike, I hope you don't mind if I don't address you as politely as I would someone who writes in a less inflammatory fashion. This is horribly poor logic. You can find examples of people on both the right and the left, as well as people with no particular political preference, who are guilty of the things on your list. I don't even have to go look for sources to corroborate that. With a sample size of over 300 million people, it's pretty much a statistical certainty. What is the point of your list of bad acts? What do you think you've proven? The fact that there exists bad apples all across the political spectrum isn't the issue. One party has a leader who calls Mexicans rapists, who supports policies that seperate even very young children from their parents becuase their parents are suspected of having committed misdemeanors, who says that a judge can't be unbiased because of his Hispanic heritage, who tweets extremely rude insults at all hours of the day and night, who brags about grabbing women between their legs, who admires and cozies up to autocrats who terrorizes and murders their citizens, who expresses the opinion that there is such a thing as nice white supremacists even after a young woman has been brutally and deliberately mown down by a car, who kicks people while they're down as they are fleeing their homes and in some instances getting killed in raging wildfires, who disparages Gold Star parents when they dare express something less than adoring admiration towards him, who repeatedly attacks and attempts to undermine the credibility of the free press (that is an absolutely vital component of a functioning democracy) and continues to single out and target specific media outlets and individual journalists even after they've been sent bombs in the mail by an unhinged supporter. The other party doesn't. There is no equivalency. Some of the worst despots in history were actually elected. Thankfully, history is full of examples when people didn't view that as "taking their turn", but instead had the backbone to fight for freedom, democratic values and respect for all human beings. I must say, that for you as a nurse to make fun of and show condescension towards people who cannot afford medicine, is pretty darn sad. You seem to be feeling a whole lot of contempt for your fellow man. Does having this attitude contribute anything positive to your life? The reason I ask, is that I feel the same level of disdain for people who STILL support Trump. I wish I didn't have those feelings because I don't consider them something to be proud of and they lessen me as a human being. It's safe to say it's one of the uglier aspects of my personality.
  9. macawake

    2018 Elections

    I don't feel threatened by a difference of opinion either. While it's true that a difference of opinion could actually pose a threat, if enough people shared it and the opinion they shared was corrosive enough to dissolve the fabric of your democratic society, opinions isn't what have me feeling quite scared for you all and the rest of the world. The thing that scares me more than anything is that you/we no longer agree on verifiable, demonstrable truths and facts. In my opinion it started when Spicer angrily claimed in January of 2016 that the inaugural crowd was the biggest ever. PERIOD. Trump's inauguration crowd: Sean Spicer's claims versus the evidence | US news | The Guardian It's only gone downhill from there. The posting of links to sources that peddle outright lies. The starting of threads that cover the latest fake topic that those in power want to foist upon you. And how they abandon that thread as soon as the administration and the more extreme elements of the right-wing do so. It is so obvious when the lie du jour has oulived its usefullness.. They are so clearly a megaphone helping the propaganda department along. This is the threat and this is what infuriates me when I read posts made by the staunchest Trump supporters on this forum. I can't call them out by name, because that would likely be viewed as a personal attack. I wish I could, because I much prefer being straight with people and giving them a chance to respond and explain if they want to. Difference of opinion I can handle. The perpetuation of lies and conspiracy theories that threaten to tear your country apart, is a different kettle of fish. I find some Americans so very naive. I'm Scandinavian and of course that also makes me a European. I've lived in over a dozen countries, both as a child and as an adult. I've lived in several European countries apart from my birth country. Europeans have had two devastating world wars on their soil in the last ~hundred years. We've also seen the rise of several fascist or authoritarian regimes. We've had Hitler, Mussolini and Franco. Millions of people killed. Several countries have had civil wars during the twentieth century. We've had the iron curtain that split our continent in half. We've experienced genocide as recently as the nineties. Today we're seeing troubling signs of authoritarian leaders gaining power in many of our countries and a growing intolerance towards the "others". With the sum of that collective experience affecting how I interpret the world, what I see happening in the U.S. really frightens me. While you as a country have participated in many wars, no one alive today has ever experienced war on your own soil. I think many Americans take freedom and democracy for granted. (@nursej22, I know I quoted your post when I started my post, bit somewhere along the way this post morphed into being directed at everyone and no one in particular. I don't intend for this post to come off as me trying to lecture you). The problem here isn't a difference of opinion. It's that you can't even agree on what is true and factual. As a country you are alienating your traditional allies and expressing admiration and sucking up to authoritarian leaders. You are withdrawing from international treaties designed to make the world a better and safer place for ALL OF US. I watched someone on the TV the other day say something that I think was a very accurate conclusion. I can't remember who the person was or what his qualifications are, but he was in my opinion right. He said that Trump views the world as a zero-sum game. In his mind if it's France +2, that automatically means that it's U.S. -2. That of course means that he has to lash out at France in one form or another. He can't grasp the fact that multilateral deals and cooperation between countries actually leads to France +2 and U.S. +2. It's definitely true that no poster has ACTIVELY defended each and every lie or vile remark. The thing is though, if a poster repeatedly links to obviously inaccurate sources (ie LIES) and keeps on doing it even after it's been pointed out to them, AND they defend let's say a third or a fifth (or whatever percentage) of the lies and vile remarks, I WILL draw my conclusions. I don't require a 100% perfect track record. It's not primarily the opinions that bug me, it's the willingness to embrace and perpetuate lies and the refusal to cede even an inch, even when they are demonstrably PROVEN to be wrong. No, and unless things drastically change, I don't think it's likely you'll see it happen. Back in the day when I'd regularly placed people under arrest, I would rarely celebrate the fact that Perp101 that I nabbed for assaulting John, Matt and Peter, didn't also beat up Mike and happened to have donated $100 a worthy charity the morning of the assault. Sure, giving money to a charity is a good thing and I guess that at least Mike could argue that not being beaten up is a good thing. But ya'know.... I was still kind of miffed that Perp101 had beaten John, Matt and Peter. So I didn't place an ad in the local paper recognizing Perp's generous donation. (I'm not claiming that the things Trump does are the equivalent of felony assaults (or any kind of crime). My example was just to illustrate good/positive vs bad/negative deeds and why you in some instances won't get much credit even when you manage to perform the odd positive act. I haven't in honesty seen that many of them, just trying to be generous here). I could not agree more.
  10. macawake

    NRA is at it again

    Oh, Tweety! Did I read this right?? (You know English isn't my first language, and I'm hoping I've misunderstood). Since I'm not an American I have no idea who I should urge you to contact, but I hope that you are getting help if you're dealing with feelings like this. If you haven't already, please reach out to someone who's in a position to help in real life. No one should have to struggle with thoughts like you just described, alone. Hugs my forum friend! Take care!
  11. I personally would like to see as few abortions as possible being performed. But just as you mentioned in your post, I don't think the government or various religious groups have any right whatsoever to reach into my uterus and dictate how I should decide one of the most personal decisions of my life. As I wrote in my first post, I think it's only natural for the woman to think of the fetus as her baby. But the difference between a ten-week fetus and a full-term fetus/newborn infant is more than semantics. If a pregnancy is terminated by abortion after ten weeks, I don't see that as a baby being killed. I see that as what would have eventually become a baby, not being born. Is it really accurate that most people on the right support policies which would guarantee affordable healthcare, quality schools, nutritious food and good housing for children in all low-income families? Bologna? Do you mean toomuchbaloney? Do try to keep your sausages straight. After reading your posts here, I don't think you and I have any common ground. While I don't agree with Daisy4RN on a lot of things that she's written in this thread, she's said some things I do agree with. She's also doesn't seem as rigid in her view of the world. Despite her personal convictions, and I respect her right to have them, she seems to have a more realistic and emphathetic view of the world. So despite my disagreeing with a lot of the things she says, it is still possible for me to find common ground with her on this issue. How do you take a break from what research tells you? This thing about being research-literate isn't something you just turn on and off at will to suit your religious (?) convictions. You either accept that statistics show that women do not have fewer abortions simply because someone bans them, or you stick your head in the sand and deny FACTS. It doesn't matter if you're in the breakroom, or not. Semantics.... So hypothetically.. if worldwide, 1,000 babies who would not have born were actually born.. and the price paid for that was 1,000,000 dead women. That's a good trade-off? Why do you keep on pretending that there is any evidence that countries where abortions aren't legal actually result in fewer abortions in those countries, than in countries where abortions are legal? Care to clarify what this statement means? To me there's a bit of misogyny lurking in its depths. I think you're being either quite naive, blind or disingenuous, if you claim that there has never been a desire in society to control women. I'm sure a desire to control women isn't what motivates each and every person who opposes a woman's right to choose, but you can't pretend that it isn't a factor for some. Again, show me the evidence that fewer abortions are performed when they are made illegal. Zero abortions? How does that work? So you support forcing rape victims to give birth to their rapist's child? So you support forcing a woman carry her pregnancy to term even when it threatens her life? So you support incest victims being forced to give birth to their own sibling? If I told you what I think of this, I would likely be banned from this forum until the 23rd century. I'd assume it would extend to cover all citizens, legal residents and if you want to be a good person you should probably consider to also offer every individual who presents at an ER with an immediately life-threatening condition, care regardless of their legal status. Physicians, nurses and other healthcare professions in different settings; hospitals, clinics etc. provide the healthcare. I'll leave the technicalities of how you provide access to affordable healthcare for you guys to decide. Of course. It's an integral part of women's health/healthcare. The people who directly and indirectly benefit from it. That would be all of you. That last sentence sounds unhinged. Beating boys and offering euthanasia??? What on earth are you talking about? When I said the next generation, I meant exactly that. I was referring to how we socialize boys and girls. You do realize that I never claimed that anyone is actively teaching anyone to DISrespect women, don't you? You're twisting my words. What I said was that we should actively teach the next generation to respect women's bodily integrity and autonomy. There was recently a thread on the yellow side where a female poster asked for advice regarding how to ward off unwanted attention from a male coworker. She received multiple replies, most of them from other women, that she should tell the "amorous" coworker that she was quite happily married and therefore not interested in him. There are obviously many women out there who've been socialized to believe that it isn't enough to simply say that, I don't want your attention, but who feel it's necessary to use the marriage as a crutch when rejecting the coworker's unwelcome advances. So when I say the "next generation" I mean just that. You're interpreting my statement through your own filter, and it's distorted by your biases and preconceived notions. Who has continued the narrative that all men are rapists unless taught otherwise? I know that I haven't since I don't believe that to be true. Again, I refer you to reflect on how your personal filter affects your interpretation of my statements. I find this viewpoint quite selfish and as I've already pointed out, it ignores the fact that our world is interconnected and that what happens in the Far East, Europe, South America or Africa, actually has ramifications even in your zip code area. I don't know if you were active on this board when some of the posters of the "America First" persuasion were experiencing a major Ebola-related panic attack and supported all sorts of draconian and medically unnecessary measures just because they were so afraid? That's exactly what I expect from myopic me, me, me people who don't look outside their own countries' borders. Why not make sure that money is spent on discovering, manufacturing and distributing vaccines to the countries most plagued by the scary disease, instead of screaming about closing your borders? This is a prime example of why I think that any decent and intelligent person ought to care about healthcare in other countries. So for anyone who asks; what's in it for ME? Now they know. So the persons you referred to in your first post as "others" in fact includes yourself. I suspected as much. Your original statement was this: "Others would argue that the monetary costs of supporting these services to the world population is offering nothing to the healthcare of the US itself. Most often heard in the form of, "Why should I pay for another countries healthcare?". This is clearly not about being aware that you can't save every person on planet earth, which is a reasonable conclusion to arrive at. Your original statement is clearly transactional in nature. You were arguing that some people don't think paying for healthcare in other countries is worthwhile because there's NOTHING in it FOR THEM. Doesn't have a thing to do with the fact that not all human lives can be saved. That is so damn cold. So when a (financially) poor woman with five children in desperation has an illegal UNSAFE abortion because someone saw fit to make access to safe abortions almost impossible or outright banned them, and she dies and leaves the five already alive children without their mom, that was her choice? (@TMB, you know I don't think of you as a sausage :D :wavey: :inlove:)
  12. macawake

    2018 Elections

    If I've understood things correctly, impeachment proceedings would be initiated by the House but would ultimately end up in the Senate where they'd need a super majority in order to convict. Is this accurate? Whether impeachment is justified or not, seems to be a moot point considering how unlikely it is that two-thirds of the current Senate would support it. Perhaps when and if Trump is found to have done something so truly bad that enough sycophants and enablers will finally abandon him, but right now I'm not seeing it. At this point in time, I think all that impeachment proceedings would result in, is yet another bout of victimized whining about being persecuted by the left. It would just be more of the witch-hunt narrative. It just gives them a chance of doing a repeat performance of the Kavanaugh spectacle with a ton of butthurt, melodramatic umbrage on display. I'm sick and tired of listening to their symphony orchestra consisting entirely of teeny-tiny whiny violins... If this was my government, for now I'd want Democrats to try to implement policies that are important to the voters, as best they can considering the political/partisan "profile/mix" of the current U.S. Congress, and use the various House committees to investigate matters that sorely needs investigating. (The list is long).
  13. I would expect an expectant mom to refer to what's growing in her uterus as "her baby". That's absolutely fine and normal for the mom. However as nurses, you and I know that the correct term in utero is either embryo or fetus, depending on gestational age. I suspect you used the word "babies" on purpose in the above quote, and I resent what your sentence implies. While it might be true that it won't do any harm to put forth a meaningful argument, it is in all likelihood a complete waste of time. I've already provided a meaningful argument in this thread and I'm willing to bet that it didn't manage to sway you even a fraction of an inch. ? ? ? It's a fact that banning abortions won't save the lives of embryos and fetuses. The only thing that happens is that women choose unsafe abortions when they are denied access to safe abortions. We know this. All a ban accomplishes are more injured and dead women, but no more alive babies. Is this fact ever going to register with so called pro-lifers? Or are you being wilfully blind to the fact that trying to make abortions illegal is a completely meaningless exercise, unless the purpose is really about control, rather than saving lives. (The reason I wrote "so called" is that as long as a person supports policies that kill women, I don't consider them pro life at all. I have complete respect for women who don't want to have an abortion for themselves. I have no respect for someone who promotes policies that negatively affect women's health and autonomy). If you, like I do, want fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions, it's much more meaningful to provide sex ed, make sure that all human beings of fertile age have access to healthcare and birth control as well as actively work ( partly with the help of the law, but more importantly how we teach the next generation to respect women and their bodily integrity and autonomy) to minimize the number of rapes committed against women. Who are these vague "others" you refer to? What kind of a supremely selfish person cares only about saving lives if and when, it directly benefits them? I am so lucky that I don't know a single such person. If you ever have the chance to have a discussion with one of these "others", please tell them from me that they are extremely callous and also pretty ignorant. Even if one is blessed with the moral core of a sociopathic toad and doesn't give a crap if people outside one's own country live or die, in today's interconnected world we ALL benefit when global health status is improved. Even if it's in countries continents away. Countries with healthy and prosperous populations are more stable and that's a win-win for all of us, and unless you plan on permanently shutting down international flights, contagions will reach your shores. As I've already said and demonstrated, it doesn't work that way. All the rule does is to pose a grave danger to women's health and lives. I don't understand how any research-literate healthcare professional can support it, regardless of their individual religious convictions. In case you actually happen to be interested in my viewpoint, I've really tried to make it crystal clear
  14. macawake

    The Caravan

    Of course it's impossible to for us forum posters to ascertain the individual danger each and every person in than caravan poses. Statistically speaking, as in any group of thousands of individuals regardless of ethnicity, there are likely a few shoplifters, someone who's committed an assault, perhaps a few rapists and definitely folks who've jaywalked or haven't paid their parking tickets or committed similar minor legal transgressions. These people are also all around you already. What do you really know about your friends, coworkers and neighbors? The point here is if the threat is of such a nature that can't be dealt with through the normal vetting procedures and investigating done by border/immigration/law enforcement authorities? Is there really evidence that this needs to be met with the might of your armed forces? I don't see any and it doesn't seem that the threat assessment done by your military points to that either. I think it's a safe bet that the deployment of troops to the border is 100% politically motivated. It kinda is a white thing... Are you arguing that Trump voters aren't more likely to be white, male and not have a college degree than being black, female and having a college degree? You'd be wrong if you were. Of course not every single person who voted for Trump is white. I don't think anyone has tried to say that. However, even though members of all minorities voted for Trump, a Trump voter is more likely to be white than a Clinton voter is. Do you think that a white person (please note that doesn't mean every white person, just a random white person) is more likely to agree with the claim that judges of Mexican heritage can't perform their duties in an unbiased way because of their heritage or that Mexicans are rapists, than a random hispanic would? Expressed a different way, which demographic do you think are more likely to agree with statements that are inherently prejudiced against hispanics? Whites or hispanics? Again, please understand that if you identify one group as being more likely to agree, it doesn't mean that each individual belonging to that group shares that view. The fact that some white people are racists doesn't mean that every white person is racist, but it's foolish to pretend that no white people are racists. Behind Trump's victory: Divisions by race, gender and education Educational divide in vote preferences on track to be wider than in recent elections Education, Not Income, Predicted Who Would Vote For Trump | FiveThirtyEight (the first two links are from one day after the 2016 election and september of 2016 respectively and the last one is an analysis of the results published on Nov 22, 2016. I find the fivethirtyeight one really interesting if you take the time to analyze the numbers).
  15. macawake

    The Caravan

    Again with the General? Why are you incessantly asking posters if they disagree with his statement? I can neither agree nor disagree with his statement. It's so vague that I don't even know what I'd be agreeing or disagreeing with. I'm surprised that isn't obvious to you. It should be obvious to anyone. I obviously don't know the General and have no idea what prompted him to phrase his statement the way he did. But let me tell you, it's exactly how I would phrase it if I was a four-star general, who realized that it would be a really stupid career move to release a statement that boils down to that I think that my Commander-in-Chief is exaggerating or lying about threats. I'd write something vague and noncommittal. For the umpteenth time. There's nothing in your quote that warrants deploying 5,000-15,000 troops. What do you picture the military doing anyway? They can't act in a law enforcement capacity on U.S. soil and the refugees aren't exactly arriving in M1 Abrams tanks. Migrant Caravan: Border Troops Preparing for Threat of Armed, Unregulated Militias, Leaked Documents Show Please note that historically only about 20% of the total of refugees and migrants in the caravans, ever reach your border. The military appear to be more concerned about the unregulated militias who've taken upon themselves to "help" the trained law enforcement and border protection professionals who safeguard your borders on a daily basis. I'm pretty convinced that these professionals would be happier if the yahoo militia types stayed away. The militias will in all likelihood only make their job harder and more dangerous. The militias have likely been galvanized into action by this irresponsible and untrue talk of an "invasion", when in fact we're talking about refugees and migrants. And of course, they probably feel real tough with their pretend uniforms and guns. What a farce.
  16. macawake

    The Caravan

    Gosh, you must find this quote super significant. It's what, the fifth time you refer to it in this thread? Okay, I'll make that six times... You appear to treat it with great reverence, but what does it really say? What exactly does it prove in your opinion? Since I didn't quite understand it, I've already asked you to explain the meaning of the following part of the quote: (You ignored me as per usual but don't fret, I kinda take that as a compliment). Isn't that sentence a tad blah-blah-blah? Still, I guess it's better than Trump's genius response when asked if there was any proof that there are actually "unknown Middle Easterners" in the caravan. What was that again? Oh, yeah.... "There's no proof of anything. But there could very well be". Hilarious. There's no proof of anything. But who knows, the moon might be made of Swiss cheese. Just no proof... :sarcastic: Here are the rest of the sentences in your quote. Meaning what? If someone organized food and water to be delivered to the refugees and migrants every six hours of their journey, that would probably be a higher level of organization than we've seen with previous caravans. So this sentence means nothing without added details and facts. It's certainly isn't evidence of a threat to your collective safety. Why does that statement say violence AND passing international borders? Wouldn't it be WHILE if the two things described occurred simultaneously? What do I know, (English as a fourth language, I might be missing nuances here). Anyway... INQUIRING minds want to know: What kind of violence? How many instances of violence? What's the percentage of persons who've allegedly committed violent acts out of the total number of folks in the caravan? Perpetrated by whom? Against whom? Do we have evidence that supports the narrative about widespread violence and grave danger to your border? (I don't want to see a picture of a Mexican federal police in riot gear and with a bloodied face, taken way back in 2012 in a totally unrelated domestic clash. I've seen that bit of deception and fakery making the rounds on various rightwing media outlets). What lead to the violence? Was it in any way provoked? Mexico: Honduran caravan is not a security threat but a group of people with human rights | Amnesty International International law is quite clear on how countries should treat refugees at their borders. If all the women in the caravan have been observed flossing their teeth every morning at 8.15 that's likely them behaving "in a nature that has not been seen in the past". I know, extremely ridiculous example, but my point is that the sentence again means nothing without further details/facts. No law enforcement official, no intelligence officer and no trained military person bases a threat assessment and comes up with a plan of action based on a report phrased like that. You appear impressed by the quote. Personally, I find it pretty damn vague and light on facts. Certainly not a super obvious rationale for deploying 5,000 - 15,000 active duty military on the border. Are you saying that Homeland Security have made an assessment and asked Trump to please deploy at least 5,000 troops to the border weeks (?) a month or more (?) before the refugees can reasonably be expected to arrive? Here I thought Homeland Security was staffed by professionals... Naw, I suspect this is Trump's brainchild, possibly nudged along by Miller. No, it's not ludicrous at all to suggest that this is a massive overreaction to a Trumped-up "threat"... I doubt your southern border is in any danger of being overrun . Totally unrelated to the content of this thread but totally related in the challenged-veracity department, HOW'S THE PROMISED SIZEABLE TAX CUT for middle-income folks coming along? I swear I heard with my own two ears it was going to happen BEFORE the midterms... Tick-tock... It's a good thing that he's so good at estimating crowd sizes, because it's not like he has one of the most powerful, if not the most powerful, intelligence organization in the world available at his fingertips... Oh, wait.... He truly is a genius :lol2:
  17. macawake

    The Caravan

    Nope :) The good griefs are for dramatic effect
  18. macawake

    The Caravan

    Good grief. An entire thread devoted to the fake "threat" du jour. Do you remember how Trump was banging on about the April 2018 caravan?? Tweeting up a storm about how Congress MUST ACT NOW! and NEED WALL! because of the grave peril y'all were in :sarcastic: Trump's Fearmongering about Migrant Caravan | Human Rights Watch Trump says '''caravans''' of immigrants are headed for the U.S. What'''s he talking about? Trump Transforms Immigrant Caravans in Mexico Into Cause Celebre - The New York Times So what became of that scary threatening situation? Central American migrant caravans - Wikipedia It appears eleven individuals were charged with crossing the border illegally after the "caravan" of April this year, arrived at your border. Yeah, that sure warranted a series of fear-mongering tweets full of CAPS and exclamation points!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :sarcastic: :dead: Not that I have any reason to believe it will, but let's say that the number were to for example quadruple, I'm convinced that the regular border agents are more than capable of handling that. Sending 5,000+ military is hardly necessary. And calling this an invasion is both ridiculous and a blatant dog whistle. (my bold) Did you/your source really quote this accurately? To me the sentence I bolded is about as clear and logical as most of Trump's disjointed blatherings. Of course it will be much more than necessary. Do you seriously think that there's evidence that shows that these migrants and refugees are armed with the kind of weapons that would make it necessary to deploy the military at your border to defend it? This is so ridiculous. I don't know why anyone is willing to entertain this latest foolishness, A.K.A. DISTRACTION. The risk of a s***show at the border of a magnitude that requires 5,000 troops and weaponry being caused by this "caravan" is astronomically LESS than nonexistent. This isn't about protecting the border. I think it's about motivating the Trump base. Two things on this planet excite them. Hillary's emails and various iterations of the build the wall theme. And it's because there's somewhere else they DON't want you all to look and focus on. Trying to scare people with an external threat is a tactic we have seen many examples of in history. None of them were done by good, democratic leaders. Best case scenario. This could merely be another one of the HABITUAL deflections and distractions we've grown accustomed to seeing. Worst case scenario. Deploying military in anticipation of the arrival of migrants and possible asylum seekers, could be the harbinger of something truly vile. I assume it means that in terms of return on investment, your time and energy would be better spent on worrying about and addressing the very real internal threat against life and the pursuit of happiness that you as a people face, rather than the made up external one. Oh trust me, we're all very much aware. But, but, but... I'm actually kind of amused by it. I was even hoping we'd get into the ridiculousness of smallpox and leprosy, but I guess that as a nurse OP realized that one was a non-starter. Im going to end this post the same way I started it. Good grief. :lol2:
  19. macawake

    2018 Elections

    Tweety, I took the liberty to quote a part of your post to use as a starting point for my suggestion/idea. It's not really a direct response to your post. In my opinion every single person who will ever be disgusted by his behavior, have been so for some time already. We see him for what he is. We don't need any more proof. Those who aren't appalled by his behavior at this point in time, never will be. Their reactions (or rather lack thereof) after two years of this spectacle, pretty much guarantees that. So, what to do....? I think the press should starve him of the attention he appears to crave. I'm convinced he knows that he's upsetting "liberals". I see no other plausible explanation than that the purpose of the rhetoric, is to cause upset and divisiveness. His base wants that. I think the most zealous members of Trump's base derive genuine pleasure from upsetting liberals. They've felt so suffocated and restricted for so many years of having to adhere to that despised "political correctness" that they feel was forced upon them. So now they're ecstatic that they have a leader who decisively sticks his middle finger in the air at politeness, decency and tolerance and the idea that all men/women have equal worth. They're loving what the rest of us are saddened and disgusted by. What I think the media ought to consider is this... Just completely stop giving him airtime for a month. Not a single minute of speech from his rallies and not a single on of his tweets should get any attention whatsoever. No one should mention them and of course that means that no one would be shocked or upset. Just mute indifference. Just report on policies that are enacted, but ignore any inflammatory utterances and all the lies. By all means, go to the rallies and film him, so that it can be proven later on what he said, but don't broadcast it. For one month. I don't think he could function without the daily friction and negative verbal sparring. It's what energizes his base and I suspect it energizes him. He's their "warrior" who "tells it like it is" :sarcastic: If I was a journalist or editor I would seriously consider finding out what happens when he and they are deprived of the stuff they feed on. However this proposal is not entirely risk-free. The withdrawal symptoms could become so painful, that he does something truly outrageous just to get the media to start reporting about him again. It's almost worth the risk though. I mean, there's a humongous added benefit. Imagine the bliss of not having to listen to inanity for an entire month :lol2: and! .. it would rob Trump supporters of their favorite, most cherished and nurtured gripe, that the media constantly reports negative things about their leader. If we're completely honest, it's not as if those speeches and tweets stimulate the intellect or enriches ones soul. I for one wouldn't miss them. You can't even turn on a TV in my country, thousands of miles from the U.S., without having to listen to him and his latest foot-in-mouth moment. And in your country, it appears to be all-consuming. You'all must be emotionally exhausted. (This doesn't have anything to do with this thread or post really, but I just remembered that 10% tax cut that he's promised to low and middle-income (or was it just middle-income?) Americans BEFORE the midterms? Has it materialized yet?) MEGA (MAGA?) :facepalm: Okay, this post wasn't entirely serious. But it would be an interesting psychological experiment :whistling: I jest but this is a serious topic. There is a symbiotic relationship between Trump and the media. As much as he criticises them, he needs them. And the media are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. They report because that is their responsiblity to the people. In any functioning democracy, the media serves as a check on power. But in my opinion, the reporting they do, serves as fuel for him.
  20. macawake

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    What do you think I'm accusing others of, and what is it that you think I'm doing? Okay. I'm going to be 100% honest here. You're not convincing me when you claim that we agree on anything Trump-related. I simply don't believe you. I'll explain why. I've explained it several times before. It's not how you say that you don't always agree with Trump. It's the fact that you always add qualifiers and always bring up something the left/liberals has said or done as some sort of counter-argument. I've never once seen you seem even the slightest bit upset or appalled by anything Trump has said or done. The only thing I've seen is that you "don't approve" of everything he's done. I pretty much don't approve of a single thing that man has done, and many of the things so violate norms, common decency and humanity that a lack of a distinct and passionate response is deeply suspect to me. So Daisy, it's not what you say. It's what you don't say. If I were to make the following claim, how would you interpret it? I don't really agree with what the terrorists did on 9/11. But... you know... Ehh.. My Lai... There are good and bad people on both sides... On both sides... Would you take that as me clearly acknowledging what an atrocity those despicable terrorists committed? That's how I actually feel. But you wouldn't know it from my useless condemnation a few lines up, now would you? I be quite happy to be proven wrong Daisy. Are there some (any?) things done and said by Trump that you outright condemn? Can you do it without bringing up something a liberal has done and without mentioning something that you perceive as a mitigating circumstance in his defense? Oh, seriously... I didn't "ignore" the other things you listed. I had a finite amount of time that I could dedicate to that post as I was approaching my zzzzzzzzz time. The only reason I challenged you on Holder and not the others, was because a new and not heard from since poster, already started an entire thread about Holder. I don't see a need for that tentacle of the disinformation campaign to be revived and promoted. Again. And, yes. I really know. I don't think, and I never said, that every member of the Republican Party is racist. Lots of Republicans have left the party because of Trump. They're in the clear. So is anyone who for example condemns racist utterances about Mexicans and those who are equally upset when brown young children get separated from their parents on purpose as a deterrent, as they would be if the same thing happened to white children. You didn't answer my question. Who am I allowed to call a racist? If a person says clearly racist things, then may I? Best give your President a call and loop him in regarding this new code of conduct. It appears he hasn't gotten the memo. To you and anyone else who supports Trump. How surprised are you that some lunatic has targeted CNN with bombs? I'm not in the least bit surprised. I've been waiting for something like this to happen ever since that stupid wrestling meme where CNN was being punched in its logo "face". That and calling the media the enemy of the people and constantly stoking animosity against them at those never-ending rallies, was bound to inspire some cray-cray sooner or later. While it's accurate that Trump isn't legally responsible, in my opinion he, and everyone who heaps scorn on the media and laughs about violence perpetrated against members of the media on a daily basis, bear part of the moral culpability. Not a crime, but also not a good person. The man has voiced admiration (didn't he say that he was his "kind of guy" or something along those lines?) for a person who committed the CRIME of assault against a reporter who was only doing his job and the crowds at the rally lapped it up. It's ugly to behold. Watching human beings who are attracted to ugliness, has always repulsed me. I don't for one minute believe that anyone can be unaware that maximum divisiveness is actually the objective. Do you think that's peace, love and understanding being promoted at those rallies? Your poor country. Edit: I'm glad they've caught the perpetrator. I hope they have the right guy. The FBI are good, so they probably do. I also hope this was a lone perpetrator and not multiple perps. I of course agree that the President isn't legally responsible. The problem I have is this.. IfI were to tell a person I know is mentally unstable over and over again, that a specific company or group of people are despicable and the enemy of the people. If that mentally unstable individual then goes on to commit a violent crime against one of those "targets", is it possible that my Words were the catalyst? If my Words actually were, do I share some of the moral responsibility for the outcome? When a person holds a position of power and that person knows that at least a segment of the population, look up to them, and the person addresses millions of anonymous people... Do they have a moral duty to not promote anger and divisiveness? When you have an audience of millions, it's quite likely that there will be a certain percentage of mentally unstable individuals among those millions.
  21. macawake

    The President Donald Trump Thread

    I actually believe they're well aware. They simply choose to prioritize $$$$$$ and their insatiable powerhunger over common sense, moral backbone and the lives of fellow human beings. Even when it happens to one of their own. There's so much money in the gun lobby/industry. These politicians have made an active, conscious choice. They understand the price they have to pay, but they've done their cost-benefit analysis, and the powerful lobby was the most attractive alternative. I normally despise this penchant for whataboutism which seems more like an attempt to try to hide the fact that a poster completely fails to call out and condemn the CURRENT ONGOING wrongdoing, than a desire to add anything meaningful to the discussion.... But today I'm kind of glad you didn't disappoint me. (Who am I kidding? I still have only contempt for this knack for whataboutism). But, hey.... :woot: Since you brought it up... I get to say McVeigh, Nichols, Rudolph, Roof and Fields. Hooow f.u.n. :rolleyes: Seriously, what a ridiculous exercise. Of-bleeping-course there are nuts of all political persuasions. Who on earth has argued that their aren't? Why are you not condemning whomever it is that has sent bombs to almost a dozen people? Two of the intended targets are former Presidents of your country. Don't you find that upsetting? Don't you think attempting to blow people up is wrong and worthy of condemnation? Why do you INSTEAD choose to try to talk about Scalises' attacker? So, is it your opinion that those of the posters who support Trump are generally more civil than those who oppose Trump? I've told you before that I think that some of the questions you ask and some of the things you say are rather disingenuous. It seems to me that you deliberately misinterpret things I say in order to come back with a response that fits the narrative you want to push. Am I reading you all wrong? Perhaps this is how you debate and argue in real life too. I have no way of knowing. Personally I'm much more restrained here than I am in real life. My opinions would be much more bluntly delivered face-to-face. Here I have to take care not to offend anyone. In real life I'm quite the verbal straight-shooter and I reserve polite niceties for people who behave ethically and treat all other people with respect. To be super clear here. I consider each and every person, including posters here, who support Trump and help propagate falsehoods and regurgitates the rightwing medias' most convoluted and untrue talking points and who time after time after time, fail to clearly condemn unethical behavior and anti-democratic tencencies displayed by members of your current administration, from the head honcho on down, to be just as ethically and morally corrupt & bankrupt as those they fail to call out. (I know, bit of a run-on sentence). So now you know what I think. Not exactly blistering criticism. I that really the best you've got? I'm underawed (oops, that might not even be a word. Sometimes I make them up as I go along, kind of like your dear leader) and underwhelmed. Judging by the smug look on his face at rally after rally, he's been enjoying the heck out of the chants of lock her up (Hillary). The fact that she hasn't even been charged with a crime and much less convicted, is obviously not problematic for the deplorables who chant and cheer. You see, it seems the rule of law and the protection it offers, should only be afforded to overly emotional judges who've had their feelings huuuurt. How many times has your guy said things like for example; I'd like to punch him in the face, promising to pay for legal fees following assault charges and calling the media things like scum, dishonest, fake, failing and corrupt? And how does he speak of other people? This is kind of fun... List of nicknames used by Donald Trump - Wikipedia The 487 People, Places and Things Donald Trump Has Insulted on Twitter: A Complete List - The New York Times So does he, as you so cautiously phrase it, need to "dial it down", or does he need a ******* personality transplant? I'll let you decide for yourself. Do you think it's acceptable to call a person who says actual racist things, a racist? Is it okay to call someone who appears to enthusiastically support a person who says racist things, a racist? Especially when they've been asked repeateadly to clearly distance themselves from racist utterances and racist policies, but for some reason known only to them, choose not to/fail to do so. Should we mollycoddle racists? Regarding deplorable. If a person displays deplorable behavior, I have no problems calling them that. It's not a term I use for all people I disagree with. There are certain acts and behaviors required. There was no wink-wink. No way was he advocating physical violence, directly or indirectly. Please stop trying to spread a false version of events. If you want my opinion, there's a concerted effort by Trump supporters to try to shame Trump opponents into toning down their passion. They do that by misrepresenting things democrats, liberals, Trump-allergics say as violence-mongering, when it clearly isn't. Please don't be a part of that.
  22. macawake

    "When they go low, we kick them"

    Yes, that is exactly what a significant portion of the population, including some posters here, are going to keep on pretending. Yes, I do realize. This is a perfect example of what I dislike about your style of argument. You know exactly what I meant but you still feel the need to make a silly point. I'll rephrase eventhough you understood my point just fine the first time. Thanks to your system of electoral votes you now have a President who got fewer votes than his main opponent. Better? I don't understand the point of this exercise. What do you prove by pretending that your most populous state with almost 40 million residents shouldn't factor into the equation? Are they planning on seceding? (Okay, that last part was snark). But really, I don't understand your argument. I still cling to the quaint notion of kindness and civility and I'm pretty convinced that you do too, in other arenas than the current political situation. But I think your point here is, and I agree, that kindness and civility is sadly inadequate when you face forces that will only take advantage of kindness and who have nothing but disdain for people who attempt to play by the rules. These are abnormal times. In my opinion they call for a different set of rules. Passively accepting that the goalposts of what's considered acceptable behavior, are constantly moved, is in a way condoning the "new normal". Democrats and Republicans who oppose what's happening to your country need to get angry. I don't mean violence. I mean you need to get louder. You need to make your opinions and your values heard. As I watch and read your news, I worry that the Democrats will lose in November. To me it's almost a given that the Republicans will keep the Senate but I'm also not confident that the Democrats will get a majority in the House. I think that would be catastrophic for your country, since the current Congress have pretty much abandoned their responsibility to act as a check on your President. They're a bunch of enablers. I hope I'll be proven wrong and that Democrats get at least a decent majority in the House. What I see in the media, left, right and center, is that The Party of Trump gets all the oxygen. I don't see a clear message from the Democrats. I don't see enough passion from them. I don't see them shining a big, bright light on all the lies and amorality that's on display on an almost daily basis. I don't see them calling out those who make a mockery of your proud tradition of once being a land of hope and a land that stands up for and defends democratic values. They are lukewarm, milk-toast, passive, and they are being completely steamrolled by the other side. The Republicans, as depraved as their current political agenda is, are much better at playing the game. When President or a member of his administration does something negative and worthy of criticism, they get praised in the right-wing media. From the left we see a little tut-tutting and handwringing, but that's about it. When someone on the Democratic side does or says something negative, the right-wing media goes absolutely bananas and their talk show hosts will augment, embellish and outright lie about the facts, milking it for every ounce of Trump base energizing that's humanly possible. And the left falls over themselves criticizing their own, in order to prove how fair-minded and rule-following they are. Good luck with that. So the answer is to award people who choose to live in less populous states, disproportionate power? How is it more fair that the minority get to rule the majority, rather than each person's vote having the exact same worth? What you have today is a system where a minority are allowed to IMPOSE their will on the majority. Case in point... Nomination & Confirmation Process - Supreme Court Nominations Research Guide - Guides at Georgetown Law Library Appointment and confirmation to the Supreme Court of the United States - Wikipedia You have two chambers in Congress. One based on population and one which overwhelmingly favors sparsely populated states. Then you allow one of the most long-term consequential decisons for all citizens and residents of your country to be made by the chamber that has the extremely disproportionate representation. I've tried to figure out if the House of Representatives are engaged in any stage of the process of choosing and confirming Supreme Court Justices. As far as I can tell, it's entirely a President + Senate affair. Am I wrong? Supreme Court decisions have profound impact on people's lives. Why do you think minority rule is fair? I mentioned in another thread that I think that many of Trump's followers have authoritarian traits. I stand by that assessment. Authoritarians are, among other things, characterized by the fact that they think it's acceptable to force their values on others. It's not enough to have those values for oneself, but others should be forced to live by their values. This is entirely consistent with being onboard with the idea that a minority should be able to decide how the majority should be allowed to live their lives. A resident/voter in Wyoming has approximately 68 times more power when it comes to affecting the confirmation of Supreme Court justices, than a resident of California does. A voter in South Dakota has a voice that's roughly TWENTY-THREE times as powerful as a voter in New York. Because you allow disproportionate power to sparsely populated states, you have a Supreme Court that's ideologically out of sync with "you the people". I used the word snob deliberately. I was being a bit provocative on purpose. But the word wasn't aimed at any particular poster. It was aimed at myself as much as anything. If I'm honest with myself, for me personally it is a form of snobbery to refuse to stoop to the "deplorables'" level. That way I know I'm better than them and get to feel a bit good about myself. I actually think Hillary was correct. Some of Trump's supporters actually are deplorable. They deserve the moniker. People who cry that poor Justice Kavanuagh was treated unfairly because people are "innocent until proven guilty" (the criminal court of law standard), but CHEER and chant "lock her up" about Clinton and even Senator Feinstein (!), are deplorable. People who cheer and LAUGH when a victim of attempted sexual assault is being mocked and ridiculed on a public stage in front of thousands spectators and millions of TV viewers, are deplorable. People who fail to condemn cruel policies that separates young children from their parents and lock them up AS A deterrent, are truly deplorable. People who cheers a President who praises a member of Congress who has committed the crime of assault against a member of the media, are deplorable. I could go on all day long... It's a long list of reprehensible behavior. They should be called out on it. I agree with you. Dialogue is a good thing and I will have it with anyone who's civil. However, I don't have much hope that the most fervent and zealous Trump supporters are going to change their minds based on reason, logic or humanitarian values. They will in my opinion only abandon their support for him if his policies start affecting their own lives too negatively. I'm waiting for the moment when reality finally dawns on them, and they finally see that his administration's policies will not benefit low and middle income citizens in the long run. Wait until they realize that the coal jobs aren't coming back and that tariffs will hurt them where they feel it. Wait until they wake up to the fact that "preexisting conditions" will make it impossible for them to afford healthcare. Let's just hope that this administration doesn't manage to completely wreck your country, before the deplorables experience their epiphany. Am I being deliberately provocative? You bet. (I know that many of the posters here actually do all that's in their power to affect change. My criticism is levelled at the "aggragate" or stereotypical Democratic politician and how much of the media reports about this administration). One final thought. I made a point of answering OP's question by saying early on in this thread that yes, that's exactly how I would want to be perceived if I was an American. I think this thread is a part of the campaign we saw in right-wing media and heard from the Administration, that those who voice dissent against Trump, are part of a violence-prone mob. This of course, is utter rubbish. But I think it has a dual purpose. I think this narrative that the left are prone to violence and the attempt to twist Holder's words, are also squarely aimed at and tries to capitalize on, the Democrat's talent for self-censorship and self-recrimination. If the people who oppose Trump are busy lecturing each other on etiquette and decent behavior or perhaps just spending a lot of energy talking about it, they won't have enough time to do what really matters. And that is to come up with a forceful and persuasive argument about why it's vital that people go out and vote in November. Divide and conquer. Age-old strategy.
  23. Thanks for fixing the link :) I knew there was a reason I liked you (I'm not surprised by your low score). I think we agree on more than we disagree on. The reason I posted the link is that I believe that many of the posters who continue to condone or at least are willing to overlook the President's behavior, are authoritarians at heart. I simply think a person has to have such tendencies in order to be able to stomach his and the administration's values, opinions and policies. Yes, that is what I was referring to. I wasn't being very clear. I don't think this new proposal is the Secret Service's brainchild. I'm convinced that they are quite adept at threat assessment and taking the proper precautions on a case-by-case basis. They managed to protect President Obama, and I can only imagine the amount of threats that were made against him, without limiting protests in the vicinity of the White House. You now have a President who's complained about all the negative things the press are ALLOWED to say and write about him and he only goes to rallies in locations where he has a lot of support. With that in mind and combined with the fact that there's currently a deliberate effort to try to paint "leftist" protestors as violent and dangerous, I think this is just another way to try to silence dissent. It comes with the added bonus of being able to live in a "comfort bubble" where everyone cheers, and no one criticizes. The day I arrived at the definitive conclusion that there are budding autocrats in this administration was when I listened to the inaugural address. It literally gave me goose bumps (not the fun kind). It was one of the most dystopian speeches I've ever heard. It was so bleak and isolationist. Describing your country using words like carnage. Those are fear-mongering words to my ears. The angry-sounding repetition of America first. Identifying a common enemy ("the others"), claiming that things are really bad in the country and that everyone else is taking advantage of you, and then promising that I and only I (meaning your President) can fix this, is a tactic that's historically been used by some of the most despotic leaders. It came as no surprise to me when I read that Stephen Miller had a hand in writing the inaugural address. That man frightens me. When I say that there are elements with pronounced authoritarian characteristics, he is the type I'm thinking of. I admit I don't know the exact number. But I have seen various news reports recently that not all children have been reunited with their parents or relatives and that some of the kids will eventually be put up for adoption since their parents are already deported. Since I'm not providing any links to recent articles you'll have to take my recollection for what it is. It's what I remember reading is all. Have they actually completely stopped separating children them from their parents and detaining them? Or are we just seeing less media coverage about it? Honest question, because I'm not sure. What I am sure about is that I've never seen any real acknowledgement, or mea culpa, from this administration for what they've done to thousands of children and parents. We as nurses know that they've done real damage to innocent kids. It was a cruel policy and it was done deliberately to deter people from coming to your borders. That is in my opinion deeply upsetting and should be condemned. Honestly, I think that ship has sailed. I respect you for acknowledging that his behavior is poor but after close to two years of his tweets, speeches, seeming lack of morals and comportment along with the administration's policies and backing out of various international agreements/treaties, I think "the world's" opinion of him is pretty much set in concrete.
  24. macawake

    "When they go low, we kick them"

    You are, as I know you know, describing the current Republican party to a T (tee?). Now I'm waiting for OP or someone else to start a thread questioning if this is how Republicans "want us to be perceived"... Scott Wagner - Wikipedia (partial quote, see Wikipedia or the Youtube video for more details). It appears the video has now been taken down by by the candidate/campaign and the candidate seems to have said that he may have chosen a poor metaphor and that he shouldn't have said what he said. I'll say... If you want to see the actual campaign video with the promised face stomping you can watch it on Youtube. The clip is from MSNBC; Candidate For Governor Says He'll 'Stomp' On Opponent | Morning Joe (35 seconds in). :) I confess to sharing you're somewhat warped sense of humor. I still don't think the busts will help win elections, but I can understand their cathartic value... If someone harbors a whole lot of (understandable) loathing towards current policies, combined with a sense of helplessness, it can probably be a useful "outlet"... Relieving the pressure so to speak
  25. If for example Dubuque or Sarasota were to do that it wouldn't have even close to the same impact as if Washington D.C. did it. Please don't pretend like they're equivalent. The nexus of your nation's executive, legislative and judicial power is in D.C.. You are being condescending. Instead, perhaps you could explain why creating obstacles, where none previously existed, making it more difficult for citizens to make their voice heard, isn't a step towards silencing dissent? Leaders in free societies make efforts to facilitate free speech. Oppressive regimes make free speech harder. Call it fascism or call it whatever you want. This is a step in the wrong direction. https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/RWAS/1.php My score is 5.68% What's yours? As always, love your post. I think it's clear as day that there are elements in this current administration that are deliberately steering you away from "the land of the free". The U.S. used to be a beacon of hope. Now, it's a country that detains young children in huge sterile looking tent camps with no guarantees that these children will ever be reunited with their parents. The world is watching.
×