Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by Bob Ross on Nov 8, 2019 13:03:32 GMT -5
What besides her fictional crimes was polarizing about her. She had moderate views on taxes and healthcare. She was pro-business. She wanted to work on immigration reform, but didn't want to have open borders. She didn't tout free tuition, student loan forgiveness or government funded child care. I'm not sure what she said that was so polarizing. I will grant she was annoying, but her policies were definitely not extreme. Trump is polarizing because his positions are extreme and he is a dick. I will give you that Trump is a dick and that is a large part of why he is so polarizing. People don't like Trump. But people also don't like Hillary. I have my reasons for not liking her as a person and other people have their reasons for either loving or really disliking her (there seems to be no in-between with her). But to be clear, I would have voted for her if her policies and vision aligned with mine. I don't vote on personality. I have said this before but if I had to have drinks and hang out with either Obama or Trump, I'm totally picking Obama. But I would never in a million years vote for him. But that is me. There are plenty of people who can't overlook the fact that they just don't like someone and can't vote for them. And that is why I say she would have won if more people actually liked her. Just like I think a large part of why Obama won the first time is because he was young and very likable as a person. Personality does matter when it reaches the point of being so crass, volatile, impetuous, bigoted and mentally unstable that it logically raises the question in the rationally-minded of whether or not that personality is fit at even the most basic level to run the country, and what such a personality would/could do if given the unrestricted power they so obviously desire and constantly push the fine line towards, with much less resistance than our supposed system of checks and balances is supposed to provide. I'm not typically very political, and there are past presidents who I didn't like, but none who caused me to worry about the nation, myself, and my family on such a regular basis. But we've never had a madman at the helm before either, at least not in our lifetimes (maybe Millard Fillmore was a complete nutjob...don't know, don't care).
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,738
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 8, 2019 13:13:58 GMT -5
What besides her fictional crimes was polarizing about her. She had moderate views on taxes and healthcare. She was pro-business. She wanted to work on immigration reform, but didn't want to have open borders. She didn't tout free tuition, student loan forgiveness or government funded child care. I'm not sure what she said that was so polarizing. I will grant she was annoying, but her policies were definitely not extreme. Trump is polarizing because his positions are extreme and he is a dick. I will give you that Trump is a dick and that is a large part of why he is so polarizing. People don't like Trump. But people also don't like Hillary. I have my reasons for not liking her as a person and other people have their reasons for either loving or really disliking her (there seems to be no in-between with her). But to be clear, I would have voted for her if her policies and vision aligned with mine. I don't vote on personality. I have said this before but if I had to have drinks and hang out with either Obama or Trump, I'm totally picking Obama. But I would never in a million years vote for him. But that is me. There are plenty of people who can't overlook the fact that they just don't like someone and can't vote for them. And that is why I say she would have won if more people actually liked her. Just like I think a large part of why Obama won the first time is because he was young and very likable as a person. You still haven't told me why she is polarizing. You told me it is NOT about her being a woman, but you can't seem to point to a policy, philosophy or even personality trait that makes her so polarizing. I would love to know what people don't like about her, and come up with something real (rather than the unproven criminal and murdery bullshit). If we can't identify anything, then we can't rule out anything either.
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,881
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Nov 8, 2019 13:15:10 GMT -5
I will give you that Trump is a dick and that is a large part of why he is so polarizing. People don't like Trump. But people also don't like Hillary. I have my reasons for not liking her as a person and other people have their reasons for either loving or really disliking her (there seems to be no in-between with her). But to be clear, I would have voted for her if her policies and vision aligned with mine. I don't vote on personality. I have said this before but if I had to have drinks and hang out with either Obama or Trump, I'm totally picking Obama. But I would never in a million years vote for him. But that is me. There are plenty of people who can't overlook the fact that they just don't like someone and can't vote for them. And that is why I say she would have won if more people actually liked her. Just like I think a large part of why Obama won the first time is because he was young and very likable as a person. Personality does matter when it reaches the point of being so crass, volatile, impetuous, bigoted and mentally unstable that it logically raises the question in the rationally-minded of whether or not that personality is fit at even the most basic level to run the country, and what such a personality would/could do if given the unrestricted power they so obviously desire and constantly push the fine line towards with much less resistance than our supposed system of checks and balances is supposed to provide. I'm not typically very political, and there are past presidents who I didn't like, but none who caused me to worry about the nation, myself, and my family on such a regular basis. But we've never had a madman at the helm before either, at least not in our lifetimes (maybe Millard Fillmore was a complete nutjob...don't know, don't care). Well said Bob! I think I need to mention again how much I missed you. Don't disappear again.
|
|
Bob Ross
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:48:03 GMT -5
Posts: 5,883
|
Post by Bob Ross on Nov 8, 2019 13:19:38 GMT -5
Personality does matter when it reaches the point of being so crass, volatile, impetuous, bigoted and mentally unstable that it logically raises the question in the rationally-minded of whether or not that personality is fit at even the most basic level to run the country, and what such a personality would/could do if given the unrestricted power they so obviously desire and constantly push the fine line towards with much less resistance than our supposed system of checks and balances is supposed to provide. I'm not typically very political, and there are past presidents who I didn't like, but none who caused me to worry about the nation, myself, and my family on such a regular basis. But we've never had a madman at the helm before either, at least not in our lifetimes (maybe Millard Fillmore was a complete nutjob...don't know, don't care). Well said Bob! I think I need to mention again how much I missed you. Don't disappear again. Only now, I'm making serious posts in the Politics forum instead of snark elsewhere. TRUMP!!
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Nov 8, 2019 14:25:53 GMT -5
I will give you that Trump is a dick and that is a large part of why he is so polarizing. People don't like Trump. But people also don't like Hillary. I have my reasons for not liking her as a person and other people have their reasons for either loving or really disliking her (there seems to be no in-between with her). But to be clear, I would have voted for her if her policies and vision aligned with mine. I don't vote on personality. I have said this before but if I had to have drinks and hang out with either Obama or Trump, I'm totally picking Obama. But I would never in a million years vote for him. But that is me. There are plenty of people who can't overlook the fact that they just don't like someone and can't vote for them. And that is why I say she would have won if more people actually liked her. Just like I think a large part of why Obama won the first time is because he was young and very likable as a person. You still haven't told me why she is polarizing. You told me it is NOT about her being a woman, but you can't seem to point to a policy, philosophy or even personality trait that makes her so polarizing. I would love to know what people don't like about her, and come up with something real (rather than the unproven criminal and murdery bullshit). If we can't identify anything, then we can't rule out anything either. You can't assume just because people don't like her that it's because she is female. As souldoubt said, she REALLY can't relate to people. Then she is condescending towards those that disagree with her (deplorables) or flat out ignores the people that she think she doesn't need to get elected (rust belt). Add that to the fact that she claims to champion women's causes but forgets how she went after anyone that accused her husband (we either believe all women or we don't...we don't believe all women except the ones that accused her husband). So a major hypocrit, cold and calculating. Counter that to Obama, who comes across as a genuinely nice person. Which may be an act (I trust no politician) but personality matters to a lot of people. And Trump is also unlikable..which is why I keep saying it was a race of the least likable candidates.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 23:33:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 15:05:13 GMT -5
I don't watch tv much...maybe some news only fox of course yes i seen pics of Iran like i said don't impress me sorry paying for military not for me to figure i just put it out there, we can start by cutting out all the money that goes out to other countries and charge them to help them cutting 100% of US foreign aid would get you $50B. our military budget is $700B. in order to "double or triple it" you would need to find 14-28x as much money.
how about cutting all social security? that would double the military budget.
We don't need to cut SS, just welfare. Not only will there be a whole lot more $$ for the military, recruitment goals will be easier to make also, because there will be less sitting on the dole collecting those $$, for doing nothing. Quote; In 2011, the latest year for which we have complete spending data, federal outlays on all means-tested welfare programs targeted for the poor hit $746 billion, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
But this doesn't include two of the fastest-growing taxpayer-funded cash subsidies: unemployment insurance and disability, which are not based on one's income level, so are not considered anti-poverty programs. That's another $250 billion a year. All told, federal income transfer programs (not including Social Security and Medicare) have hit $1 trillion.www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/welfare-america-1-trillion-tab-and-rising
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Nov 8, 2019 15:14:28 GMT -5
Lol! The Heritage Foundation! As a think tank, Heritage Foundation conducts studies on socioeconomic issues. Suspiciously, their results always support whatever they are already lobbying for. In one classic example, a study they conducted found that poor people aren't actually poor.[3] They then lobbied to end welfare for the poor. The foundation also pushed lackadaisical policies about Iraq, stating that only 40,000 troops would be needed to take over and maintain order in Iraq, that the war would be over in a couple of years at most,[4] and that the Iraqis would greet us with open arms (which proved true, but not in quite the way it was intended), and that the Iraqis wanted democracy. Yes, they do pull these studies out of their ass. rationalwiki.org/wiki/Heritage_FoundationThey're also into climate change denial and push for Intelligent design.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2019 15:18:41 GMT -5
they also published a paper "proving" white people are smarter.
although they later retracted it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2019 15:20:29 GMT -5
cutting 100% of US foreign aid would get you $50B. our military budget is $700B. in order to "double or triple it" you would need to find 14-28x as much money.
how about cutting all social security? that would double the military budget.
We don't need to cut SS, just welfare. Not only will there be a whole lot more $$ for the military, recruitment goals will be easier to make also, because there will be less sitting on the dole collecting those $$, for doing nothing. Quote; In 2011, the latest year for which we have complete spending data, federal outlays on all means-tested welfare programs targeted for the poor hit $746 billion, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
But this doesn't include two of the fastest-growing taxpayer-funded cash subsidies: unemployment insurance and disability, which are not based on one's income level, so are not considered anti-poverty programs. That's another $250 billion a year. All told, federal income transfer programs (not including Social Security and Medicare) have hit $1 trillion.www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/welfare-america-1-trillion-tab-and-risingthat figure is wildly inaccurate. there must be some fudging in the "means tested" part of the statement.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 23:33:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 15:21:35 GMT -5
We don't need to cut SS, just welfare. Not only will there be a whole lot more $$ for the military, recruitment goals will be easier to make also, because there will be less sitting on the dole collecting those $$, for doing nothing. Quote; In 2011, the latest year for which we have complete spending data, federal outlays on all means-tested welfare programs targeted for the poor hit $746 billion, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
But this doesn't include two of the fastest-growing taxpayer-funded cash subsidies: unemployment insurance and disability, which are not based on one's income level, so are not considered anti-poverty programs. That's another $250 billion a year. All told, federal income transfer programs (not including Social Security and Medicare) have hit $1 trillion.www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/welfare-america-1-trillion-tab-and-risingthat figure is wildly inaccurate. there must be some fudging in the "means tested" part of the statement. Either that or it's a poor source. My point was more along the lines of SS is not the only thing that can be cut.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 23:33:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 15:25:16 GMT -5
they also published a paper "proving" white people are smarter. although they later retracted it. One of the synonyms of smart (er) is more educated. It's a fooler when publishing that kind of stuff. Most will consider smarter the same as an IQ, not so.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,370
|
Post by imawino on Nov 8, 2019 15:37:30 GMT -5
they also published a paper "proving" white people are smarter. although they later retracted it. One of the synonyms of smart (er) is more educated. It's a fooler when publishing that kind of stuff. Most will consider smarter the same as an IQ, not so. No it's not.
|
|
imawino
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 17, 2010 22:58:16 GMT -5
Posts: 5,370
|
Post by imawino on Nov 8, 2019 15:40:09 GMT -5
that figure is wildly inaccurate. there must be some fudging in the "means tested" part of the statement. Either that or it's a poor source. My point was more along the lines of SS is not the only thing that can be cut.
And trying to prove your point using inaccurate information from a notoriously inaccurate and biased source is ALSO....not a synonym for smart.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,470
|
Post by happyhoix on Nov 8, 2019 15:43:39 GMT -5
they also published a paper "proving" white people are smarter. although they later retracted it. Oooo! Oooo! Can I guess who wrote it?
WHITE PEOPLE?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2019 15:55:48 GMT -5
they also published a paper "proving" white people are smarter. although they later retracted it. Oooo! Oooo! Can I guess who wrote it?
WHITE PEOPLE?
actually, that ended up being why they took it down. the guy is a noted racist.
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
THEY’RE EATING THE DOGS!!!!!!!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,604
|
Post by swamp on Nov 8, 2019 16:01:01 GMT -5
Oooo! Oooo! Can I guess who wrote it?
WHITE PEOPLE?
actually, that ended up being why they took it down. the guy is a noted racist. Huh. A racist came to the conclusion that white people are smarter than blacks. What a surprise.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 23:33:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 16:05:38 GMT -5
One of the synonyms of smart (er) is more educated. It's a fooler when publishing that kind of stuff. Most will consider smarter the same as an IQ, not so. No it's not.
Let's see who wins, you or Oxford. Looks like it's Oxford. Too bad.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2019 16:07:12 GMT -5
actually, that ended up being why they took it down. the guy is a noted racist. Huh. A racist came to the conclusion that white people are smarter than blacks. What a surprise. they didn't vet that guy. he was one of their "experts" for a while. he got canned.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 23:33:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 16:09:14 GMT -5
Either that or it's a poor source. My point was more along the lines of SS is not the only thing that can be cut.
And trying to prove your point using inaccurate information from a notoriously inaccurate and biased source is ALSO....not a synonym for smart.
The smart people simply read where they got the analysis from. Then they move on to Oxford, for synonyms.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 23:33:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 16:11:08 GMT -5
they also published a paper "proving" white people are smarter. although they later retracted it. Oooo! Oooo! Can I guess who wrote it?
WHITE PEOPLE?
They might be able to know what smarter defines as.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 20, 2024 23:33:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 16:14:44 GMT -5
Huh. A racist came to the conclusion that white people are smarter than blacks. What a surprise. they didn't vet that guy. he was one of their "experts" for a while. he got canned. Yes he did. All deflection aside, lol. There are still other, more viable places to cut waste than SS.
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,843
|
Post by kadee79 on Nov 8, 2019 16:21:25 GMT -5
There are still other, more viable places to cut waste than SS. Yes, there is...military! Make them all change to one bookkeeping system and ACCOUNT for every $ spent. That would freak out a lot of them!
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,738
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 8, 2019 16:36:43 GMT -5
cutting 100% of US foreign aid would get you $50B. our military budget is $700B. in order to "double or triple it" you would need to find 14-28x as much money.
how about cutting all social security? that would double the military budget.
We don't need to cut SS, just welfare. Not only will there be a whole lot more $$ for the military, recruitment goals will be easier to make also, because there will be less sitting on the dole collecting those $$, for doing nothing. Quote; In 2011, the latest year for which we have complete spending data, federal outlays on all means-tested welfare programs targeted for the poor hit $746 billion, according to an analysis by the Congressional Research Service.
But this doesn't include two of the fastest-growing taxpayer-funded cash subsidies: unemployment insurance and disability, which are not based on one's income level, so are not considered anti-poverty programs. That's another $250 billion a year. All told, federal income transfer programs (not including Social Security and Medicare) have hit $1 trillion.www.heritage.org/welfare/commentary/welfare-america-1-trillion-tab-and-risingSafety net programs account for less than 10% of the federal budget. If you cut all of it, we would still be in deficit, and now we would have more problems with crime, homelessness and other poverty related problems.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2019 16:52:05 GMT -5
they also published a paper "proving" white people are smarter. although they later retracted it. One of the synonyms of smart (er) is more educated. It's a fooler when publishing that kind of stuff. Most will consider smarter the same as an IQ, not so. if all he said was "white people are smarter", there is a good chance he would still be working at Heritage.
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Nov 8, 2019 18:29:00 GMT -5
I see Bloomberg entered the race. So we could have a presidential race between two NYC billionaires who don't give a crap about the average person. Lovely. A quick google shows his Charites and foundations have almost reached 7 billion in giving...latest is $1.5 Billion to John Hopkins....and supposedly after his passing, majority of his estate to charities and such..kids and relatives etc will get some..Am sure a lot already given to save estate taxes... Possible u object to anyone have extreme wealth...he certaintly has a excess of...latest I have seen, believe bit was beyond the $50 Billion...more like $63 Billion..but from what I read...it was all honest $ earned...
|
|
dezii
Distinguished Associate
Joined: May 18, 2017 14:26:36 GMT -5
Posts: 20,671
|
Post by dezii on Nov 8, 2019 18:31:21 GMT -5
I will give you that Trump is a dick and that is a large part of why he is so polarizing. People don't like Trump. But people also don't like Hillary. I have my reasons for not liking her as a person and other people have their reasons for either loving or really disliking her (there seems to be no in-between with her). But to be clear, I would have voted for her if her policies and vision aligned with mine. I don't vote on personality. I have said this before but if I had to have drinks and hang out with either Obama or Trump, I'm totally picking Obama. But I would never in a million years vote for him. But that is me. There are plenty of people who can't overlook the fact that they just don't like someone and can't vote for them. And that is why I say she would have won if more people actually liked her. Just like I think a large part of why Obama won the first time is because he was young and very likable as a person. You still haven't told me why she is polarizing. You told me it is NOT about her being a woman, but you can't seem to point to a policy, philosophy or even personality trait that makes her so polarizing. I would love to know what people don't like about her, and come up with something real (rather than the unproven criminal and murdery bullshit). If we can't identify anything, then we can't rule out anything either.
|
|
countrygirl2
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 7, 2016 15:45:05 GMT -5
Posts: 17,471
|
Post by countrygirl2 on Nov 8, 2019 19:04:32 GMT -5
This is why we do not need to cut welfare programs and make the very rich pay to help support our country.
On Bloomberg yesterday, 40% of the working people in the 18 to 64 old age group are low wage earners. That is why there is so much welfare needed. This is not sustainable for them or the country. Likely many don't or can't pay taxes and need help. So the debt is going to rise higher and higher. You cannot have the small group with all the money, pay little or nothing. They need to pay in the proportion they are keeping and "earning" all the money.
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Nov 8, 2019 21:14:42 GMT -5
I guess you don't remember Trump dropping out even more quickly and easily in 2000
In the year 2000 I had just lost my husband .......... I don't remember anything
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2019 21:27:37 GMT -5
There are still other, more viable places to cut waste than SS. Yes, there is...military! Make them all change to one bookkeeping system and ACCOUNT for every $ spent. That would freak out a lot of them! we don't even have to get to the waste. we could cut the budget in half and have twice the Miiltary we probably need.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,377
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
Member is Online
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 8, 2019 21:29:02 GMT -5
This is why we do not need to cut welfare programs and make the very rich pay to help support our country. On Bloomberg yesterday, 40% of the working people in the 18 to 64 old age group are low wage earners. That is why there is so much welfare needed. This is not sustainable for them or the country. Likely many don't or can't pay taxes and need help. So the debt is going to rise higher and higher. You cannot have the small group with all the money, pay little or nothing. They need to pay in the proportion they are keeping and "earning" all the money. after 40 years of battling unions, the GOP can declare victory.
and the result? we no longer have a thriving middle class.
|
|