Pesident Clinton

[Bradfo69]

On one hand, I agree but on another, this is the Lounge and there is nothing wrong with healthy discussion. So far, the mud-slinging has been kept to a minimum and it is always good to see other points of view, even if they conflict with my own. To quote:

"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted" --R.W. Emerson

We just need to remember that and we'll be fine.

.
I'm fine with it as well because, it's in the lounge and it's just really nice to come on PL and find some life. It's been far too dead on here recently and so I welcome the activity and the banter. Plus it's still a good way to learn and see different viewpoints. I know most people try to avoid getting into political discussions on here and I even talked to buffo about that yesterday afternoon but, it's generally only every four years and then it will die down. Besides.... as screwed up and interesting as this cycle has been thus far, how can you NOT talk about it??

[ghosttrain]

Again through my biased glasses, but he appears to be a climate change denier. That is not only very dangerous for the planet if he becomes president of one of the most polluting countries, but it also tells you he disregards science at will.

No no, that's not through your biased glasses. Actually thanks for reminding me that. I don't disagree with you that climate change is real. But there are several reasons even when Trump says climate change is fake that I think he and Bernie are the only candidates you should consider.

When a democrat says he will do something about climate change but you don't see much done, there's only one thing I can personally conclude: he's all talk no action. I don't care what politicians say they believe, I care what they will do. If a new president and congress are yet again going to be bribed by megacorporations then the outcome is no different than having a president who doesn't do anything about it for a different reason being that he doesn't think it's real.

And to be perfectly honest with you I don't think there's no argument that climate change is real. It's very likely but I don't think the arguments for it's non existence are too weak to even look into, as is the case with, say, the flat earth theory.

And why Trump and not Bernie? Because Bernie doesn't seem to stand a chance against Hillary anymore.

My point is that nobody should go hungry just because he can't or is not willing to have a job

Before I comment on this I don't agree with everything Planters has said about socialism, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in that area to make a comment about socialism vs free market capitalism, but your view seems kind of odd to me.
Nobody should be hungry because he can't get a job? Agree.
Nobody should be hungry because he doesn't want to get a job? Heck no. Are you serious or is that not what you meant in your head?

[logsquared]

Quote Originally Posted by logsquared View Post
Does anyone know Trumps stance on social issues? Gay rights, women's rights, religious rights, etc.

Not me. The thing is I and I can assume people like me don't see a women's rights issue in the US, nor a religious rights issue. Globally yes these are huge issues, but not inside US.
If this includes abortion, then he is against abortion.

If you mean special rights attributable to certain groups then I guess he may be vague. I certainly am OK with that.

Hey guys.... Frankly, I don't care what what you think about the issues I mentioned. I simply asked if anyone new Trump's stance on them.

RFRA is a poor vague document, not sure what you want to know about Trump which can have something to do with this waste of ink.

Again... I don't care what you think. I really don't. You asked for an example.

[frostypaw]

It is just semantics. The "special" in the term "special right" is in the sense of "group-unique" right not "special-snowflake" right. Makes sense?

Of course - we agree albeit slightly aggressively.

Frostypaw, I'll be honest with you, I think you're reading my posts through a filter. Because I didn't show my position on this. I was just clarifying what special right means and what examples there are.

You referred to it as a 'special rights' which as said above I'd argue aren't special - but we've cleared that up now

Okay, I think I get the example now, I don't think it's an issue only affecting women.

It is indeed not only affecting women, but you didn't ask for an issue exclusively affecting women. "Not me. The thing is I and I can assume people like me don't see a women's rights issue in the US, nor a religious rights issue. Globally yes these are huge issues, but not inside US." ... "Give me one example, I have no clue what issue that might be."

Example has been given, let's move on.

[norty303]

Nobody should be hungry because he can't get a job? Agree.
Nobody should be hungry because he doesn't want to get a job? Heck no. Are you serious or is that not what you meant in your head?

For me, this is a burning political issue that I'm not seeing much attention given to currently.
It may not be long before we reach the point where the distinction between the workshy and the 'unable to find work' is a moot point, as its unable to change the fact there is no work anyway.
'In our lifetimes' (and that applies to the 'more aged' members too) we are going to see an ever increasing number of people displaced from work, and this is going to bring its own set of social issues, requiring social solutions.
Reading Eric's views on this, it feels an outdated ideal that there can be no social fabric for a nation, as all of the other evidence points to it being something we need to start changing attitudes about NOW - if it is to become workable by the time the crap hits the fan. Otherwise my vision of it at least, is fairly bleak for the 'haves' and the 'have nots'.

With our austerity measures under the Tory government, I can see the UK genuinely getting to the point where recovery will be seriously hampered, once we're able to try a different approach.
Looking around for an exit strategy (as some US folks are doing, if the UK press is to be believed), Scandinavia looks promising, as does my marriage to a Danish national later this year...

[buffo]

You assume I do not understand these political issues

If you do understand them, you can't articulate your understanding. The arguments you make are NOT supported by the facts. Beyond what you have written here, we have nothing else to go on.

and make judgements from an emotional basis.

No, I said you make ARGUMENTS from an emotional basis. You are missing the point. I'm not accusing you of being judgmental, I'm accusing you of not being able to craft an argument that is supported by facts.

Or more to the point: you are making an emotional plea and not a true argument at all. (Example: your "hijacking" statement, which was really over the top emotionally, even though the worst case analysis showed that we were actually talking about a trivial - 2% - increase.) You are ignoring the facts and making an emotional statement (for shock value) to somehow justify your feelings.

As I said above, if you feel a certain way - own it. You can't "prove" your feelings, they are yours. But the moment you start making statements like "socialism causes X" as a means of justifying your feelings, you have strayed into argument territory, and when you make an argument you had damned well better be able to back it up with facts.

You said I am smart and you know that I have been successful in multiple fields. If that is not just a set up for a put down then consider your assumption that my political views are stupid or naive or foolish.

Wow - did you read ANYTHING that I wrote? I know it was long, but I was purposefully verbose because you didn't get it the first time. Evidently you STILL don't get it. So please, pay attention to the following:

I AM NOT ATTACKING YOUR PERSONAL POLITICAL PREFERENCES.

If you don't like socialism, that's fine. (How many times have I written this in this thread already?) It's when you try to PROVE that your view is somehow "right" by making an argument that you have made a fool of yourself, because your claims are not supported by facts that are in the public domain.

It would have taken you a few seconds of googling to learn that the claims you were making were false. Yet you didn't bother. THAT is what was so astonishing to me, and that is what drove my replies.

Let the readers for whom these posts are actually written, consider this as well.

What the hell does that mean? That you are purposefully talking down to the rest of the forum because they can't handle the real deal? A post written to me, or to Ghosttrain, or Frostypaw, or anyone else is also written for anyone else - member or not - who chooses to read this thread.

What are the chances that Hillary or Bernie will actually do what they promise they will?

Good question! We really can't tell for certain. Although at least with someone that has prior political experience you can look at their record and see how well they have kept their promises in the past to get some idea. But the the other issue is that even if they try to do something, there is no guarantee that they will get it through congress.

As for your other question about the Trump show-stoppers that give me pause, I have a real problem with his overt racism regarding Latinos and Muslims. Those are attitudes that are incompatible with the highest office in the land, at least in my opinion. And as I mentioned above, I also have concerns about his lack of self control regarding what he says in general. Even if you think that (insert foreign leader/government here) is a complete loser, you don't say that in public when you are the president. Trump doesn't seem to agree with this, however.

There are parts of Trump's platform that I do like, and I must also admit that there is a bit of "frustrated electorate" in me that would like to just watch the whole system burn to the ground. But in the end I know that this is more wishful thinking, and the rational part of my brain tells me that we're not quite ready for a revolution...

Try getting an abortion in Indiana.

Abortion is not a "religious right".

This is a very hot-button topic, and it is indeed at the heart of many people's choices for president. That being said, it is a topic that intertwines rights and religion...

There are those on the right who would use their political power to advance their religious belief that life begins at conception, and thus every abortion is actually murder. The problem I have with these people is that they are also the same candidates who refuse to offer any sort of social safety net for these children once they are born. So they are all about protecting the baby before it's born, but after birth they don't want to protect it at all. I think if you make your case by using the 'preserving human life' argument, then you can't abandon the child and just shame the mother who can't or won't provide for it.

There are also those on the left who argue that abortion should be legal and freely available for any reason (including something that sounds very callous, like "I just don't want a child right now"), even up until very late in the pregnancy. I likewise disagree with this, because it leads to a situation where a healthy child could be aborted a week prior to birth with no consequences, while killing a child after birth would be considered murder.

Personally I am against the idea of abortion myself, although not for religious reasons. That being said, I nonetheless support pro-choice candidates, because I recognize that my personal beliefs are mine, and are not for everyone. I also accept the general medical opinion that prior to about 6 months, the fetus is normally not viable anyway. (Heroic neonatal interventions not withstanding.) Which is why I typically support candidates who agree that abortion for any reason should only be legal in the first two trimesters, and late-term abortions should only be permitted when the mother's life is in danger.

It's not the only issue that I consider when assessing a candidate, but it is one of them.

Adam

[dchammonds]

Look, early on in this thread I asked people to explain exactly what made them oppose Trump. So far I've only heard that he's vague, as are others and abortion. If there are other issues, mention them, why aren't you?


Likewise

@resunltd: who's quote is that?

Frankly, I agree with Rubio and Romney that Trump is a con man, phony and a fraud worthy to be lumped with scumbag televangelists like Creflo Dollar and Benny Hinn who are experts in scamming the sheeple, but that's my opinion. It makes me sick that these types have such a gullible following...

It's ironic to hear Romney say that, and I'm just being perfectly honest with you, it's even more ironic to hear someone listen to him and call others gullible.


If he was he could at least secretly be sucking GOP's and not have the whole party tell America to not support him. So I see no logic in this assumption.

OK, I added the 'worthy to be lumped in with...' part and I forgot to mention Trumps bad TV evangelist hair.

[colouredmirrorball]

Before I comment on this I don't agree with everything Planters has said about socialism, and I'm not knowledgeable enough in that area to make a comment about socialism vs free market capitalism, but your view seems kind of odd to me.
Nobody should be hungry because he can't get a job? Agree.
Nobody should be hungry because he doesn't want to get a job? Heck no. Are you serious or is that not what you meant in your head?

That's a good question and I must say I'm divided about this myself. In an utopia which might be a possibility in the near future, when automatisation is at a peak, then yes, nobody should be hungry because he doesn't want to get a job. Why be forced to slave off for a living your whole life, when you can do things that are more meaningful to you? How many of us on this board are stuck with day jobs they'd love to quit, if they could do laser shows full time, except it doesn't pay enough to support the bills... Especially when it's not necessary that everybody works to keep things going. There will be a moment our economy can thrive from those who want to work, instead of those who are forced to work. Seems weird because it has always been so that everybody who could work, should work to have economic growth and all politicians (and some PL members) are still stuck in that mindset. I can't guarantee you that this is an outdated view at this moment and I can't tell you when such a shift will occur (or has occured) but I'm fairly certain it's going to be in my lifetime. And I think politicians should anticipate this but instead they are falling back to the "force everybody to find a job and punish those who don't work and ignore the amount of jobs are decreasing" doctrine.

The biggest challenge would be to keep on innovating - how do you motivate people to usher society forward when they could as well do nothing all day? How many will get an education when you could opt for a life of laziness? I think there is only one answer and that is to make the rewards worth it. You should be able to have a comfortable life by doing nothing - and a wonderful fantastic life by doing something.

It also implies that nobody will do the jobs that nobody really wants to do and can't be done by machines, like taking care of the elderly and children. So you need ways to ensure they'd happen anyway. In my country the current approach is to force workless people to do these jobs (otherwise they lose their unemployment benefit), and if they have it their way, they pay you with some special statute so you earn less than if you could just keep your benefits (but that's another discussion). Another approach could be to increase the wage of these jobs so even though people can survive without, having your income triple or quadruple might attract enough workers. How's that for free market? The question is then of course who can pay such an enormous amount of money...

I don't think it's possible to have some kind of system like this in the present world sadly. But we're actually quite close.

[ghosttrain]

OK, I added the 'worthy to be lumped in with...' part and I forgot to mention Trumps bad TV evangelist hair.

I have no idea what that means.

It is indeed not only affecting women, but you didn't ask for an issue exclusively affecting women. "Not me. The thing is I and I can assume people like me don't see a women's rights issue in the US, nor a religious rights issue. Globally yes these are huge issues, but not inside US." ... "Give me one example, I have no clue what issue that might be."

Example has been given, let's move on.

I asked for an example of "women's rights" issue. For something to be called "women's rights issue" it has to only affect women, that's how categorization in law works. What you mentioned is human rights issue. Now you've made clear what you wanted to know Trumps stance on, I'm just saying those aren't "women's rights" issue, that's all.

Good question! We really can't tell for certain. Although at least with someone that has prior political experience you can look at their record and see how well they have kept their promises in the past to get some idea. But the the other issue is that even if they try to do something, there is no guarantee that they will get it through congress.

Right, I agree. That is why I really hope Hillary doesn't win. But the thing is, Obama in 2007 seemed consistent to me, but somehow when he became president he became inconsistent even with all his previous political career. So I just think you can't be any more certain even if someone has been in politics for a long time and has been consistent. This is also why I don't think because Trump doesn't have any record he is less likely to keep promises.

As for your other question about the Trump show-stoppers that give me pause, I have a real problem with his overt racism regarding Latinos and Muslims. Those are attitudes that are incompatible with the highest office in the land, at least in my opinion.

I would completely agree with you, if that was the case. The thing is, he is not racist.

And as I mentioned above, I also have concerns about his lack of self control regarding what he says in general. Even if you think that (insert foreign leader/government here) is a complete loser, you don't say that in public when you are the president. Trump doesn't seem to agree with this, however.

We can't tell if he will make speeches the same way if he becomes president. I'm very skeptical he will. No matter what the impression of people about him from the media from this campaign, if you check some of his old interviews it's very interesting how his vocabulary becomes richer when he wants to and he thinks logically. Same can be said if you've read his book The art of the deal.

Even if he was harsh as a president, I don't see that starting anything serious. Turkey's fascist president does that all the time, others deal with him.

This is a very hot-button topic, and it is indeed at the heart of many people's choices for president. That being said, it is a topic that intertwines rights and religion...

Sure, religion and abortion are connected somehow, but abortion is not "religious rights" issue, that's all I'm saying. Religious rights are very specific things.

There are those on the right who would use their political power to advance their religious belief that life begins at conception, and thus every abortion is actually murder. The problem I have with these people is that they are also the same candidates who refuse to offer any sort of social safety net for these children once they are born. So they are all about protecting the baby before it's born, but after birth they don't want to protect it at all. I think if you make your case by using the 'preserving human life' argument, then you can't abandon the child and just shame the mother who can't or won't provide for it.

There are also those on the left who argue that abortion should be legal and freely available for any reason (including something that sounds very callous, like "I just don't want a child right now"), even up until very late in the pregnancy. I likewise disagree with this, because it leads to a situation where a healthy child could be aborted a week prior to birth with no consequences, while killing a child after birth would be considered murder.

Agree.

I also accept the general medical opinion that prior to about 6 months, the fetus is normally not viable anyway. (Heroic neonatal interventions not withstanding.) Which is why I typically support candidates who agree that abortion for any reason should only be legal in the first two trimesters, and late-term abortions should only be permitted when the mother's life is in danger.

I mean this is an ethical question deserving a huge separate thread. Why is non viability the decisive factor? Why does a conscious being not to be considered a human being with a right to life because it is non viable?
If you accept that the fetus in early stages has no moral value most utilitarians would agree with you but when you want to know until when it gets very complicated.

It's not the only issue that I consider when assessing a candidate, but it is one of them.

I understand. We just give different priorities to the same issues.

@CMB: I think you'll like this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVlhMGQgDkY

[frostypaw]

I asked for an example of "women's rights" issue. For something to be called "women's rights issue" it has to only affect women, that's how categorization in law works. What you mentioned is human rights issue. Now you've made clear what you wanted to know Trumps stance on, I'm just saying those aren't "women's rights" issue, that's all.

*facepalm*
You didn't ask me "what are the things you want to know Trumps stance on" and I've not answered it.

I've not met many men who have had abortions, but I'll take your word on it. I'm not really going to interact with this bit of discussion much further if you make stuff up - it's a guaranteed method of inflaming any topic.