Rookie wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Rookie wrote:Knickoftime wrote:Rookie wrote:fishmike wrote:Rookie wrote:fishmike wrote:Rookie wrote:fishmike wrote:Rookie wrote:Let's play a game....Pence is now POTUS. How do liberals react to Pence's conservative agenda? My guess is it's just more of the same bipartisan freak out. Doesn't matter who sits in the chair, as long as it is a Republican the liberals will not be satisfied. The outcry about Trump will morph into the outcry about Pence.
Why not just look at what happened when Bush was POTUS? Of course Dems would not be satisfied. However the rules of engagement were different. Were there mass protests? When we never found the WMDs we went to war over did Bush blast the media and call them liars and fake news?Of course liberals were against him. The difference is despite some bad moves by GW, and his sometimes country bumkin demeanor Bush was not a national embarrassment.
Right now all GOP legislation and agendas are all straight up anti environment, pro wealth and pro corporation. Those 3 all go hand in hand. If EPA restrictions are costing you money and those pesky pollution controls are hurting your bottom line, than the GOP is the party for you.
Policy is policy. GOP puts the money with the companies. That puts the money with the rich. That puts the environment at risk. They are anti social programs. Yes.. the programs that generally benefit minorities. Yes, those programs. You will get more military spending. You will get lower taxes. This is the pattern we see.
Make no mistake. Dems are bad also. To protect the environment they piss money away on poorly conceived green energy programs. They dump money into anything and everything. The long resting members of the party are terrible. Washington is a swamp... No doubt. Politicans are terrible in the country right now. But to answer your question Rookie.. from a political standpoint no liberal is going to be happy with Pence. However he will act presidential and not embarrass us. That would be start. He would be infinitely more qualified as well, and probably have a basic understanding of what goverment does and how it works. Things Trumps lacks
Totally agree. Don't even get me started on the army corp of engineers and pork barrel spending. It is a swamp and everyone knows it. Draining the swamp was good salesmanship, it resonates with people, especially when they are strugling to just get by every month.
To just focus in one one point, manufacturing jobs, you will see the devastation around the country where smaller towns that depended on these industries are now devastated. Then you have to ask yourself, where did these manufacturing plants go and why did they go there when skilled labor is plentiful right here.
Trade agreements, cheaper labor, lesser enviromental restrictions, competitive balance. All things at the core of Trumps agenda that every other politician was afraid to take head on. Problem with Trump is he is such a clown and a circus sideshow that the message is lost. He has zero diplomatic finesse.
Where I live is a microcosm of this country. It puts things in a different perspective then if you live in NY, CT or NJ
Well here is where I disagree with... on the jobs point. The job numbers have been growing for many years. Obama had very strong job numbers. The problem is wage growth. These devastated industries you talk about... there is such a thing as times change. Yes there will collateral damage. There always is. Do we bring back blockbuster and palmer video stores to bring back the lost jobs from those devastated industries? Of course not.. but we do it for dying industries. Bernie Sanders was a bit exreme in this but we need to invest in real education. We are sorely behind. The country isnt hurting from losing coal and auto jobs. Its losing from KEEPING those jobs. If you want to make America great educate those job up.Does it bother you? The struggle to keep these jobs that pay $35-50k a year, meanwhile all the REAL money goes to big companies. Those companies then take valuable REAL career jobs like everything in IT, and bring in cheaper labor on visas from India and Eastern former Soviet block countries. Now these guys make $80-$100k for jobs that would otherwise pay $125-$150k for a US citizen. Now I have no hate for that labor group. My experience is they are good hard working people and I call many long time friends. Its an eye opening aspect of the labor force IMO, and the politicians will NEVER push back on that because its money right out of the pockets of their biggest donors. The swamp runs deep and with many twists and turns.
Bottom line is regardless of recent job growth under Barak and now Trump, wage growth is stagnant and the $ is weak. Those are bad. That means the new jobs being created are low level. Not the stuff "GREAT" is build on. It also means that the value of stocks goes up, commodities go up, property values go up... everyone with STUFF is happy. Lots of of those just below middle class jobs to keep people buying cars, going to walmart, living paycheck to paycheck, racking in overdraft fees and ensuring their kids follow in similar footsteps because college is for people with money.
This is the democrat in me. We need to offer better to EVERYONE. That is what makes America great again. A smarter workforce, not one that ensures there is a ditch to dig for everyone.
I dont have all the answers, but I do know most people dont understand the question. Its big and has to be chipped away at. I know more jobs in coal and looser restrictions and regulations on what corporations and banks can do isnt the answer. That I know
hey Mike, I like the conversation. I am going to get back to this discussion when I am not running out the door and can give a better response. If you want a window of what I am referring to at the micro level, check out a book called Hillbilly Elegy: A Memoir of a Family and Culture in Crisis by J.D. Vance. It's a quick read and moves along nicely.
Will do... have a great weekend. TGIF 
Living in NYC you're exposed to extremely religious people all the time, it doesn't make them extremists. If my daughter is over at a friends house and they are Hasidic I respect their rules when I am in their house ir if they are at mine. How is that dangerous.
That, however, is the wrong analogy.
Not a question of whom you allow or not in your home or what conditions you require guests to meet to be welcome there. Knocks yourself out.
It's altogether different topic when it comes to a public utility.
Say you got 7 people.
One person is uncomfortable around transgender people and don't want to use the same bathroom.
One is uncomfortable around black people and don't want to use the same bathroom.
One is uncomfortable around obese people and don't want to use the same bathroom.
One is uncomfortable around psychologically or physically challenged people and don't want to use the same bathroom.
One is uncomfortable around older people and don't want to use the same bathroom.
One is uncomfortable around people who appear to be poor and/or lacking advance education and don't want to use the same bathroom.
One is uncomfortable around atheists and don't want to use the same bathroom.
Which person(s) deserve the legal protection to be comfortable in a public bathroom (as opposed to just walking out if they are) and why?
Here's an analogy for you. Your 16y.o. daughter plays on the varsity public school soccer team. Another parents 16 y.o. son is transgender. The parents feel that he should be allowed to play on the girls soccer team even though anatomically he is male gender. He should also be allowed to use the girls locker room to change and shower with the rest of the girls team. You cool with that?
Yes.
That's how you answer a question - directly.
Now can you answer mine?
Here's the part I'm stuck on. So, you were quick to say yes, but did you stop to ask yourself if your 16 y.o. daughter is emotionally and mentally able to deal with this?
Yes. And as I actually have a daughter, I'm in a position to answer this genuinely without having to speculate.
But again, the irony that is escaping you is you suggesting people should better understand people with opposing viewpoints that are based on their religious views. But it is you is having self-admitted difficulty accepting my views.
Which btw, is perfectly natural. I'm expecting you to think I'm wrong, misguided and to say so. And I expect you to understand I think you're wrong and misguided, but not to seek shelter from that disagreement under the umbrella of "church doctrine".
If she doesn't agree with you, does that mean that she is, as you say, destroying the country.
I never said that. I said one of the biggest threats around the globe is extremism in the name of religious observance. People who want to deprive people of their civil rights in the same of religious belief (a restaurant owner can discriminate against a gay man but not a black man) shares some small level of rationale with those who want to deprive others of their life in the name of religious observance.
Why is it ok to take your values and put them on her.
Now here is the part in which I demonstrate the contradictory standard at play here.
I grew up from birth raised in a roman catholic household. My parents are good, well meaning people, who 100% tried to take their values and "put them on me." Your parents almost certainly tried to do the same to you. You almost certainly try to put your values on your kids.
I do too.
So the question "Why is it ok to take your values and put them on her?" is non-sensical. Again, it is YOU have have argued for tolerance of religious based viewpoint when they intersect with civic issues. So if I'm to be empathetic to people who teach their children the earth is 6000 years old, Adam was the first man, and they're condemned to eternal damnation unless they accept Jesus Christ as their one and only savior, why would it ever occur to you to question how "okay" it is to impart my values onto my children?
That's nearly an inexplicable contradiction.
As it were, you asked me how I'd FEEL. No what I'd do in a specific situation. If my 16 daughter felt differently than I, OF COURSE I'd protect her feelings to whatever ability I had, including finding alternate arrangements for her. What I wouldn't do is seek protection under "church doctrine" to protect her interests.
What about the other parents. Maybe some disagree about having a 16 y.o. boy in the shower with their daughters. Are they now, as you put it, destroying the country?
I didn't put it that way (see above). What you bring up is a legitimate, difficult issue that is certainly debatable and I suspect I'd likely represent a minority, losing position. But my argument wouldn't be "I belong to this group and/or reads this old book that tells me I'm right so you need to respect my position."
And to get into the physical part, while this boy might think he is a girl, genetically he is a boy and could have a competitive advantage on a girls team due to the physical differences between boys and girls. Is this fair to everyone else who has to compete against your team?
That's a fair question. But it isn't a religious one, which again, is actually the whole point here.
The point that I am trying make here is that not everyone is going to agree with your moral position here which is extremely liberal
Indeed. No argument. I even fully recognize mine is a minority one.
and then you have taken the jump that anyone who disagrees with you is destroying the country.
I have not. You jumping to this conclusion is the problem inherent to the discourse.
I get it, you want the entire country to change and see things your way and you want it right now.
Not even a little bit. You're right now engaging in exactly the things you were criticizing others for two pages ago.
What I really want is for the truth to be out in the open. You think I'm full of ****. You think I'm wrong and misinformed and intolerant and you probably even think my ideas are a little dangerous.
And you know what? I'm cool with that. That's understandable and expected.
But what YOU were arguing is that people shouldn't think that about you or anyone whose value system in based on "church doctrine."
You are content to defend your position and label anyone who disagrees with you as an intolerant racist who probably also hates blacks, obese people, people with physical disabilities, old people and atheists. While you want other people to expand their views, you refuse to listen to their views and try to understand them without being judgmental. In your mind, they are lesser human beings and destroying the country.
I haven't even suggested anything close to these things.
Here is I ACTUALLY wrote.
I don't expect you to be "comfortable" in a bathroom with transgender people. I expect you to understand you don't enjoy the civil right to be comfortable in a public bathroom.
I don't expect you to be "comfortable" with your 16yo daughter in a shower after school with a boy, or someone who was born a boy and is no longer. But the respective cases should be made on the best available information, and not "doctrine".
I 100% support your right to observe your beliefs for whatever reason you hold them in our own household or private gathering places, and I'd vigorously defend those rights now matter what your views are, even if I found them abhorrent.
I expect anyone to recognize there organized groups of people in this world who want to deprive you and I of our way or life and/or our because of what they believe is a divine calling, and that's relevant to any discussion of the intersection of religion and civil life.
Most of I expect you to recognize what you've demonstrated clearly above, is that while we can agree to respect one another's rights to express our views, what we have in common is a very real, very mutual disrespect for each other's ideas... which is cool... which again, is the whole point.
8/5/2017 11:38 PM