Political discussions in real life (not online)

[acrawlingchaos]

like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_JJLLfTR8I

No, that isn't what he is saying. He is saying "When asking a Conservative a question" they tend to avoid answering the question and instead state how they feel about liberals. Looks like he was right on point.


Neat video, I'm sure you could round up 20 rednecks from a Trump convention and make them look stupid with little effort.

[bodyhard]

My gut feeling on Trump is if he becomes President other countries will have more respect to us, I think he would be a no nonsense kind of President and take action and not just words of threats.

On the other hand I feel if Hillary becomes President we will become weaker than we are now and other Countries will lose whatever respect they have for the US.

I could be wrong on both fronts, but that is how I see it.

[Mumra]

You are for? For complaining or do you have a solution oriented candidate that reflects your worldview and moral values?

haven't made up my mind yet.

No, that isn't what he is saying. He is saying "When asking a Conservative a question" they tend to avoid answering the question and instead state how they feel about liberals. Looks like he was right on point.


Neat video, I'm sure you could round up 20 rednecks from a Trump convention and make them look stupid with little effort.

that's my point. people on all sides do this. he's just pointing out the one as if liberals don't pull the same ish.

[Mark1T]

Both sides are guilty of telling you who they are for and what they believe in and then they complain about what they don't like about the other party or person. Please don't anyone believe it is endemic to one side. There are very bad and biased people who represent both sides or all sides.

[x-trainer ben]

Both sides are guilty of telling you who they are for and what they believe in and then they complain about what they don't like about the other party or person. Please don't anyone believe it is endemic to one side. There are very bad and biased people who represent both sides or all sides.

That may be true in some instances but the oldest Republican that I know said Kasich and then gave me 2 paragraphs as to why. A reasonable response when asking a person a very personal question.

When I ask Mumford above I get, I have not made up my mind; this chit ain't that hard if you have a conservative ideology. Surely one of the 6 on stage thinks like him!

[Mark1T]

That may be true in some instances but the oldest Republican that I know said Kasich and then gave me 2 paragraphs as to why. A reasonable response when asking a person a very personal question.

When I ask Mumford above I get, I have not made up my mind; this chit ain't that hard if you have a conservative ideology. Surely one of the 6 on stage thinks like him!

I don't know. I look at the candidates and make my decisions based upon his or her values, beliefs, etc. To make a decision based upon voters, IMO, is misdirected and an enormous waste of time. One person, two people or even a room full of people don't help me make up my mind. I don't care what they think because I can live with people thinking different than me.

[NorwichGrad]

I'm pretty sure that you have conservatives that believe that. in fact, I'm quite sure NG is a conservative with that belief.

Thomas's post was about accountability and not placing blame, and your first instinct was to place said blame.

Yeppers. I am a libertarian-conservative with the belief that there are puppet masters. But you also know that I have discussed personal responsibilities in past forums.

We can't control 99% of what happens around the world, but we can still control 99% of what happens around us, which is why I'm also big on having powers and control as local as possible.

[x-trainer ben]

I don't know. I look at the candidates and make my decisions based upon his or her values, beliefs, etc. To make a decision based upon voters, IMO, is misdirected and an enormous waste of time. One person, two people or even a room full of people don't help me make up my mind. I don't care what they think because I can live with people thinking different than me.

" my decisions based upon his or her values, beliefs"

And i completely agree with you, so why cant the most argumentative in this thread "mumford" enlighten us with a candidate that shares his world view? That is not to much to ask for from THE most argumentative in here.... It isn't? We can play the this one sucks and that one is terrible game all day, but at the end of the day wtf are you FOR?

He said" i haven't made up my mind yet".... then get to READING and stop ARGUING with people.
step 1 here
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yo...rticle/2564959

[poundXpound]

I go with the William F. Buckley position of supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. Bush has the most well thought out policies, but can't win because of his last name. That leaves me with Rubio. The delegate race is usually over by the time I vote here in Wisconsin and it doesn't matter by then.

I'd love to see Fiorina or Christie or Cruz debate Clinton and I think Rubio would do well against her, too.

[Mark1T]

" my decisions based upon his or her values, beliefs"

And i completely agree with you, so why cant the most argumentative in this thread "mumford" enlighten us with a candidate that shares his world view? That is not to much to ask for from THE most argumentative in here.... It isn't? We can play the this one sucks and that one is terrible game all day, but at the end of the day wtf are you FOR?

He said" i haven't made up my mind yet".... then get to READING and stop ARGUING with people.
step 1 here
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yo...rticle/2564959

Thanks. If he hasn't made up his mind, that's ok. My only suggestion is to not worry about it But, I am sure we would like to know if and when he does make up his mind and if he is leaning to one person, let us know and why.

I haven't made up my mind, either. All I know is that I am not going to vote for Hillary or Sanders. Not because I hate them. I do believe that they have dedicated their lives to public service. But, so have the others on the other side. I have my specifics on Hillary and Sanders, but will have to post tomorrow.

[Mark1T]

I go with the William F. Buckley position of supporting the most conservative candidate who can win. Bush has the most well thought out policies, but can't win because of his last name. That leaves me with Rubio. The delegate race is usually over by the time I vote here in Wisconsin and it doesn't matter by then.

I'd love to see Fiorina or Christie or Cruz debate Clinton and I think Rubio would do well against her, too.

Pretty much agree. I don't think Bush can win, either. Rubio will need to make a come-back from the last debate. Cruz, IMO, is too right to win.

[thomashenry]

Ask a conservative to tell you who they are for and what they believe in and they complain about what they don't like about Obama and liberal Democrats.
I observed this year's ago when I asked who is up next when Bobby Jindal flamed out after the state of the Union adress.

This is a part of my definition, as a self professed Christian Constitutional Conservative, I realized that conservatism was the philosophy that best suited me, with its emphasis on individual liberty, personal responsibility, and merit. It's a liberating philosophy it is an antidote to tyranny, left alone and unthreatened it is industrious, independent, and successful, it demonstrates what is actually possible under societal conditions that promotes Freedom of the Individual and Liberty—achievement, happiness, and fulfillment, which in turn is spread benevolently towards their fellow man, & in actual practice lifting each other up and also contradicting and endangering the utopian campaign against what was or is, dismissing the individual’s contribution to society must be downplayed, disparaged, or denounced, unless the contribution is directed by the state ! Masterminds with a Ubiquitous top down heavy handed mantra are minimized and ostracized as opposed to being propped up and given Credence.

We should remember that the Declaration of Independence is not merely a historical document. It is an explicit recognition that our rights derive not from the King of England, not from the judiciary, not from government at all, but from God. The keystone of our system of popular sovereignty is the recognition, as the Declaration acknowledges, that 'all men are created equal' and 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.' Religion and God are no alien to our system of government, they're integral to it.

You know, that man has a spirit, that each man and woman is unique, that we have duty to promote our unalienable rights and to protect them, that we have a duty to our families and ourselves, to take care of ourselves, to contribute to charity, that we have a duty to support a just and righteous law that is stable and predictable. The intensive and concerted effort to exclude references to religion or God from public places is an attack on our founding principles. It's an attempt to bolster a growing reliance on the government, coercive redistribution of wealth through government’s abuse of law and misapplication of rights destroys individual liberty; ambition, productivity, and wealth.

Doesn`t it makes you wonder—how can a people incapable of selecting their own lightbulbs and toilets possess enough competence to vote for their own rulers and fill out complicated tax returns ? Our Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees, in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights in a civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group.

If our rights are not unalienable, if they don’t come from a source higher than ourselves, then they’re malleable at the will of the state. This is a prescription for tyranny. The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it.

Just A small glimpse as to what I think !

Federalist 51, Madison explained the essential balance between the civil society and governmental restraint: “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections of human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself

[DuracellBunny]

Both sides are guilty of telling you who they are for and what they believe in and then they complain about what they don't like about the other party or person. Please don't anyone believe it is endemic to one side. There are very bad and biased people who represent both sides or all sides.

British politics is becoming progressively more like this, but it isn't as bad as the US yet. So much of the rhetoric that you hear in general from dems is about beating reps and reps beating dems.

I remember seeing an acceptance speech in the last few years and the woman who won walked to the podium and started her speech with "now we are going to make the (insert who the other side is) squeal!"

The reason that a lot of people don't like the establishment and can't tell the difference between the two main parties is that all they see is one group complaining about how bad the other group is.

[Mark1T]

British politics is becoming progressively more like this, but it isn't as bad as the US yet. So much of the rhetoric that you hear in general from dems is about beating reps and reps beating dems.

I remember seeing an acceptance speech in the last few years and the woman who won walked to the podium and started her speech with "now we are going to make the (insert who the other side is) squeal!"

The reason that a lot of people don't like the establishment and can't tell the difference between the two main parties is that all they see is one group complaining about how bad the other group is.

British Politics are like a comedy. I have seen a few Parliament verbal sword fights and they are intense. The US has gotten exponentially worse each year it seems.

[ElrondHubbard]

I think it�s time for accountability. I think it�s time we stop blaming the decline of our country on shadowy, vague, abstract groups of people, and start analyzing our own role. Here�s the reality: if we were better � if we made good choices (especially in the voting booth), if we paid attention, if we were more rational, wise, prudent and thoughtful � we wouldn�t be in this mess. Our culture is being destroyed not by outside forces, but by us. We have been in the process of committing a very drawn out act of mass suicide, and our final blow to ourselves might be this next presidential election.

The sad and horrifying reality is that we may well be looking at a Trump-Sanders or Trump-Clinton election. Out of all the available match ups, as it stands right now, we are on target to select the absolute worst ones for ourselves. We are on a path to give ourselves a choice only between one tyrant or another.

Many people insist this isn�t our fault. Even folks who aren�t Trump/Sanders/Clinton supporters, �people are angry� and the establishment is corrupt and DC is blah blah whatever, There is no excuse. We do this to ourselves

100% agree, Thomas. As a people we get the government we deserve. Bottom line.

[ElrondHubbard]

This is a part of my definition, as a self professed Christian Constitutional Conservative, I realized that conservatism was the philosophy that best suited me, with its emphasis on individual liberty, personal responsibility, and merit. It's a liberating philosophy it is an antidote to tyranny, left alone and unthreatened it is industrious, independent, and successful, it demonstrates what is actually possible under societal conditions that promotes Freedom of the Individual and Liberty—achievement, happiness, and fulfillment, which in turn is spread benevolently towards their fellow man, & in actual practice lifting each other up and also contradicting and endangering the utopian campaign against what was or is, dismissing the individual’s contribution to society must be downplayed, disparaged, or denounced, unless the contribution is directed by the state ! Masterminds with a Ubiquitous top down heavy handed mantra are minimized and ostracized as opposed to being propped up and given Credence.

We should remember that the Declaration of Independence is not merely a historical document. It is an explicit recognition that our rights derive not from the King of England, not from the judiciary, not from government at all, but from God. The keystone of our system of popular sovereignty is the recognition, as the Declaration acknowledges, that 'all men are created equal' and 'endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.' Religion and God are no alien to our system of government, they're integral to it.

You know, that man has a spirit, that each man and woman is unique, that we have duty to promote our unalienable rights and to protect them, that we have a duty to our families and ourselves, to take care of ourselves, to contribute to charity, that we have a duty to support a just and righteous law that is stable and predictable. The intensive and concerted effort to exclude references to religion or God from public places is an attack on our founding principles. It's an attempt to bolster a growing reliance on the government, coercive redistribution of wealth through government’s abuse of law and misapplication of rights destroys individual liberty; ambition, productivity, and wealth.

Doesn`t it makes you wonder—how can a people incapable of selecting their own lightbulbs and toilets possess enough competence to vote for their own rulers and fill out complicated tax returns ? Our Founders believed, and the Conservative agrees, in the dignity of the individual; that we, as human beings, have a right to live, live freely, and pursue that which motivates us not because man or some government says so, but because these are God-given natural rights in a civil society, the individual is recognized and accepted as more than an abstract statistic or faceless member of some group.

If our rights are not unalienable, if they don’t come from a source higher than ourselves, then they’re malleable at the will of the state. This is a prescription for tyranny. The Conservative does not despise government. He despises tyranny. This is precisely why the Conservative reveres the Constitution and insists on adherence to it.

Just A small glimpse as to what I think !

Federalist 51, Madison explained the essential balance between the civil society and governmental restraint: “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections of human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself

Problem is that the checks and balances in the Constitution were compromised so as not to interfere with the perogatives of slaveholders. Even though the slavery question was eventually settled, at the cost of huge numbers of lives, the structural compromises that it engendered remained part of the document.

Secondly, and more obviously, the framers never counted on mass media and the power of advertising. They assumed that voter/citizens were rational, and that has turned out to be a bad assumption. People are not rational, they are very easily manipulated by memes and demagogues, and emotion-based marketing is far more powerful than the rational uncovering of facts.

[DuracellBunny]

British Politics are like a comedy. I have seen a few Parliament verbal sword fights and they are intense. The US has gotten exponentially worse each year it seems.

That was probably PMQs (Prime Minister's Questions). The PM is technically what would be the house majority leader in the US and once a week he is summoned to parliament to answer questions.

Imagine the president being asked 6 questions from the minority leader every week (along with additional questions from others), on any subject they like, with no advance notice of the questions. PMQs is not for wimps.

[Mumra]

Thanks. If he hasn't made up his mind, that's ok. My only suggestion is to not worry about it But, I am sure we would like to know if and when he does make up his mind and if he is leaning to one person, let us know and why.

I haven't made up my mind, either. All I know is that I am not going to vote for Hillary or Sanders. Not because I hate them. I do believe that they have dedicated their lives to public service. But, so have the others on the other side. I have my specifics on Hillary and Sanders, but will have to post tomorrow.

While I can say for certainty that it's not Hilary or Bernie. I can take care of myself so I don't need the gov't to do it for me.

I really wanted Paul but that poor guy never stood a chance. right now I'm standing at Trump, Cruz and Rubio if all else fails. I've over the Bush's and Christie.... just no.

[Flounderbout]

British Politics are like a comedy. I have seen a few Parliament verbal sword fights and they are intense. The US has gotten exponentially worse each year it seems.

As DB said British politics is becoming increasingly polarised in the way that US politics appears to be. There was a report this morning saying that the numbers of people who would be upset if one of their children was to date a supporter of the opposite political party have markedly increased in recent years.

What sort of congenital fecking idiot is worried that their child's date has differing political views? FFS.

Personally, I have no particular political affiliation beyond the fervent belief that all politicians are incompetent morons that we would be better off without. But the level of vitriol that the Labour/Conservative divide causes here (and the Rep/Dem divide in the US) genuinely amuses me. The differences between the two are in reality so utterly trivial in the grand scheme of things, and yet one side always sets themselves up as being the flag-bearers for compassion for the down-trodden, and the other the champions of the hard-working.

[discdoggie]

I really wanted Paul but that poor guy never stood a chance

I know. What the hell happened there?

He's by far the least offensive.

[Mumra]

I know. What the hell happened there?

He's by far the least offensive.

makes sense. reasonable, rational and realistic. thus no place in American politics. plus people like to jump on the winning bandwagon. so the Reps and Dems continue to win because they continue to win. then there's the people(a large group I think) that are just to afraid of the party they hate to win to risk him/her winning by voting for the #3 candidate.

[discdoggie]

makes sense. reasonable, rational and realistic. thus no place in American politics. plus people like to jump on the winning bandwagon. so the Reps and Dems continue to win because they continue to win. then there's the people(a large group I think) that are just to afraid of the party they hate to win to risk him/her winning by voting for the #3 candidate.

You're probably right. Also, he just seems to be missing the magic and charisma his father has. In a perfect world, ideas and policies should be what wins elections. But it's a middles school popularity contest. And he just doesn't have that "oomph."

I lean pretty far left on many issues. But if an election came down to Clinton and Paul, I'd vote him. But no way no HOW on any of the others.

[7Seconds]

I know. What the hell happened there?

He's by far the least offensive.

The establishment has never embraced him; the libertarians don't trust him because he's softened his positions; the Tea Party lined up behind Ted Cruz; the moderates are split between candidates like Christie, Kasich and Bush. It would be a mistake to assume that Republican primary voters look at any candidate and say, "Hey, this guy might attract moderate voters in the general election." Generally, there is a tug-of-war in the primary between establishment favorites who are "electable" and more conservative alternatives that the far right want to support. Rand Paul didn't have the backing of either the establishment or the far right.

[thomashenry]

That was probably PMQs (Prime Minister's Questions). The PM is technically what would be the house majority leader in the US and once a week he is summoned to parliament to answer questions.

Imagine the president being asked 6 questions from the minority leader every week (along with additional questions from others), on any subject they like, with no advance notice of the questions. PMQs is not for wimps.

I wish the President and the Whole array of Hypocrites were exposed to this type of Scrutiny, most would be eviscerated publicly & a select few would be steller........https://youtu.be/okHGCz6xxiw

[7Seconds]

I wish the President and the Whole array of Hypocrites were exposed to this type of Scrutiny, most would be eviscerated publicly & a select few would be steller........https://youtu.be/okHGCz6xxiw

Given the empty rhetoric used by both parties this would probably be a waste of time here, with no substantial progress or ideas brought forth. Typical language of avoidance and blame.

[thomashenry]

Given the empty rhetoric used by both parties this would probably be a waste of time here, with no substantial progress or ideas brought forth. Typical language of avoidance and blame.

I am just Flabbergasted that some would move this discussion from it`s original, it was civil, no non sense or anything that I picked up on, I guess T&A has far more sincerity and thought/meaning, or flautulence, Etc Etc, I am glad some are not in charge of the entire interwebz

[chevy72blu]

Just a comment on Walmart as an example: If I were the owners of the publicly traded corporation, I would totally restructure the company from the bottom up. First, let me say that I do not demonize the Waltons, but I believe they compensate themselves too much, when they could actually use a part of their earnings to improve the company. Every time I go into a Walmart, sure they have low prices, but their customer service sucks. Yes, the people are nice, but you get this sense of un-enthusiasm. The uniforms are horrible and they look like maids instead of respectable employees. That probably makes them feel that way, too.

Walmart could over-haul their pay scale by placing everyone who used to be full time, back on full time and as salaried employees with a relative 30% to 40% pay raise, without asking for over-time. Pay their health-care 100%. Give them respectable uniforms. Maintain management as the same. Those alone would give the employees pride and an enthusiasm to work harder and produce and would certainly decrease employee attrition. The systemic affect I believe would be positive and would also reflect in long-term growth. Stockholders can be informed that margins would tighten in the beginning, but long-term projections are more positive.

This is not an example of redistribution, but just a different strategy. It would not work for all publicly held corporations, but it might here. Public perception is more acute now and it would raise awareness and possibly slowly influence other companies to restructure in a way that increases morale and the entire company.

I just did some quick math on your idea because I was genuinely curious what that might cost. Google says Wallyworld employs 2.1M people.

Assuming $300/month/employee for 100% health coverage (which is about average where I work): $7,560,000,000.00 per year

Assuming $8/hr average hourly wage, a 35% increase in pay for everyone would cost: $12,230,400,000.00 more per year than they currently pay

New uniforms for all employees at $60/ea: $126,000,000.00

In 2014 Walmart made a net profit (after expenses) of nearly $16B

Implementing your ideas would have resulted in a $4,036,400,000.00 loss for the company in 2014. At no time in the past 5 years (and likely further, I dont care to dig for more data) could they have afforded that.

I dont think you'd be CEO very long. Im not trying to be a dick, but its crazy how expensive such things are for every company - not just WM. Conversely, ALL 16B in profits divided equally among ALL 2.1M employees - meaning the company is just turning over dollars, results in a a $7.5k/yr raise ($3.64/hr).

The above assumes nothing in their business model changes (it would, drastically) and my math is very lazy so its likely I made mistakes.

[ODBM]

I'll take "funny" any day of the week.

I think it's appropriate that someone so disconnected from reality politically also has ***herbalmedicinewomancrew*** in her signature.

[Corbi]

I lean pretty far left on many issues.

Understatement of the decade there.
DD is so far left that she's almost to the point where the right ends.

[imiscubb]

" my decisions based upon his or her values, beliefs"

And i completely agree with you, so why cant the most argumentative in this thread "mumford" enlighten us with a candidate that shares his world view? That is not to much to ask for from THE most argumentative in here.... It isn't? We can play the this one sucks and that one is terrible game all day, but at the end of the day wtf are you FOR?

He said" i haven't made up my mind yet".... then get to READING and stop ARGUING with people.
step 1 here
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/yo...rticle/2564959

shut it vaxshill