|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
I think hes means that LaVar is saying that shoplifting is no big deal.
|
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on.
|
On November 20 2017 00:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 20:01 Yurie wrote:On November 19 2017 14:05 Sermokala wrote:On November 19 2017 13:02 LegalLord wrote:On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
The ammount of food and shipping that goes through the SCC is undeniable in how valuable it is. No one said otherwise - but you made a much stronger statement about the "undeniable reality" that it is guaranteed to be the most important region in the world for the current century. That remains to be seen; as of now all that would be reasonable to say is that that historically important trade region will be an important trade region going into the current century. On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
Sure the suez and the hormuz is as if not more valuable but there isn't a soul in the world who thinks the US couldn't just force its ownership of them overnight. Another unjustified assertion. The US probably has enough military to force a pyrrhic victory in one of those passages in relatively short order - definitely not overnight, but maybe in a few months - but it'd be delusional to think it could or should keep them. They would lose a whole lot of value as trade routes, considering that asserting such control would quickly turn that trade route into a war zone and thus make it quite a shitty route for shipping. It's far, far easier to harass military ships and trade ships than it would be to keep a garrison on those routes so no, I don't really think the US could do that. From the war games I've heard about the rather primitive but effective mines-and-rockets game that a nation as middle-of-the-road as Iran could play would kill at least a few carriers before the US got anywhere. On November 19 2017 10:55 Sermokala wrote:
Whats good for US corporations may not be best for the US but its better then the state controlled/backed corperations in China. Its apples and oranges and at least my apples fly my flag. The TPP is one of the things that will prevent this. Its literaly the thing that you do to stop china. A lack of TPP is pushing people to China as they show up as a regional leader with a lot of cash to finance whatever the asian country wants. 6 doesn't qualify beacuse removing yourself completly from TPP removes any ability to change TPP. Yeah, this is the previously mentioned "any deal no matter how shitty is ok because it's better than China." It makes the assumptions that that is indeed better to be subservient to corporate interests, that you can actually stop China from investing, and that this is the deal you have to use. It's complete bullshit to say that the specific deal doesn't matter; it very much does. ... and instead of continuing with the rest of your post, I'm going to have to stop it right there. To be very blunt, it sounds like you are talking out of your ass right now and I don't really see any reason to continue. Between frequent and notable misspellings and the heavy emphasis on making aggressive and questionable assumptions, there really is no argument here to be had. I have seen some rather compelling and well-thought-out cases made for why the TPP, for all of its warts, is a necessity, and perhaps a necessity in the form in which it exists. This argument is no such thing; it more so represents someone repeating some choice popular assertions about the merits of free trade, the idea of command of the seas, the "seat at the table" strawman, rural/urban divide and the way that trade might affect either, and so on, without the proper nuance or justification necessary to be making such assertions. I really see no coherence or logic to the point being made, beyond a string of strong unjustified assumptions, so I also see no reason to continue this unless you care to do better than that. How does it remain to be seen? The amount of food production and trade that flows through the area isn't replica table anywhere else in the world. Its the crossroads of India China Indonesia Indochina Japan and Korea. Nothing else in the world comes close. The blatics? the Suez or the Hormuz? Nowhere else comes close to the value the SCC has today and will have by any metric in the coming decades. The US has the Military force to force an overwhelming victory in any of these passages. We plant 3 or 4 carrier battle groups and the US decides what exists there and what doesn't. The Hormuz and the Suez isn't going anywhere and can't decline in value if we take them. The suez is Europe's lifeline to Asia and the Hormuz has tons of oil going through it regardless. You think that the oil will be shipped through to the med through Israel or Syria? Or making Kurdistan the most powerful tribal region in the world? God forbid proposing that the oil goes through Iran or Russia. Its easier to harass ships when you arn't at war and won't just blow up anything remotely threatening. Iran could cause problems in Hormuz and there is a large port sitting there but they won't cling to power for long if no food travels in their country anymore. It doesn't matter if its subservient to corporate interests. If the decision is between state owned or controlled foreign corporations and evil don't want to pay taxes US corporations I'm going to pick the US corporations. It doesn't matter any further then that. You're whole shtick is wordy nonsense that says nothing and insists its superior. You didn't address anything I said other then to simply disagree. A dog could have given the exact same argument and the world would have understood them the same. You'd think you'd give some respect to one of the few people who defend you here but I guess we can all see exactly what your game really is. There is a decent chance the Suez channel will decrease in importance as the ice north of Russia keeps melting. So you can take the northern route in many cases. Depends on departure and destination points of course. Skipping the rest of the posts points. To be honest looking at a map that doesn’t seem generally better than the pre-Suez route of circling Africa. Would probably only come to prominence if someone tried to deny access to a trade route, a commonly accepted act of war by modern international law. The long way around is preferable than a high chance of your ship getting a case of the exploding, after all.
http://pure.diis.dk/ws/files/57805/sac_northern_searoutes.pdf
Table on page 2 has distances. Some routes shorter, some longer. Japan seems to be good, most things south of central China Seuz seems better.
Route is not open year round either.
|
On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on.
Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values.
By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments.
|
On November 19 2017 22:31 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 20:57 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Saying that the world hasn't collapsed and the skly fallen (what exactly would that entail? mass genocide?) with the presidency of Trump is a pretty low bar to clear. You are bascially saying that Trump should be applauded for not causing a nuclear war.
On the other hand, the fallout of emboldening of white supremists and pardoning of white supremists to the detriment of the rule of law and wellbeing on USA will be occuring for a long time yet. perhaps you don't care. Amongst other policies he appears to be persuing. No, because it's not my claim, this is the same childish trick from the campaign. Refuting something asinine doesn't put you on the same level as whatever the random claim is. If I called you a serial suicide baiter and said you would get 50 schoolgirls to jump off buildings in the next 4 years, you would probably be confused if after you said "no," I chimed in with "setting the bar pretty low aren't we?" Now imagine 1 year has passed and the tally is at 0 schoolgirls. That's what I'm seeing. Also, if we were to work in the framework of inevitability where anything good that happens while Trump is president is actually Obama, then so is anything bad, including nuclear war at least as far as it concerns North Korea, which is the only place that's at risk of it right now, that problem is directly inherited from the failure of Clinton/Bush/Obama. Nuclear war at least being a specific example to unpack. Show nested quote +On November 19 2017 22:29 Aquanim wrote:On November 19 2017 20:41 oBlade wrote:On November 19 2017 15:48 Aquanim wrote:On November 19 2017 15:38 oBlade wrote:
We're at T+1 year and everything seems fine at the least so if in another 3 the country and world still haven't collapsed and the sky fallen, the hysterical rhetoric is going to look bad in hindsight, it's going to be apparent all people really did was vote for a Republindependent candidate and trying to play some kind of existential problem card was not credible. This doesn't seem like a logically sound chain of thought. Just because you happened to take a bad risk and it didn't blow up in your face doesn't mean you should take that risk again, and it doesn't mean that the people who warned you it was a bad risk were wrong. It's the essence of Bayesian reasoning that if something happened that you didn't expect, maybe you were wrong in the first place, especially if the same people keep being wrong about things that have a 2 percent chance of happening, their conclusions become more and more suspect. You're going to need to specify who "the same people" are and which "things" you claim have a 2% chance of happening they keep wrongly predicting for this argument to hold. A single data point is not particularly meaningful, whether you use the words "Bayesian reasoning" or not. It's pretty obviously referencing Trump's chances of winning the election, and then mockingly estimating the chances people would give of him NOT fucking everything up. Whatever the prior probability of colossal failure is we can grant that it's not small, because if it were small enough it wouldn't count as a risk anymore and then what would we be talking about here? I'm not making an argument except political agnosticism and you should assume everything's approximately average unless it can be demonstrated otherwise. I'm also not trying to make an argument from pretentiousness as I don't think statistics is that inaccessible but one data point can have a big impact.
Meanwhile Trump is calling the paranoid nuke-wielding dictator in North Korea short and fat.
|
There are few if any conservatives left in the Republican party.
The silly thing is how conservatives refer to pretty much the entire party as being RINO's, rather then realizing the party left them behind decades ago and just faints interest to keep their votes.
|
On November 20 2017 02:56 Nevuk wrote:
This is an epic feud in the making, with racial undertones of stealing and jail to boot.
Don’t worry though, Republicans - Trump makes sure to pair his racial statements with some sort of double meaning (how many examples are there?), giving you an out to appeal to general liberal use of the term racism. That way you can gloss over the worst of Trump.
|
On November 20 2017 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:
There are few if any conservatives left in the Republican party.
The silly thing is how conservatives refer to pretty much the entire party as being RINO's, rather then realizing the party left them behind decades ago and just faints interest to keep their votes.
I mean, you get it on one level. We usually draw the parallels to how much they support by their actions that are traditionally Democratic stances. Yes, the majority did leave behind conservative policy priorities decades ago, but still pays lip service.
|
I hope someday conservatives realize they should be calling them CINOs instead of RINOs. Because like 80% of the Republican establishment has been called RINOs at this point.
Plus the criticism tends to be "they don't support conservative policy positions" (or rather, positions regards as conservative by the speaker) rather than "they don't support the traditional policies of the Republican party."
|
On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments.
Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters.
*I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power.
|
On November 20 2017 04:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 04:20 Gorsameth wrote:
There are few if any conservatives left in the Republican party.
The silly thing is how conservatives refer to pretty much the entire party as being RINO's, rather then realizing the party left them behind decades ago and just faints interest to keep their votes.
I mean, you get it on one level. We usually draw the parallels to how much they support by their actions that are traditionally Democratic stances. Yes, the majority did leave behind conservative policy priorities decades ago, but still pays lip service.
Wait, do you, xDaunt, and/or Intro identify as Republicans or as Conservatives?
I felt similarly about Democrats and then I realized they were doing what thye had always done. It wasn't that they abandoned true Democratic policy for neoliberal nonsense, it was that I realized (again) the party was shit
Think that's the problem Conservatives have. Not that Republicans are "RINO"s. I mean, Lincoln was a Republican right?
|
On November 20 2017 04:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I hope someday conservatives realize they should be calling them CINOs instead of RINOs. Because like 80% of the Republican establishment has been called RINOs at this point.
Plus the criticism tends to be "they don't support conservative policy positions" (or rather, positions regards as conservative by the speaker) rather than "they don't support the traditional policies of the Republican party."
They fail on both criteria, despite campaign statements. Call it the two-party one-party ruling class if you like.
|
On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power.
Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses.
|
On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses.
Science.
Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with.
|
On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with.
Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency.
|
On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency.
Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis.
Climate Change? Clean coal?
When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes.
As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called?
|
On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called?
The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology.
Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based
|
On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based
Fukushima ruined nuclear power, not leftists or some ideology. Obama was pro nuclear and talking about opening more plants until it became politically unfeasible due to the disaster.
Also, gas is cheaper than coal. You don't need any utopian desires to realize that coal is finished.
|
On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based
I'll just take your lack of refuting as an admission that its correct.
|
On November 20 2017 06:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2017 06:09 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:57 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 05:53 Gorsameth wrote:On November 20 2017 05:50 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 04:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2017 04:15 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2017 03:42 Wulfey_LA wrote:
Trump is doing yeoman's work in demonstrating that conservatives don't believe in the rule of law. If you aren't on Trump's side, then your rights are forfeit. In a non-coincidence, the Paul Ryan tax plan happens to embody this principle as well. Are you a grad student? Get fucked. Are a W2 earner? Then you pay the taxes. Are a pass through entity, corporation, or an idle rich megadonor? Congrats you don't pay taxes anymore. Any notion that conservatives stood for the partisanly neutral application of the laws has been torn to shreds by Trump's words and Paul Ryan's drafted legislation (luckily he can't seem to pass it). Whatever conservatism is, it can't be separated from the words of the President that conservatives put in power and the drafted legislation of the legislators they voted on. Trump was a teensy weensy closer to conservative policies than Hillary. But keep falling flat on using Trump to tar conservatism. You’re better off sticking to Moore and family values. By the way, your “partisanly neutral application of the laws” gave me a good laugh. Forget unpacking that, let’s just bask in the slurs as arguments. Trump's current* philosophies toward science, civil rights for women and minorities, and social policies are much, much more conservative than Hillary's current philosophies. In fact, the only shared liberal stance I can think of is that they're both fine with gay marriage, even though Trump then went ahead and took the ultra anti-gay Mike Pence as VP runningmate... And with that plus Trump's phobia of anything trans or non-cisgendered, he and his administration are quite clearly not LGBT supporters. *I say "current" because many of his positions (e.g., abortion) change year to year or even month to month. For example, I don't even know where Trump stands on abortion anymore, and he's accustomed to pandering to everyone so it's hard to pin him down to what he really believes anyway. Half the time, he'll say he believes whatever you want him to believe, if it earns him a little money or power. Lol at your descriptions. Yes, Democratic talking points crafted by Democrats to smear the opposition portray the opposition in a bad light. Holy cow, stop the presses. Science. Now a Democratic talking made to smear Republicans with. Umm Dems have been calling Reps anti-science for a while now. It’s probably just behind the women-and-minorities tripe in frequency. Maybe they wouldn't do so if Republicans didn't keep denying scientific evidence on a regular basis. Climate Change? Clean coal? When was the last time trickle down economics worked? I think there is a tax plan in congress right now where private jets help lower and middle classes. As with so many things Republicans don't like being called. Have you considered not being the thing you don't like being called? The purportedly party of science always tends to shout down the opposition and demand government control and death to industry. Sorry, but America’s energy needs don’t comport with utopian desires for clean energy. I’m not holding my breath for idiotic leftists getting on board with nuclear or other high-power clean energy technology. Dems like their narratives. Science has little tolerance for them. I’ll wait until your policy prescriptions are more science-based and less ideology-based
I get that you like to make statements that are nothing more then empty talking points with no basis in reality but you do realize that this administration is the one hiring non-scientists for jobs that used to only go to scientists and trying to purge scientists from various panels. That isnt some debatable point by the way its a thing they are actively doing because there solution when science disagrees with there position is to silence the scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
