• We're a fun, friendly, and diverse group of planners, placemakers, students, and other folks who found their people here. Create your FREE Cyburbia ID, and join us today! Use your email address, or register through your Reddit, Facebook, Google, Twitter, or Microsoft account.

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

giff57

Corn Burning Fool
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
5,393
Points
32
I had hoped that America could wash away this wretched stain by a vigorous defeat of the administration in the fall 2020 general elections. While I fully hope that happens, I have concluded that impeachment is essential in the meantime. This president and his corrupt administration must be shown that America will not stand by and watch our national ideals sullied without a fight. Yes, I know a Republican Senate will never vote to convict, but impeachment matters if only to show that no one, not even a president, is above the law.
I completely disagree. The middle independent majority could care less about impeachment. I believe doing so, hands Trump another term. The House needs to write bills that these people want. The vast majority of people just want our legislators to get to work. Send the Senate bills to lower health care and drug costs. Drop the age to get Medicare to 60 or 55. That puts healthier people in that pool and takes sicker people out of the private insurance pool. Make heath care costs transparent. Its the only thing we buy before we know what it costs.

This is what people are worried about, try to fix it and let the Senate keep blocking bills people want.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Moderator
Messages
12,320
Points
38
giff - that's the best recipe for showing the true colors of the problematic Senators for ammo in the next election campaign cycle.

One would just need to say "Why you block objective goods?" over and over and let the blockers hang themselves.
 

arcplans

As Featured in "High Times"
Messages
6,419
Points
25
So the current president has one of the strongest economies going into an election cycle ever, and what does he do? Slaps a shit load of tariffs on Jy-na in order to save a few jobs here and there, yet costing the majority of American consumers, whom drive the economy, a lot of money. I know the Dow is no economic indicator, but man, it's one hell of a way to wipe gains.

I tend to think I am a middle of the road dude. I have high free market principles. This whole tariff trade war with China is fucking assanime.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
So the current president has one of the strongest economies going into an election cycle ever, and what does he do? Slaps a shit load of tariffs on Jy-na in order to save a few jobs here and there, yet costing the majority of American consumers, whom drive the economy, a lot of money. I know the Dow is no economic indicator, but man, it's one hell of a way to wipe gains.

I tend to think I am a middle of the road dude. I have high free market principles. This whole tariff trade war with China is fucking assanime.
Western policy towards China for decades was based on the theory that if we ignored their bad economic acts they would eventually grow an economy so connected to their trading partners that they had no option but to turn towards a Western style open economy and culture. The West (the wizards at US State Dept.) was very wrong. Instead they have instituted a massive surveillance state and have established the mechanisms necessary to begin the ethnic cleansing of several pesky minority groups. China doesn't want to play well with others. China wants to run the show.

China's economy has been partially built on currency manipulation and the theft of Western intellectual property. They are a very bad economic (as well as human rights) actor and have been allowed to get away with egregious violations of international standards for decades. I see the tariffs as a good first step in a response to China's bad behavior. The tariffs are a bit like economic chemo. Its going to be a horrific experience, but doing nothing is a far worse alternative.

Hey, question for the throbbing brain. Is the APA still in bed with the ChiComs?

Corey Booker is a damn likable fellow. Obviously we don't share many common political views. However, I would enjoy Rosario Dawson as our first lady if we were to elect him. They make a cute couple.

For the record, I just said something positive about a Democrat.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Moderator
Messages
7,317
Points
30
eG,

From what I've seen, APA has de-emphasized its focus on China. I don't think I've heard much about it since maybe 2015. That was honestly a Paul Farmer thing two CEOs ago as I recall. Drinan seemed to set discussion of China aside and adjusted it to be a more generalized international engagement approach, and I suspect Albizo will do the same considering he is coming over from ASLA. I think the generalization toward international vs. China-specific is a product of pressure from the international division, feedback over the course of multiple national board elections, and pressure from the chapter presidents council.

I'm not one to claim any kind of expertise on international trade with China--I know a lot more about border trade because I actually have to deal with it on some of my projects. It's actually pretty interesting.

I'm not going to disagree about the U.S. having an erroneous relationship with China over the span of several decades. It is a relationship that has not and certainly is not equitable. But I'm fundamentally not a fan of tariffs. I feel they are protectionist and encourage bad internal decisions, that they function as a chicken tax. It is why Harley Davidson is garbage. It is why our "domestic" carmakers struggle to compete with foreign producers. They were sheltered from competition and got fat & lazy. I will say that Trump running around saying that the government will buy up agricultural products in order to support farmers, and "shop them around to poor & starving countries" is pretty laughable. The "government cheese" program post-WWII thru the 1980s was essentially a meme prior to memes existing. And independent farmers are exceptionally rare, so what this really is is a form of corporate welfare.
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
I'm not going to disagree about the U.S. having an erroneous relationship with China over the span of several decades. It is a relationship that has not and certainly is not equitable. But I'm fundamentally not a fan of tariffs. I feel they are protectionist and encourage bad internal decisions, that they function as a chicken tax. It is why Harley Davidson is garbage. It is why our "domestic" carmakers struggle to compete with foreign producers. They were sheltered from competition and got fat & lazy. I will say that Trump running around saying that the government will buy up agricultural products in order to support farmers, and "shop them around to poor & starving countries" is pretty laughable. The "government cheese" program post-WWII thru the 1980s was essentially a meme prior to memes existing. And independent farmers are exceptionally rare, so what this really is is a form of corporate welfare.
I completely agree. Well said.
 

gtpeach

Cyburbian
Messages
1,965
Points
15
Corey Booker is a damn likable fellow. Obviously we don't share many common political views. However, I would enjoy Rosario Dawson as our first lady if we were to elect him. They make a cute couple.

For the record, I just said something positive about a Democrat.
He's my favorite Democratic candidate. I heard him on Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me a few years ago and immediately decided that he should be president one day. I don't know if this is his election or not, though.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,165
Points
42
I saw a very interesting post the other day and I have not dug much into it to find out how accurate it is, but it talked about how the gap in the popular vote between Hillary and Trump was less than the gap of how much Hillary beat Trump in New York City... and went on to essentially say that someone could win New York City and lose the rest of the Country, including the rest of the state of New York, and win the White House.

What are your thoughts on this?
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
24,482
Points
49
What Headlines -

Glenn Greenwald: "Donald Trump Broke The Brains Of A Lot Of People"

"I think that in a lot of ways Donald Trump broke the brains of a lot of people, particularly people in the media who believe that telling lies, inventing conspiracy theories, being journalistically reckless, it's all justified to stop this unparalleled menace," he said.
"And that's a good thing for an activist to think and a really bad thing for a journalist to think."
Is your brain broken too ?


Washington Post: Trump says his 'gut' can tell him more than 'anybody else's brain can ever tell me'

What does your 'gut" tell you ?
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,165
Points
42
AOC said:
When we say “tax the rich,” we mean nesting-doll yacht rich. For-profit prison rich. Betsy DeVos, student-loan-shark rich.

Trick-the-country-into-war rich. Subsidizing-workforce-w-food-stamps rich.

Because THAT kind of rich is simply not good for society, & it’s like 10 people.
What are your thoughts... is the "Rich" only 10 people?
That would be:
  1. Jeff Bezos
  2. Bill Gates
  3. Warren Buffet
  4. Larry Ellison
  5. Mark Zuckerberg
  6. Michael Bloomberg
  7. Larry Page
  8. Charles Koch
  9. David Koch
  10. Sergey Brin.
Dick and Betsy DeVos are not even the wealthiest people in Michigan... Dick's father Richard Devos was in the top 500 in the US before his death, but a lot of that money was put into different things when he died. But Dick and Betsy don't show up among the elite...

So WTH is she talking about...
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,640
Points
38
I honestly support people "making it". And I really like the idea of being rich. I don't think that should be a bad thing, or something that we shouldn't strive for. With that said, being rich and being super rich are two different things. I think she is pretty clear honestly in her intentions. She doesn't want to stop the guy who makes a million dollars a year working. She is pretty clear she is looking for trust fund babies, billionaires and those who make money because they have money to pay more.

I don't have anything against a CEO making money, but our country has put a premium on administrators or CEOs instead of the working class. Why is healthcare bad? Because we pay administrators instead of nurses, NPs, and Doctors. Why is the middle class feeling like they are broke? Because we pay CEOs 200x what we pay a worker because the company "can't afford" to pay them more. Why can't we increase the minimum wage? Because we pay CEOs 200x what we pay workers and we "can't afford" to pay them more.

My family is a high earner family. We do really well. But I also can see the pitfalls of people who make 20million a year or 100 million a year not understanding the actual world we live in. If you have a billion dollars you cannot understand, no matter how hard you try, the issues of the world. You are so far removed from the real world that you just cannot fully comprehend it. I don't fault billionaires. I am not mad at them. I wish I was a billionaire.

But the idea that they can't put more money into our system is stupid. I support 50% of every dollar earned above a certain threshold going to the government. I don't think that is crazy. That threshold needs to be high though. And I would only support it if it was going to do clear things to help our country.

Why don't we put a 1% income tax or a 5% income tax on top of all those who make $10million or more a year, and put that money in a fund. Whatever it makes in a year goes to shore up medicare, social security, or some other program. Make the tax have a clear pathway to a solution. Instead of just putting it in the treasury where it will get wasted on fat.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Moderator
Messages
12,320
Points
38
What are your thoughts... is the "Rich" only 10 people?
That would be:
  1. Jeff Bezos
  2. Bill Gates
  3. Warren Buffet
  4. Larry Ellison
  5. Mark Zuckerberg
  6. Michael Bloomberg
  7. Larry Page
  8. Charles Koch
  9. David Koch
  10. Sergey Brin.
Dick and Betsy DeVos are not even the wealthiest people in Michigan... Dick's father Richard Devos was in the top 500 in the US before his death, but a lot of that money was put into different things when he died. But Dick and Betsy don't show up among the elite...

So WTH is she talking about...
Don't be so literal, mskis. We know you know better than that.
 

WSU MUP Student

Cyburbian
Messages
9,474
Points
29
What are your thoughts... is the "Rich" only 10 people?
That would be:
  1. Jeff Bezos
  2. Bill Gates
  3. Warren Buffet
  4. Larry Ellison
  5. Mark Zuckerberg
  6. Michael Bloomberg
  7. Larry Page
  8. Charles Koch
  9. David Koch
  10. Sergey Brin.
Dick and Betsy DeVos are not even the wealthiest people in Michigan... Dick's father Richard Devos was in the top 500 in the US before his death, but a lot of that money was put into different things when he died. But Dick and Betsy don't show up among the elite...

So WTH is she talking about...
Don't be so literal, mskis. We know you know better than that.
I think AOC was pretty clearly using hyperbole.

The DeVos family is still worth probably about $5 billion+. If that's not "elite" we have very different meanings of the word.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,165
Points
42
I honestly support people "making it". And I really like the idea of being rich. I don't think that should be a bad thing, or something that we shouldn't strive for. With that said, being rich and being super rich are two different things. I think she is pretty clear honestly in her intentions. She doesn't want to stop the guy who makes a million dollars a year working. She is pretty clear she is looking for trust fund babies, billionaires and those who make money because they have money to pay more.

I don't have anything against a CEO making money, but our country has put a premium on administrators or CEOs instead of the working class. Why is healthcare bad? Because we pay administrators instead of nurses, NPs, and Doctors. Why is the middle class feeling like they are broke? Because we pay CEOs 200x what we pay a worker because the company "can't afford" to pay them more. Why can't we increase the minimum wage? Because we pay CEOs 200x what we pay workers and we "can't afford" to pay them more.

My family is a high earner family. We do really well. But I also can see the pitfalls of people who make 20million a year or 100 million a year not understanding the actual world we live in. If you have a billion dollars you cannot understand, no matter how hard you try, the issues of the world. You are so far removed from the real world that you just cannot fully comprehend it. I don't fault billionaires. I am not mad at them. I wish I was a billionaire.

But the idea that they can't put more money into our system is stupid. I support 50% of every dollar earned above a certain threshold going to the government. I don't think that is crazy. That threshold needs to be high though. And I would only support it if it was going to do clear things to help our country.

Why don't we put a 1% income tax or a 5% income tax on top of all those who make $10million or more a year, and put that money in a fund. Whatever it makes in a year goes to shore up medicare, social security, or some other program. Make the tax have a clear pathway to a solution. Instead of just putting it in the treasury where it will get wasted on fat.
I have often wondered about about the ultra wealthy and everyone else and that can really be done about it and frankly, I think part of it has to do with the way deductions work and social acceptance. So many people hate the Koch brothers, but how many of their products sit on the shelves of our homes? People don't like how wealthy the Tech giants are, but we still use all their products. Back in the day people would strike against using a product that they don't believe in. I don't care that people won't eat at Chick Fil A because of their stance on some things. However, I applaud their willingness to do so. But all too often we just want the Government to do something about it instead of doing something ourselves.

Don't be so literal, mskis. We know you know better than that.
I just think it is funny how absurd some of her comments are. I actually support some of the reasons behind her beliefs, just not the means to get there.

I think AOC was pretty clearly using hyperbole.

The DeVos family is still worth probably about $5 billion+. If that's not "elite" we have very different meanings of the word.
AOC does not know what a hyperbole is... And while Dick and Betsy are not worth nearly that much, although the "family" is because of Dick's dad, I agree that they live a different life than 99% of Americans.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,640
Points
38
I have often wondered about about the ultra wealthy and everyone else and that can really be done about it and frankly, I think part of it has to do with the way deductions work and social acceptance. So many people hate the Koch brothers, but how many of their products sit on the shelves of our homes? People don't like how wealthy the Tech giants are, but we still use all their products. Back in the day people would strike against using a product that they don't believe in. I don't care that people won't eat at Chick Fil A because of their stance on some things. However, I applaud their willingness to do so. But all too often we just want the Government to do something about it instead of doing something ourselves.
Which is the point of government... they help us when we can't help ourselves. Me not using Google isn't going to stop Sergei Brin from being a billionaire. That isn't the point. The point isn't to stop people from being billionaires. The point is to have those who have more than they need (which is obviously a sticky thing to say) pay more. It also is about balancing out a system that gives tremendous priority to those who are very wealthy.

If you take a dollar from me per day I probably wouldn't notice it over a year. You take a dollar from someone who make minimum wage and they will notice. You could take $10,000 from a billionaire a day and they likely wouldn't notice. The point is the scale at which someone has opportunities to use their money. Once you become a billionaire money is no longer necessary to obtain. You have more than you can ever use reasonably.

I don't see how our society begins to rethink our priorities related to income disparity if people like AOC are not talking about it. Our economy is great and we have terrible income disparity. At some point in the future that will cause our economy to not be good. Why shouldn't we talk about opportunities to change that priority when things are good instead of bad? So we can make sound, rational choices instead of quick easy ones.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,416
Points
35
It's just a messed up tax system. We can argue progressive and recessive policy all day, but I feel like people making more than me should pay relatively more than me and the same goes for people making less. You hear all these great stories of super rich people paying zero taxes because of loop holes. Can we just get rid of the loop holes?
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Moderator
Messages
10,988
Points
32
I began reading the Mueller Report last night and it is pretty depressing. I'm some 60 pages in and so far I haven't seen any "total exoneration" whatsoever, not even hinted.

I'll keep y'all updated as I read more.:rolleyes:
 

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
5,651
Points
22
I began reading the Mueller Report last night and it is pretty depressing. I'm some 60 pages in and so far I haven't seen any "total exoneration" whatsoever, not even hinted.

I'll keep y'all updated as I read more.:rolleyes:
I mean there is a reason why Mueller declined to exonerate Trump. There's also a reason why he refused to say he was clearly guilty too. There just wasn't enough evidence on either side. I respect Mueller quite a bit. He's always been a good lawman and really doesn't seem swayed by partisan politics. He oversaw the prosecutions of Noriega, the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, and the case against John Gotti.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,165
Points
42
Which is the point of government... they help us when we can't help ourselves. Me not using Google isn't going to stop Sergei Brin from being a billionaire. That isn't the point. The point isn't to stop people from being billionaires. The point is to have those who have more than they need (which is obviously a sticky thing to say) pay more. It also is about balancing out a system that gives tremendous priority to those who are very wealthy.

If you take a dollar from me per day I probably wouldn't notice it over a year. You take a dollar from someone who make minimum wage and they will notice. You could take $10,000 from a billionaire a day and they likely wouldn't notice. The point is the scale at which someone has opportunities to use their money. Once you become a billionaire money is no longer necessary to obtain. You have more than you can ever use reasonably.

I don't see how our society begins to rethink our priorities related to income disparity if people like AOC are not talking about it. Our economy is great and we have terrible income disparity. At some point in the future that will cause our economy to not be good. Why shouldn't we talk about opportunities to change that priority when things are good instead of bad? So we can make sound, rational choices instead of quick easy ones.

For the most part, I don't disagree with you and without question the current system we have is rigged to favor the ultra-wealthy and screw the middle class... sad part is neither Democrat nor Republic seems to be willing to do anything about it.

However I think that as a society, we should do more about who we give our money to, and more so, what do we do that earns other people money. Take Facebook for example. We don't pay for it... it produces nothing... and Zuckerberg is worth how much? Why, because we are captive audiences for advertisers who give him money. Companies pay big money for Superbowl ads because they know people are going to be watching. We don't pay to watch the big game with our wallets, but our eyes add value. If no one watches it, no one is going to pay that much for a 30 second commerical.

As for AOC... she needs to hire a publicist or something.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
13,416
Points
35
I go with what an IT guy told me with The Facebook and other junk. If you're not paying for the product, you are the product.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,640
Points
38
For the most part, I don't disagree with you and without question the current system we have is rigged to favor the ultra-wealthy and screw the middle class... sad part is neither Democrat nor Republic seems to be willing to do anything about it.
I would certainly say the democrats are doing more than the republicans. Probably by a huge margin. Trumps tax cuts are a perfect example. I'm not sure you can give me an example where Republicans have gone after big business or the super wealthy. I can probably get a couple things listed if you want to hear what Democrats have done.

However I think that as a society, we should do more about who we give our money to, and more so, what do we do that earns other people money. Take Facebook for example. We don't pay for it... it produces nothing... and Zuckerberg is worth how much? Why, because we are captive audiences for advertisers who give him money. Companies pay big money for Superbowl ads because they know people are going to be watching. We don't pay to watch the big game with our wallets, but our eyes add value. If no one watches it, no one is going to pay that much for a 30 second commerical.
That is nice in concept, but the reality is we have people who follow the crowd. Why do you think Fox News or MSNBC does well? It isn't because they are good at news, it is because people WANT to follow that crowd. When that occurs, government needs to step in and force people to act differently. We can scream "government intervention!", but something has to force us to change. We aren't going to just do it.

As for AOC... she needs to hire a publicist or something.
I think she is doing pretty well for herself without one. She is abrasive, but I would guess her likeables are higher than Trumps for their own parties.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
24,482
Points
49
A Would-Be Trump Aide’s Demands: A Jet on Call, a Future Cabinet Post and More


Kris Kobach’s Conditions for Becoming Immigration Czar
Mr. Kobach submitted the following list of demands during discussions for an administration post.
1. Office in the West Wing.
2. Walk-in privileges with the president.
3. Assistant to the President rank - at highest pay level for WH senior staff.
4. Staff of 7 people (2 attorneys, 2 research analysts, 1 scheduler, 1 media person, 1 assistant).
5. POTUS sits down individually with Czar and the secretaries of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, Ag, Interior, and Commerce, and tells each of the Secretaries to follow the directives of the Czar without delay, subject to appeal to the President in cases of disagreement. My comment - right an assistant ? to the president tells a cabinet secretary to jump ?
6. 24/7 access to either a DHS or DOD jet. Czar must be on the border every week.
7. Ability to spend weekends in KS with family on way from border back to DC, unless POTUS needs Czar elsewhere.
8. Security detail if deemed necessary after security review.
9. Serve as the face of Trump immigration policy - the principal spokesman on television and in the media.
10. Promise that by November 1, 2019, the president will nominate Kris Kobach to be DHS Secretary, unless Kobach wishes to continue in Czar position.
Have you ever made a list of job demands before you had the job ?
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,165
Points
42
West Michigan Congressman Justin Amash is now saying that Trump should be impeached and is now facing a challenger for the GOP primary.

What are your thoughts? Will more Republicans go against the party and call for Trump to be impeached?
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Messages
26,542
Points
53
West Michigan Congressman Justin Amash is now saying that Trump should be impeached and is now facing a challenger for the GOP primary.

What are your thoughts? Will more Republicans go against the party and call for Trump to be impeached?
Yes, Trump should be impeached for the several instances of obstruction detailed in the Mueller report. That said, I explained previously up-thread why I think politically impeachment is not a great idea in this case. I don't foresee additional Republicans going against the party and joining in the calls for impeachment.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
11,503
Points
34
West Michigan Congressman Justin Amash is now saying that Trump should be impeached and is now facing a challenger for the GOP primary.

What are your thoughts? Will more Republicans go against the party and call for Trump to be impeached?

Should they? Yes.
Will they? No.




Who is the sitting judge who could get to hear tRump's appeal? Merrick Garland. Karma much!?!?!?!
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,640
Points
38
What are your thoughts? Will more Republicans go against the party and call for Trump to be impeached?
No. We don't have parties of morality, we have parties who are more interested in their own party than our country. I say that about both D's and R's.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,640
Points
38
Ben Carson is an embarrassment. I don't care if you like Trump or not, you have to look at his testimony as a clear indication that he not only doesn't understand the job he has been in for over a year, but he doesn't really care to learn about it either.

I think that even if you look at Trump separately, the real trouble is the people that he has surrounded himself with. Unqualified and generally "friends" instead of experts in their field.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
11,503
Points
34
Ben Carson is an embarrassment. I don't care if you like Trump or not, you have to look at his testimony as a clear indication that he not only doesn't understand the job he has been in for over a year, but he doesn't really care to learn about it either.

I think that even if you look at Trump separately, the real trouble is the people that he has surrounded himself with. Unqualified and generally "friends" instead of experts in their field.

Yes men, every one of them.


I want to send ole Ben a case of Oreo cookies.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,165
Points
42
Ben Carson is an embarrassment. I don't care if you like Trump or not, you have to look at his testimony as a clear indication that he not only doesn't understand the job he has been in for over a year, but he doesn't really care to learn about it either.

I think that even if you look at Trump separately, the real trouble is the people that he has surrounded himself with. Unqualified and generally "friends" instead of experts in their field.
I wonder of Trump felt that he owed Carson a favor or something based on the primaries. If I had to have brain surgery, I would want Carson to do the operation. If I had to sell my house, I would not want him anywhere near it. Ben Carson is a phenominal success story of personal determination to achieve greatness in a very specific aspect of life.... Anything Planning or HUD related is so far out of his wheelhouse that it is destroying any credibility that he has.

I wanted to like him when he announced he was running for president and I think that when it comes to the federal government, there might have been places that he would have been very successful... like surgeon general... but he has no qualifications to do what he is doing. But that is par for the course in this administration.
 

Veloise

Cyburbian
Messages
5,518
Points
27
Proud of PP, Progress Michigan, ACLU, and a college student network for whipping up a protest seemingly overnight. This was one of hundreds all across the country.




It didn't hurt that this visitor already had a book tour stop planned for Ann Arbor.

 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Messages
26,542
Points
53
Ben Carson is an embarrassment. I don't care if you like Trump or not, you have to look at his testimony as a clear indication that he not only doesn't understand the job he has been in for over a year, but he .
Neil deGrasse Tyson mentioned Ben Carson in last night's lecture. He didn't have anything complimentary to say about him.

 

Veloise

Cyburbian
Messages
5,518
Points
27

Dan

Dear Leader
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
17,341
Points
53
The more I read about him, the more I like Pete Buttigieg. I was a Hickenlooper fan, but I don't think he has much of a chance of making it past the first week or so of the primary.

Others that have made the cut of "Yeah, I'd consider voting for them by the time of the New York primary" -- Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Julian Castro, and Elizabeth Warren.
 

WSU MUP Student

Cyburbian
Messages
9,474
Points
29
The more I read about him, the more I like Pete Buttigieg. I was a Hickenlooper fan, but I don't think he has much of a chance of making it past the first week or so of the primary.

Others that have made the cut of "Yeah, I'd consider voting for them by the time of the New York primary" -- Bernie Sanders, Beto O'Rourke, Julian Castro, and Elizabeth Warren.

I liked Hickenlooper just for the beer connection and the fact that he seems to be pretty moderate in most things but I had the chance to meet him a couple of years ago and that guy is weird. Not necessarily in a bad way, just lots of energy and positivity and motivation and he sort of reminded me of a slightly lower energy version of Leslie Knope. Maybe it was a Colorado thing that I just wasn't used to?
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
19,165
Points
42
The more I read about the founding of the United States, the more I think the founding fathers would be like WTF. Not just about who is in the WH, but the whole thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JNA

Hink

OH....IO
Moderator
Messages
14,640
Points
38
The more I read about the founding of the United States, the more I think the founding fathers would be like WTF. Not just about who is in the WH, but the whole thing.
I find it funny that we as a country care what the founding father's think about anything today. There are lots of discussions that start with that line. The idea that men 200+ years ago would be able to envision a country in 200 years is stupid. They couldn't, and they didn't. The documents they signed are not infallible, nor is our constitution or any other document. The courts have made whatever the founding father's thought pointless anyways, they have just interpreted those documents for today's time.

I think we go back to the Founding Father's because we seem to remember them as respectable and wise. Instead, we should be forcing our currently elected officials to make respectable and wise choices based on the context of the world we live in today. I get we have legal documents that force us to follow certain rules and laws. But we also have chambers of government that are elected to change those rules and laws, and where necessary amend our constitution to cover the current world we live in. Instead we take these old documents and these old men and try and pretend that they knew about the internet and 3D printed guns and would have had thoughts on them....
 

el Guapo

Capitalist
Messages
5,985
Points
29
I want to send ole Ben a case of Oreo cookies.
Well that's just some hateful shit you posted right there. What's wrong with you?

I find it funny that we as a country care what the founding father's think about anything today. There are lots of discussions that start with that line. The idea that men 200+ years ago would be able to envision a country in 200 years is stupid. They couldn't, and they didn't. The documents they signed are not infallible, nor is our constitution or any other document. The courts have made whatever the founding father's thought pointless anyways, they have just interpreted those documents for today's time.

I think we go back to the Founding Father's because we seem to remember them as respectable and wise. Instead, we should be forcing our currently elected officials to make respectable and wise choices based on the context of the world we live in today. I get we have legal documents that force us to follow certain rules and laws. But we also have chambers of government that are elected to change those rules and laws, and where necessary amend our constitution to cover the current world we live in. Instead we take these old documents and these old men and try and pretend that they knew about the internet and 3D printed guns and would have had thoughts on them....
Wow. I'm not sure you get it. The rules and the philosophies of government (as eloquently expressed by those old white guys) relating to our national founding and the origins of the US Constiution are well documented and easily discernable.

Those rules adapt to change quite well, unless you are hell bent on taking a bunch of extra constitutional shortcuts, like you seem to favor.

Your constitutional rights are essentially an academic matter at this point, precisely because of people who thought just like you. So, enjoy your lords and please them well, or suffer their displeasure, because we are now living under the rule of men, instead of the rule of law.
 
Last edited:

Veloise

Cyburbian
Messages
5,518
Points
27
I find it funny that we as a country care what the founding father's think about anything today. There are lots of discussions that start with that line. The idea that men 200+ years ago would be able to envision a country in 200 years is stupid. They couldn't, and they didn't. The documents they signed are not infallible, nor is our constitution or any other document. The courts have made whatever the founding father's thought pointless anyways, they have just interpreted those documents for today's time.

I think we go back to the Founding Father's because we seem to remember them as respectable and wise. Instead, we should be forcing our currently elected officials to make respectable and wise choices based on the context of the world we live in today. I get we have legal documents that force us to follow certain rules and laws. But we also have chambers of government that are elected to change those rules and laws, and where necessary amend our constitution to cover the current world we live in. Instead we take these old documents and these old men and try and pretend that they knew about the internet and 3D printed guns and would have had thoughts on them....
As an unwilling constituent of Justin Amash, who routinely votes down bills supporting vets and health care and contemporary issues, I agree.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
24,482
Points
49
Was not sure where to post this -

City says private border wall didn't have a building permit and orders construction to 'cease and desist'

The project doesn't have proper permits to proceed because an application filed was incomplete,
"My understanding is that city ordinance only allows a wall up to six feet tall, and this far exceeds that,"

"There is no political motivation on the part of the city, simply our interest in having our code and ordinances complied with," she said.
"This applicant is not being treated any differently from any other applicant in that all applicants are expected to comply with the law. We don't selectively enforce the law, do not show favoritism or ignore our own laws."
 

gtpeach

Cyburbian
Messages
1,965
Points
15
Well that's just some hateful shit you posted right there. What's wrong with you?
This may be a confusion regarding Ben Carson's recent flub while speaking to Congress where he got REO mixed up and said "oreo" versus using the word "oreo" as a derogatory term for a black person that "acts white."

I'm assuming Planit wanted to send Oreos based on the former, not the latter.
 

TOFB

Cyburbian
Messages
2,109
Points
21
Top