(04-18-2019, 01:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-17-2019, 01:05 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: A democrat might gain an advantage by promising to wage trade wars more consistently and more ruthlessly than Trump.

I doubt that will happen. The Democrats are reliant upon tax dollars and millions in campaign contributions and political funding  from all kinds of wealthy   people and the idea of causing financial disruption and hardship related to them scares the crap out of most  Democrat's these days.

(04-17-2019, 05:52 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-16-2019, 05:46 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Is the Starbuck's dude the one? He's the best one I've seen so far. How is Beto doing? I see he finally figured out the fact he was born a privileged white male despite feeling like an Hispanic.

Schultz is out, for all practical purposes.  Beto is more theater than candidate.  I doubt we know who is viable this early, but, then again, no one saw Trump coming in 2015 either.  Check back in the Fall, when the people running for a cabinet post are ready to cash it in, and the field narrows.

(04-19-2019, 03:10 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 01:05 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: OK, this is what this thread is really about. The British put historical markers at sites of historical events such as "Here, Charles Darwin wrote The Origin of Species", "Here was born  General Bernard Montgomery", Here, Alexander Fleming discovered penicillin", or "Here the Beatles first held a concert".

Trump supporters don't seem to be  the sorts who do much foreign travel as such would violate their ideas of comfort with the familiar. But if they did they would not like to see this marker:

I'd prefer to purchase a really nice boat or some property than sacrifice/spend the same amount of money on a trip/some trips to Europe. Now, you can spend several thousands of dollars to see that stuff if you want and several thousands more seeing other places abroad as well. I don't care what you do with your money or what you'd prefer to spend it on and so forth.

But here's the deal, if you spend your money on traveling abroad and run into financial  issues down the road don't cry to me and blame the world for your financial or   blame the Republicans because that's what poor people have been taught to do by liberals for many years because all you have to show for it are some neat/cool pictures and knowledge or emotional stimulation  gained by seeing whatever stuff that  you were mainly interested in seeing that may not be viewed  much of value to anyone else.

(04-18-2019, 08:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

(04-19-2019, 12:11 AM)pbrower2a Wrote:

Quote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

The current right-wing elite prefers that liberalism become irrelevant so that Americans can accept that the only way in which to survive is to defer to the all-powerful elites of ownership and management. Such people are closer to the sorts of aristocratic elites who dominated political life in much of central Europe before World War II than to what I would consider conservatives -- and they were the backers of local fascists who destroyed democracy.

(04-19-2019, 03:21 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: I'll blame all poverty on you, Classic Xer!

(04-19-2019, 03:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 01:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-17-2019, 01:05 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: A democrat might gain an advantage by promising to wage trade wars more consistently and more ruthlessly than Trump.

I doubt that will happen. The Democrats are reliant upon tax dollars and millions in campaign contributions and political funding  from all kinds of wealthy   people and the idea of causing financial disruption and hardship related to them scares the crap out of most  Democrat's these days.

You got that reversed. It's well known Republicans are dependent on the wealthy people. Democrats get funds mostly from small donors now. Sanders set the trend. And tax dollars don't go to political campaigns yet. The Republicans are scared to death of financial disruption. That's why they oppose measures for fairer taxation, action on climate change, reforms to reduce power of corporations and billionaires, etc. Republicans fear that the trickle down will stop flowing, making the natives restless.

(04-20-2019, 12:10 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 05:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 08:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.

The liberals that are left are in the news department, but, to my knowledge, all had departed the opinion and punditry parts of the organization.  Having a POV as a straight journalist hardly counts.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

Good for you, but you're atypical.  To be honest, many liberals are also intolerant.

Oh yes definitely both have people who do not want to listen as I have had extremely toxic lefties call me racist and blocked me when missing my point on a certain topic which left me completely confused, and on the other hand I have actually had right wingers who were losing their shit calling me a communist who is wishing to see America burn, that I hate America and they also blocked me, oh and some very religious right wingers too who were rather unhappy to the point they blocked. Its ok, I get it. They need inner peace. I don't hold anything against them for it. Kind of like Eric actually. He too needs inner peace and doesn't like to be told what he does not agree with. There can be problems of creating bubbles this way and lack of communication. But I get it all the same. But to say its all rather one sided is short sighted of xer to say this when the cognitive dissonance runs on both sides of the coin in his country as is true in most countries.

(04-20-2019, 03:49 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 12:10 AM)taramarie Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 05:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 08:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.

The liberals that are left are in the news department, but, to my knowledge, all had departed the opinion and punditry parts of the organization.  Having a POV as a straight journalist hardly counts.

Classic-Xer Wrote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

Good for you, but you're atypical.  To be honest, many liberals are also intolerant.

Oh yes definitely both have people who do not want to listen as I have had extremely toxic lefties call me racist and blocked me when missing my point on a certain topic which left me completely confused, and on the other hand I have actually had right wingers who were losing their shit calling me a communist who is wishing to see America burn, that I hate America and they also blocked me, oh and some very religious right wingers too who were rather unhappy to the point they blocked. Its ok, I get it. They need inner peace. I don't hold anything against them for it. Kind of like Eric actually. He too needs inner peace and doesn't like to be told what he does not agree with. There can be problems of creating bubbles this way and lack of communication. But I get it all the same. But to say its all rather one sided is short sighted of xer to say this when the cognitive dissonance runs on both sides of the coin in his country as is true in most countries.

Listening is one thing. Agreeing with and accepting what you've been told, heard or read is another thing. I've been accused of not listening for not agreeing. I've been accused of racism for not agreeing, I've been accused of being evil for not agreeing. It's childish but it happens a lot as you may have heard or read yourself. In America, the left and right actually know each other pretty well these days. Lots of video cameras and lots of forums like these and lots of information available to read and so forth.

(04-20-2019, 01:37 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-19-2019, 03:24 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 01:00 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-17-2019, 01:05 PM)Tim Randal Walker Wrote: A democrat might gain an advantage by promising to wage trade wars more consistently and more ruthlessly than Trump.

I doubt that will happen. The Democrats are reliant upon tax dollars and millions in campaign contributions and political funding  from all kinds of wealthy   people and the idea of causing financial disruption and hardship related to them scares the crap out of most  Democrat's these days.

You got that reversed. It's well known Republicans are dependent on the wealthy people. Democrats get funds mostly from small donors now. Sanders set the trend. And tax dollars don't go to political campaigns yet. The Republicans are scared to death of financial disruption. That's why they oppose measures for fairer taxation, action on climate change, reforms to reduce power of corporations and billionaires, etc. Republicans fear that the trickle down will stop flowing, making the natives restless.

I'm not dependent upon a wealthy person. I don't know a Republican voter who is dependent on or is at all interested in becoming dependent upon a wealthy person or wealthier people in general. Sanders pulled the pulled the Democratic party to the left. I suspect that you're mainly seeing small donors these days as a result. The Republicans are only scared of large scale financial destruction. We've been through many small scale financial disruptions and there is no reason to be scared about them.

(04-19-2019, 05:43 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(04-18-2019, 08:05 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Fox News already has quite a few Democratic commentators/contributors on its payroll. You just don't see many irrational liberals who are more interested in screaming and yelling and being rude and drawing attention to themselves these days. I assume that you're not a regular viewer. I assume if you were, you would know Fox News has several and you wouldn't view the hiring of another as a big deal. Me, I think Fox News is pretty fair and balanced compared to CNN and MSNBC.

The liberals that are left are in the news department, but, to my knowledge, all had departed the opinion and punditry parts of the organization.  Having a POV as a straight journalist hardly counts.

Quote:

Classic-Xer Wrote:Conservatives aren't afraid of other opinions. We may not be interested in them or view them as legitimate or applicable or relevant but we aren't afraid of them. How many conservatives are you aware of who couldn't handle opinions and placed a liberal on ignore? Have I ever cowered to your opinion or a liberal group who shared your opinion or a rather large forum that was packed with liberals who shared the same negative opinions as you about conservatives?

Good for you, but you're atypical.  To be honest, many liberals are also intolerant.

(04-20-2019, 12:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Here's an example where communication is difficult. In this case I could have been clearer about what I was referring to, although I guess I thought that was understood. Here I was referring to Republican politicians, since Classic Xer was discussing campaigns and tax dollars given to candidates and politicians. But he replies that he and other Republican voters he knows are not dependent on wealthy people. That doesn't change the fact that Republican politicians are more dependent on wealthy donors than Democratic ones are. And that's because Republican politicians serve the interests of the wealthy. That's their purpose and their policy.

Sanders was practicing what he preached: that candidates should not be dependent on wealthy donors, and he did well enough that this way of raising money is now being practiced by more Democrats who want the votes of those who don't think wealthy donors should run our politics. 

I agree Republicans and people in general are more scared of large scale financial destruction than small scale ones. It is true however that small ones also do affect elections. And the large disruptions, such as the Great Depression and Great Recession, are usually caused by Republican and Democrat-lite trickle-down economics policies, historically speaking. The economic cycle in general may also hinge on many various factors beside that, however.

(04-20-2019, 02:38 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Just a reminder:

(04-19-2019, 03:47 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump will try to run against a label. "We don't want socialism!" he cries. But Sanders will say that he is not a label. He articulates proposals and principles, comes across straight and honest, works well with others, and is not as scary as his opponents say. He's the great white-haired hope.

Biden could win too. But I prefer someone with actual ideas and solutions that challenge entrenched power to someone who says all we need is to be nice. Sanders is not young, but he's the only viable candidate who speaks to the young.

(04-20-2019, 04:03 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(04-20-2019, 12:06 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Here's an example where communication is difficult. In this case I could have been clearer about what I was referring to, although I guess I thought that was understood. Here I was referring to Republican politicians, since Classic Xer was discussing campaigns and tax dollars given to candidates and politicians. But he replies that he and other Republican voters he knows are not dependent on wealthy people. That doesn't change the fact that Republican politicians are more dependent on wealthy donors than Democratic ones are. And that's because Republican politicians serve the interests of the wealthy. That's their purpose and their policy.

Sanders was practicing what he preached: that candidates should not be dependent on wealthy donors, and he did well enough that this way of raising money is now being practiced by more Democrats who want the votes of those who don't think wealthy donors should run our politics. 

I agree Republicans and people in general are more scared of large scale financial destruction than small scale ones. It is true however that small ones also do affect elections. And the large disruptions, such as the Great Depression and Great Recession, are usually caused by Republican and Democrat-lite trickle-down economics policies, historically speaking. The economic cycle in general may also hinge on many various factors beside that, however.

We aren't reliant upon wealthy people or the bulk of the services provided by liberal government (like healthcare, housing, welfare, jobs and so forth) for that matter. The bulk of us are private sector people who work and make our livings in the private sector economy. The bulk of us aren't paid politicians or paid political operatives or paid public sector employees or welfare recipients or paid non profit business owners like yourself who are affiliated with political or social movements or one of their paid employee's either. What separates us from the much smaller countries that liberals often refer to as countries they wish or believe that we should be more like don't have a private sector like ours that's constantly working for us and providing stuff for us and solving problems and finding cures/solutions for issues and making advancements that improve our lives and so forth.

As far as wealthy people or corporations or institutions or other powerful interest groups having influence over politicians and their ability to make good decisions, I can see it more likely to occur and go unchallenged or be ignored by the liberal side. You see, the liberal voters tend to need or believe they need or believe they deserve to receive or feel that their entitled to receive  than the conservative side, The conservative side has fewer needs that must be supported and fewer needs that must be addressed and fewer needs that must be taken into account with their decision making and fewer issues to address as well. Hitler's conquest of western Europe went very well until he was facing a group of  staunch conservatives.

(04-20-2019, 06:27 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: You don't have the right to shoot criminals, and if you do that, then you may a criminal too and thus lose your right to bear arms.

Undocumented immigrants do have a lower crime rate than associates of Donald J Trump, although, as one senator said during the Watergate hearings, I "don't think it could include murder."

I was thinking, maybe we could turn this thread into "Let's Make fun of Classic Xer, bash him, etc., while we can!" Just kidding dude. I'm glad you're here, and carry on.

Reference of quote:
SENATOR TALMADGE: Now, if the President could authorize a covert break‐in [of Dr. Ellsberg' psychiatrist's office] and you do not know exactly what that power would be limited, you do not think it could include murder or other crimes beyond covert break‐ins, do you?

MR. EHRLICHMAN: I do not know where the line is, Senator.

https://www.nytimes.com/1973/07/26/archives/excerpts-from-ehrlichmans-testimony-before-senate-committee-on.html