Posts made by royalcrown89

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

Anyone without 20+ years of Republican-based smearing attached to their name could beat #45 in a landslide because 2016 was never about him; it was political apathy and fatigue (caused by two unpopular candidates) felt by the millions who sat it out that got him his 77,000 spread across 3 states win. A young, enthusiastic Democratic candidate can fix that problem easily. However, if the president and the Republicans get their massive tax cuts and reform the tax system I do believe the market will become more stable than it has ever been because of corporate greed and it will increase his chances of finally becoming a popular president. That possibility can only happen if the president stays on message and doesn't self-sabotage tax reform the way he's done other major issues this year.

Millions of people may have voted for a president based on entirely fake information provided to them by what seemed like (to them) legitimate sources on social media. That part is troubling but nothing can be done by that except to hold platforms like Facebook and Twitter accountable for their parts in it. Collusion is the crime…

Again, if Trump's base was 25% of the electorate, that's a significant number of people you're discounting. There were plenty of people who wanted Trump.

To the rest, you'd have to look at the numbers over time. 1) Democracies in developed countries have lower voter turnouts. 2) No one on either side has yet produced a clear opposing voice. 3) The left and right have not found a compromise point and until that happens there's no reason for people to vote for the same old same old (especially on immigration).

You blew your argument when you said, "collusion is a crime". Collusion is not a crime except you're talking about corporate antitrust laws. There might be criminality, what that would look like no one has clearly stated (that I've read), but running fake ads on a social media platform is also, not a crime.

About the points you've cited here, you're arguing that people didn't know what they were doing because they were misled. That attitude means that your party can not accept responsibility for its actions in losing the election. That attitude spills over into the left's politics creating a nanny state of needless regulations. Whatever candidate emerges on your side, if their message is, "It wasn't your fault", then you'll lose.

Call to mind Clinton's newest book so you can see the correct punctuation on the title.

What Happened: Hilary Rodham Clinton

What happened during the election is that your party was smug, self-satisfied, and pushing an agenda at odds with half the country. Fix that and your party stands a chance.

Working with a foreign government to misinform the American people is one thing, but giving that foreign government access to private voter information would be a serious crime, that's what's meant when people allege there was some collusion. Do you understand that a foreign power knew highly detailed information about American citizens and it's not clear how they were able to access that information? Could it have been serious security problems on this country's part? Did the Obama administration fumble somewhere? That's very possible. But until the investigation is done, we have no idea whether that foreign power had help or not by anyone in the current president's administration and/or his campaign staff. Mueller could find that the Obama administration made a serious error and caused detailed voter information to get in the hands of that foreign government for all we know.

This is a serious matter and for me, it has nothing to do with Clinton losing. You can sit and think about how genuine I am all you want, I don't care. I want Mueller to get to the bottom of this because this administration is not taking it seriously. How did a foreign power get personal voter data? Were they helped? Was it something caused by the previous administration? If so, will someone from that administration be held responsible? I find it ridiculous that people are so dead set on looking over the fact that serious attempts at actually hacking into voting machines were made and that securing our elections is some kind of joke. It's not a joke; which is why both parties came together and called it out and passed new sanctions against that foreign government. It's why there has been hearing after hearing on this. This is an American problem, not a left vs. right problem.

@raphjd:

Colin Ferguson, Long Island Railroad shooter, was declared a nutter in New York, so he went to VA to get his guns.

Did they ever fix that loop hole?   Declared legally insane in one state which bans you from owning a gun, but you could go to another state and get one?

I'm pretty sure they've never fixed that loophole. Both parties have been terrible on enforcing the current laws and creating ways to address the many loopholes. Some Democrats solution is to take guns away from law-abiding citizens and nearly every Republican is against creating legislation to restrict gun access to people who should not have them. I just think this is the new normal and everyone just has to rely on luck that they will not be shot while out of their homes. It sounds awful but special interests and the lobbyists are winning, especially now that the NRA and other groups like it are recognized as living breathing individuals that cannot be regulated on how much money and influence they can use on individual lawmakers. Corporations and special interests are individuals who have individual rights just like us; therefore, they have the same amount of influence as us, right?  ::)

@Frederick:

This mentally ill guy shot his best friend that he lived with for 10 years thirteen times, and doesn't even remember doing it!
He owned a shotgun and a handgun.   That is NUTS!

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/14/former-trump-campaigner-and-rubio-intern-shot-13-times-while-sleeping.html

To quote Bill O'Reilly, the NRA and many Republicans: "It's the cost of freedom."

There are no laws saying you can take someone's guns away because they have a severe mental condition. What is your argument against people who have severe mental conditions but are responsibly taking their medications? Can they not own guns? If they have committed a felony before and have served prison time, it will be illegal for them to get a gun and that's one of the current laws that aren't being as enforced as it should. Every citizen has a right to bear arms unless they lose that right through some illegal action they've committed.

@Frederick:

I think Trump could win in 2020, but I have my doubts that he will run again.  He is already 71 years old  That would likely mean Pence would be the Republican candidate.  Who would you suggest for the democrat candidate?

By the way, what are your expectations about Mueller?  How long should that investigation go on before it is ended?  Mueller began his investigation 5 months ago.. and so far, nothing has come of it.

Anyone without 20+ years of Republican-based smearing attached to their name could beat #45 in a landslide because 2016 was never about him; it was political apathy and fatigue (caused by two unpopular candidates) felt by the millions who sat it out that got him his 77,000 spread across 3 states win. A young, enthusiastic Democratic candidate can fix that problem easily. However, if the president and the Republicans get their massive tax cuts and reform the tax system I do believe the market will become more stable than it has ever been because of corporate greed and it will increase his chances of finally becoming a popular president. That possibility can only happen if the president stays on message and doesn't self-sabotage tax reform the way he's done other major issues this year.

It is a very real investigation, so there's no telling how long it will go on. This is a complex problem and the fact that the president doesn't take a foreign power attacking our democracy seriously is still troubling. Millions of people may have voted for a president based on entirely fake information provided to them by what seemed like (to them) legitimate sources on social media. That part is troubling but nothing can be done by that except to hold platforms like Facebook and Twitter accountable for their parts in it. Collusion is the crime and if it occurred and can be proven, I think many people in the White House and people involved with #45's campaign that helped the foreign power target our citizens should be charged with treason. This investigation isn't going anywhere; therefore, calling it a nothing burger is pointless. When it's over and nothing is proven and no charges are recommended, that's when it can be officially deemed a nothing burger. I wouldn't bet on that though, grand juries don't tend to just pick up any case and grant warrants to the FBI to kick in former campaign managers' doors and raid their homes. Are you aware of what happened to Paul Manafort and what's going on with #45's campaign foreign adviser Carter Page?

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

I know a few black people who voted for #45, but that doesn't change the very real fact that his supporters represent a very small percentage of this country. They are a small minority of voters.… That's the point I was making to counter you saying he's coming out stronger.

To answer your question, yes, I would be this adamant to see them if there weren't anything incriminating in them. Did you not read my first few posts

Morning.

Working bottom up, I did read your posts. I get the feeling that you don't want Donald Trump to be twice elected, is that a fair assumption? To that, it'd be better for you if his tax returns proved wrongdoing. The way you write about Trump assumes that there is something in his tax returns that would incriminate him. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that you would be as adamant for him to release his tax returns if you knew in your heart of hearts that there was nothing in them and that his releasing them would bolster his chances in 2020. That's what I mean.

Now you might be the rare enlightened soul on the left who truly wants bipartisanship and a kumbaya, but that is not how I read the posts I've seen. Either way, the bulk of the left wants those returns released because they're looking for a Gotchya! moment.

Trump's base, from what I've read, is 24% of the electorate. Not so small if those numbers are correct.

I'm a Clinton voter – not a supporter (I held my nose and did my duty). The moment the pink hats came out you all lost me, and that attitude which has kept you all on the sidelines protesting has continued to push me farther right. I represent the undecided voter. I speak with and know far more people like me who see Trump being bullied than I do the Never Trumpers. We don't necessarily like Trump but we respect the Office of the President, something we see as being disrespected.

Since no candidate has come up for the left's 2020 bid, it is way to early to call but whoever that person is, they're going to have to work really hard to earn my vote. The more people push things like taxes and Russia, the harder it's going to be. In this way, you're empowering Trump.

You may not believe me but I caution your party in how fervently they're opposing. 2020 might not go as you expect, just ask Hilary about 2016 for proof.

No, I do not want him to be reelected but that's not my main concern at the moment. I'm focused more on 2018 than 2020 because I believe the 2018 midterm will be a turning point no matter what happens. I have theories but I won't get deep into it because my posts have been too long already as is and it would be better to do with a separate topic. Also, we're still too far out from when I can match highly specific patterns between that upcoming election time period and previous midterm time periods. Next month's off-year elections will be the best place to start for that analysis. I will say this: Hillary Clinton was a highly unpopular, widely known candidate with 20+ years of negative publicity (self-inflicted more than half the time). Are you absolutely confident that there isn't some young, energetic, noncontroversial person out there who will be inspired to run and capture the support of enough people to give him a 365 electoral college victory?

Whether you believe I'm being genuine or not, I respect your view because it has no bearing on how I truly feel. I do think there's a strong possibility that he has severely misled the American people on many things and that the tax returns will prove that; however, I also believe there's very little chance that he's done something illegal such as criminally evading. As it has been stated, the IRS would have acted on anything illegal prior to him being sworn in as president unless they themselves are complicit (very unlikely). It will all come down to what Mueller recommends after the investigation is over. When that time comes, I would hope all of the left would move on if there's no there there. Saying there's no there there while there's an open investigation is a bit premature. However, if something serious is there and charges are recommended, it would be highly important to explain why those charges are being recommended. I think he should get a court order to release the returns in that instance to shut down the "fake news" shouting we'll most likely hear, or he should at least be allowed to explain what he found in the returns and how it plays a role in the possible collusion with a foreign power to attack our democracy.

@cteavin:

@Frederick:

I pity anybody that took the time to read your dissertation of pure piffle.

I spent my time more productively - by taking a crap.

Seriously though… you keep ranting about "tax returns"...   It must drive you nuts... well.. nuttier, that with Trump's new tax cuts, most people's tax returns will be as short as a postcard.

Fredrick, this is rude.  :spank2:

RC, you should have ignored it.  :spank:

Honesty! I work with 15-year olds to whom English is a second or third language and they can argue better that what you two did here. Furthermore, these children come from all over the planet, from different religions, different races, historically waring counties and they get along just fine but you two, you're from the same country and the same (sexual) minority and you're acting no better than two tranny queens fighting for a hit off a crack pipe.

You don't have to like one another but you should hope for a better future and that starts with how we each treat one another.

(quietly scowling at my computer screen atm)

Back to the main topic, what I meant, RC, by your parties attacks strengthening Trump….

Let me start again, I live outside the US. I don't live inside any of the many bubbles within the US. I am unaffected the 24/7 hum in the background. From where I sit, that omnipresent sound that is lulling the Never Trumpers into thinking they're on the right side of history is only alienating people.

I have liberal black friends here in Japan who support Trump. The more he's attacked in the media the more people like them and me go looking for the original source of the news; we've grown to mistrust the media, which leads back to this Russian investigation and the tax returns.

Over here, the Japanese media has mentioned the tax thing (and Russia) a couple of times in passing, as an example of angst against Trump but never as a credible news story. They approached the birther issue with the same disbelief. That feeling isn't unique to Japan but also one half the US that I don't think you and your party are paying attention to. So what I mean when I say that Trump gets stronger with each attack is this:

The media loses credibility and Trump looks like he's fighting off the corruption.

If you're a pro-Trumper (which I'm not), then you see the God Emperor in a valiant fight against tyranny.

Let me ask you, would you, personally, be as adamant to see the tax returns if you didn't believe there was something incriminating in them which could lead to him being impeached?

I don't know about the law but I don't believe the special prosecutor has any obligation to release the tax returns should he ever acquire them. Personally, they mean nothing to me.

I know a few black people who voted for #45, but that doesn't change the very real fact that his supporters represent a very small percentage of this country. They are a small minority of voters. I refuse to overstate his win because with the data I've been seeing (real data not predictions of the electoral college system) shows a strong possibility that without having one person to zero in on with attacks, the president is in deep trouble because he is motivating a movement on the left. Voters on the left sat out 2010 and 2014 because they weren't motivated to turn out. We know from 2006 what happens when people on the left are angered and the enthusiasm fades on the right. That's the point I was making to counter you saying he's coming out stronger. How can he be stronger when he has been forced to let go of his "best and brightest" month after month? How can he be stronger when he motivates millions of people to protest around the country against him and his ideals?

To answer your question, yes, I would be this adamant to see them if there weren't anything incriminating in them. Did you not read my first few posts where I clearly stated, "Releasing them could also take away a major argument the left has on this president, especially if the returns going back a certain number of years show no wrongdoing of any kind. It could potentially make the president's approval ratings go up, even higher than the 45% he came into office with." The public has no trust in this president and he has zero credibility with anyone outside of his base. His base is a minority of the population; therefore, he should be trying to bring in people who are not a part of that base in states he lost and in states where his wins were very small. One way he can do that is by being more transparent and honest. Remember, statewide off-year, special and midterm elections are based solely on popular vote. There isn't an electoral college this time around.

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

Denying individuals essential opportunities is not treating them fairly. Pushing them closer to becoming second-class citizens is not treating them fairly.

Hmm.. who in the history of the USA pushed people into becoming second-class citizens more than Obama?  Nobody!

Yeah, because President Obama told the Justice Department to push for changing workplace guidelines to discriminate against gays and to push for allowing companies to discriminate against gays. This is disgusting and a slap in the face to LGBT individuals who voted for this president. What is he going to say to gays who are fired and find themselves having to fight against a federal government who is against them? This will do nothing but create an uprising against companies who practice bigotry against their employees and further divide this country.

I agree!   Shame on OBAMA!  for telling the he Justice Department to push for changing workplace guidelines to discriminate against gays and to push for allowing companies to discriminate against gays!

You agree that #45, the current president, is disgusting for telling Jeff Sessions to discriminate against gays? Finally, we agree on something other than Facebook being dirtier than garbage.  :cheers:

Did you read your own post?  You said OBAMA.. not Jeff Sessions.    Maybe you should put the bottle down and give your liver a break.

I was being sarcastic. I do not refer to President Obama as the current president because he is not. Are you making the argument that President Obama is the current president and that #45 isn't? If you are, then that would be interesting.

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

Denying individuals essential opportunities is not treating them fairly. Pushing them closer to becoming second-class citizens is not treating them fairly.

Hmm.. who in the history of the USA pushed people into becoming second-class citizens more than Obama?  Nobody!

Yeah, because President Obama told the Justice Department to push for changing workplace guidelines to discriminate against gays and to push for allowing companies to discriminate against gays. This is disgusting and a slap in the face to LGBT individuals who voted for this president. What is he going to say to gays who are fired and find themselves having to fight against a federal government who is against them? This will do nothing but create an uprising against companies who practice bigotry against their employees and further divide this country.

I agree!   Shame on OBAMA!  for telling the he Justice Department to push for changing workplace guidelines to discriminate against gays and to push for allowing companies to discriminate against gays!

You agree that #45, the current president, is disgusting for telling Jeff Sessions to discriminate against gays? Finally, we agree on something other than Facebook being dirtier than garbage.  :cheers:

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

@Frederick:

filibuster of bullshit.

I tried to report this but couldn't because of the "hacking attempt" error message, but this is a tad bit too extreme to label a post you disagree with, Frederick.

Now I am curious..
why would you report me saying "filibuster of bullshit"?     
Also, I just posted that within the last hour.  You were also trying to report me yesterday about something and were bitching about that. 
Are you aware that some people's accounts have been disabled for making too many nonsensical reports? 
You people never learn.  when you get muted, take the hint and behave! 
If I was muted, I would stop posting even when unmuted.

Youtube Video

It's flaming. You've already stated you didn't read what I posted, so why continue to dwell on about it if you didn't read it and then proceed to call it a "filibuster of bullshit?"

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

Denying individuals essential opportunities is not treating them fairly. Pushing them closer to becoming second-class citizens is not treating them fairly.

Hmm.. who in the history of the USA pushed people into becoming second-class citizens more than Obama?  Nobody!

Yeah, because President Obama told the Justice Department to push for changing workplace guidelines to discriminate against gays and to push for allowing companies to discriminate against gays. This is disgusting and a slap in the face to LGBT individuals who voted for this president. What is he going to say to gays who are fired and find themselves having to fight against a federal government who is against them? This will do nothing but create an uprising against companies who practice bigotry against their employees and further divide this country.

@Frederick:

filibuster of bullshit.

I tried to report this but couldn't because of the "hacking attempt" error message, but this is a tad bit too extreme to label a post you disagree with, Frederick.

@Frederick:

@royalcrown89:

I pity anybody that took the time to read your dissertation of pure piffle.

I spent my time more productively - by taking a crap.

Seriously though… you keep ranting about "tax returns"...   It must drive you nuts... well.. nuttier, that with Trump's new tax cuts, most people's tax returns will be as short as a postcard.

It wasn't in response to you; therefore, you reading it or not reading it is irrelevant.

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

Made up stories or theorizing? I stated a theory and I asked everyone for their opinion on that theory. As you've said, the only fact is that other president's in modern history have released their taxes. Are you now arguing that no one should be allowed to pose a theory and ask for input on here? Frederick has stated plenty of his theories on here and I don't see you calling them, "fake news" or "made up stories." You simply state whether or not you agree and you make an argument. Interesting.

(clearing throat) Ahem.

@royalcrown89:

At the end of the day, you have your opinion and I have mine…

Instead of taking criticism as an attack against you, stop and think about what the person is responding to. You clearly misread what I said about fake news and made up stories as referring to you. Go reread that paragraph, please.

Further, you dismissed my (valid) argument by chalking it up to opinion and without attempting to dismantle, provide a counter to it, or acknowledge it but move onto a different point my dismissing what I said as an opinion. When I explain how defaulting to opinions is the wrong approach you treat it as an attack on you then generalize that fictitious attack into a slippery slope whereby it now means theory.

And you didn't even state a theory.

You asked a question.

You asked whether DT should show his tax returns. Not only did I answer you but I told you why he won't and I theorized how the left (note how I did not, and have not, singled you out) only helps him. You have yet to answer that.

I'm pretty sure I stated in my first post under this topic that "there is a strong possibility that Mueller has the president's tax returns." Synonyms for theory include assumption, speculation, opinion, view, and belief. Is it not a theory to assume Mueller has the president's tax returns? Has it been proven that Mueller does or does not have the tax returns? Can you show me a report saying that he does or does not have the tax returns? I can provide some links to where I got my theory of him possibly having them.

https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-09-18/robert-mueller-likely-has-donald-trumps-tax-returns
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/346618-mueller-might-already-have-trumps-tax-returns
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/5/31/1667725/-Mueller-could-obtain-Trump-s-tax-returns-without-telling-Trump

After briefly theorizing that Mueller may have the tax returns, I made the argument that he should release them to the public after he decides what to recommend following the end of the investigation. I followed up that argument with a few reasons why it would be best for him to release them, including it would help the president with transparency if there has been no wrongdoing on the president's behalf. I asked the question in the poll if anyone believes the tax returns should be released (yes or no) and why they do or do not believe the tax returns should be released.

I apologize for calling your argument an opinion if that offended you. I did take your point about fake news and made up stories the wrong way and I do apologize for that also; however, I wholly disagree with you about him coming out stronger. The base that elected this president is an outright minority of voters total. They are some kind of hybrid of Republicans who held their noses and die hard loyalists who felt neglected in other elections. The die hard loyalists are only a tiny percentage of voters as a whole, very tiny; so tiny that only 77,000 of them spread across 3 different states got him the win. They have not proven themselves to be consistent in voting, especially in states he barely won that put him over the top. The president has no control over that base anymore; therefore, those of us outside of his base can see how weak he truly is at this point. He went out on a limb for Luther Strange and gave a speech at that infamous rally only to have Luther Strange lose in a near-landslide to Roy Moore, who will become more ammo for the left nationally given what he's said over the years and what he'll probably say as a U.S. Senator. The president is further digging himself into a different kind of mess by getting involved in Virginia and New Jersey, two states he not only lost but also have off-year elections next month that are arguably seen as referendums on the his actions. He is highly unpopular in those states and there is absolutely no evidence that he has created some unknown number of new voters in those states. Make no doubt about it, he has awaken millions of people who sat out 2016 because they may have not wanted Hillary, but they hate him and will turn out to vote in the midterms against anyone who appears weak on him in the states he did not win and anywhere where the vote was close. The last time something close to this happened was in 2006 when the left got fed up and turned out in huge numbers to flip the House and Senate. There's a possibility the country is on the verge of that happening again but time will tell.

So to make a long post short, asking for his tax returns will not make him stronger in the long run because there are many other factors at play that are weakening him month by month. If he were as strong as you claim and had so much power over his base, why didn't they listen to him and vote for Luther Strange? Why did many burn their MAGA hats over the summer? Why was he forced to let so many cabinet members go like Tom Price, Sean Spicer and Steve Bannon? He's so popular, right? Couldn't he have kept those people instead of getting rid of them when the pressure began to build against them? After all, he hired the "best and brightest," right? He chose to abandon the "best and brightest" the moment the pressure came instead of "asserting his dominance."

#45 is a hypocrite and this is just more evidence.

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

As for your comments on what the left has been doing… What more do you want me to personally say about this? That the left are hypocrites for saying they're for women's rights and then helping to cover up something like this? I'm not going to agree to that based off of this incident because I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who had no idea this was going on. You seriously cannot be arguing that every single person who identifies as a liberal, including those outside of Hollywood, knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing. What about the people he didn't donate money to? What about the people he did donate money to but who have never been anywhere near him? Are you a wizard? Do you know every single person who has personally received donations from him and/or every single person who knew what he was doing?

@cteavin:

My problem with the left is that, in general, they signal their virtues by kneeling, supporting BLM, give lip service to ideas like white privilege and Islamaphobia, and call people out for sexism while – and this is key -- having sat on decades of sexual harassment experiences with Weinstein. Moreover, they only come out against Weinstein when there's a mass movement against the man. There's no courage in that.

These past years of claiming they, the Ben Aflics of Hollywood, are morally superior to the common folk is false and hypocritical. Prove that wrong.

Look at the bold in your text an mine. I'll wait.

I specifically used the words in general in the first paragraph then went on to signal in the second paragraph that I was talking about the Ben Aflicks of the world, meaning the people in Weinsteins orbit. Now, reading back, I can see that I was not clear enough in the first.

Let me fix it so my meaning is clearer.

My problem with the left is that, in general, they signal their virtues by kneeling, supporting BLM, give lip service to ideas like white privilege and Islamaphobia, and call people out for sexism. While at the same time – and this is key -- Hollywood elites have sat on decades of sexual harassment experiences with Weinstein. Moreover, they (these elites) only come out against Weinstein when there's a mass movement against the man. There's no courage in that.

Now is my meaning clearer?

The topic is hypocrisy. The people in Hollywood have been standing up to pee on the average person thinking themselves the vanguards of decency and morality while these people have been complicit because they don't want to lose their fat paychecks.

Once again, I will agree those who knew and continued to provide shelter for Weinstein because of the power they themselves gave him while also claiming they have some sort of moral authority is textbook hypocrisy. For those who did not, I'm not going to blanket them as knowing because I'm not an all-knowing wizard. My argument which I clearly stated is that a situation like this is proof that just like rape, sexual harassment is a culture with agents who keep it going no matter their justification for keeping the culture going. I didn't make that argument to counter what you're saying but to simply add to what you are saying. You asked me to stick to the topic instead of bringing up other instances of rape and sexual harassment situations and that's what I am now doing. I am not defending what many people on the left have done in this situation. For the women who were harassed by Weinstein, some who are also leftists, are you blaming them for remaining quiet instead of going against an entire culture? Who would have believed them? The current president himself suspected Weinstein of being a perv but didn't say anything. I have a suspicion that President Obama also knew and didn't say anything. If presidents were unwilling to call him out, that gives me no confidence that anyone would have believed the victims which is devastating. That's what cultures of rape and sexual harassment do, they create shelter and safety for the perv in exchange for favors and as a result, the victims themselves are often blamed.

As for other matters you brought up such as BLM and football players kneeling, I would rather not make this post longer than it needs to be. My stance on BLM is complex and I do not–-nor anyone in my family or circle of friends---wholly supports them; therefore, I don't follow which people on the left endorse them or ignores them. If someone on the left endorses BLM but also participates in racist practices against black people then yes, they are a hypocrite.

And no, there is no courage in participating in crowd condemnation which is why once again I condemned the way President Obama spoke out about it. He waited until it was "popular" to call out Weinstein and that's wrong.

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

@cteavin, you claim to be new to these parts of the forum so I won't go deep into the reason why I have no patience for a lot of those who take up for the right on here. I had a long, popular thread about civility on here and basically everyone who takes up for the right spat in my face repeatedly.

Childish name calling (moonbat, cuck, etc.) is perfectly fine with you so once again, you have no right coming at me accusing me of being uncivil when you're fine with worse behavior.

1. Did you spit back? If you spat back, then you are as much to blame. If you lose your patience, then you become part of the problem.

2. I am not a fan of name calling and do not like terms like moonbats and Osama for Obama or even Kim Jung Dung. I sometimes call it out. The solution isn't a tirade but compromise and patience and time.
   :poorthing:

Now, what say you to my comments on the left and their virtue signaling vis a vie sitting on real sexual harassment?

I spat back once I got called out of my name multiple times after trying to be reasonable to people who had no plan on being childish and constantly derailing discussions. I didn't create a tirade, I simply made a civility post with a poll and I was attacked endlessly. It was truly disgusting what they did. It wasn't like I gave up overnight, I gave up after a good while of it.

As for your comments on what the left has been doing, it is wrong. They've obviously known about this for a very long time and sat on it because of the power they themselves gave Weinstein. That's what a culture of rape and sexual assault does, it's no different than many other instances including the one surrounding the president. I don't understand what you're getting at because I clearly stated in this very thread that President Obama took too long to say something and that's suspicious to me. I feel the same way about Hillary Clinton and others. What more do you want me to personally say about this? That the left are hypocrites for saying they're for women's rights and then helping to cover up something like this? I'm not going to agree to that based off of this incident because I'm sure there are plenty of people on the left who had no idea this was going on. You seriously cannot be arguing that every single person who identifies as a liberal, including those outside of Hollywood, knew what Harvey Weinstein was doing. What about the people he didn't donate money to? What about the people he did donate money to but who have never been anywhere near him? Are you a wizard? Do you know every single person who has personally received donations from him and/or every single person who knew what he was doing?

@aadam101:

Sick people are less likely to have the ability to pay.  Let's say little Charlie Gard was an American and he survived.  He will be sick his entire life and need lots of medical care.  Assuming ObamaCare is repealed the moment he turns 18 he will need to find his own insurance.  How will he afford it?  The poor kid will have spent 18 years fighting for his life only to die at age 18 because he doesn't have the ability to pay? That's silly…..

The right is pro-life until that life is out of the womb and needs care. That's when you better put that six-month-old to work no matter how sick he is doggonit!  :laugh:

@cteavin:

@royalcrown89:

It's impossible to focus on getting rid of military grade assault weapons because the NRA controls Republicans and Democrats are split between wanting to ban all guns and wanting to create registries as if we're in a socialist country or something;

maybe it truly is the cost of freedom.

Making new laws is somewhat pointless because the laws on the books are not being properly enforced already.

Seems to me the solution is to get the lobbyists out of Washington and do away with that ruling from the Supreme Court that Corporations are People. These would be longterm goals and I don't think American people have the attention span to carry them through, so you might be right: Having guns readily available might be the cost of this version of freedom (there's more than one).

The odd thing to me about present-day America is that there are more restrictions in getting a gym membership and buying medicine in bulk than voting and purchasing a gun. How did that happen?

We got here by years and years of both sides not wanting to deal with the problem or finding a way together to make it worse. Neither side seems to want to get rid of lobbyists and other special interests, and that ruling by the Supreme Court is heavily supported by the Republican party who could easily pass legislation to say corporations are not people but refuse to at this time. Remember, it was a 5-4 decision of the more right-leaning justices against the more left-leaning justices that decided corporations are people so in that light one side was the problem. However, overall, we got here because of both sides.

@cteavin:

As for Fact vs Opinion, no, don't do that. The divide exists because people are using their feelings to judge. If you want a real working democracy, if you want to get rid of "fake news" and all these made up stories then you have to base your arguments on facts.

Made up stories or theorizing? I stated a theory and I asked everyone for their opinion on that theory. As you've said, the only fact is that other president's in modern history have released their taxes. Are you now arguing that no one should be allowed to pose a theory and ask for input on here? Frederick has stated plenty of his theories on here and I don't see you calling them, "fake news" or "made up stories." You simply state whether or not you agree and you make an argument. Interesting.