Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
January 19, 2017, 06:35:20 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... 294
1876  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: If Woodrow Wilson were alive today, which party would he be affiliated with? on: November 13, 2014, 10:27:31 pm
Wilson was not really "blatantly racist"-certainly not compared to most other white Southerners of his time, or even many white Northerners. Not saying he was by any means a saint, and yes he had Southern sympathies. But that didn't mean he was a neo-Confederate or like a Klansman or whatever.

To the extent that Wilson was racist, I would argue that it was more implicit with him-like many educated white elites today, actually, of any party or ideology.

Anyway, he basically pioneered the modern Democratic Party's emphasis on pragmatic reform of institutions, and greatly expanded the then-small welfare state. Plus, his foreign policy was the definition of internationalism. I don't see a strong case for him being a Republican today.
1877  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Rand Paul on ISIS response: 'This war is now illegal' on: November 13, 2014, 10:21:07 pm
I do not recall the amendment to the Constitution that granted the Iraqi parliament the war powers delegated to Congress.

Again, that's not what anyone said. Iraq (our ally, legally speaking) is under attack. The President has the right to use force to defend them. I'm sorry, but you just aren't going to get around this.

Can you point to a provision that says that the President can go to war unilaterally so long as Iraq is under attack? Treaties do not count, as the Constitution is theoretically the highest law of the land, and thus could only be legally superseded by an amendment process.

Actually, Congress has been authorizing the use of force going all the way back to the Quasi War with France without using a formal "declaration of war".  It's not just the war powers clause but also the power "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;" that is applicable when it comes to the use of force.

Fair enough, but where is the Congressional authorization for force against these landlocked pirates called ISIS?

Good question. Why can't Congress get its sh*t together?
1878  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Hillary Clinton on: November 13, 2014, 10:14:32 pm
"The intelligence community" is not monolithic. From what I understand, the CIA was under a lot of pressure to tow the administration line, particularly from the Pentagon and the Office of the Vice President. Douglas Feith even had a special office that was dedicated to recycling intel from dubious-at-best sources.

Anyway, a lot of people were warning the Bush administration not to go into Iraq, but those warnings were ignored or scoffed at. Worse, the Republican Party used support of the war as a litmus test for patriotism, and successfully persuaded a majority of the American public that the  invasion of Iraq was a necessary part of the Global War on Terror (despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and did not pose an imminent threat to the US or its interests). This was particularly relevant in the 2002 election cycle, when anyone who dared oppose the war was called a terrorist-enabler. Therefore, Hillary and other Democrats'  lack of moral courage may be distressing, but it's somewhat understandable,  considering the context of the time.

1879  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Which Vice President came to the office most prepared and qualified? on: November 13, 2014, 10:17:02 am

This, unfortunately.
1880  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Alexander Hamilton on: November 12, 2014, 05:36:48 pm

Also he cannot by definition be the worst of the founders, considering that he did not own hundreds of human beings as property and was not a supporter of slave-holder agrarianism.

You may be correct about quantity, but I do not believe that Hamilton was entirely innocent of chattel slavery. http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2011_winter_spring/hamilton-and-slavery.html

In any case, individuals ought to be assessed based on the context of their time period. I suppose you would condemn Jefferson for being homophobic in addition to being a slaveholder? Was the Magna Carta a horrible document since its crafters all "owned" serfs?

Whereas chattel slavery had unfortunately been a part of American colonial life for nearly two hundred years at the time period, Alexander Hamilton existed in a time period in which the colonies had already revolted against British mercantilist policies, and did more than any other individual to implement those very same British mercantilist policies that had been rejected.

Chattel slavery as practiced in the Americas was among the most cruel, barbaric, inhumane, and downright evil institutions ever created. And it was controversial even in Jefferson's day. Don't make excuses for it.
1881  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Would you rather live in Dublin or Belfast? on: November 12, 2014, 05:34:25 pm
Belfast of course

1882  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Describe the likely political views of the previous hypothetical person on: November 11, 2014, 09:04:52 pm
Age:  38
Gender: Male
Race:  White
Education: BA in Software Engineering
Occupation: Software Engineer
Income:  $100,000/year
Marital status:  Divorced (1 kid)
Religion:  Lapsed Catholic
Location: Centennial, CO
1883  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GOP makes gains with White Catholics in 2014 on: November 11, 2014, 08:54:45 pm
As frustrating as it is disappointing, IMO. White Catholics are ignoring the Pope's warnings against neoliberalism and voting GOP because they're supposed to be against the ACA, which is one of the most pro-life bills ever passed.

Yeah, except for the fact that it includes abortion. Apparently you forgot that the Stupak amendment failed.

 Under OPM's final rule, no Federal funds, including administrative funds, will be used to cover abortions or administer plans that cover abortions. Unlike the health plans for which OPM contracts pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8902, 8903 and 8903a, OPM does not administer the terms of the health benefits plans offered on an Exchange. Consequently, while plans with such coverage may be offered on an Exchange, OPM can and will take appropriate administrative steps to ensure that the cost of any such coverage purchased by a Member of Congress or a congressional staffer from a designed SHOP is accounted for and paid by the individual rather than from a government contribution, consistent with the general prohibition on Federal funds being used for this purpose.


The claim that the Obama administration has issued rules for "$1 abortions in ObamaCare" is ridiculous; the administration has simply set a floor for how much money per month of the premiums paid by those who have chosen plans that include abortion must be placed in a segregated account in order to make sure that there’s enough money available to pay for abortion services incurred by people enrolled in that plan.

The bigger charge -- that the Obama health care law "requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion" -- is also incorrect.

The provision in question only affects people who purchase insurance plans that cover abortion and who do so on the exchanges -- a much narrower group than the claim suggests. And people who make such purchases will be paying their private dollars into abortion coverage accounts voluntarily. Despite some puzzling wording, ultimately the law allows for full disclosure of its abortion rules at the most obvious time, when someone is signing up for coverage. On balance, we rate this claim False.

1884  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Racism Powered Republican Triumph on: November 11, 2014, 08:43:10 pm
I'm not sure how the party that elected the first black senator in the south since reconstruction is defind as the party of 'racism'.


1885  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Rand Paul on ISIS response: 'This war is now illegal' on: November 10, 2014, 12:34:47 pm
Washington (CNN) -- Sen. Rand Paul declared the war against ISIS "illegal" in a new opinion piece Monday, urging conservatives to speak out against President Barack Obama's decision not to seek congressional authorization for military action against the terrorist group.

"This war is now illegal. It must be declared and made valid, or it must be ended," the Kentucky Republican wrote in an op-ed published Monday by the Daily Beast.

The U.S. began airstrikes in Iraq in early August and in Syria in September, citing a 2001 measure known as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) as the president's legal basis for going after terrorist threats.

Paul cites the War Powers Resolution of 1973 in stressing his long-held position that all military action must be approved by Congress. The exception is when a situation is considered urgent. In that case, a president has 60 days to get authorization after military action. If there's no approval from Congress, the president has 30 days to end the mission.


This will make him popular with the large number of peace-loving Republican voters.
1886  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Most socially conservative county with a population of over 500,000? on: November 06, 2014, 11:25:51 pm
Which large (over 500,000 people) county (s) in America would you say is the most socially conservative?

Define "socially conservative" in any way you wish. Tongue

1887  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The sudden surge in Ready For Hillary signatures on: November 06, 2014, 01:44:10 pm
I know, it's awful. Sad
1888  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Oregon, Alaska, and DC have voted to end marijuana prohibition on: November 05, 2014, 03:48:47 pm
If the Democrats had any interest in campaigning on issues in 2014, they might have had something.

Maybe they should all run as Republicans without actually changing their issue positions.
1889  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 Republican Nomination Poll - November 2014 on: November 05, 2014, 03:15:31 pm
Who are all the jokers voting for Paul?

I'm guessing it will be Walker, Bush, or Romney.
1890  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: It begins... on: November 05, 2014, 03:14:06 pm

1891  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: White Southern Democrats are dead on: November 05, 2014, 12:27:15 pm
Yes, many white Southern Democrats have died. RIP.
1892  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: What happens now? on: November 05, 2014, 01:31:17 am
1893  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If Hillary runs, should the GOP divert resources to saving Senate seats? on: November 04, 2014, 09:25:54 pm
If the nominee is Ted Cruz, yes.

It won't be, though.
1894  General Discussion / Religion & Philosophy / Re: The South is Becoming a New Catholic Stronghold on: November 04, 2014, 07:01:10 pm
Fastest growth by percentage doesn't equal "becoming a new catholic stronghold." In the typical rural Southern county, if 20 Mexicans move in (which is not such an uncommon thing these days) the Catholic population may well double. They're still a negligible population

Yea... pretty much.  I would love to see the South shift to Catholicism but it's not going to happen.  They'll become irreligious before they become Catholic. 

If the South turned Catholic it'd be just as right wing as it is now. Evangelical converts to Catholicism tend to be socon extremists who just love the RCC's positions on abortion and gay marriage. Look at Sam Brownback, Robert Bork, Newt Gingrich and NOM's leader Brian Brown. In fact I'd wager that Catholic converts to evangelicalism are more Democratic than vice-versa (due to high prevalence of Hispanics in the former and a non-insignificant amount converting to my type of evangelicalism.)

I meant "shift to Catholicism" through influx of new people, youngs embracing Catholicism, and older Protestants dying off. 

Virtually no youngs are embracing Catholicism. The retention rate is terrible, and while lots of other denominations have similar numbers, they're at least gaining some converts to offset it, while Catholicism isn't. In fact I think ARDA's last survey had the Catholic percentage declining despite large Hispanic immigration which is quite the demographic feat.

Anyway why on Earth would being Catholic make people more likely to support socially liberal and tolerant policies? You could at least hope for them to move to more liberal Protestantism like in the Midwest.

Because I've noticed Catholic people tend to be more socially liberal is all.

My personal observation is that once you adjust for different racial makeup and the "Catholic identity" factor, the difference disappears. White Catholics who go to church weekly or more are roughly as conservative as their Evangelical counterparts.
How many white Catholics go to church weekly?

And why do we only care about white Catholics?
1895  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: 2014 US Congressional Election Results on: November 04, 2014, 06:51:39 pm
Two of the races I actually care about are among the closest in the nation.

Honda vs. Khanna and Bera vs Ose.
1896  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which of these best describes Jimmy Carter? on: November 03, 2014, 11:11:52 am
Mediocre president; sanctimonious, self-serving human being

1897  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Democrats and others, who do you dislike more: George W. Bush or Dick Cheney? on: November 03, 2014, 11:08:58 am
Dick Cheney would not have been able to do the things he did on behalf of Bush if Bush hadn't willingly delegated his authority to Cheney (especially in the first term).

Also, LOL at the "I'm sure Bush is a good person at heart" meme.

1898  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Ronald Reagan on: November 01, 2014, 06:44:08 pm
The ultimate tool (in many ways).
1899  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: How does this forum full of young left-wing whites define "blackness"? on: November 01, 2014, 05:41:18 pm
If you're asking if Obama is a black, then yes.
1900  General Politics / Economics / Re: Is it Possible to cut both taxes AND spending? on: November 01, 2014, 05:37:43 pm
Yeah, if you cut spending by more... the Reaganite dream of expansion eventually creating more real revenue than never really comes to pass because another recession always comes and screws it up. Reagan projected a surplus for 1988 but then 1987. CBO had similar for Bush tax cuts for 2010 but then 2008

Pages: 1 ... 71 72 73 74 75 [76] 77 78 79 80 81 ... 294

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines