One thing I hear time and again from people who are either fine with how the election turned out or are resigned to hopelessness is that we should want the new President to succeed, to make a success of the next four years. I'm not quite sure what they mean. The success of a presidential term is usually determined by how many of their initial promises from their campaign trail they actually manage to pull off, and during the campaign, this President promised many things that are either misguided at best, or downright dangerous on a global scale at worst. As someone who opposes the President's stance on those things, how can I be expected to "want him to succeed" if his success destroys much of the progress I believe in?

I don't get what people are asking me to believe when they tell me I should want his Presidency to be a success. That he's going to do a 180 and go in the opposite direction of everything he promised? That he'll undo hard-won battles and that'll magically create a utopia I'm sure to like?

Does anyone have any idea what people are trying to say when they say this to those less excited about the new administration?

I think what they're trying to say is just a more polite version of the "shut up, we won, fuck you, deal with it!" sore winner stuff. They forget so quickly how they raged about Obama, formed the Tea Party, and paved the way to make this happen. But I think for a lot of them it's that internal fear and knowledge of just how shaky this victory was and the rumbling of the distant drums that just as quickly it could all slip away.

For me personally, I want Trump to be a good President. I wanted Bush to be a good one too. But I don't think he can, his behavior, his policies, his agenda, and the people around him is a recipe for nothing I want to occur to occur, and lasting damage to be done to the country. I badly want to be wrong about that, but I don't think I will be. I also will vigorously petition, protest, and ultimately vote against him and anything or anyone he wants to appoint that I think will be bad. That's what Americans are supposed to do. You use your freedoms to be critical to government and hold it accountable. They work for us.

There seems to be some general confusion to how government works, and the line between state and federal government.

The federal government's job is to police the state government. Full stop. Obviously, neither state government NOR federal government is happy about this being known, the state because they don't want you to assert your federal rights against their policies, and the Fed because they can make a lot more money usurping the authority of the states than they can in the fool's errand of policing authorities that know a lot about policing authorities.

It is the state government that has the power over vital records, birth certificates, death certificates, law enforcement over felonies (misdemeanors are handled by city/county level government), industry regulation (one of the fed's most profitable powers to usurp).

That is super important to accept, come to terms with, and otherwise wrap your head around, because most people think the federal government are involved with that. They aren't. Before SSN's, the Feds didn't even know who individual people were unless verified by the state.

I really feel the need to add a separate line to emphasize this. THE FED DOESN'T DO SHIT ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. THE FED DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR LIFE. AT ALL.

THE FED DOES NOT AFFECT YOUR LIFE.

YOUR LIFE IS NOT AFFECTED BY THE FED.

STOP FOCUSING ON THE GODDAMN FED ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES.

READ A GODDAMN BOOK.

From the perspective of the state, the fed doesn't do shit, and frankly, if the state is properly handling their job, there's shouldn't be shit for the fed TO do. From the perspective of the state, fuck the Fed. Fuck the Fed right in the ass. The weaker the fed, the stronger the state. Failure of the federal government takes the reins off the state, and the state is drooling for this opportunity like a prisoner looking at a guard tower.

The only power the Fed has is the power of the purse. Even when federal highway funds come down, they are allocated to the state before the contractors are hired.

The President has as much power over the federal government as Ronald Mcdonald has over your local Golden Arches. He can suggest legislation, which can then be ignored, and he can veto legislation, which can be over run. He can declare war only in emergencies, but can't fund any war without permission. Seriously, Ronald Mcdonald has about that level of power over Mcdonald's.

What about your life changed under Obama, the change candidate? Other than the ACA affecting health insurance, not a single goddamn thing. And why did we need the ACA? Because Clinton tried to reform healthcare at the state level in the 90's and failed. As usual, the Fed only has work to do when the state fails at it's job.

A strong federal government is a sign of poor state government. If your life requires federal intervention, it's probably pretty shitty because it means the state has already intervened and failed, and you must have really big problems if the state can't fix them.

So if a president fails, if Trump fails, NOTHING HAPPENS. Which is good, because that's at least stable. You want people to have stability in their lives; stability creates a standard people can be content with.

A weak federal government that really has nothing to succeed at to begin with is the goal.

And let me reiterate, reemphasize, and state one more time for clarity:

If you got to prison, that is the state. If you get divorced, that is the state. Child custody: STATE. Highway patrol: STATE. Insurance: STATE. Vital records: STATE.

If the cops kick in your door, they will be State cops. When the Fed calls the National Guard to quell a riot, the National Guard will be organized on the State level. Both Congressmen and Senators are sent by the State.

The.
Fed.
Does.
Not.
Affect.
Your.
Life.

Let the Fed fail. Fuck the Fed. No one will even notice.

On the other hand, if you're not politically active on the local level, you're not fucking politically active. Whining about the president is sign #1 of someone who is completely clueless about how things are run.

At 1/24/17 04:02 PM, Entice wrote:

I get what you're saying, but I mean people are allowed to care about the overall political direction of the country even if it doesn't affect their day-to-day life that much.

I'm not saying people aren't allowed to care about stupid things that don't make sense. I'm saying that only stupid people care about stupid things that don't make sense.

And the Fed isn't completely irrelevant. I just filed my Federal tax return. The Affordable Care Act was a pretty big deal. The Fed can regulate commerce and controls currency, and that affects the economy and therefore my economic opportunities. The Feds can force states to comply with environmental regulations etc. I couldn't get married until a Federal court forced my state to change their laws.

Yes, this backs up my point: most environmental regulation starts as state law in New York or California, becomes recognized as a best practice, then becomes federal standard.

If your state bans a certain type of marriage for a stupid reason, that state is accountable to the Fed for correction.

I'm not saying don't try to improve things. What I'm saying is pick battles that make sense and that can be won. The Fed was intentionally designed to trip over it's own shoelaces.

For example, marijuana legalization has already occurred on the state level. It's still technically banned by the Fed, but since the cops are state, it's de facto legal.

At 1/24/17 12:31 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: There seems to be some general confusion to how government works, and the line between state and federal government.

The federal government's job is to police the state government. Full stop. Obviously, neither state government NOR federal government is happy about this being known, the state because they don't want you to assert your federal rights against their policies, and the Fed because they can make a lot more money usurping the authority of the states than they can in the fool's errand of policing authorities that know a lot about policing authorities.

The Fed doesn't directly effect your life but to say they don't is wishful thinking. But generally I agree, and it comes down to bureaucracy being what it is. A big slow ocean liner. When it turns you don't always feel it happening. But eventually somebody aboard will realize you're either going the wrong or right way.

At 1/24/17 05:43 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Yes, this backs up my point: most environmental regulation starts as state law in New York or California, becomes recognized as a best practice, then becomes federal standard.

Normally. But you have an administration that is appointing Cabinet Secretaries to departments that they would basically destroy. His pick for head of the EPA has sued the EPA to basically destroy federal standards and leave it totally to the states, which is a bad idea because some states get it right, and other states are Michigan which allow people to be poisoned. Action always needs to happen on a local level, especially because you're right, local standards are usually the blue print by which the Fed goes. But if you elect people determined to dismantle the Fed and kick everything to the state level, you're going to find some very nasty shit going on. That's why BOTH should be scrutinized to my mind.

For example, marijuana legalization has already occurred on the state level. It's still technically banned by the Fed, but since the cops are state, it's de facto legal.

But not totally legal, and Sessions absolutely hates it. Trump has promised to be a "law and order" President. You have a situation where a handful of states have a patch work "medical" or "full legal" system. But it is still a schedule 1 banned dangerous drug. If they want to force the show down, Fed wins in this case just like you said about the marriage question. Now, that COULD conceivably I guess push states who were making money with it to take it to the Supreme Court to get a final answer, but in the short run, this looks like you actually defeating your own argument that the Fed is useless and doesn't really effect the States.

This is quite the conondrum to have, as if Trump fails, then we're essentially going to have to go back to square one on a lot of things including building up proverbial safeguards in both parties to make sure this doesn't happen again. OTOH, if by some miracle Trump does succeed or at least make significant progress, then that would only serves to embolden his support base and more, which pretty much means Progressivism will crash and burn into irrelevance.

At 1/24/17 07:33 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But if you elect people determined to dismantle the Fed and kick everything to the state level, you're going to find some very nasty shit going on.

You mean like slavery? Yeah, there's only so far I'm gonna go into states rights as a virtue.

Now, that COULD conceivably I guess push states who were making money with it to take it to the Supreme Court to get a final answer, but in the short run, this looks like you actually defeating your own argument that the Fed is useless and doesn't really effect the States.

Don't forget my caveat that the Fed is a police to the states, and only effects them if they are doing a bad job.

...seriously? Hoping the president fails is like being on a plane and hoping the pilot crashes. Some of the responses here are embarrassing.

At 1/25/17 12:48 AM, mothballs wrote: ...seriously? Hoping the president fails is like being on a plane and hoping the pilot crashes. Some of the responses here are embarrassing.

Can you specify?

Because I think you'll find what appears simple actually has the devil in the details.

At 1/25/17 12:48 AM, mothballs wrote: ...seriously? Hoping the president fails is like being on a plane and hoping the pilot crashes. Some of the responses here are embarrassing.

Hoping the president fails the country is like hoping the pilot crashes your plane. Hoping the president fails at implimenting what he said he wanted to impliment is like hoping the pilot doesn't succeed in crashing your plane. Nuance could serve you well.

It's hard to see the president succeeding when he's trying to upend too many things at the same time, while continuing to attack everyone who doesn't agree with, or promote, his ideals. Basically, he'll be Bush 2.0 on steroids.

At 1/25/17 12:33 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: You mean like slavery? Yeah, there's only so far I'm gonna go into states rights as a virtue.

Wasn't thinking that extreme since that's Constitutionally banned. But people trying to wiggle around anything the Supreme Court has or hasn't done (like these abortion bills that keep popping up, or defunding certain areas). Or Voter ID laws and the mess that our gun laws are. States rights are important, but the people who try to assert them usually mean it as code to fuck with some group they aren't fond of.

Don't forget my caveat that the Fed is a police to the states, and only effects them if they are doing a bad job.

That's the idea, yes. But a Fed that's of the mind to increase it's own power, or on a crusade to mold the country a certain way ideologically potentially becomes a crooked cop out to bully the states and take away their rights. I don't fault you that somebody who only looks at Federal Politics is a fool who is essentially trying to look at how the whole neighborhood is being run while his own house falls to shit....but I don't think you can say only tend to your own house, and don't care what the neighbors might be doing to fuck your property values.

I mean, it kinda seems as though that's how the country works.

President M gets elected and progress for the N people of America gets built up. Meanwhile the P people of America just have to either deal with it or try to change it.

4 (or more) years pass, the next election comes, and President O gets elected and progress for the N people of America gets torn down and replaced with progress for the P people. Rinse and repeat.

The changes that Trump makes will eventually just become a thing of the past and replaced by new ideals and changes that (most likely) will be entirely different and/or maybe even the complete opposite of his. Not to mention, theres a reason he was elected. Obviously this is what the majority of America wants unless decided otherwise later on into his presidency.

I highly doubt he's going to "Destroy the nation" like a surprising amount of people claim. Many thought the exact same about Barack Obama and Bill Clinton (and hell, I'm sure even more past presidents) and the U.S. has yet to be completely demolished. I think people aren't necessarily scared that Trump will "Ruin the Nation" but rather scared that Trump will take away things they don't want him to take away. Which is normal.

At 1/26/17 07:36 PM, sjwgenocide wrote: because the federal government, with its roe v wades and obergefell v hodgeses, was tending in a progressive direction, so the less progressive states were taking actions to counteract that. if the federal government is swinging in the other direction, states' rights will start to be lauded as creating pockets of progressiveness in a nationalist wasteland or whatever

You seem to be a little confused here, so let me try to help:

The cases you cite went through the Supreme Court, which is indeed part of the Fed. Supreme Court is the ultimate and final "last chance court" when they decide a case, this sets a precedent in law. States cannot create laws that countermand the rulings of the Court because the Court is charged to rule based on it's interpretation of the Constitution. States are always trying sneaky things to get around rulings they don't like (and Congress is trying it now with a back door abortion ban without needing to try to tilt at the Roe v. Wade windmill). But the problem in this is it's pretty easy to have these laws challenged and struck down because the situations are already settled by the older existing ruling. But perhaps these are trial balloons designed to put a new case, before a newer (and presumably friendlier) Court and see if they can't get the new decision to countermand the old. It's going to be a very long, very divisive four years I think.

But we are REALLY getting off the topic now.

At 1/25/17 12:51 PM, Gario wrote:

At 1/25/17 12:48 AM, mothballs wrote: ...seriously? Hoping the president fails is like being on a plane and hoping the pilot crashes. Some of the responses here are embarrassing.

Hoping the president fails the country is like hoping the pilot crashes your plane. Hoping the president fails at implimenting what he said he wanted to impliment is like hoping the pilot doesn't succeed in crashing your plane. Nuance could serve you well.

Thank fuck, I have been waiting for someone to come up with a simple and effective counter to that "presidential failing is like crashing the plane" line that gets bounced around everywhere. Thanks, Gario.

At 1/25/17 12:48 AM, mothballs wrote: ...seriously? Hoping the president fails is like being on a plane and hoping the pilot crashes. Some of the responses here are embarrassing.

is this just a parrot of a Facebook meme. none of the responses above you have said anything about hoping the pilot crashes, you have 1. two non-Trump supporters that wants Trump to do well, 2. a person who wants his policies to fail (surely you didn't agree with the Obama administration on many points), 3. a guy spouting very valid but off-topic conspiracy theories 4. a succinct, elegant hypothesis on the negative outcomes regardless of whether Trump fails or succeeds

what exactly is the cause of embarrassment here

At 1/27/17 07:42 PM, Timsplosion wrote:

At 1/25/17 12:51 PM, Gario wrote:

At 1/25/17 12:48 AM, mothballs wrote: ...seriously? Hoping the president fails is like being on a plane and hoping the pilot crashes. Some of the responses here are embarrassing.

Hoping the president fails the country is like hoping the pilot crashes your plane. Hoping the president fails at implimenting what he said he wanted to impliment is like hoping the pilot doesn't succeed in crashing your plane. Nuance could serve you well.

Thank fuck, I have been waiting for someone to come up with a simple and effective counter to that "presidential failing is like crashing the plane" line that gets bounced around everywhere. Thanks, Gario.

Both analogies are valid IMO. But Gario's is new to me, so mad propz.

Trump IS the pilot of the plane. The plane is the country and the passengers are the citizens. The real nuance lies in who is most qualified to fly the plane and secondly the passenger's mosaic of ideas on how to fly the plane properly. We all can probably agree that regardless of who the pilot is, it's not going to be a smooth flight. And if the plane doesn't crash in the classical sense, what exactly is the criteria for a successful landing? What if there is a turbulent flight and rough landing, where all the passengers survive but the plane is beyond repair, and future generations won't get to ride? What if the plane gets damaged, but can be repaired to 50% of it's previous level, and there no longer is first class service? What if a part of the plane explodes and the first class survives but everybody in the coach dies (or vice versa)?

I don't want the President or this Congress to suceed. Their values in most cases are directly antithetical to mine. I WANT them to fail. If they fail, that means they failed at pushig this country in the wrong direction.

At 1/30/17 03:11 AM, Xenomit wrote: You say that as though the left is actually a legitimate force to be reckoned with.

Well, Obama got a lot done (though not as much as his initial supporters wanted). Bernie Sanders struck a cord, and Bill Clinton (though he was definitely on the more Right wing side of the Democratic Party) was very successful. The Left CAN be a force and can get things done. They just tend to be more obstinate and harder to get behind a candidate unless that candidate seems to perfectly represent them.

The reason you don't see people in the center or the right protest as much as the left is because unlike the left, the center and right actually have real jobs where you work 5-6 days a week and don't have time to go protest some silly thing that doesn't matter whatsoever.

This is a completely silly supposition with nothing to back it up whatsoever except your own hatred of a side that doesn't agree with your views me thinks. That's sad, that's not the attitude the country needs right now I think. It's also in large part why the Dems lost and Trump happened I think, when people are in capable of having empathy or understanding for the struggles of others, especially those they disagree with....they open themselves up to those people rising up and making a choice they won't like, and in this case, hurts everyone.

Or protest something that just straight up isn't happening.

You haven't been paying attention if you think these latest protests have no basis in fact. Republicans are planning to assault abortion (a "women's rights" type issue), Trump has tried to ban Muslims (so that again is a protest being waged against a situation that is happening), so this narrative the Left is just butt hurt or paranoid is completely not in tune with what this President and his Congress have been doing since taking office. They are on pace to get a massive amount of policy that a lot of people don't like off the ground quite quickly.

At 1/30/17 03:11 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 1/21/17 06:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: But I think for a lot of them it's that internal fear and knowledge of just how shaky this victory was and the rumbling of the distant drums that just as quickly it could all slip away.

You say that as though the left is actually a legitimate force to be reckoned with. The reason you don't see people in the center or the right protest as much as the left is because unlike the left, the center and right actually have real jobs where you work 5-6 days a week and don't have time to go protest some silly thing that doesn't matter whatsoever. Or protest something that just straight up isn't happening.

Really? I seem to recall that the right had plenty of time to spare when they formed the tea party movement to protest Obamacare, because the conservative media was whipping them into a frenzy about death panels, liberal take over, the national debt... things that they don't seem to mind under Trump.

At 1/31/17 07:15 PM, Xenomit wrote: rant.

Okayyyyy.....?

Personally, I don't give a shit if you don't like other liberals. That's fine by me. You can be bat shit insane and I still wouldn't care. Your views are your own. You can rant as much as you want, but none of that affects me in any way. People can insult me, and call me what they will, but I don't take any of it personally. And I have been called a lot of thing, from both sides of the ideological aisle, and a lot worse than what you mentioned. Much of it comes from the far right, so don't for a moment, tell me this bullshit that the left is worse. They all have their nuts, and extremists. But none of this matters to me, it's the people who are at the political, and media, level that concerns me the most, not the supporters.

So, this is where I'm having problems with your argument. You seem to think the left is worse than the right, while claiming to be a liberal yourself. I don't mind if you have a contradictory position... I mean, I'm a Republican, but a moderate, and I absolutely despise my party because they have gone to far to the right and are playing a dangerous game for control of the country, goaded on by the far right media, which have lead to a Trump presidency. We are all going to be affected by a that Trump presidency in more ways than one, and a lot of it wont be good. I don't know where you stand on him, and, quite frankly, I don't care. I'm inclined to believe that you took your current views for personnel reasons, and you probably blame the left more for the actions of the right, instead of blaming them equally. You can blame the left for a lot of things, but pointing out the nuts, who called you names, or didn't live up you your expectations, and defining the left by them, only to give the right a free pass, is pretty stupid.

At 2/1/17 03:37 AM, Xenomit wrote:

At 2/1/17 03:00 AM, EdyKel wrote: You seem to think the left is worse than the right, while claiming to be a liberal yourself. I don't mind if you have a contradictory position...

The thing is, there's a difference between classic liberals and modern liberals. I'm a classic liberal, which in today's political spectrum, is pretty much dead center between left and right. As someone who believes in egalitarianism and

holds classically liberal beliefs, the left is absolutely worse than republicans.

No. you're grouping republicans and 'classic' liberals as centrists, while unproportionately (and unfairly) grouping the modern left as the radical, tumblrina, looting, spray paint anarchy type. what you're doing is as equally damaging and divisive as those who associate Trump voters as xenophobic, white supremacists, misogynists, etc.

That's not a contradiction, as I don't hold most of the beliefs of modern leftists.

most modern leftists wouldn't agree with these issues you presented, I'd presume

Infinite genders,

gender is indeed a spectrum, but that doesn't mean we need to create laws and national recognizances for such nuances.

white guilt/ whites are evil/ white people are the root of all problems,

completely asinine.

the modern right thinks minorities are evil/black people are the source of all crime/brown people need to be removed from America.

that's an inverse statement towards the right for the claim you made, which is equally asinine (and not something most republicans would agree with in the slightest).

there's a wage gap (there isn't)

what you're thinking of isn't the pressing wage gap. this is a wage gap.

islam is good and should be embraced

in a secular society where religion and state are separable, religion is neutral and practice should be on an individual level, never endorsed by the government. of course there are certain dangerous ideologies that stem from various religions (whether it be corruption or not) that are incompatible with most ethical systems and need to be swiftly eradicated.

I could go on forever.

no one's stopping you...

Those are things the left currently believes, and I don't understand how they haven't already imploded.

you are always going to have at minimum a bipartisan system, neither the right or left are going anywhere, or undergoing any major fundamental changes soon

towards the end of the spectrum are extremist groups that come in waves of popularity, but never completely die thanks to the liberties assured in the first amendment. The leftist/modern liberal group you are accusing liberals at large of being, are relatively new and still in their growth stage.

It doesn't matter which president you vote for. Only TWO CANDIDATES??!? Or once in a while, a token 3rd that never wins??

The game is rigged and both sides are taking orders some someone else.

Pick A or B, black or white, Republican, or Democrat. Red or Blue......it is all the same.

If presidential candidates REALLY MATTERED, then there would be TEN people to choose from.

Give us a choice to vote between 10 different people, then tell us how much the choice of president really matters.

At 2/2/17 08:02 AM, ZnsaneRyda wrote:
Give us a choice to vote between 10 different people, then tell us how much the choice of president really matters.

It's called the 'Primaries', have you heard of them, 22 candidates between two parties.

Also, I reeeeeally doubt Hillary would be threatening to invade Mexico right now, the fuck are we talking about 'they're all the same". On topic, I hope more every day the current president fails at everything he has planned, because this shit gets exponentially worse every day.

At 2/2/17 08:02 AM, ZnsaneRyda wrote: The game is rigged and both sides are taking orders some someone else.

LOL no. Everyone who has mentioned this has no credible proof.

Pick A or B, black or white, Republican, or Democrat. Red or Blue......it is all the same.

Except when it's not, more so today with the polarization of our politics. This is exactly the kind of mentality that allowed Trump to become president, and we are reaping what they sew.

If presidential candidates REALLY MATTERED, then there would be TEN people to choose from.

That's why we have primaries for, to pick the most popular candidate for their respective parties. Not to mention that there are plenty of candidates on the ballot that you can choose from in any presidential election. Truth be told though, the 3rd party candidates aren't really that good and their parties only represent the fringes.

At 2/1/17 03:37 AM, Xenomit wrote:
The thing is, there's a difference between classic liberals and modern liberals. I'm a classic liberal, which in today's political spectrum, is pretty much dead center between left and right. As someone who believes in egalitarianism and holds classically liberal beliefs, the left is absolutely worse than republicans. That's not a contradiction, as I don't hold most of the beliefs of modern leftists. Infinite genders, white guilt/ whites are evil/ white people are the root of all problems, there's a wage gap (there isn't), islam is good and should be embraced, I could go on forever. Those are things the left currently believes, and I don't understand how they haven't already imploded.

*Sigh

Son, I may call myself a moderate, but I do it out of exasperation, since it doesn't tell people anything about my views. I just don't subscribe to any annoying ideology. Calling myself a moderate saves me time and hassle, because it's an easy to understand generalization - though, I have encountered people who would disagree that I'm a moderate...

I don't put much stock into any ideology. They are a waste of time, where people are constantly redefining them to fit their needs, while demonizing others ideologies to make their own look better. All they do is encase people minds to their own egos, or to the will of others, while always blinding them to their own flaws and hypocrisies. And this is where you stand in my eyes.

You can call yourself a classic liberal if you want to, but so far, I would peg you as a right leaning libertarian, or a modern Republican, both of which can claim they are classic liberals, if they weren't afraid to use the "L" word. Limited government, individual rights, state rights.... All this shit is under classic liberalism, unless you want to be super anal about it. Many might disagree with this assessment, but it's true.

A lot of the current ideology in the US has it's roots from the country's founding, and it's uniquely American. Our founders based a lot of their ideas on the writings of John Locke. And while they were writing out the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution, and talking about "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" and "all men are created equal", many of them owned slaves, and made up excuses why they were an exceptions to the rule, but not everyone agreed with them. It was an irreconcilable difference that would eventually split the country apart.

Slavery was the greatest contradiction to the people who promoted the ideas of liberalism, or, particularly, egalitarianism, in this country. It was something that Thomas Jefferson struggled to reconcile over for rest of his life, only freeing his slaves after his death. You see, not much has change since then. People still continue to make up bullshit excuses because they want all the benefits of their ideology while making up shit up to deny it to others.

I already viewed you with extreme skepticism from your first response... There was no objectivity from you. You argued from a partisan position. You looked down on others. You took things personally. I viewed you as a self serving, oversensitive, self righteous, little twit. And your above response just confirms it. You are no classical liberal, imo, because you pretty much decided where it should end and for who. That's not how it works. As long as there is a group who doesn't get the same rights, or are treated differently, or constantly attacked.... I'm sure people like you can claim you are a victim of some sort, and a lot of this applies to you, but it really doesn't. It's all an image. You don't feel any of it.

I may not give shit about race, but I know that minorities face a lot more problems than you ever well face. I may not care about gays, but they don't hurt me, and I don't care if they want to get married. I may not believe in abortions, but it's not my right to stop women from getting them - it's their decision, their bodies. On the other side, you got white nationalists in power in the white house, bent to keep power in their hands, and blasting Muslims, minorities, immigrants, and other groups who aren't white, male, christian, Americans(or fit their description of an American), who are bent on preventing gays from exercising a right to get married, want to outlaw abortions (even for rape and incest), and treat other people as inferior, while turning a blind eye to the problem facing them, and pretend it's their fault. And yet, you blame the left more for being extremists and crazies... I gotten into debates with people who want to give individual rights to fetuses; people who want to make gun owners into a protected class; people who want to ship blacks back to Africa, or put them back into slavery....

Like I said, in my previous post, there are crazies on both sides, and, from my point of view, I can add you to that bunch.

At 1/21/17 07:59 PM, Sensationalism wrote: Bernie 2020

He'll be dead by then.