In fact, if you average the last 4 results, unless I made a mistake, pro-life comes out around 47+% and pro-abortion comes out around 46%…
So, at best you showed a poll that is a virtual tie, which confirms more and more people are trending pro-life, because decades ago the pro-aborts had the world by the balls.
But I’M the one with the bias problem.
That is two of you people today ignoring what is directly in your face and projecting your own issues on me. Great.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
I really don’t know enough specific things about Jeff Sessions to pass judgment…
[/quote]
Well, “study up” (Varq, are you there?) then, for cryin’ out loud.
I just pulled a name out the Trump supporter hat. There are others, plenty of 'em ain’t stupid.
[/quote]
As I said in the section you cut off:
[quote]
Inasmuch as he praises Trump, he is a fool…except that with politicians, unlike regular people, you never can know whether they believe the things they say --especially when they say nice things about the reality TV star who’s histrionically whining his way to the “conservative” heart.
Now, in what way, vis-a-vis what I argued in my first post, are Trump supporters not by definition cretins?[/quote]
I’ll put it more bluntly: Sessions is either stupid or playing political games (i.e., lying). There is no third option, because one cannot earnestly support Trump for president and be anything other than an utter cretin. Reasons given in my previous post (e.g., he comes off like a stuttering, low-information buffoon on policy issues; he is a feminine [classically speaking, as explained] and histrionic little bitch with feminine, histrionic little bitches for supporters).
You misinterpret our feelings. Or, at least, mine. I am laughing at and unreservedly deriding idiots. I enjoy doing that – I am not remotely “above” expressing and enjoying disdain for the stupid, particularly when the stupid are toying with public interests (these being, by definition, interests in which I share a stake). I am also enjoying the ever-increasing possibility that this may very well backfire by contributing to an environment very hostile to the political mores of the idiots in question.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
In fact, if you average the last 4 results, unless I made a mistake, pro-life comes out around 47+% and pro-abortion comes out around 46%…
So, at best you showed a poll that is a virtual tie, which confirms more and more people are trending pro-life, because decades ago the pro-aborts had the world by the balls.
But I’M the one with the bias problem.
That is two of you people today ignoring what is directly in your face and projecting your own issues on me. Great. [/quote]
It is similar to the gun issue, violence is trending down and has been for a long time.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
In fact, if you average the last 4 results, unless I made a mistake, pro-life comes out around 47+% and pro-abortion comes out around 46%…
So, at best you showed a poll that is a virtual tie, which confirms more and more people are trending pro-life, because decades ago the pro-aborts had the world by the balls.
But I’M the one with the bias problem.
That is two of you people today ignoring what is directly in your face and projecting your own issues on me. Great. [/quote]
Merely a refutation of Zeb’s erroneous assertion that “most” Americans are pro-life, when it’s clear that the issue is deeply contentious. I made no value judgement. No need to be histrionic. Pro-abort seems to apply that advocates of choice are actively encouraging abortions over carrying a pregnancy to term.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Merely a refutation of Zeb’s erroneous assertion that “most” Americans are pro-life, when it’s clear that the issue is deeply contentious. [/quote]
I agree that ZEB may have been wrong with his statement, but you saying the opposite was just as wrong. You would have been off saying what you did above.
To which he could have mentioned the trend, but…
They celebrate the shit out of it man, and there are POTUS (not to mention the head of the DNC) that will not say that an abortion 3 seconds before the child crowns isn’t okay.
So yeah… If you’re actively okay with, and or fighting for abortions that could occur a half hour before birth… And asking people to “tweet your abortion”… And making snide social media jokes about it… The encouragement certainly isn’t “hey, maybe you should understand the responsibilities that come with sex” or “you know, you are actually ending human life, maybe this isn’t a very good thing to do 900k times a year.”
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Merely a refutation of Zeb’s erroneous assertion that “most” Americans are pro-life, when it’s clear that the issue is deeply contentious. [/quote]
I agree that ZEB may have been wrong with his statement, but you saying the opposite was just as wrong. You would have been off saying what you did above.
To which he could have mentioned the trend, but…
They celebrate the shit out of it man, and there are POTUS (not to mention the head of the DNC) that will not say that an abortion 3 seconds before the child crowns isn’t okay.
So yeah… If you’re actively okay with, and or fighting for abortions that could occur a half hour before birth… And asking people to “tweet your abortion”… And making snide social media jokes about it… The encouragement certainly isn’t “hey, maybe you should understand the responsibilities that come with sex” or “you know, you are actually ending human life, maybe this isn’t a very good thing to do 900k times a year.”
[/quote]
Fair enough. I was wrong by not giving the data set a fair shake.
And those people are disgusting. Abortion should not be celebrated or encouraged (unlike contraception of all forms) , but I do not wish to issue a Dikat against those who have legitimate medical, financial, or personal reasons for undertaking such a procedure at a reasonable time. I draw the limit at the beginning of regular brain activity.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I draw the limit at the beginning of regular brain activity.
[/quote]
At least you have a line man.
And I dont’ want to derail any further… So.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
I draw the limit at the beginning of regular brain activity.
[/quote]
At least you have a line man.
And I dont’ want to derail any further… So. [/quote]
Yeah. I got you. Thank you for being civil.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
This from about 1 1/2 years ago:
“proposed budget cuts could force roughly 90,000 servicemen and women to seek civilian jobs.” [/quote]
A budget reduction of a paltry 0.1%. The massive qualitative edge of the United States has not been affected.
It’s part of the military’s force restructuring to a leaner, more mobile fighting force. Are servicemen and women entitled to tenure? They rolled out the bottom percentile.
Edit: Still waiting on you to provide a reliable and credible source that puts forth a cogent case that the US armed forces have suffered qualitatively.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In any event, never confuse a populist and a demagogue. Trump is the latter, not the former. And there is no comparison to Jackson.
[/quote]
There are a few comparisons to Jackson. If I have to school you once again I will.[/quote]
Well, they’re both white, so you have that in your camp.
Prior to becoming president, Jackson started with humble beginnings to become a lawyer, judge, Congressman, Senator, constitutional delegate (he helped write the Tennessee constitution), general (obviously), governor (military), and chief negotiator with Indian tribes. He was also a successful planter. He also founded (not on his own) the first modern political party.
Trump was born filthy rich, expanded his wealth in the real estate business, became a lampoon-worthy reality television star, and has a national reputation as a political gadfly. Trump is also a political heretic to his own party’s major policy positions, but is co-opting a weak field to make a name for himself.
Merely talking about helping the regular guy and taking on “the Establishment” (which seems odd coming from Trump, given his RINO ways) does not a comparison to Jackson make.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
This from about 1 1/2 years ago:
“proposed budget cuts could force roughly 90,000 servicemen and women to seek civilian jobs.” [/quote]
A budget reduction of a paltry 0.1%. The massive qualitative edge of the United States has not been affected.
It’s part of the military’s force restructuring to a leaner, more mobile fighting force. Are servicemen and women entitled to tenure? They rolled out the bottom percentile.
Edit: Still waiting on you to provide a reliable and credible source that puts forth a cogent case that the US armed forces have suffered qualitatively.[/quote]
The military changed with the Obama social experiments and certainly NOT for the better. Also, since when does a “cut” mean that we are heading in the proper direction.
Is there anyone who really believes that in this incredibly dangerous world that we live in (which became even more dangerous over the past 7 years) that we need military cut’s?
We need to build up the military. The larger and more powerful we are the less provocative our enemies will be.
Tell me that you understand this concept.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
In any event, never confuse a populist and a demagogue. Trump is the latter, not the former. And there is no comparison to Jackson.
[/quote]
There are a few comparisons to Jackson. If I have to school you once again I will.[/quote]
Well, they’re both white, so you have that in your camp.
Prior to becoming president, Jackson started with humble beginnings to become a lawyer, judge, Congressman, Senator, constitutional delegate (he helped write the Tennessee constitution), general (obviously), governor (military), and chief negotiator with Indian tribes. He was also a successful planter. He also founded (not on his own) the first modern political party.
Trump was born filthy rich, expanded his wealth in the real estate business, became a lampoon-worthy reality television star, and has a national reputation as a political gadfly. Trump is also a political heretic to his own party’s major policy positions, but is co-opting a weak field to make a name for himself.
Merely talking about helping the regular guy and taking on “the Establishment” (which seems odd coming from Trump, given his RINO ways) does not a comparison to Jackson make.
[/quote]
Both were despised, and I mean utterly despised, by the D.C. elites. Viciously despised even. Had enemies that orgasmed in fantasy over their predicted demises.
Both had flamboyant, Type A, egotistical, fuck-you personalities.
Both came from well outside Columbia’s District and were considered ill-suited for the job of President.
Both had achieved significant success outside of politics prior to it.
Neither needed the job.
Both had populist appeal.[/quote]
DC elites really don’t despise Trump, at least not in the same way, and certainly not with the intensity you claim, because they don’t fear him. And they have no real reason to. Jackson, they feared.
Also, “populist appeal” is meaningless - Huey Long had populist appeal, but no one compared him to Old Hickory.
Also, as an aside, and I’ll end it lest I derail the thread - this is the same Jackson you derided in these same pages as a states’ rights slaughtering tyrant. Too funny.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Really…[/quote]
In his defense, eminent domain passes at least the same moral sniff test that other forms of taxation do. I don’t agree with his position, but it is what it is. Go, Donald, go! Trump 2016, 2020,…
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
Really…[/quote]
Yeah, a real challenger to the Establishment and champion for the little guy, this one.
At the risk of sounding like an insensitive jerk, does anyone else feel like people are pushing a Biden run based on his son’s deathbed story? Not that Biden himself is, but every time a media outlet mentions a possible Biden candidacy, they mention the story. Its not the kind of story you can or will forget because so many people and their loved ones are effected by cancer. Is the constant media attention to the story a run at the pity vote?
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
At the risk of sounding like an insensitive jerk, does anyone else feel like people are pushing a Biden run based on his son’s deathbed story? Not that Biden himself is, but every time a media outlet mentions a possible Biden candidacy, they mention the story. Its not the kind of story you can or will forget because so many people and their loved ones are effected by cancer. Is the constant media attention to the story a run at the pity vote?[/quote]
I think they are trying to justify why he hasn’t got into the race yet, and therefore can jump on the Biden bandwagon when he does. A candidate who waits as long as he has usually isn’t serious, but they are giving him the excuse.
Also, from their perspective, why not play the pity card, otherwise you would have to focus on the success of the Obama years and I don’t think that is where they want the attention.
[quote]Alrightmiami19c wrote:
At the risk of sounding like an insensitive jerk, does anyone else feel like people are pushing a Biden run based on his son’s deathbed story? Not that Biden himself is, but every time a media outlet mentions a possible Biden candidacy, they mention the story. Its not the kind of story you can or will forget because so many people and their loved ones are effected by cancer. Is the constant media attention to the story a run at the pity vote?[/quote]
Al:
I don’t think so.
I think it has more to do with Hillary herself.
She is starting to seem vulnerable and beatable. She seems bored (IMO) most of the time. Even when she tries to “connect” (like doing things like “SNL”)…you get the impression that she is doing it because she has to…not because she wants to. (Bill LOVED Politics and mingling with people. So his SAX playing on a Talk Show came off VERY real…as he did for a lot of people).
Do I think Biden is “the answer”?
Most Hell no…
Mufasa
