Total posts: 1,499
Depends on what “conservative” values you are looking for.
If you want a place where there is no such thing as the rule of law, maybe you should look at North Korea.
If you want a place which has outlawed abortion and has no chance of legalizing it in the near future, look at Afghanistan.
If you want a place which has strong religious values and has laws based on religion, look at Iran.
If you want a place which has enforced dress codes, strict laws, and extremely harsh punishments for things like possession of drugs, look at Saudi Arabia.
If you want a place which has very easy access to guns, look at Somalia.
If you want a place where the scope of the government is very limited and there is no universal healthcare or government-regulated anything, look at South Sudan.
If you want a place where the government feeds and satisfies only the ultra-rich and the oligarchs, look at Russia.
I hope you find these countries great places to live in. Good luck!
where is your conservative utopia?
Created:
Posted in:
the center of the universe changes location. where ever trump happens to be, is where the center of the universe is.
Created:
i dont know how the states were improper in letting people vote by mail. my impression is that they violated a state law, but i have a feeling that the only thing they did, was allow for the potential for fraud. as the law suit argues, it's not so much specific examples of fraud, it's that the current system allows for the possibility of loads of undetectable fraud. of course, it's it's all theoretical possibiities, cause there was no wide spread fraud, as even trump's attorney general concluded. so my best bet is that this is a load of garbage and will be duly kicked out of court, like all the other joke of law suits.
Created:
my understanding is that there may have been unlawful actions by governors and faulty votes. but, a state can elect its electors however it wants. so even if the election was still invalid, the states are still free to get their electors for the college however it wants, even if it's based on a faulty election. so, trump should lose his technicality, due to another technicality.
Created:
trump is trying to over turn the election, but invalidating millions of votes and win on a technicality. that is, the legislatures of the battleground states that were sued, set the election laws. but according to the suit, the governors of these states subverted the state laws, in allowing so many people to vote by mail. this is my understanding anyway, and i dont know all the details.
this sounds like it stands a chance, which i didn't think trump had a chance. it could work, if trump and his minions and the court dont mind invalidating millions of votes and letting trump win on a technicality.
who thinks trump stands no chance, and why do you think this?
who thinks trump must win this texas suit?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
that doesn't change anything. if they take the shot, they get the cash.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
they say a little over half the population is willing to get the shot anyway. so if you could bribe another one in four people to do it, we might get to herd immunity, which is around three fourths of the population, estimated.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
your arguments were illogical and had no basis in reality... i pointed out that vaccines aren't a hundred percent effective, and that some folks can't get a vaccine for health reasons, plus it takes time to get everyone vaccinated who wants it- therefore folks who dont get the shot are putting innocent people at risk. i also pointed out that no one is denying people a choice to take the vaccine (they can choose to not get the money), as you wrongly implied.
Created:
the vaccine isn't a hundred percent effective... that could mean that the folks who refuse to get the shot, will spread it to those who did get the shot but aren't protected, and then that person dies. and some folks can't get the shot due to health concerns. they are vulnerable to the negligence of those who dont get shots too.
no one is forcing anyone to get a shot... but it's your own problem if you dont get any cash either.
who cares if some religions dont believe in getting vaccinated? if their religious teachin says they can't get a shot, they dont get no money. life isn't fair... but the bigger injustice is when those who dont get shots spread it to the innocents, and then the innocents die. same way we have birth control on health care plans, even though some religious like catholics think that is inherently evil.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
it's only a few hundred billion. i prefer to raise taxes, but we can also find somewhere else to cut spending, or we can borrow. each of these options is decent and preferable compared to not doing my proposal.
Created:
this would cause many more to get vaccinated than would otherwise do it. that might allow us to reach herd immunity, where the disease won't spread any more. i mean, i know many here and out there wont take it, but they can live with themselves and the blood that is on their hands in choosing not to partake when they spread it around and kill people.
so... this check in exchange for gettin vaccinated... who opposes and why?
Created:
Posted in:
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF SUE, A REPUBLICAN
Sue gets up at 6 a.m. and fills her coffeepot with water to prepare her morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.
With her first swallow of coffee, she takes her daily medication. Her medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of her medications are paid for by her employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Sue gets it too.
She prepares her morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Sue's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
In the morning shower, Sue reaches for her shampoo. Her bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for her right to know what she was putting on her body and how much it contained.
Sue dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air she breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air.
She walks to the subway station for her government-subsidized ride to work. It saves her considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Sue begins her work day. She has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Sue's employer pays these standards because Sue's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.
If Sue is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, she'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think she should lose her home because of her temporary misfortune.
Its noontime and Sue needs to make a bank deposit so she can pay some bills. Sue's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Sue's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.
Sue has to pay her Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and her below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Sue and the government would be better off if she was educated and earned more money over her lifetime.
Sue is home from work. She plans to visit her father this evening at his farm home in the country. She gets in her car for the drive. Her car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. She arrives at her childhood home. Her generation was the third to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.
She is happy to see her father, who is now retired. Her father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Sue wouldn't have to.
Sue gets back in her car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Sue enjoys throughout her day. Sue agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm self-made and believe everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
if no one understands the law, our democracy isn't functional.
who is more trustworthy.... someone who needs a team of lawyers to make our democracy functional, or someone who doesn't need a team of lawyers to make our democracy functional?
Created:
Posted in:
the problem with term limits, is that we end up with folks who dont know any thing about the government or its laws.
or, if we did have term limits, limit it to a career, like thirty years.
they say the presidency is too much power to give one person for a long time, but that doesn't apply to congress given it's not such a concentrated power
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
i'm a conservative when it comes to the supreme court. what the founders originally meant is what should apply. in the original days, states or the government defined a militia.... there were no informal militias. you are proposing to find a right that isn't in the text of the amendment itself, and isn't how things were done originally. u r bein a whacky liberal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
states have always defined who is in the miltia. you are not defined as in the milita. why do you think there were and are laws that described who was and wasn't in the milita?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the bernies of the world made this an issue.
what say you?
Created:
Posted in:
on the one hand, their power can create lots of great things, like creating a space economy. or creating entire industries when there's an new idea.
on the other hand, if billionaires didn't exist, maybe more money would be spent at mom and pop stores, or there'd be less exploitation of people and the environment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
if states all brought back most people being in the milita, i wouldn't be opposed to protecting most people's right to a gun via the second amendment. as it sits now, though, states do not include most people in the milita.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
people who are in a militia can keep and bear arms. if you aren't in a milita, you dont have a second amendment right to a gun. (though i could see a ninth amendment right to a gun)
Created:
Posted in:
the phrase "bear arms" during the founding days, meant to have a gun in a militia. the beginning of the second amendment uses the phrase "a well regulated militia"
the last part of the amendment is ambiguous. so what is a court to do? look at the evidence from the founding days. when we do that, there is absolutely no evidence that the founders wanted to protect anything other than militia rights. look at the constitutional convention. you can squint and look really hard, but there is no evidence of things like 'self defense' or hunting.
Created:
-->
@ethang5
why is it so hard to just acknowledge... "yes i would have supported the execution of active homosexuals as that was the command from God"? what's so wrong with that?
Created:
-->
@rosends
r u a christian?
Created:
just curious. supposedly God commanded you to, so.
Created:
-->
@Theweakeredge
i think the best answer is what the above poster said... that God asking someone to murder you is against his nature and impossible.
you should start over with a thread asking if christians who post here lived during the old testament days, if they would stone you to death.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
if faux is correct, you're claiming victory with 99% confidence, while you should only be claiming a 95% confidence. how do you have the audacity?
Created:
Posted in:
that's why we have menacing laws.
here is what he said.
“Hey, how are you? You know what happens to corrupt Democrat politicians and election officials who support Black Lives Matter and who use voter fraud and voter suppression, voter intimidation, and election tampering? You know what happens?” a man said, according to a recording of the call. “They learn first hand, the hard way, why the Second Amendment exists. We are a thousand steps ahead of you motherf—, and you’re walking right into the lion’s den.”
what's the difference... "i'm gonna shoot you" v. "i'm gonna use the second amendment against you" especially in the context of how he said it
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
i read a protestant who said laying on of hands leads to apostolic succession, but that doesn't imply there aren't other ways to have apostolic succession. thoughts?
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
trump is by far not a lbertarian. he wants universal healthcare. he doesn't want to ban food stamps. he is set on preserving social security and medicare. he has never talked about trying to get rid of section 8 housing vouchers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
what is your view of the early church, where they identified the church by those who practiced apostolic succession? how do you feel given your church doesn't have apostolic succession?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
i mean, the divided congress should be obvious enough when it's the biggest turn out in history, that moderation is the key to future.
but people want populism. there is populism on both sides. any politician who would bridge the ideological divide to take the best populism from both sides, is pretty much by definition a moderate.
Created:
if everyone took it, and it was effective, at most ten percent of people would die of the people who would have otherwise died. instead of 300k dead, it'd be thirty k. but actually, if everyone took it, it could cause herd immunity, where so many people are immune that the virus can't spread.
would you be willing to take it?
which of you trumpanzees would refuse to take it, and thwart herd immunity? cause u know it will be trump supporters who refuse to take it even if it is shown to be safe.
Created:
think of a politician who wants to have his cake and eat it too.... increased minimum wage, affordable universal healthcare, affordable college, deregulating, helping small businesses, etc. helping the unborn, if that's ur form of populism. this crosses party lines, at least on the label. it's most likely a moderate who would do this.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
biden supports a fifteen dollar minimum wage, universal healthcare, and two year college free. you must really be splitting hairs if u dont think this is progressive enough. this is the trifecta that bernie always howls about. the only difference, is bernie just wants to throw money at college with an open checkbook, and maybe he wants to get gov's healthcare costs under control, but most people dont care about government's costs as long as their healthcare is affordable.
on the label. point. labels exist for a reason. it's possible to be a right wing populist, if u have policies that help small business or help people. 'degregulation = good or bad" is too simpliistic, sometimes it's good and somttimes it's bad, but folks will buy into the conservative spin if it fits their ideology. i think u and i agree that the future of success in politics is who will be the most populist? but that doesn't always mean being the most liberal. it's about being the most moderate, on all things populist. u can't be cross partyideologicaly populist, unless u r a moderate.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
u could just ask the electorate themselves... "As of 2013, self-identified conservatives stand at 38%, moderates at 34% and liberals at 23%". the reasons people are voting for conservative congressionmen is because they are center right.... not because they want the country to be more progressive, lol
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
well people do tend to be issue specific. i can see someone thinking "if you dont give me affordable healthcare, then i'll vote for the guy who will increase my wages somehow". but i'm still having a hard time thinkin the people are voting for cconservatives cause the democrats aren't progressive enough. i still say the electorate is moderate... if u give them something like afffordable healthcare, they will be split on everything else. there may be a liberal bias on specific issues overall, but on the whole package, they're split. they're not going to vote for a conservative cause the dems aren't progressive enough. i can't get over that point.
i dont know, you've made me think, i'll give u that.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
u didn't give a very good answer to the question of why people would vote for a conservative if they want the country to move further left. that dont make sense, and i give the average enough credit to think they wouldn't think that way. i guess you may be onto how some people may want change for the sake of change, but that's too esoteric to think they'd use that as a reason to vote for a conservative when they want the country the country to be more progressive.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
the actual dem party platform is the most progressive in history. and if you think the left isn't going far left enough, it makes no sense to think the remedy for that is voting for a conservative. how does that make sense?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
just because their primary goal was to beat trump, doesn't mean they aligned more with bernie on substance.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
also, why, in the greatest turnout in history, did congress get split down the middle instead of a blue wave?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so your theory is that bernie is more electable, but that the left was fooled into thinking that he's less electable?
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
how do you respond to this?
"biden got twice the vote than bernie did when it was just man to man combat in the election. that signals america isn't far left. and it's just stupid to think if the left didn't want bernia that conservatives and moderates would in the general election. there's no evidence that doubling down on the far left makes any sense whatsoever. "
Created:
biden got twice the vote than bernie did when it was just man to man combat in the election. that signals america isn't far left. and it's just stupid to think if the left didn't want bernia that conservatives and moderates would in the general election. there's no evidence that doubling down on the far left makes any sense whatsoever.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
if biden isn't widely embraced by america, it's not a signal to double down on the far left. it's a sign that americans aren't that far left to begin with. if you give them a sensible healthcare plan, they will vote republican or a moderate democrat. eventually, that's what's going to happen... we'll get universal healthcare, and it will be taken as self evident as something we should have did a long time ago like every other country that covers everyone at half the cost. and then it will be the moderates who rule the roost.
Created:
-->
@Stephen
there is a conservative election lawyer who worked for bush.... he said trump's legal strategy is to throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. the thing is, no one can discern his strategy because it's incoherent... there's no meat to it. he demands recounts even if it's not in recount territory. he demands to count the balltots with his own people. he demands to be closer to the ballots. he sends his spokesgoon that no one takes seriously to say there's a conspiracy of states to plant fake ballots. yet, no credible news source has any idea what he's talking about. he claims fraud but won't show any evidence. his strategy is chaos. he's stoking the flames with stupid people.
there i answered ur question. i notice u refuse to answer mine, about whether u even watch credible news sources like PBS and sixty mintutes. do u believe in conspiracy theories a lot? do u often go off in believing random stories that no one but you believes in? have u talked to a psychiatrist?
Created:
-->
@Stephen
@ILikePie5
seriously, consider your sources
Created:
so should i assume you guys dont trust PBS and sixty minutes? i mean seriously if you haven't already, watch their segments on this. they couldn't be clearer that trump's claims are baseless. i guess u guys must want me to trust your arm chair reporting that u heard on youtube and some random off kilter internet website, over all of mainstream media and even over sixty minutes and PBS and even fox news. it's all a conspiracy. gotcha.
Created:
sixty mintues on CBS also says trump's lawsuits are BS. so that's both PBS and sixty minutes. and all of main stream news. and even fox news. but yet, it's all a conspiracy to steal the election.
rudy was on fox news sayin there was a conspiracy of ten states trying to plant fake bellots, election fraud. the fox news correspondants were havin a hard time even tryin to take him seriously, and it was obvious rudy didn't even believe his own shit, he couldn't keep a straight face.
at this point, it's just stupidity against everyone else. and ingnorance. willlful blindness. a a whole lot of the cult of trump
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
i'll have u know, i was just at a tuxedo party with anderson cooper last week, and the champagne was nice and bubbly.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
that puts u in the category of those duped ones who think there's always a loophole somewhere for every situation. smart money is on the idea that sometimes the laws and facts are clear to the outcome, and that if no one respectable can figure out what trump's legal strategy is, it's because he has none.
Created: