Hope the President does a good job for USA

[partgypsy]

Yes Ksinger that's what I mean. I have talked to people who express strong opinions, on both sides of th aisle, and then find out they didn't vote. I almost feel like saying, don't complain if you didn't even vote! But I do have to admit there are a lot of people out there, that feel that for whatever reason, their vote doesn't count. I don't know if my vote counts or not, but I feel like it is my civic duty.

 

[Gussie]

I have never agreed with voting as a civic duty. I believe it is a fundamental right but not a duty. My duty is to stick to my values. If there is not a candidate that I feel is worthy of my vote then I will not vote. I think this is also the unfortunate result of a two party system. I have strong opinions and I have an absolute right to express them whether I voted or not. In my early 30s I vowed to never vote for the lesser of two evils. And I have stuck to that for many years.

I ducked out if this thread for a while because so many things going on in our country just suck the life out of me. I am not big on controversy or expressing my strong opinions much but I thought I would share a different opinion. Now back to smtb!

 

[AGBF]

Has it come to this? Do we have to be grateful to John Bolton, the ultimate hawk? Is he now the voice of reason in The White House? Read the comments as well as the article if you have a black sense of humor. (Excerpts of article from "The New York Times" are below.)

"Senior American national security officials, seeking to prevent President Trump from upending a formal policy agreement at last month’s NATO meeting, pushed the military alliance’s ambassadors to complete it before the forum even began.

The work to preserve the North Atlantic Treaty Organization agreement, which is usually subject to intense 11th-hour negotiations, came just weeks after Mr. Trump refused to sign off on a communiqué from the June meeting of the Group of 7 in Canada.

The rushed machinations to get the policy done, as demanded by John R. Bolton, the national security adviser, have not been previously reported.

(snip)

Mr. Trump did almost blow up the two-day meeting in Brussels that began on July 11. He issued a vague threat that the United States could go its own way if allies resisted his demands for additional military spending. After the gathering, he also questioned a pillar of the alliance: that an attack on one NATO country is an attack on all.


(snip)

'The president’s national security team did a good job of salvaging a minimally successful outcome to the NATO summit,' said James G. Stavridis, a retired four-star admiral who also once served as the supreme allied commander for Europe.

But, he added, 'it is unfortunate that the president’s apparent personal animus continues to create friction in an alliance that has stood the test of time.'

In June, weeks before the meeting, Mr. Bolton sent his demand to Brussels through Kay Bailey Hutchison, the American ambassador to NATO. He wanted the NATO communiqué to be completed early, before the president left for Europe, according to five senior American and European officials familiar with the discussions who described them on the condition of anonymity to avoid angering the White House.

NATO’s secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, reinforced Mr. Bolton’s directive during a gathering of the ambassadors on July 4. The usual infighting over the summit agreement, he said, had to be dropped.

He asked the delegations to finish their work by July 6 at 10 p.m. Brussels time.

Fearful of a repeat of the G-7 disaster — in which Mr. Trump refused to sign off on the joint communiqué, escalated a trade war and publicly derided Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada — the emissaries from the NATO countries all agreed.

Two senior European officials said Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defense Secretary Jim Mattis were also keen to avoid another confrontation similar to the G-7, and the NATO declaration was completed days before leaders set foot in Brussels.

It achieved several goals critical to NATO officials.

Against Russian objections, the military alliance would formally invite Macedonia to join. It would establish an Atlantic Command post, hosted by the United States in Norfolk, Va., to coordinate a swift alliance response in the event of, for instance, a war in Europe between Russia and NATO allies.

And, most important, allies pledged to build up their militaries and provide 30 mechanized battalions, 30 air squadrons and 30 combat vessels, all ready to use in 30 days or less, by 2020 — a force to quickly respond to any attack on an alliance member.

Jamie Shea, a NATO deputy assistant secretary general, called the declaration “the most substantive” agreement that the alliance had put out in years. But its success, according to the American and European officials, lies in the feverish work before the summit meeting to keep it away from Mr. Trump.

(snip)


Generally, deputy NATO ambassadors and lower-level bureaucrats work on communiqués for months before an alliance summit meeting. It always includes last-minute wrangling over language, particularly as smaller nations use the leverage of an impending deadline to tweak issues sensitive to them.

At a 2016 meeting in Warsaw, last-minute changes in the communiqué were shown to President Barack Obama. By contrast, American officials said, this year Mr. Trump was presented with only the broad outlines of what the meeting would deliver — not details of the document of 79 paragraphs, running 23 pages.

Approving the communiqué, even rebranded as a declaration, was critical to moving the alliance forward over the coming years.

The new agreement has given American national security officials the ability to assure the public, and skittish allies, that the country’s commitment to the alliance remains intact — no matter any anti-NATO tweets or interviews or statements from Mr. Trump.

(snip)

The “Four 30s” initiative — the plan for 30 battalions, air squadrons and combat warships ready to respond within 30 days — was pushed hard by Mr. Mattis. It is viewed by the Pentagon as critical to getting America’s NATO allies more fit and able to react quickly to threats as they develop.


If successful, the readiness initiative will funnel new European military spending into building up allied units. That will help forces more quickly deploy to a conflict — a current shortfall the Pentagon and American military leaders have highlighted. Many European members of NATO thought Mr. Mattis was being too ambitious in pushing it.

But in the rush to get the agreement done before the meeting, the Four 30s initiative was approved.

The NATO countries also worked out a mobility agreement devised to let member states’ forces move quickly through sovereign alliance territory across Europe. It is another piece meant to help NATO countries respond quickly to Russian aggression.

The NATO ambassadors also said the American demand to get the agreement done before Mr. Trump arrived served to silence, for the moment, some of the squabbles within the alliance, including whether it is doing enough for southern allies or enough on counterterrorism.

...​

Deb/AGBF


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/us/politics/nato-summit-trump.html

(Don't forget to check out the readers' comments!)

 

[redwood66]

No, they should be able to say what they wish. What they should not be expecting after refusing to do something as simple as casting a vote every 4 years, is to avoid a deserved raft of contempt for the hypocrisy of their complaints.

This also goes both ways. Yet I don't see a need to berate or show contempt for fellow Americans because we disagree.

 

[ksinger]

It's super ironic to me that some women today are actually using a strong conviction of moral purity (aka - I can't vote for someone not worthy of me and my vote, which both must remain stainless in my own eyes) as an excuse for not voting when one of the many reasons trotted out by men to deny women the vote for so long, was the argument that voting would defile women's role as "higher angels".

"Politics are necessarily corrupting."

"BECAUSE 90% of the women either do not want it, or do not care."

"Argument Against Women's Suffrage, 1911
Prepared by J. B. Sanford, Chairmen of Democratic Caucus
ARGUMENT AGAINST SENATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT NO. 8

Suffrage is not a right. It is a privilege that may or may not be granted. Politics is no place for a woman consequently the privilege should not be granted to her.

The mother's influence is needed in the home. She can do little good by gadding the streets and neglecting her children. Let her teach her daughters that modesty, patience, and gentleness are the charms of a women. Let her teach her sons that an honest conscience is every man's first political law; that no splendor can rob him nor no force justify the surrender of the simplest right of a free and independent citizen. The mothers of this country can shape the destinies of the nation by keeping in their places and attending to those duties that God Almighty intended for them. The kindly, gentle influence of the mother in the home and the dignified influence of the teacher in the school will far outweigh all the influence of all the mannish female politicians on earth.

The courageous, chivalrous, and manly men and the womanly women, the real mothers and home builders of the country, are opposed to this innovation in American political life. There was a bill (the Sanford bill) before the last legislature which proposed to leave the equal suffrage question to women to decide first before the men should vote on it. This bill was defeated by the suffragettes because they knew that the women would vote down the amendment by a vote of ten to one.

The men are able to run the government and take care of the women. Do women have to vote in order to receive the protection of man? Why, men have gone to war, endured every privation and death itself in defense of woman. To man, woman is the dearest creature on earth, and there is no extreme to which he would not go for his mother or sister. By keeping woman in her exalted position man can be induced to do more for her than he could by having her mix up in affairs that will cause him to lose respect and regard for her. Woman does not have to vote to secure her rights. Man will go to any extreme to protect and elevate her now. As long as woman is woman and keeps her place she will get more protection and more consideration than man gets. When she abdicates her throne she throws down the scepter of her power and loses her influence.

Woman suffrage has been proven a failure in states that have tried it. It is wrong. California should profit by the mistakes of other states. Not one reform has equal suffrage effected. On the contrary, statistics go to show that in most equal suffrage states, Colorado particularly, that divorces have greatly increased since the adoption of the equal suffrage amendment, showing that it has been a home destroyer. Crime has also increased due to lack of the mothers in the home.

Woman is woman. She can not unsex herself or change her sphere. Let her be content with her lot and perform those high duties intended for her by the Great Creator, and she will accomplish far more in governmental affairs that she can ever accomplish by mixing up in the dirty pool of politics. Keep the home pure and all will be well with the Republic. Let not the sanctity of the home be invaded by every little politician that may be running up and down the highway for office. Let the manly men and the womanly women defeat this amendment and keep woman where she belongs in order that she may retain the respect of
all mankind.

J. B. Sanford, Senator 4th District.
Received by Secretary of State Frank Jordan on June 26th, 1911, for publication as part of a voters' information manual. Document is currently filed in the California State Archives under: Secretary of State Elections Papers, 1911 Special Election.."

So yes indeedy. The menfolk have it all covered. And if enough women can be convinced to willingly go back to the 19th century, then the poor tired men won't have to fight the brutal tooth-and-nail political fights to repeal the 19th.

 

[Tekate]

 

[redwood66]

I don't agree with the notion that people abstaining from voting because of a choice of two shitty politicians will result in a repeal of the 19th Amendment. Pearl clutching to the max IMO. Plenty of both sexes abstain or don't bother. While I believe voting is important, it is deeply personal and no one else's business.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/

 

[Gussie]

Lol, the whole problem with it all is everyone telling everyone else how to be and what to do. I stay true to MY values, not what I am told they should be. I think you and I would be great friends, @redwood66

 

[Calliecake]

For a president who screams nonstop “no chain migration” , it sure doesn’t apply to his family. Melania’s parents became US citizens yesterday thru chain migration. I can’t get over the hypocrisy of this president.

 

[Tekate]

Well that's different his inlaws are his age! and WHITE. I don't begrudge these people citizenship - they earned it, but I do find very hypocritical that their son-in-law balks at chain migration, but we all know the uber rich don't live by standard rules don't we?

For a president who screams nonstop “no chain migration” , it sure doesn’t apply to his family. Melania’s parents became US citizens yesterday thru chain migration. I can’t get over the hypocrisy of this president.

 

[ksinger]

I don't agree with the notion that people abstaining from voting because of a choice of two shitty politicians will result in a repeal of the 19th Amendment. Pearl clutching to the max IMO. Plenty of both sexes abstain or don't bother. While I believe voting is important, it is deeply personal and no one else's business.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/

Of for pity's sake. You actually thought I was saying that I think non-voters are going to lead to the demise of the 19th? Dammit. I always forget the sarcasm font when I think it's so obvious a caveman could catch it. Yet when I don't, it gets mistaken for the pearl-clutching font every time.

I'll say it again a different way: if voting is so deeply personal and nobody's business - which really is just another way of saying you don't want a few unpleasantly pointed observations made and a raft of SARCASM about the act of voting being all about you, you, and YOU and how it impacts your high opinion of yourself, then don't lead with your chin by putting it out there that you don't vote but think you still have a right to bitch with impunity, when someone has just said you deserve a raft of scorn for that position.

And pearl clutching? Seriously? No, pearl clutching is saying "Oh! I don't like my choices! THEY didn't present ME with candidates worthy of ME!!!" Then falling back onto your fainting couch at the prospect of having to soil yourself by making a difficult real-world choice.

Oh, and for the record, voting is not private in any way, voting is a PUBLIC action. Apart from WHO you voted for - which I've noticed that people are pretty free with revealing most of the time - every vote and NON-vote of every person in every election is PUBLIC RECORD. So saying it's nobody's business is ridiculous. It's the business of statisticians, analysts, PEW, and anyone who can mine the data freely available in the public record and write some code, then send you a nastygram in the mail for being a bad citizen.

Also for the record, I'm not telling anyone what to do, just telling people who refuse to participate - especially on personal purity grounds, that their arguments are straight out of the 19th century discourse about women's suffrage, and that I have zero respect for their self-absorbed choice.

 

[AGBF]

Of for pity's sake. You actually thought I was saying that I think non-voters are going to lead to the demise of the 19th? Dammit. I always forget the sarcasm font when I think it's so obvious a caveman could catch it.

Hi there, k. You don't post as frequently as I do. For the first ten years or so that I posted here, maybe twelve or thirteen, I used a lot of irony in my postings. Some people wrote notes to me that they always enjoyed my postings and others "yelled" at me for the horrible, thoughtless, unbelievable things that I had said ironically. I try not to use irony or to attempt to be amusing anymore. I realize that to most people I am not at all amusing and I should play it straight or keep my mouth shut. I am not telling you what to do, of course, just sharing my experience. One former-user-of-irony-to another.

Deb

 

[OreoRosies86]

Of for pity's sake. You actually thought I was saying that I think non-voters are going to lead to the demise of the 19th? Dammit. I always forget the sarcasm font when I think it's so obvious a caveman could catch it. Yet when I don't, it gets mistaken for the pearl-clutching font every time.

I'll say it again a different way: if voting is so deeply personal and nobody's business - which really is just another way of saying you don't want a few unpleasantly pointed observations made and a raft of SARCASM about the act of voting being all about you, you, and YOU and how it impacts your high opinion of yourself, then don't lead with your chin by putting it out there that you don't vote but think you still have a right to bitch with impunity, when someone has just said you deserve a raft of scorn for that position.

And pearl clutching? Seriously? No, pearl clutching is saying "Oh! I don't like my choices! THEY didn't present ME with candidates worthy of ME!!!" Then falling back onto your fainting couch at the prospect of having to soil yourself by making a difficult real-world choice.

Oh, and for the record, voting is not private in any way, voting is a PUBLIC action. Apart from WHO you voted for - which I've noticed that people are pretty free with revealing most of the time - every vote and NON-vote of every person in every election is PUBLIC RECORD. So saying it's nobody's business is ridiculous. It's the business of statisticians, analysts, PEW, and anyone who can mine the data freely available in the public record and write some code, then send you a nastygram in the mail for being a bad citizen.

Also for the record, I'm not telling anyone what to do, just telling people who refuse to participate - especially on personal purity grounds, that their arguments are straight out of the 19th century discourse about women's suffrage, and that I have zero respect for their self-absorbed choice.

Just perfect.

 

[House Cat]

Hi there, k. You don't post as frequently as I do. For the first ten years or so that I posted here, maybe twelve or thirteen, I used a lot of irony in my postings. Some people wrote notes to me that they always enjoyed my postings and others "yelled" at me for the horrible, thoughtless, unbelievable things that I had said ironically. I try not to use irony or to attempt to be amusing anymore. I realize that to most people I am not at all amusing and I should play it straight or keep my mouth shut. I am not telling you what to do, of course, just sharing my experience. One former-user-of-irony-to another.

Deb

That’s too bad Deb. I hope that you will let your ironic flag fly again someday. Screw the people who don’t get it. It’s not meant for them anyway.

 

[redwood66]

Of for pity's sake. You actually thought I was saying that I think non-voters are going to lead to the demise of the 19th? Dammit. I always forget the sarcasm font when I think it's so obvious a caveman could catch it. Yet when I don't, it gets mistaken for the pearl-clutching font every time.

I'll say it again a different way: if voting is so deeply personal and nobody's business - which really is just another way of saying you don't want a few unpleasantly pointed observations made and a raft of SARCASM about the act of voting being all about you, you, and YOU and how it impacts your high opinion of yourself, then don't lead with your chin by putting it out there that you don't vote but think you still have a right to bitch with impunity, when someone has just said you deserve a raft of scorn for that position.

And pearl clutching? Seriously? No, pearl clutching is saying "Oh! I don't like my choices! THEY didn't present ME with candidates worthy of ME!!!" Then falling back onto your fainting couch at the prospect of having to soil yourself by making a difficult real-world choice.

Oh, and for the record, voting is not private in any way, voting is a PUBLIC action. Apart from WHO you voted for - which I've noticed that people are pretty free with revealing most of the time - every vote and NON-vote of every person in every election is PUBLIC RECORD. So saying it's nobody's business is ridiculous. It's the business of statisticians, analysts, PEW, and anyone who can mine the data freely available in the public record and write some code, then send you a nastygram in the mail for being a bad citizen.

Also for the record, I'm not telling anyone what to do, just telling people who refuse to participate - especially on personal purity grounds, that their arguments are straight out of the 19th century discourse about women's suffrage, and that I have zero respect for their self-absorbed choice.

I can always count on you to tell me what you think of me, or anyone else who doesn't fall in line with you. Especially in the company you have here on PS. You are so brave. I will file your opinion right where it belongs.

Most of what people do in life is none of anyone else's business. Yet some always want to stick their nose in and tell others what they are doing wrong. I have zero respect for this act. You want to conflate blind statistics with personal ideals in order to stand on your soapbox then go ahead. Makes no nevermind to me and lots of people here love you for it. Do you see it as a public service to give your "advice" or do you relish the feeling you get when doing it? Or maybe both?

I do think it's funny that you talk about voting and a "high opinion of yourself" quite ironic actually.

 

[Gussie]

Self-absorbed choice? I stand my ground that voting is a choice, not a duty. My ONLY duty is to stay true to my values and that includes not giving an ok to anyone running for office that I don't believe reflects those values. Most of the politicians these days aren't much better than the gum on my shoe. So as we say in the genteel south where poor stupid ladies are so oppressed, "bless your heart!"

 

[Gussie]

Furthermore I neither need nor want your respect. Your judgement of me and my CHOICE only reinforces the stereotypical hypocrisy and elitism on the left. It's comical that your open-mindedness stops at differing opinions.

 

[Matata]

Your judgement of me and my CHOICE only reinforces the stereotypical hypocrisy and elitism on the left.

This kinda got my panties in a twist. Not the hypocrisy part because that trait exists in both the rep and dem parties although if you've been reading the news these past few months, the level of hypocrisy coming from the reps has reached an astounding level. It's the elitism label that is constantly hurled against non conservatives that makes me grind my teeth. A personal opinion expressed about someone who chooses not to vote is just that -- a personal opinion. What does it have to do with elitism? There are plenty of republican, green party, and independent voters who are also critical of those who do not exercise their civic duty to vote.

 

[Matata]

 

[Bonfire]

^

 

[redwood66]

This kinda got my panties in a twist. Not the hypocrisy part because that trait exists in both the rep and dem parties although if you've been reading the news these past few months, the level of hypocrisy coming from the reps has reached an astounding level. It's the elitism label that is constantly hurled against non conservatives that makes me grind my teeth. A personal opinion expressed about someone who chooses not to vote is just that -- a personal opinion. What does it have to do with elitism? There are plenty of republican, green party, and independent voters who are also critical of those who do not exercise their civic duty to vote.

I have been thinking about this for some time and would like to discuss it with you to see if you grasp what I am getting at. I think that the use of "elitism" is possibly used with a different meaning, at least by conservatives. I never feel the need to denigrate or demean someone for their choices and opinions, not even you. When a person decides to do that it is an egregious lack of tact and respect for fellow human beings and their opinions IMO. The act of doing it is a gigantic display of hubris that can lead the recipient to think the displayer sees themselves as elite. We all want to be in the right but how you (collective) present your argument is important. Ad hominem attacks don't further discourse. Though if your intent is to chest pound and belittle others on the internet, actual discourse is obviously not your goal. No one likes to be told they're stupid.

 

[redwood66]

That's funny.

 

[Gussie]

This kinda got my panties in a twist. Not the hypocrisy part because that trait exists in both the rep and dem parties although if you've been reading the news these past few months, the level of hypocrisy coming from the reps has reached an astounding level. It's the elitism label that is constantly hurled against non conservatives that makes me grind my teeth. A personal opinion expressed about someone who chooses not to vote is just that -- a personal opinion. What does it have to do with elitism? There are plenty of republican, green party, and independent voters who are also critical of those who do not exercise their civic duty to vote.

The elitism comes from implying I have 19th century values and I am not worthy of respect because of it, especially since the poster knows zero about me. Elitism, plain and simple.

In my naivete, I thought posting a simple opinion would not be piled on as such. Guess I better get back in the kitchen where I belong.

 

[Matata]

The elitism comes from implying I have 19th century value

I didn't see an implication from her that she thought she was superior to you, which would have implicated her as elitist, only that she didn't agree with your choice and especially the rationale you used to defend it. I don't agree with your choice or your rationale either but I don't feel superior to you because I vote.

 

[Gussie]

The mere implication that I have 19th century values denotes a sense of superiority. I detest judgement from either side of the aisle. Live and let live.

 

[Matata]

I think that the use of "elitism" is possibly used with a different meaning, at least by conservatives.

What meaning do you think they attach to it? I assume the meaning is "A person who believes that they are superior to others (and thus deserve favored status) because of their intellect, social status, wealth, or other factors" (from Urban Dictionary).

I never feel the need to denigrate or demean someone for their choices and opinions, not even you. When a person decides to do that it is an egregious lack of tact and respect for fellow human beings and their opinions IMO. The act of doing it is a gigantic display of hubris that can lead the recipient to think the displayer sees themselves as elite.

You called me an a$$hole once (I never called you a name) and pretty much accused me of using PS as a bully pulpit. I'm bringing that up only to support my position that no one can be nice, compassionate, patient, or exercise perfect manners all of the darn time. People need to vent. The object of the venting may be perfectly innocent which would make that treatment unfair or that person may deserve a dressing down. My opinion is that decorum should be something we all strive for but I don't think badly of those who lose their cool from time-to-time. I do think those who are habitually uncivil deserve what they get. Sometimes you have to put yourself on the same level of discourse as another in order to be heard. So, yeah, sometimes people aren't tactful.

As to respect for fellow human beings and their opinions...I personally respect everyone's rights to think and do what they want within the boundaries of the law. I don't respect every human being or every opinion and I don't respect some of ways people choose to exercise their rights. So with all I've just said, I don't necessarily think that lack of tact and respect towards another is always an act of hubris (assuming your definition of hubris is "exaggerated pride or self-confidence") or a sign of elitism. I understand people can be perceived that way based on their style of communication. I tend to believe that people accusing others of being elitist are lacking in self-confidence.

 

[Gussie]

"I tend to believe that people accusing others of being elitist are lacking in self-confidence"

And the judgement continues.

 

[redwood66]

@Matata Perception plays into everything which can be a problem. If someone is perceiving incorrectly due to issues that are inherent with internet discussion that is something that can be resolved relatively easily. Personally I don't see a need for "dressing down" with regard to someone's personal views on voting. But that's just me.

You and I have gotten into heated discussions and yes I did call you an a-hole. My bad, though you were likely inconsiderate as well. I apologize. You are only occasionally irritating. As am I for sure because being nice doesn't mean being a doormat.

I don't agree with the lack of self confidence part because I have plenty. It's more of a difference in the understanding and perception of decorum. The internet has broken wide open the ability to be anonymous and wretched to others with no apparent consequences for the most part. Not something I aspire to do and certainly not how I would treat others in person.

Hopefully we all learn a little bit from each other once in awhile.

 

[Matata]

"I tend to believe that people accusing others of being elitist are lacking in self-confidence"

And the judgement continues.

No Ceg. It is an opinion. If it were a judgment, I would have said "All people who accuse others of being elitist are lacking in self-confidence and that makes them inferior." I said I "tend to believe." That belief comes from the definition of elitist that I posted above: "A person who believes that they are superior to others (and thus deserve favored status) because of their intellect, social status, wealth, or other factors." If you call someone elitist, I assume you're accusing them of feeling superior to you because of their intellect, social status, wealth, or other factors which indicates to me that you feel you don't have a level of intellect, social status, wealth, or other factors that you think are equally deserving or that you are jealous of those who are more fortunate than you in some way.

You made the accusation Ceg. Notice I'm not calling what you said a judgment although it qualifies as such. And round and round we go.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I can always count on you to tell me what you think of me, or anyone else who doesn't fall in line with you. Especially in the company you have here on PS. You are so brave. I will file your opinion right where it belongs.

A typical liberal PSer. They love to take turn at trashing Trump and then give each other a high five.