Trump Threatens...Secretary Clinton's Life?

[Maria D]

ETA - and you just called people who don't agree with you stupid here:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cant-donald-just-say-yes-im-a-poor-excuse-for-a-human.224624/page-4#post-4064425#p4064425']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cant-donald-just-say-yes-im-a-poor-excuse-for-a-human.224624/page-4#post-4064425#p4064425[/URL]

*sigh*

I did not call people who don't agree with me stupid. I have yet to see anyone on PS state that they think Trump would make a good president. The furthest anyone here goes is saying that they don't think it would be an irrevocable disaster if Trump is elected. I think there are people who DO believe that Trump would make a good president. I don't think they are on PS.

If you want to feel insulted, or want others to feel insulted, I can't stop you.

 

[momhappy]

Clinton made an assassination comment about Obama when they were fighting for the nomination.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E0QAewVrR28

I don't think she was suggesting that someone assassinate Obama, and I don't think Trump was suggesting that someone assassinate Clinton.

What on earth are you talking about? Did you even watch the video? Nowhere in it is there "an assassination comment about Obama."

Watch again, Maria. The subject is why Clinton is not dropping out of the race with Obama. One of her reasons is what happened to Robert Kennedy could happen to Obama. People were upset about it, and I think she apologized. Again, I don't think she was suggesting that someone assassinate Obama, just as I don't think Trump is asking for Clinton to be shot.

Sorry Anna H, you completely missed her point. Yes, the subject is why Clinton is not dropping out of the race. Her thesis is that it's unprecedented to suggest that a candidate drop out of the race this early in the campaign. To support this she discusses how close the race is, as she's winning in the popular vote and they are only a couple of hundred apart in pledged delegates. She then discusses how it is still early. To support this notion she mentions that her husband's campaign didn't pull ahead until he won the California primary in June and how Robert Kennedy was assassinated in June. The point is that RFK was still campaigning in JUNE because the Dem nomination wasn't considered a foregone conclusion then, and she felt it shouldn't be considered a foregone conclusion for Obama's nomination now - hence she had no intention of dropping out.

She definitely was not suggesting that someone might assassinate Obama. Yes, people were upset because her words were misconstrued then, just as you are doing now. Here's an article written at the time that can explain the whole thing. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/on-the-road-clintons-very-bad-day/?_r=1

If you don't believe that Trump was *seriously* suggesting that someone should assassinate Clinton, guess what - I totally agree with you! The man is not serious, he's a clown. But he's a dangerous clown because someone could take him seriously.

We don't know what Clinton meant, just as we don't know what Trump meant. Both comments were unfortunate. As your posted article states, the Obama team was very upset believing that the assassination comment was linked to Obama. Maybe their outrage was fake, maybe not. We don't know about that either. No doubt much of Trump outrage is exaggerated, imo.

I agree with you, Anna and I think that much of the Trump outrage is exaggerated and it has been right from the beginning. The media goes crazy and people will read just about anything into anything these days.

 

[redwood66]

w

ETA - and you just called people who don't agree with you stupid here:

[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cant-donald-just-say-yes-im-a-poor-excuse-for-a-human.224624/page-4#post-4064425#p4064425']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/cant-donald-just-say-yes-im-a-poor-excuse-for-a-human.224624/page-4#post-4064425#p4064425[/URL]

*sigh*

I did not call people who don't agree with me stupid. I have yet to see anyone on PS state that they think Trump would make a good president. The furthest anyone here goes is saying that they don't think it would be an irrevocable disaster if Trump is elected. I think there are people who DO believe that Trump would make a good president. I don't think they are on PS.

If you want to feel insulted, or want others to feel insulted, I can't stop you.

I am not insulted, are you? Threads like this are going to be heated. we should all understand that. We can also have an intelligent conversation without resorting to flaming comments most of the time. If you feel that your comments and comments to me by others on other threads are fine then that is your opinion but it was noted by some that a few were rude.

No I don't believe that it will be an irrevocable disaster if Trump wins, some others here agree with me. I also believe that people who think Trump would make a good president are people who do not agree with you, though they may not make posts on PS. Therefore you called them stupid. That is deduction.

 

[Maria D]

Redwood,
It was a flip answer to AnnaH's flip question: Is Trump stupid or an evil genius? I used all the same words as her (joke) question.

I assumed you were taking offense because you stated this: "Conservatives who are reading now, this is how many (not all) liberals view you and your opinion. You are too stupid to be allowed to vote, but your vote counts just as much as theirs and it bothers them immensely. And they are supposed to be the party of the people? It appears that is the case only if you share their views."

When you say "Conservatives who are reading now" you must mean the conservatives on PS. I've never called or insinuated that a fellow PSer was stupid. I certainly have stated *my opinion* that I find their ideas to be nonsense but that's not the same thing as calling a person stupid. It's the difference between debating ideas and personal attacks. The only thing I have to be insulted about is that you or anyone would think I'd waste my time communicating with people I thought were stupid.

It seems important to you to portray me as one of those liberals who "thinks the conservatives here are too stupid to be allowed to vote." If this makes you feel better, so be it.

 

[redwood66]

And yet words matter. If you think we are in a vacuum here and that only people who post read this forum, I believe you are mistaken. Your tone is much different toward me now than it was in the blue posts. I appreciate that, regardless of how we got there.

 

[Gypsy]

Redwood, you freely admit that the average Truml voter is as ignorant as their candidate when it comes to major issues, events, and geography,. And yet you are surprised and scorni liberals, who are by and large more educated as a group when they regard conservatives as ignorant.

That seems to be a contradiction to me.

 

[redwood66]

I did not single out Trump voters at all. I said most Americans - all flavors included. And it is the very fact that liberals always point out that they are more educated that turns off conservatives. And I am wrong by that fact that you are insinuating that conservatives are stupid? It seems that would go hand in hand.

 

[Gypsy]

I did not single out Trump voters at all. I said most Americans - all flavors included. And it is the very fact that liberals always point out that they are more educated that turns off conservatives. And I am wrong by that fact that you are insinuating that conservatives are stupid? It seems that would go hand in hand.

No.. That is a mistake on your part. If meant stupid I would have said so. Ignorant does not mean stupid.

 

[redwood66]

I did not single out Trump voters at all. I said most Americans - all flavors included. And it is the very fact that liberals always point out that they are more educated that turns off conservatives. And I am wrong by that fact that you are insinuating that conservatives are stupid? It seems that would go hand in hand.

No.. That is a mistake on your part. If meant stupid I would have said so. Ignorant does not mean stupid.

Pardon my use of stupid. Substitute ignorant and it still applies.

 

[arkieb1]

Not at all. If Trump is elected president, this entire country will be the laughing stock of the whole world. People from other countries don't delineate between the GOP and the DNC - probably given that those two parties don't exist in other countries. As far as they're concerned, it's just 'America'. And if America elects a petulant, undisciplined, multiple-times bankrupted reality show host, rightly or wrongly, we're going to look like a country of asshats.

Yes, exactly - in fact, unfortunately, you already look like an entire country of asshats for having him as a candidate....

 

[Dancing Fire]

RW66 is the only person left defending the GOP fort... you need reinforcements..

 

[redwood66]

RW66 is the only person left defending the GOP fort... you need reinforcements..

Your English is fine. You could help. Don't leave me and AnnaH out here by our lonesome. Although Queenie jumps in every once in awhile. Where is JCJ?

 

[Dancing Fire]

RW66 is the only person left defending the GOP fort... you need reinforcements..

Your English is fine. You could help. Don't leave me and AnnaH out here by our lonesome. Although Queenie jumps in every once in awhile. Where is JCJ?

The liberals scared her away...

 

[Maria D]

I did not single out Trump voters at all. I said most Americans - all flavors included. And it is the very fact that liberals always point out that they are more educated that turns off conservatives. And I am wrong by that fact that you are insinuating that conservatives are stupid? It seems that would go hand in hand.

Turns conservatives off of what? Are you saying if liberals didn't always point out that they tend to be more educated then conservatives would be more likely to consider liberal policies?

 

[Dancing Fire]

When you say "Conservatives who are reading now" you must mean the conservatives on PS. I've never called or insinuated that a fellow PSer was stupid. I certainly have stated *my opinion* that I find their ideas to be nonsense but that's not the same thing as calling a person stupid. It's the difference between debating ideas and personal attacks. The only thing I have to be insulted about is that you or anyone would think I'd waste my time communicating with people I thought were stupid.

11 total..

 

[kenny]

... Are you saying if liberals didn't always point out that they tend to be more educated then conservatives would be more likely to consider liberal policies?

Maria, you know I love you dearly but I hope you don't mind a bit of fun at your expense.

It's 'than' not 'then'.
Then is about time.
Than is about comparison.

I make plenty of booboos but given the content of your post you must admit it was humorous.

Now, please don't kill me. and I welcome a bit of revenge.

 

[Gypsy]

Redwood,
You seem to think you know what liberals think. I don't know if that's true.

Here's what this liberal thinks.

I think that if you are less educated, in general, you lack certain SKILLS. That does not in any way mean you are dumb. Just as being educated does not mean you are smart. It just means you may lack certain types of skills and training that education generally provides.

One of those skills is to think critically about the information provided and to evaluate it, independent of source, on it's own merits independently. So basically, "think critically and verify your source" is a SKILL that generally goes hand in hand with higher education.

Second skill is basic research for information. The "verify" part of the above. Learning to understand "legalese" and navigate sources of information that can be tedious to log through is a learned skill. People who are more educated can find information and evaluate its content faster and more efficiently, as a general rule. Because they have had more practice at it.

The third skill that higher education gives you is the ability make arguments and back them up with facts.

Now, lamentably, these skills do not ALWAYS go hand in hand with higher education (most of our congressional members being steller examples of this exception to the rule).

But as a general rule the above 3 skills result in people who tend to think for themselves more, are more intellectually curious, and demand facts not opinions about important subject. I personally believe that's why we have so many liberals on PS. Because the very nature of PS is to be an educational, fact based, independent source of information in order to promote consumer advocacy. This is what liberals appreciate: knowledge, backed by facts they can verify, and the unwillingness to be dependent on "expert opinions" when they can do learn and then evaluate things themselves and come up with their own opinion.

From my own observations of the conservatives I have interacted with and know, and both my family and my husband's family is riddled with them, is that many of them (note I did not say all) lack the above skills or the intellectual curiosity to use them.

They believe what Fox News, what their pastors, what their other family members or gossip says without verification, without thinking critically about the information they are given, and they take 'opinion' as fact. They tend to fear the power of both education and science. Thinking that if they are exposed to too much of either they will become whatever abomination they fear (socialist, sexual deviant, athiest, satanist). And, many of them are fearful and anxious about whatever "other" (muslims, communists, brown people, liberals) it is that they fear, taking away their way of life from them, and that makes them more likely to be intolerant and insular. They most especially fear education and exposure to the very things they fear most: islam, brown people, socialism fearing that education will somehow taint them (it may, and it's not a taint, its a gift and its called empathy). They do not like to be exposed to differing opinions because they do not know how to make arguments and back them up with facts. They opine, and then are resentful when someone (perhaps a keyboard warrior) shoots down their arguments with facts, and figures. And in their fear, they cling to their opinions and demonize facts and figures as "liberal propaganda" and the outlets that provide such information (like the media) as tainted by "liberalism". And it is enough for them to label something as other, so they can dismiss its value and worth completely and think about it not at all.

Most liberals I know do not share that quality. I do not dismiss what someone says or accept it because they are a conservative. I TRY to engage them to understand them. That is part of learning to make cohesive arguments, you see. You have to understand an argument in order to counter it. And when you try to counter and argument and can't, you learn to accept it, even if that is less than palatable. That's how you grow and you mature.

Prime example: I saw a meme on Facebook that called for the incarceration of women who make false reports of rape. With very few exception, the people that responded to it positively were conservatives, and under-educated. I was personally flabbergasted that anyone would think this is a good idea as the only direct beneficiaries of such a law would be rapists. And yet.... there you go.

So you see, it's not the lack of INTELLIGENCE that I find trouble in conservatives. I know some VERY smart people who are conservatives. But yes, many of them are under-educated and do not think critically about information they are provided and they seem to ignore or worse, abhor, facts and reasoned arguments based on them instead rely on opinion, gossip, or their faith as the source of their arguments and beliefs. Which I, at least, find troubling.

Fear is a terrible thing. I think that the liberals of today are truly afraid for the first time with a Trump candidacy. And I can't say we're dealing with it all that well either. But conservatives have been fearful for a much longer period of time. And the Republican leadership has fanned the flames of it, instead of calming them, on purpose and for their own benefit. And the result of that is Trump.

 

[Maria D]

... Are you saying if liberals didn't always point out that they tend to be more educated then conservatives would be more likely to consider liberal policies?

Maria, you know I love you dearly but I hope you don't mind a bit of fun at your expense.

It's 'than' not 'then'.
Then is about time.
Than is about comparison.

I make plenty of booboos but given the content of your post you must admit it was humorous.

Now, please don't kill me. and I welcome a bit of revenge.

You love me dearly??? Who knew?

Kenny, I am a math teacher. In Geometry, the theorems are always* written as If/Then statements.

If a parallelogram has four congruent sides, then it is a rhombus.
If a segment connects the midpoints of two sides of a triangle, then it is parallel to the third side and half as long.

So I think If/Then is the correct format here. Perhaps a true grammarian, AGBF? Ksinger?, can weigh in. Or Haven -- whatever happened to Haven?

*edited for accuracy:

Geometry theorems are usually, if not always, written as If/Then statements. Many can be stated more concisely without the If/Then format, but most can be stated using it.

 

[redwood66]

I did not single out Trump voters at all. I said most Americans - all flavors included. And it is the very fact that liberals always point out that they are more educated that turns off conservatives. And I am wrong by that fact that you are insinuating that conservatives are stupid? It seems that would go hand in hand.

Turns conservatives off of what? Are you saying if liberals didn't always point out that they tend to be more educated then conservatives would be more likely to consider liberal policies?

I think you are smart enough to know what I mean. People get tired of others saying how much more educated they are.

 

[redwood66]

Gypsy I appreciate you taking the time to write that post. You put much thought into it and I believe you feel all of those things to your core. But if you truly wanted to reach conservatives and shine a light on your liberalism, you should not refer to your family as "riddled" with them as though they are boils on your skin that should be disinfected. Sure it is a statistical fact that liberals are more educated but many millions of people are conservative and you dismiss their views as uneducated with no critical thinking skills. This does not make liberalism a shining beacon that you depict it in my view. Until some liberals can quit talking down to others who do not share their views you will not bring people into the fold. I am talking about those who read here and do not post.

For myself, I am comfortable with my views and also your disapproving opinion of them.



ETA = the liberals I know are quite nice people and I do not judge them based on their party affiliation or political views. They are my friends.

If your intent is not to bring conservatives to your side but rather is just to point out your views of conservatives then please ignore my comments above. All but the For myself, line. That pertains no matter your intent.

 

[Gypsy]

Gypsy I appreciate you taking the time to write that post. You put much thought into it and I believe you feel all of those things to your core. But if you truly wanted to reach conservatives and shine a light on your liberalism, you should not refer to your family as "riddled" with them as though they are boils on your skin that should be disinfected. Sure it is a statistical fact that liberals are more educated but many millions of people are conservative and you dismiss their views as uneducated with no critical thinking skills. This does not make liberalism a shining beacon that you depict it in my view. Until some liberals can quit talking down to others who do not share their views you will not bring people into the fold. I am talking about those who read here and do not post.

For myself, I am comfortable with my views and also your disapproving opinion of them.



ETA = the liberals I know are quite nice people and I do not judge them based on their party affiliation.

If your intent is not to bring conservatives to your side but rather is just to point out your views of conservatives then please ignore my comments above. All but the For myself, line. That pertains no matter your intent.

Yeah, I am not trying to bring conservatives around to MY thinking. I just want them to start thinking critically for themselves. If there is ONE (and I do mean ONE) good think about the Trump candidacy it is that it is forcing many conservatives (not the ones who are die hard Trump fans) to really look at their candidates and representatives and what they are seeing they are not liking. Same thing that Bernie did for the Democrats.

I have not met one conservative who is still voting for Trump, including yourself, that has backed up their beliefs with real facts or statistics that are accurate. Most conservatives I talk to, including you, just can't engage at that level.

Even after I posted that, all you did was focus on one word I used "riddled". The only thing that affirmed your world view, and that was it. You dismissed the rest of what I wrote.

So no, I am not trying to change your mind. That would mean you would have to engage at a level that you have shown you don't want to. You seem to pride yourself on being the conservative voice. But don't defend your views with any sort of passion, conviction, or evidence. You said in the other thread that things were as bad as they could be. When I questioned you about that you pointed to your peers and said, 'they all agree with me' as if that was justification. And maybe it is, for you. But you didn't explain WHY you felt that way, pointed to things that you thought were broken or important that made you feel that way. No evidence just... my friends are doing it too. And then, just like here, you pointed to the one thing that (when incorrectly interpreted) could be twisted into me calling you names (which I did NOT), and then had a fit and stomped off. No meaningful engagement there either.

Most of the conservatives I know who DO engage at that level have already jumped the Trump ship. But here you sit, saying you don't "support" Trump, in thread after thread, while still planning to vote for him. And your justifications in these threads? Because your neighbors you are doing it too. And because your state will vote that way, anyway. Because things are so broken it's not worth the effort to bother yourself to do anything other than follow your party. And those appear to be good enough reasons for you, but they really aren't good enough reasons, IMO (which I realize matters to you not at all). If enough people on the right, thought critically about Trump, put their support behind Gary Johnson or the other one that just joined the race and really united behind a third party candidate, it would make a strong statement and might even be enough to make a lasting change. Yes, you'd lose out on any chance you have on President Trump. But you might finally be the side that breaks the two party system and changes our politics in a positive way for ever. It is just sad to me that the opportunity is passing you all by. Just like I am sad that Bernie lost the candidacy because many people in my party were too lazy to turn out to vote.

 

[redwood66]

I did not dismiss the rest of what you wrote. I read it. You have put me in my place and made your point that I cannot engage at your level. Mission accomplished. Yay for you! You don't want to have discourse or care what I think. That is plain from the way you speak.

My vote, and your niece's, are still as valid as yours.

ETA - All of your comments come across as demeaning and you are wise enough to know that. I just don't agree with you and that is the long and short of it. We live in a great country and are all able to have our own opinions. Whether you agree with me or not will not make or break my day.

I would like to be friendly with you if you will allow it without judgement.

 

[redwood66]

I had to think on this a bit more before posting. we shall put Trump aside for now.

You feel that many conservatives do not have the skills, based on your observation, for critical thinking. Might it be that they are less articulate in their ability to convey those views to you? You have an obvious command of the English language that is to be commended but as I said before, your comments can be off-putting. Maybe you do not intend to do this? It brings up an emotion in me that immediately put me on the defensive. That is not the way to continue any polite discourse. You are dismissive to my views which also does not help move any conversation along. I can be grating and defiant, and I understand this about myself so I apologize for that.

If we are wasting our time with each other then maybe we should just give up at this point. You decide.

 

[arkieb1]

Many of the conservatives here in Australia (many are old boys from top Universities) are some of the most critical thinkers in the country. I think it would be much the same in the US, there are many educated articulate conservatives and, no doubt, there are many uneducated conservatives who are also more than capable of critical thought.

And then, in our country we have what we call Bogans like Pauline Hansen (who is a politician here) these are the radical conservatives that specifically spread fear, hate, and things like anti- Muslim sentiments and so on. Pauline just won a couple of senate seats here in our recent election and she typifies what I many would describe as the most racist, Bogan, backwards thinking, often fearful white people, in our society. Trump similarly appeals to many of the same people but I don't think you can lump them all into the same basket...

I guess DF and Redwood, and any other conservatives here, I really like all of you, but I just don't want to see the US end up with someone like Trump as their elected leader, irrespective of if it is via a direct vote, or an indirect vote, ie voting for a party rather than for him. If voting along conservative party lines ends up being ultimately a vote for him or not voting at all results in him winning the election - THAT is what so many of us really disagree with.

Writing off the stupid things he says is like writing off the fact boys will be boys and it's O.K for them to make sexist comments or rape women, the problem I have is that the Trump rhetoric has repeatedly demonstrated a core disrespect for women, a disrespect for non white people, and a disrespect for pretty well anyone that doesn't share his own views.

 

[Dancing Fire]

I guess DF and Redwood, and any other conservatives here, I really like all of you, but I just don't want to see the US end up with someone like Trump as their elected leader, irrespective of if it is via a direct vote, or an indirect vote, ie voting for a party rather than for him. If voting along conservative party lines ends up being ultimately a vote for him or not voting at all results in him winning the election - THAT is what so many of us really disagree with.

Writing off the stupid things he says is like writing off the fact boys will be boys and it's O.K for them to make sexist comments or rape women, the problem I have is that the Trump rhetoric has repeatedly demonstrated a core disrespect for women, a disrespect for non white people, and a disrespect for pretty well anyone that doesn't share his own views.

Why do you label me as a conservative?... I am a true left winger!..

 

[arkieb1]

I guess DF and Redwood, and any other conservatives here, I really like all of you, but I just don't want to see the US end up with someone like Trump as their elected leader, irrespective of if it is via a direct vote, or an indirect vote, ie voting for a party rather than for him. If voting along conservative party lines ends up being ultimately a vote for him or not voting at all results in him winning the election - THAT is what so many of us really disagree with.

Writing off the stupid things he says is like writing off the fact boys will be boys and it's O.K for them to make sexist comments or rape women, the problem I have is that the Trump rhetoric has repeatedly demonstrated a core disrespect for women, a disrespect for non white people, and a disrespect for pretty well anyone that doesn't share his own views.

Why do you label me as a conservative?... I am a true left winger!..

You're about as left as my right butt cheek and we both know it, but if it works for you DF,

 

[Gypsy]

Redwood,

I can be provoking and insulting, I acknowledge that. I also apologize.

I am genuinely not trying (don't laugh) to be dismissive of your views. I don't even know what your views ARE beyond the following: you are voting for Trump despite not supporting him, you are a conservative, and you feel that things are so bad in this country that they cannot get worse. That's all I've been able to glean. And I've been reading and following your posts through various threads for a while now.

I don't know your views on any issues. I do not know what issues you consider the most important. I thought I was trying (and clearly failing) to give you the chance to express your views. And, most baffling to me, I do not know (or understand) why you feel things are so bad that a terrible President couldn't make them worse. And I genuinely do want to know and understand your perspective. So please, tell me what your actual views are, why you feel the way you do, and what is most important to you.

I can sum up what is most important to me: tolerance and acceptance of differences. The thing that I feel is the biggest threat to our greatness as a nation, and to us as citizens, is intolerance. I am pro-choice not because I would get an abortion personally, but because I believe I do not have the right to make that decision for anyone else. I do not believe in imposing my morality on others through government except in certain cases and those are violent crimes (murder, rape, child any thing) and significant public safety issues. I am not gay but I believe in LGBTQ rights because I believe it is none of my business what anyone's sexual orientation is. I am a Christian but strongly support the division of Church and state and strongly support people's rights to practice or not practice any religion they want provided that practice does not harm to others.

For me the most baffling thing about most people on the right is the fact that they want to impose their morality on others with regard to these issues. For me, the issue is simple: if you don't believe in abortions, don't get one, if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married if you don't like Islam don't practice it. But that doesn't seem to be enough for most people on the right. To me it seems that they want everyone to believe as they do and act as they do with regard to these issues. And I find that unacceptable. These are private moral isssues and should be left to the individual to decide.

Additionally, I am strongly against the NRA, though I am not anti-gun, because I believe that the NRA as a lobby and is trampling on people's rights to feel safe in their homes and in public with their policies that oppose common sense regulations like background checks, and waiting periods (that can be waived with proof of immediate need in the case of stalkings and other cases), and effective licensing. And I don't like that they own our politicians. I want the money OUT of politics. I want term limits. I want accountability and visibility into who is buying our democracy up. So I also oppose and want Citizens United overturned.

Regarding social programs, I support many of them, the ones I feel address significant public safety issues, but feel many need reform in their application. And that includes the ACA, which I feel is a step in the right direction it could and should be reformed to optimize it.

And that in a nutshell are the things that are most important to me. And most of those issues are up for review by the Supreme Court. And I want the next Supreme Court nominees to be liberals and moderates who support my viewpoint (expressed above) within the confines of the Constitution. And that's why I vote the way I do.

So that's me. How about you? What are your views?

 

[redwood66]

Wow this is a good thing Gypsy. I was going to go to bed because it is late but have to answer now because I am uplifted by your post. Besides I am retired now and can sleep in tomorrow if I want. This is the polite discourse I have been searching for from you.

To begin.... and some of this may surprise you...

I am and always have been a fiscal conservative. I believe that the current and past government leaders spends recklessly without regard for the tax payers who hired them. I have seen this first hand working for two states as a government employee. I am firmly against most subsidies as the free market should decide where research and investments in technology, farming, and energy in particular should be made. We have seen that giving tax payer money to companies has had less than stellar results - and how do they decide who is worthy? Let private corporations invest their money if they believe an idea has merit.

I do not believe that government exists to run our lives or decide for me what I should think, eat, wear, do in my bedroom, and many other things that should remain private. I am not gay and don't care if you are. Marry who you want as long as it is a person and not an animal.

I am sort of pro choice because I think that the left should at least acknowledge that the fetus is a baby, but I will not put my morals on another person. That includes religion. Practice what you like or don't practice at all. But do not remove centuries of what this country was founded on, like the ten commandments statue that has been in a town square for decades and no one ever had a problem. Or in God we Trust on our money. It is a part of our history and should not be wiped away to appease a few. I can say Merry Christmas if I damn well please and should not be worried if I am going to offend someone.

I am firmly pro-gun as you might imagine based on my background. With that I think that responsible gun ownership is paramount. You do not have to buy a gun but don't tell me I can't have one, much like you on the pro-choice issue. I am back and forth on the NRA because many of the things (grants and scholarships) they do outside of lobbying are good for shooters but they can be unbending when it comes to reasonable compromise. I do see their slippery slope POV though because while you may not be anti-gun, many who are would confiscate all guns from the people if they could. In fact that opinion has been posted previously on PS. This is concerning for 2A supporters.

Term limits! Yes! And candidates should be given a certain dollar amount to campaign and that is it.

Social programs are harder for me because I have witnessed fraud personally. While in theory they are a good thing, they need a serious overhaul to ensure that as little as possible is wasted and the support gets to those who truly need it.

The Supreme Court is a concern of mine. It should be balanced and I fear that should a liberal nominate as many as might be possible in the next term, that balance will be gone. I do not feel that the SCOTUS is the place for legislating progressive ideas. They are to interpret and apply the constitution as it is written. It is not a living document.

Criminal justice system. Well.... it is broken but also needed. Dangerous criminals need to be locked up whether they are addicts or not. You cannot rehabilitate someone who refuses to take advantage of available programs.

Immigration. Another system that is a taboo topic but it is broken also. I am very tolerant of people who want to come to this country and abide by its rules but if you cannot then I do not want you here. You must go through the process and please learn English. I don't care if you speak your native tongue as well but the native language here is English.

I hope that helps us to understand each other better.

 

[AGBF]

Hi, Gyps and Red. I got up early this morning to respond to my barking Newfie and read "The New York Times" on-line then came here. This exchange between you was a truly wonderful gift. You are both so thoughtful and express yourselves so clearly that I actually felt I gained some insight into your worldviews. Thank you for doing this exercise!

In admiration,
Deb

 

[AGBF]

So I think If/Then is the correct format here. Perhaps a true grammarian, AGBF? Ksinger?, can weigh in. Or Haven -- whatever happened to Haven?

I am not sure I can claim to be a "true grammarian", but when my daughter told me, a year or so ago, that people now had trouble discerning the difference between "then" and "than" I was stunned. Maria is right and kenny is wrong.

Here is the initial discussion.

... Are you saying if liberals didn't always point out that they tend to be more educated then conservatives would be more likely to consider liberal policies?

(snip)

It's 'than' not 'then'.
Then is about time.
Than is about comparison.

(snip)

(snip)

Kenny, I am a math teacher. In Geometry, the theorems are always* written as If/Then statements.

(snip)

Maria was saying that if one thing were true or happened, then another would happen. It wasn't a comparison. If one thing happened, then another would follow (later in time if you wish).