logo 
spacer
  

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

If you have an opinion, you should share it! Register Now!

America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Click here to start

> Sponsored Links

Register to remove these ads!
> Screw those who are essential and work?, The Trump shut-down.
Supposn
post Jan 10 2019, 08:48 PM
Post #1


*****
Century Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 155
Member No.: 12,766
Joined: October-19-12

Gender: Undisclosed
Politics: Undisclosed
Party affiliation: Undisclosed



Screw those who are essential and work?? The Trump shut-down.

If the link provided at the end of this post is correct:
Those furloughed federal employees considered as not essential and are not currently working for the federal government, can tide themselves over by gainfully working full-time if they can find such opportunities. They can also work part-time and/or qualify for unemployment benefits.

Those federal employees considered essential and required to continue working without pay, are entitled to work part-time if they can find work that doesn't conflict with their federal work schedule, but they are not entitled to receive unemployment benefits.

In most if not all cases when federal employees MAY receive back-pay, the state will legally recover any unemployment benefits they paid out for the back-paid period.

In summary, there's no financial remedy for federal employees that actually do work for our federal government during Trump's shut-down.
Does this seem logical to anyone except President Donald Trump?

Refer to:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/do...hp_minor_pos19

Many furloughed federal employees can receive unemployment while on temporary leave of absence, but not all. Federal employees who are expected to report to work, even without pay, do not qualify for unemployment benefits. Federal workers should be wary. In most states, as well as D.C., if these workers collect unemployment benefits and then receive retroactive pay, they’ll be required to repay the government.

Respectfully, Supposn
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 23)
Mrs. Pigpen
post Feb 20 2019, 03:02 PM
Post #21


Group Icon

**********
Carpe noctum

Sponsor
June 2003

Group: Moderators
Posts: 7,350
Member No.: 598
Joined: March-12-03

Gender: Female
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Independent



QUOTE(droop224 @ Feb 18 2019, 08:51 PM) *
You know who didin't care and still doesn't?


I was being facetious with the bleeding hearts. **
For years the military has been outsourcing to contractors. There are many, many contractors that have replaced active duty military.
The Airforce went to something called "TFI". The total force initiative, which means Reservists are taking a lot of jobs of active duty.
We have a friend who is retiring from the Reserves (a TR) now and he found he cannot qualify for disability in spite of the fact his back is very damaged from flying fighter jets into his fifties.
So when you claim the military in general is "protected" from the impact of shutdowns (not to mention the sequestration/continuing resolution nonsense), you are mistaken.

Reason the switch has been made (to reserves and contractors): Scarce resources.
It's not just retirement benefits (they can incentivize people to leave before retirement, or just summarily RIF them like they've been doing), it's all the other personal welfare benefits that come with active duty service.
This last part is the problem with illegal aliens coming to our shores. Consider the active duty is about 1.3 million people. Then consider that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are showing up every year. For some perspective, the media considered it a "victory" that the year before last we "only" had about half the number of illegals in a single year as the entire number active duty military.

**Folks who support illegal aliens over American citizens are actually pawns of big business and the 2% in their goal to have below-market wage workers… while they fret the Republicans might give them a tax break or reduced regulations to encourage expansion and hire more Americans.

I represent the demographic that cares about long-term border security over short-term unhappiness of government workers.
I support longterm benefit for America and Americans (which includes those government workers...including the very small portion of government workers impacted by the "shutdown").

This post has been edited by Mrs. Pigpen: Feb 20 2019, 03:33 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
AuthorMusician
post Feb 21 2019, 11:03 AM
Post #22


**********
Glasses and journalism work for me.

Sponsor
November 2003

Group: Sponsors
Posts: 6,389
Member No.: 297
Joined: December-1-02

From: Blueberry Hill
Gender: Male
Politics: Liberal
Party affiliation: Democrat



Let's see, government partial shutdown didn't work. How's about an end-run around Congress? Didn't work for Iran-Contra, but this time maybe? Seems hardly anyone's buying the emergency shtick.

Need some new ideas here! How can a POTUS get his . . . how can a POTUS work the . . . is there any way a president can subvert the Constitution without anyone noticing?

Ah, nope. Looks like you're all alone, Mr. President.

If it's any consolation, nobody's buying the fake news on social media any longer either. It's as if the public woke up or something. See what happens when you hire writers on the cheap? GIGO! Just a bunch of grammar and spelling challenged hacks with flimsy logic unfit to use even as toilet paper.

It's pronounced az-wee'-pea.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
droop224
post Feb 21 2019, 03:22 PM
Post #23


*********
Advanced Senior Contributor

Group: Members
Posts: 2,833
Member No.: 3,073
Joined: May-12-04

Gender: Male
Politics: Very Liberal
Party affiliation: None



QUOTE(Mrs P)
I was being facetious with the bleeding hearts. **
For years the military has been outsourcing to contractors. There are many, many contractors that have replaced active duty military.
The Airforce went to something called "TFI". The total force initiative, which means Reservists are taking a lot of jobs of active duty.
We have a friend who is retiring from the Reserves (a TR) now and he found he cannot qualify for disability in spite of the fact his back is very damaged from flying fighter jets into his fifties.
So when you claim the military in general is "protected" from the impact of shutdowns (not to mention the sequestration/continuing resolution nonsense), you are mistaken.


No, I'm not mistaken, which is why you keep talking about... these reservists, or those retirees, or these reservists trying to fill in active duty positions. You know what you aren't talking about? Active Duty military. You know why you aren't talking about Active Duty military? Because they were getting paid. They didn't get furloughed in 2013 or 2018.

QUOTE
Will Military Members Get Paid?
Update: The government has passed some, but not all, spending bills for the government shutdown that began in late 2018 and extended through early 2019. The Department of Defense is funded through September 30, 2019. This means all military members, military retirees, military annuitants (survivor benefit recipients), and DoD civilian employees that fall under the Department of Defense will receive their regular paychecks through that date.

However, other members of the Uniformed Services that do not fall under the DoD are not funded under the current government spending bills. This includes the following organizations:
  • The US Coast Guard (USCG), which falls under the Department of Homeland Security,
  • The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which falls under the United States Department of Commerce, and
  • The Commissioned Corps of the US Public Health Service (USPHS) which is a division of the Department of Health and Human Services concerned with public health.
Your personal anecdotes aside, generally, the military got paid and was protected. You like myself i'm sure have plenty of military contacts. Instead of thinking of the people you know that didn't get paid, think about the people you knew that are in the military, or were in the military at the time of the furlough, that WERE getting paid. I bet there are a lot more which WERE getting paychecks, than the ones that weren't.

QUOTE
This last part is the problem with illegal aliens coming to our shores. Consider the active duty is about 1.3 million people. Then consider that hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are showing up every year. For some perspective, the media considered it a "victory" that the year before last we "only" had about half the number of illegals in a single year as the entire number active duty military.
Problems i have with this statement:

1. the media... considered it a victory? OK. Sure.

2. Illegal immigrants leave, every year!!

3. How is what you doing giving a good perspective. Its a perspective, but not one i would use. Here use this Pew Research to aid you getting better perspective. among things to note... illegal Chinese are more prevalent than Hispanics since 2010. Also there are about 10 million immigrants here illegally. Instead of saying OMG lets compare that to out AD military force (still not sure why you think that was a good idea) how about we compare that to our population size. That way you can get a general percentage of just how many people are here illegally.

QUOTE
**Folks who support illegal aliens over American citizens are actually pawns of big business and the 2% in their goal to have below-market wage workers… while they fret the Republicans might give them a tax break or reduced regulations to encourage expansion and hire more Americans.
What isthis reverse psychology or something?!?! w00t.gif I don't know anyone that fits this characterization. I'll say again ITS THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE HIRING THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. Why aren't conservatives putting in the same effort, not the politicians, the constituency, in locking up business men and CEOs. "Oh there are no laws" No sh... so advocate to MAKE laws!! Just like conservatives advocate to make laws to lock up human beings for having or giving abortions. In fact, why would you put the same effort, I'm wrong to suggest that. If Conservative constituency really wants to stop illegal immigration from our southern border and they are smart enough to understand the immigration is due to businesses' hiring practices, then you should be putting MORE energy is making laws to punish businesses and their human leaders that do this. Instead of another thousand ICE Agents, you need another thousand AUDITORS. Most of the left is not FOR illegal immigration, we just don't care, maybe because we have a better perspective of the threat.

QUOTE
I represent the demographic that cares about long-term border security over short-term unhappiness of government workers.
I support longterm benefit for America and Americans (which includes those government workers...including the very small portion of government workers impacted by the "shutdown").
Niiiiiiiiiice!!!! Can America have benefits without it benefitting Americans?!?! Talk about "things that make you go hmmmm"! Anyways, i know you believe this Mrs P. Its a psychology issue. And i don't mean that in a derogatory sense, obviously we all have our own psychology. We can go down the lists of debates where me and you bump heads and see... you often chalk up your political views to security. Which tells me your psychology see a lot of threats. This is what leads many human to more conservative politics. Personal stories that you know only exasperates that feeling that there are threat you must stand against. Someone who feels insecure, wants more security. Makes sense. But psychology aside, what is the threat, actually. Will the wall eliminate the threat? If the wall will lessen the threat, how so and how much? Is the wall just a "blanket". Something that make conservative feel more secure against a threat grossly exaggerated by their own fears?

This is me being honest, from a leftist viewpoint, i think it is a blanket. Its not that i don't think that conservatives see a threat. They are easily manipulated to see threats. I do think you guys see threats, but its not based on any science, polls, or research. What Trump start off saying in 2015 spoke a "truth" resonating to many with a conservative ear and psychology. Mexico was sending its worst human beings into America. And conservatives are going to protect us from that threat, even if it causes short term pain to their fellow Americans. But just like any witch hunt, conservatives, the protector from the threat, becomes worst than the threat itself. Illegal immigrants, rape, murder, steal, etc, but no more than Americans. The threat isn't great, the solution to the miniscule threat isn't great, but the conservative energy poured into the horrible solutions for such a small threat, is great. And as i noted several times before, that energy is directed at the impoverished and weak, rather than the wealthy and strong that's is the ROOT of the threat.







Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
net2007
post Feb 24 2019, 02:31 AM
Post #24


********
Millennium Mark

Group: Members
Posts: 1,241
Member No.: 7,629
Joined: April-27-07

From: North Carolina
Gender: Male
Politics: Slightly Conservative
Party affiliation: Republican



Droop

I can appreciate some of what you're saying in this reply, not because you said a couple things I agree with but because you challenged those who likely share many of your beliefs. My biggest issue with politics is the excessive partisanship and double standards that are commonly on display. In other words, some look at politics this way... "when my political opponents are wrong, they're wrong, but when they're right, they're still wrong." Too often it doesn't matter in the slightest if someone enters a debate then makes an effort to be honest, fair, or factual.

As with my last reply, if you don't have time to read all of this one, scroll down to the last several paragraphs if you're willing, those are the most important. I'm trying to get detailed on as many of your points as I can so these replies do get rather lenghty...

QUOTE
You can know... beyond a reasonable doubt?? You can't even properly characterize the situation. The one dollar comment comes because she was being pressed by a reporter with a question saying..."you say you won't negotiate about a wall to end a shut down... WHAT IF there was a bill to give the wall one dollar would you support it..." Then she was like "one dollar... one dollar... sure but that's not the point blah blah blah." I'm paraphrasing but here is a link. So, forgive me, but if you can not correctly characterize the exchange i doubt you can correctly assess her as being counter productive in negotiating with Conservative politicians.


Thanks for adding information but I have seen the original clip, more than once actually. You're saying I can't even properly characterize this situation but before we start to make things like that, why don't we look at the source more closely? I'm happy to talk about what Pelosi said in more detail and explain exactly why I wasn't mischaracterizing. Actually, to elaborate on how I characterized things before, I believe I took it easy on her given the full context of her conversation with those reporters that day. I figured there's a lot more to cover apart from Pelosi's rantings but I can expand on this if you're misreading me.

To start, did you paraphrase the reporter from another source? The clip that you shared had the question from the reporter mostly snipped out, here's a longer clip for reference....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDOzbrP1ITk

The question from the reporter was...

"Is there any situation which you would accept even a dollar of wall funding for the President in order to re-open the government?"

As far as Pelosi being pressured, I've seen a lot worse. It's not as if the reporter was getting out of line with her and I also don't think he intended his question to be a joke. It appeared to me as if he was trying to measure whether or not there was anything Trump could offer which would prompt her to give wall funding, however small that amount may be. Did you notice how nobody was laughing until she took his question literally?

Her response started with her cocking her head a little bit as she asked...

"A Dollar????"

She then gives a long pause as some in the room start to laugh and after she's got their attention, she runs with it further...

"A Dollar! ..... One dollar, yea, one dollar!"

She's saying the latter as she turns to face the camera, the best I can figure is that she's doing that because she feels like she's on a roll. Soon after this, the reporter even tries to maintain a serious tone by asking her more specifically how high she's willing to go with offering funds but she wouldn't answer the question. She went right back to ranting about every negative thing she could think of to say about Trump and the idea of a wall. For example, just after that, she went straight to saying...

"The fact is, the wall is an immorality."

She also said...

"This is not a wall between Mexico and the United States that the President is creating here, it's a wall between reality and his constituents...."

Those aren't fact's, they're punchlines, the type that I'd think you'd be all over given that you seem to have a pet peeve for ridiculous punchlines. You seem to be like me in that sense, on my end, I think comments like that from Pelosi are subjective appeals to her base which break down under close examination. On your end, you recently ripped on conservatives for saying things like this....

"If you don't stand for the flag, you don't support our military"

What you said made sense, that's a punchline that makes a sweeping generalization and with that considered, I'm a little confused as to why you think I'm mischaracterizing Nancy Pelosi.

You're right that the reporter started the conversation and pressed her a bit to answer a question and perhaps Pelosi would have never made the 1 dollar comment without the reporter having been there but if it hadn't been that comment, it's clear she's made a number of similar ones and has played games in other ways. It shouldn't matter whether or not she was responding to a question, she decided what direction to take that press briefing. Trump and Pelosi have been going at each other like a couple of teenagers for a while now. So no, I don't think I was mischaraterizing her.

The amazing thing to me about some elected Democrats and left-leaning media pundits is that so many of them express such hatred or frustration with Trump but go about defeating him in the worst way possible. Pelosi doesn't have to play games with Trump or exaggerate a situation to try to make him look worse and neither does the media. They could have easily just let Trump say stupid and divisive things and there would have been no shortage of material to work with. They could have let him fall on his own sword by being adults but instead, they try to combat him with equally ridiculous rhetoric or they embellish to try to create a story where there is no story.

Given how some try to give the worst possible spin in many situations, I don't think those types are genuinely concerned when Trump puts his foot in his mouth because they can use that against him. I think they're worried about the areas where he's done well or has improved a situation because that gains a conservative president who's not pushing a leftist agenda, support from the public. As I said before, for some it's... "when my opponents are wrong, they're wrong, but when they're right, they're still wrong."

QUOTE
How are we making laws to really stick it to "job creators" that hire anyone other than an American? Are we putting the same amount of effort to demonize, penalize, and convict people who hire an illegal immigrant that we do a low level drug dealer?


I think that's a good question, this is a multifaceted problem with many contributors. While I have heard border security advocates mention that employers should face consequences, a lot more should be said on that so I'm disappointed that it isn't addressed more. Regardless of their political beliefs, those types of employers are just as responsible for incentivizing immigrants to put themselves at risk as the open borders activist who are incentivizing them in other ways.

Although I think that left-wing groups are doing a lot to incentivize these types of crossings, the overall point is that what applies to one group causing a problem should apply to another. I would point out that these types of employers vary in their political beliefs and that Democrats also haven't done enough to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants but I do see your point, the right and the Republican party have done their fair share to complicate this situation.

QUOTE
Lastly, the greater point I was making that was ignored. Is Democrats were negotiating on resource allocation and border security on the southern border. They just weren't negotiating a wall that extended the southern border.


I don't think all Democrats are playing games or don't care about border security, but there is a movement within the Democratic party who are playing games and who are guilty of delaying the process of securing the border, and in a broader sense than just resisting putting up a border barrier. They've done that in various ways, both rhetorically and by putting policies in place that lead to less security at the border. For example, there are loopholes in the asylum laws that we have and those who are very resistant to changing that. There are also certain policies that are being proposed which could complicate the situation, such as Democrats wanting to limit the number of beds for immigrants who are detained by immigration and customs enforcement. Even the New York Times was critical of that proposal....

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/15/opinion/...grants-ice.html

QUOTE
"if the Democrats get their way, they will likely make conditions much worse for the tens of thousands of undocumented migrants and asylum seekers in limbo on both sides of the border."


More details from the Washington Times....

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/f...crats-plans-wo/

QUOTE
"A briefer from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement stood outside the closed-door meeting Wednesday while negotiators working on a homeland security spending deal heard from border experts, who made their pitch for a border wall.

The ICE briefer never made it in the room, an administration official said.

If he had been allowed to speak, he would have told them that the limits they're pondering to immigrant detention, proposed by Democrats, would lead to 30,000 people being released back onto the streets, including thousands of migrants with criminal records."


As for rhetorically, there are a number of ways that some Democrats have demonized ICE or who disregard what border security agents are saying later to depict them and those who support them, in a negative light. In so many words, you've aknowledged that. In regards to the wall, many who are closest to the situation at the border believe a wall or fence will help, they have firsthand knowledge that border barriers help to reduce illegal crossings. So In regards to a border barrier and border security in a larger sense, there's a lot that can be pointed out which demonstrates that certain individuals aren't helping but I will concede that there are those who do want to help, I have no problem with that.

To move on, I want to look at a couple of quotes together to try to reconcile comments which appear to clash. This is important, I'll get to much of what you're saying now but am willing to go into much more detail with you after this post as well...

QUOTE
BTW i can talk bad about "liberals" too. Democrats leadership and most democratic congress people are paid off. They are bought by the same corporations that have bought. Hillary Clinton is corrupt. Kamala Harris sucks. I can talk about some of the liberal agenda too. #metoo is the worst thing I've ever seen on the liberal platform next to our pseudo love for Israel.


In that quote you clearly you went to the point of directing criticisms at groups commonly associated with modern liberalism and was willing to give ICE something in the way of credit, further down in the debate. As far as groups like #metoo, I'm not against the concept of coming forward if there's a problem, that's incredibly important. What I'm against are those who have politicized that movement or have used it to wield power over others.

So, above you're being critical of certain aspects of modern liberalism, but I wanted to address these quotes...

QUOTE
"Its not about the politicians. Its not about one agenda here or there. Its about what your movement supports over all, in spite of the life long politicians, in spite of the wayward agendas. And what's the border wall desire really all about? Law and order? Please!! The sad thing is you all lie to yourselves so much I'm sure you believe that is the issue. "We just want the law upheld!" No, that the subtext. What you fear is that the nation is becoming too "brown". And that's what your are fighting to avoid."

................

"The nature of being liberal is to be open-minded. Where i am being close minded on certain issues i do not think i am being liberal."

.................

"that is the gift of being a conservative, you only have to look at issues from one angle, yours. and you will shape and frame an argument and circumstances and totality of the fact to fit your agenda."

.................

"It never ceases to amaze me how the right wing loves to attack the weakest to prove they're the strongest"


I said I wanted to see how you reconcile a couple things that appear to clash. You're pointing out a number of problems with self-proclaimed liberals, that's more honest than what I hear from some people for sure. Moving on from that, you're going on to suggest that when a self-proclaimed liberal isn't being open-minded, then they're not being very liberal. In other words, you're suggesting that being fair or open minded is what makes a person liberal, right? To quote you word for word...

QUOTE
"Where i am being close minded on certain issues i do not think i am being liberal. NOW it is important that you know the order of things on this. It is not because i call myself a liberal that i am open-minded. DO NOT think i am saying that or implying that. Its because i am open-minded nature that leads me to be a self proclaimed "liberal"."


I have an idea as to how you're reconciling that with the large amount of examples which could be provided which show close-mindedness amongst self-proclaimed liberals. Personally, I believe the truth is more along the lines of this... Being open-minded is what makes a person open minded. That may sound simplistic but I don't think it's much more complicated than that, either a person is open-minded or they're not. I view the word liberal as a title that loosely describes a large number of people. To go back to definitions, here's one of the definitions of the word liberal....

"showing or characterized by broad-mindedness"

Here's how the same dictionary characterized "broad-mindedness"....

"inclined to respect views and beliefs that differ from your own"

https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/liberal

If you're referring to definitions like that, I think it's a noble thing if you want to try to live up to that standard. The problem I have with that definition is that far too often, this isn't how self-proclaimed liberals behave and that comes in combination with many conservatives being every bit as open-minded as their liberal counterparts. What I care about is what's actually happening in real-world scenarios. That definition says one thing, yet in reality, the sum of the actions of all of those who consider themselves liberal is a mixed bag. There is no shortage of modern liberals who are incredibly close-minded yet are still ideologically aligned with other self-proclaimed liberals and who still support liberal policies.

To try to meet you in the middle, you've pointed out a portion of many of the problems being created or exacerbated by those who consider themselves liberal today. If by pointing out some of those things, you're acknowledging that the word liberal in the dictionary and how people are applying that in real-world scenarios are two different things, then I understand. Having said that, I think that definitions of the word liberal which are similar to the one I shared above beg for elaboration.

Conservatives are commonly open-minded to conservative causes while liberals are commonly open-minded to liberal causes. There's no reason that something like support for late-term abortion is a position that's more open-minded than support for the unborn. In that case, one group is open to supporting the wishes of the mother, (sometimes regardless of the situation), while the other group is open to giving the unborn a voice and a chance at life. Support for abortion does not line up with the definition I shared above, but it does closely resemble this definition of liberal....

"open to NEW BEHAVIOR or opinions and willing to discard traditional values."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/united-...ography/liberal

Even that definition of liberal doesn't apply across the board, but in my opinion it's closer to reality than simply suggesting that the nature of being open minded is what makes a person liberal.

There's a lot more to your quotes above. You went to a racial argument by suggesting conservatives are lying to themselves and support for a border wall is based on fear of the country becoming more "brown". Perhaps that's applicable to some individuals but not to all or even most people from what I've seen, but we can debate that. You also said that the right wing loves to attack the weakest to prove they're the strongest.

It seems that you're acknowledging certain areas where the left screws up but your opposition to the right has to do with what you think the overall direction of conservatism is and the effect of conservative policies by comparison to liberal policies today. There is so much that I could show you which would offer another perspective but how much of what I say would you take seriously? Our opinions are going to clash and we're going to quibble over details but on both our ends, if there's something in the way of that open-minded spirit that you associate with liberalism, then we can probably learn a great deal.

Take someone like crusingram. I wouldn't be surprised if the extent he takes things to is, in part, the end result of years of indoctrination. Disgust like that for entire groups who have different political beliefs doesn't happen overnight. It often comes as the result of years of exposure to sources or individuals who leave out a huge portion of what's happening. In the past you've mentioned systemic racism, while these are two different topics, they're similar in the sense that there are a number of institutions in place which help to divide us politically, it's a very deeply rooted problem. I want to focus on what you said a couple years ago when you mentioned Chris Kyle (I have a photographic memory in regards to some of these debates tongue.gif)...

QUOTE
"once you get in the mindset of... no no no no no we're not going to count that... or that... or that... or that.... JUST THIS!!! Well then, yes, I guess you can prove your point."


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...showtopic=23176

You were clearly trying to emphasize that getting into the mindset of disregarding information is a bad thing. I can appreciate that but want to get across that it applies both ways, either a person cares about what happens to those who don't think like them, they don't, or they're ignorant to what's going on. Perhaps the best among us don't base their judgment on labels at all. On my end, as with many people who are active in politics, I do have my share of political bias but I think there are ways not to let that override the truth in any given case. Sometimes it just means taking a hit in a situation when it turns out that we're wrong and learning not to rush to judgment too fast.

Debating the issue of racism in America or debating those who target the weak is something I welcome. I don't think conservatives or the Republican party have more to worry about in that department than the Democratic party or self-proclaimed liberals. Actually, depending on what we're talking about specifically, I think the truth has been the opposite in many cases. There's ample evidence which demonstrates that this is much more complicated. If you want to go over it in a very direct way, I'm willing to. I will point out that this is an extensive topic so we'd have to narrow the debate to that topic some. I'm not sure anybody worries about off-topic discussions here anymore but I would say that this topic deserves its own thread.

You let me know how you want to play this, I'm often doing longer debates with you because I feel like you're someone with opposing viewpoints who is still willing to communicate. I'm assuming you already have a range of sources and information which show the ugly side of conservatism or the Republican party, this would be to help fill in the gaps some. The biggest footnote I'd want to state up front is that I don't think that most modern liberals or Democrats are hateful or set out to cause problems, the worst of it has been perpetrated by the very top and a segment of the public has decided to believe in those who are dividing us.

For now, I will address this from a personal perspective...

QUOTE
We just want the law upheld!" No, that the subtext. What you fear is that the nation is becoming too "brown". And that's what your are fighting to avoid.


To speak for myself, race doesn't matter in the way you're suggesting. It's important only in the sense that some people make it important. When that happens, as long as someone isn't being hateful as we often see with white nationalist groups or black lives matter, then I choose to be respectful when someone makes the argument that they're oppressed due to their skin color. In some cases, I think they're wrong but I do believe that in other cases some people choose to hate based on the skin color of another person. Perhaps it's that fearing someone based on external appearance is easy while getting to know someone is more difficult, but taking the easiest route in regards to others is the cowards way out.

If I'm to write a more extensive piece on why the right overall isn't more racist, less open-minded, nor are they supporting more damaging beliefs than Democratic party or modern liberals, it's going to take time, perhaps a month or a little longer but if you're willing to hear me out we can go there. Hearing me out doesn't mean agreeing with everything I say, it simply means reading and perhaps considering the possiblity that I'm trying to be straight with you, even if you decide I'm wrong. This is a multilayered topic where a lot of things interconnect to paint a larger picture. I'm not talking about cherry-picked and minor instances where a liberal or Democrat is rude or unaccepting to others.

This is much deeper than to point out cases similar to Jussie Smollett's case, where there's strong evidence that he created a fake hate crime which in itself should be considered a hate crime. This is even deeper than all of the media pundits who jumped to conclusions by saying he was assaulted, associating that alleged attack with Trump supporters, and doing so without proof. Then later when the facts come out, conveniently suggesting that we should wait until we get all of the evidence before we jump to conclusions with Smollett. I could point out a number of media pundits and politicians who did that.

It's deeper than the following cases as well, such as where Nick Sandmann and other students from Covington Catholic High School were depicted by many leftist media outlets as if here was yet another example of hateful Trump supporters willing to harass others....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSkpPaiUF8s

In another recent case, a few days ago at UC Berkeley a conservative activist by the name of Hayden Williams was violently assaulted and had his life threatened. Decide for yourself if the reaction he got was justified...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg1rZJwPRPs
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/22/us/conservat...eley/index.html

If you only have time to look into one of these cases, watch as much of the first video as you can in regards to Nick Sandmann and try to catch the parts where the media chimes in, particularly at the end. The whole video is worth a watch, it's interesting to see how some of these events unfold in detail. As for the UC Berkely case, the youtube video is a Sean Hannity interview with the victim. I think this is the first time I've used Hannity as a source due to the distrust he creates with his bias but as far as this interview goes you learn a lot about the victim in his own words. I included a CNN link below that interview to provide a mixture of viewpoints.

Do further investigative research on these if you wish, as I said this a lot deeper than these types of cases, or something like what happened to Brett Kavanaugh. I can share much more significant data, events like these events are happening for a reason, I don't think they're a fair representation of modern liberals as a whole but something is happening that deserves more attention than it's getting.

To wrap this up, as I mentioned in my last post, given the continuous problems with AD it's possible that the site doesn't have much longer. In the worst case scenario if you want to continue this or debate other topics in the future I may move onto http://thecollinegate.boards.net/. Nighttimer is there so that's one AD member. I'm going to PM my facebook page to you as well, Jamie, Mrs. Pigpen, and vsrenard are there, I don't do much in the way of posting but I'd update where I'll be moving onto from here if the site goes down. Eventually, I may not continue to do these in-depth debates but plan to stay active in debating to some extent.

This post has been edited by net2007: Feb 24 2019, 04:40 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

  
Go to the top of the page - Simple Version Time is now: March 23rd, 2019 - 10:30 PM
©2002-2010 America's Debate, Inc.  All rights reserved.