Political Litmus Test
-
until we figure out what's going
That's so vague it could be very quickly or could wait until the human race has solved all outstanding problems in physics.
People like you who scream "Racist!" or whatever at every shadow are probably doing as much harm as anyone.
As much as the hordes of terrorist muslims who hate the west and are straining to get in and blow up american buildings?
-
-
Do you believe everything a person says when campaigning.
Obama must have been a disappointment then.
-
There is no international guarantee of rights.
Not true. There are just very few of them.
-
As much as the hordes of terrorist muslims who hate the west and are straining to get in and blow up american buildings?
Indubitably!
In any case, if we won't let them in, that's more for you guys! Win / Win, eh?
-
When they say it over and over and it's one of the primary reasons they're so popular, yes.
-
saying that you were fine with banning all muslims
I never said this. I don't believe Trump did either, when taken in context.
I get the argument that people from known terrorist supporting states, or with links to ISIS, are more likely to cause trouble, but what about an imam who regularly preaches peace and rejection of ISIS's ideals? Why should they be lumped in with them?
They're only lumped in until the vetting process separates them. Which is what vetting is.
-
Do you believe everything a person says when campaigning.
When they say it over and over and it's one of the primary reasons they're so popular, yes.
-
When they say it over and over and it's one of the primary reasons they're so popular, yes.
So, when Hillary and Obama said they were against gay marriage and for civil unions, does that still apply?
Because I think you're being hypocritical here.
-
So, when Hillary and Obama said they were against gay marriage and for civil unions, does that still apply?
No, because A) they avoided saying it at all costs and B) it was not one of the primary reasons they were so popular.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6K9dS9wl7U
"I do not support an amendment defining marriage" He says defining it as man and woman, but this should go both ways. He says it's up to the states. And yet he applauded the Supreme Court defining marriage and turning down state law, effectively making it federal
1:00 "But I do support Civil Unionshttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM
No I do not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3huRVrckY8&t=1m00s
But I support civil unions
-
This line of attack is pretty weak if it relies on "What If" scenarios...
I'm not mounting any kind of attack, I just think you're casting too wide a net is all.
Note: I'm personally not a fan of any religion, nor am I screaming x-phobia.
vetting process
See, I'm completely fine with that. I just don't like generalizations that seem to skip that process in any way. You might not have claimed you want that, but that's the impression your statement left. I'm a fan of the whole "nuance" thing.
-
And they said those things when pressed to speak about them. And you still haven't shown that that's why they were popular.
-
There is no international guarantee of rights.
PFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFT.
-
Trump, on the other hand, is using the same tactics as Hitler. No, really. Every single characteristic of fascism is embodied perfectly by Trump's campaign.
Except the little toothbrush moustache. Not even Trump has the front to rock that.
-
Not yet. Give it time. He's working himself up to that level of abhorrence.
After Trump-supporting brothers were accused of assaulting and urinating on a Hispanic man in August in Boston, Trump said his fans were “very passionate.” After a fight erupted between protesters and police last year in Birmingham, Ala., Trump said: “Maybe he should have been roughed up.” Of a protester in Nevada last month, Trump said: “I’d like to punch him in the face.” In Kentucky not long ago, where police are investigating two alleged assaults of protesters, Trump said: “Get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do I’ll defend you in court. … Are Trump rallies the most fun? We’re having a good time.” There was the “cowboy action” reenactor charged with assault Thursday after he appeared to sucker punch a protester — and Trump said he’s “looking into” paying the 78-year-old man’s legal fees.
-
And they said those things when pressed to speak about them.
Oh gawd.
You pick who is right and you bullshit until they fit close enough to some "system" that seems to have no ethical bounds.
I'm not even going to carry on this conversation.
So it's ok to be pressed into saying things you don't believe when they mostly agree with you. And then they can change their mind later once elected.
But it's not ok to be pressed into saying things you don't believe when they mostly disagree with you.
Bullshit....
-
I just took this interesting test
-
It should be far left.
He's for regulating speech.
I think you misunderstood what the left-right axis means.
Besides, the far corners don't really exist, because if you are far down libertarian, you won't be imposing much law, and if you're far up authoritarian it really doesn't matter what laws you impose.
-
I see regulating speech as a value along the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis, not the Left/Right axis.
The graph needs a third axis labeled "NodeBB Devs/DiscoDevs". Also, I just finished learning about Minkowski diagrams so my ideas on graphs and axisesseses are currently very funky.
-
I see regulating speech as a value along the Authoritarian/Libertarian axis, not the Left/Right axis.
True, I was trying to fit it to left-right as much as possible, but it doesn't really fit at all.
Left-right is mostly about market freedom and economics.
-
What's stopping anyone from starting their own credit card and payment and money transfer network? If there's an abusive monopoly, there's a massive incentive for providing a non-abusive alternative, anyone could make shitloads of money on that.
I'm sure that in 1985, license to operate a bank is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955, it's a little hard to come by.
-
I'm sure that in 1985, license to operate a bank is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955, it's a little hard to come by.
I feel like there is a Back to the Future joke in there, but I am not getting it?
-
The joke is that expecting that the government would allow someone to operate a bank without you already being billionaire is as naive as when Dr. Brown expected that plutonium would be available in any drugstore in the future.
(and at least in my country, no deal without bribing half the government)
Original quote:
I'm sure that in 1985, plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 1955, it's a little hard to come by.
-
Holy fuck. I was right...even though I was just making a stupid joke.
-
Trump, on the other hand, is using the same tactics as Hitler.
Well then, we just need to wait for him to invade Russia in the winter and let the problem solve itself.
If he isn't willing to become American, and there's 10 Americans interviewing that reasonably fill the role, no more visas for you.
Haha, most people on work visas would love to get American citizenship. It's a very expensive and long process to go through, when the state even allows it. Much faster to marry someone for the green card. Also, who decides any of the 10 Americans "reasonably fill the role"? A bureaucrat that has no clue what the job entails?
-
It should be far left.
He's for regulating speech.
I think you misunderstood what the left-right axis means.
Besides, the far corners don't really exist, because if you are far down libertarian, you won't be imposing much law, and if you're far up authoritarian it really doesn't matter what laws you impose.
Not sure if
or 
...
-
Haha, most people on work visas would love to get American citizenship. It's a very expensive and long process to go through, when the state even allows it. Much faster to marry someone for the green card. Also, who decides any of the 10 Americans "reasonably fill the role"? A bureaucrat that has no clue what the job entails?
That's why businesses should have to prove the need.
Either way, I'm for a drastic reduction in work visas.
It's retarded how people with longstanding jobs are being fired in order to hire a foreigner. If someone is being fired so that the company can pay less, then it's unethical. You operate in America, you hire Americans.
And if the government can't figure out "reasonably fill the role" then we shouldn't be offering work visas in the first place.
Alternatively, we could tax companies up to the median pay for that location. That way they either pay the foreigner what Americans are making, or they hire an American.
This way it's a win-win.
-
Well then, we just need to wait for him to invade Russia in the winter and let the problem solve itself.
Putin seems to appreciate Trump.
-
-
He also states that he has never personally identified as a Christian, and calls his religion **Odinism**
Hey, that reminds me of someone around here!
-
-
Wrong. I think this needed to be
.He says it's up to the states. And yet he applauded the Supreme Court defining marriage and turning down state law, effectively making it federal
But that was ruled as a matter of Constitutional Rights.
Yes, the states have rights. But so do the People. What are you arguing here: that the states should be allowed to take the People's Rights under the federal Constitution?
I think this shows a vast misunderstanding of the difference in roles between the federal legislative, executive, and judicial branches. They don't have the same authorities and Obama was wrong when he said the issue was (unqualified) "up to the states."
From a legislative/executive standpoint that's true. But it can't be true from a judicial standpoint or our federal Constitution is a tissue of lies, offering no protections against the whim of state governments. Where there was doubt before, it was eliminated by the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
-
Despite my better judgement, I have taken this frivolous test.
I now await promotion to mod status.
-
-
I now await promotion to mod status.
What are your feelings about having to do work?
Do you enjoy being yelled at by childish man-rats about things that are out of your control?
-
the states should be allowed to take the People's Rights under the federal Constitution?
Slow down...
I think this shows a vast misunderstanding
Slow the hell down...
What are you arguing here
That he was all over the place on gay marriage.
-
Unpasteurized Argus.
Those are quite good. But when you're visiting Poland next time, try one of these. You won't be disappointed.
I'm not sure if it's visible in the picture, these are (looking from the left): strong pale ale, double wheat IPA and American India Brown Ale.
My evening.
-
Despite my better judgement, I have taken this frivolous test. Pray I don't take it again.
Slow the hell down...
Fuck that noise. I wanna:
I know you wanted to turn it into an "Obama is
badevilthe Grand Satan" moment...But you're imagining things. It is not inconsistent to be in favor of a right and to also be in favor of state rights. It's a little stupid when you assert that the states have a right they don't. Okay so far?
But if that type of inconsistency is wrong then
Republicanspoliticians, to the individual, are going to be the Great Satan's minions in hell. Examples:- The federal government better not tell us what to do about marriage. States fucking got Rights!!
- The fucking feds better make sure every state respects our religious Rights. States got no fucking Rights to social justice our religion and make us all uncomfortable. Go feds!
- The fucking feds better make sure no state passes any stupid environmental requirements. States got no fucking Rights to impose environmental regulation on businesses that sell there. Go feds!
All for them States' Rights---except when they aren't.
-
But you're imagining things. It is not inconsistent to be in favor of a right and to also be in favor of state rights. It's a little stupid when you assert that the states have a right they don't. Okay so far?
He said
- States have already defined marriage. We don't need a federal decision to overrule it.
- Marriage is between a man and a woman. I'm ok with civil unions.
He applauded
- Supreme court deciding that the states were wrong and therefore a federal decision overrules the state's laws.
Again, I'm ok with people having a change of heart, but when @Fox said he never said anything about gay marriage, he was wrong, then asserted that Obama was pressured to say something, implying that Obama wouldn't win otherwise.
So, the only difference he has between Trump and Obama is not the motivation to win, but that he disagrees with Trump, and therefore Obama is justified in doing whatever it takes but Trump is not.
And don't get me wrong, I don't even like Trump.
But I do get upset when people act like Trump is the first one to do these things, because we have a bigger problem with it, and people are too stupid to realize it.
Trump is just one symptom, one participant, in the problem. A problem that both "sides" suffer from.
But if that type of inconsistency is wrong then Republicans
I don't play sides.
If it's wrong, it's wrong.
The Republicans were wrong to ask the feds to define marriage, then get upset that the Supreme court defined marriage.
But define marriage or not, isn't even in my solution scope.
My solution is to get government out of defining marriage at all, but tax laws are a
to 
-
@Fox said he never said anything about gay marriage
[Citation needed]
implying that Obama wouldn't win otherwise.
[Citation needed]@xaade said:
So, the only difference he has between Trump and Obama is not the motivation to win, but that he disagrees with Trump, and therefore Obama is justified in doing whatever it takes but Trump is not.
That's like saying the only difference between you and I is that I am me and you are you. Boiling down all of the differences between Obama and Trump to "I disagree with Trump" is stupid, because that disagreement is multifaceted and complex. Everything he does, everything he advocates, every sentence spewed forth from his mouth is unprofessional, hateful, and unacceptable in a civilized society at all, much less from the leader of it.
-
every sentence spewed forth from his mouth is unprofessional, hateful, and unacceptable in a civilized society at all, much less from the leader of it.
None of that changes the fact that Obama said he was against gay marriage and for civil unions, Hillary was against gay marriage and for civil unions, and then they shifted gears when it became popular and the Supreme Court decided the case.
You outright said that didn't happen.
I provided videos showing that they did in fact say that were against gay marriage and for civil unions.
You can dance around that all you want.
-
@xaade said:
So, when Hillary and Obama said they were against gay marriage and for civil unions, does that still apply?
No, because A) they avoided saying it at all costs and B) it was not one of the primary reasons they were so popular.
Here it is.
They didn't avoid saying it at all costs.
They were asked a question, and calmly replied.
And Obama went even a step further and talked about how his Christians beliefs informed his decision.
The truth is that you're totally ok when Obama and Hillary lie about their beliefs or intentions while campaigning, but if I were to say that Trump is a liberal and he's just saying what people want to here, OMG It doesn't matter, he said it and it made him popular.
Well Obama defended traditional marriage because it made him more popular. He didn't want to lose Catholic Democrat votes.
-
I'm so tired of people basing their opinions entirely around party lines.
-
Unfortunately I wasn't visiting Poland - one supermarket chain around here carries it. I once bought it pretty much on accident and I was quite happy with the punch it had, so I buy a few (dozen) cans once in a while.
What does "szoszonow" mean, though? I'm assuming "postrach" means the same thing it means in Czech, but all I know about the other word is that Google Translate thinks it's Hungarian for "sauce". Either way, it sounds fun.
-
-
They didn't avoid saying it at all costs.
Yes, they did. They only said it when pressed to speak about it, whereas most of the Republican frontrunners make it one of their biggest selling points.
-
Obama and Hillary lie about their beliefs or intentions while campaigning
[Citation needed]@xaade said:
you're totally ok when Obama and Hillary lie about their beliefs or intentions while campaigning
[Citation needed]
-
I'm so tired of party lines basing themselves around opinions.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Wikipedia
