Considering some people kill the babies in the womb when they learn the gender is female you have to wonder which party does more to help women.Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
That being said its clear that liberals are often in support of bad policies that do favor females over males (example sports). So I guess if you think "treating people equally" is "not woman-friendly" and "giving bias to women" = 'woman friendly' then you might have a point.
Sports is the example you use, seriously?
I don't think I see any need to engage with you again - if one of the other conservatives we have around wants to take it up, I'll play.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Throwing my name around is a lame and tiresome way to avoid answering the real questions, or addressing the real problems.
That's really no better than Lewk using a sports analogy to rail against women's rights.
Yes, those are the same people who voted for Perot. Only 68% of Republicans have a positive view of the Republican Party. Incidentally, about a fifth of Trump's support comes from Democrats. He gets the angry white male crowd, particularly those who think they've been hurt by trade and those who are racist. They have no one else to support from the GOP field. The grassroots favorites are Rubio and Walker (by a large margin). Cruz is the Tea Party darling. Bush is supported by the establishment. The libertarians support Paul (note how Paul lost most of his anti-establishment support to Trump, retaining only the libertarian hardcore). The evangelicals like Cruz, Huckabee, and to a lesser extent, Walker. Silicon Valley probably supports Fiorina. So who does that leave for Trump?
The problem, according to you, is that we're a democracy. If a substantial portion of Americans support Trump, it's downright stupid to not give him a seat at the debate.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not convinced that the best way to "winnow" the field is by using early caucus states in the first place. Iowa and New Hampshire aren't very good representatives of the nation as a whole. Neither is Florida, or the Carolinas, or Ohio for that matter.
One good thing Trump has highlighted.....is how fucked up our election processes are, and that our two-party political system isn't working so well in the 21st century.
Another dumbdumb post. Just so much facepalm
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No, the "problem" is that our representative democracy has been infected by monied interests (special interest groups, paid lobbyists, powerful industries) to the point that our two-party political process dominates, but isn't working.
I'm not affiliated, or registered, with any political party. That means I can't vote in any closed state primary that makes political party membership paramount.It's crazy to think my vote doesn't matter unless I declare myself a (R) or (D) first.
Last edited by GGT; 08-08-2015 at 05:31 AM.
They don't need to be good representatives of the nation as a whole. No state is a good representative of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvania certainly isn't. But if you can't draw up a decent run in either of those two rather soft states, how are you supposed to do so elsewhere? Anyway, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you in the past, none of this is actually a working of the US government or its election system. It's an activity by and for political parties, private (albeit quite large) organizations of people around loose collections of political ideas working together to try and collectively get each others views eventually made into public policy.
Our "two party system" isn't a formal system. It's an ad-hoc arrangement. A long-lasting one, but one that has no formal status. If people don't like it, they're free to stop participating and apply themselves to some other route.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...uation-comment
It's interesting to me to see where the lines are drawn.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
I've repeatedly tried to say the same thing. But when I lament the use of Big Money and its control over the political process, it's no consolation when "compromise" is used as a dirty word.
What alternative "route" do you mean?Our "two party system" isn't a formal system. It's an ad-hoc arrangement. A long-lasting one, but one that has no formal status. If people don't like it, they're free to stop participating and apply themselves to some other route.
I thought it was a natural consequence of your electoral system
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Never said he's not a sexist pig. I said attacking a woman doesn't by itself make you a sexist pig.
Two of the four candidates to be Labour party leader are female. Oddly enough they are the two I think would be the least-worst potential leaders Labour are offering but if either of them win then she'd be the only non-male major party leader in England and I'd dislike them. Not because she's female, but because she's Labour. The SNP's new leader is female, the only female major party leader in the UK and I dislike her. Not because she's female but because she's a shit-stirring, extreme, far-left, bandwagon-jumping, flip-flopping, hypocritical Nationalist extremist. Her gender plays no role in it.
Who is railing against women's rights? The only 'right' I'm railing against is the right to kill babies. And sports isn't an analogy it is an actual fact that men's sports team have been cut due to Title IX.
That's really no better than Lewk using a sports analogy to rail against women's rights.
In the eyes of a liberal if you call a woman a fat pig you're a sexist asshole.
In the eyes of a liberal there is nothing wrong with calling Chris Christie a fat pig you're just stating the truth.
Liberals love double standards.
Why didn't you make this a poll?
Why would this be a poll?
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Wraithy, can you edit the OP to include a poll asking whether or not the thread should be a poll??
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
A poll for what?
"Wer Visionen hat, sollte zum Arzt gehen." - Helmut Schmidt
Please, don't mess up my thread.
There should first be a poll to ask if there should be a poll to ask if the thread should be a poll. You're moving too fast.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
No polls
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Look man, we gotta go with what the majority wants. If the majority of users here want there to be a poll asking if we should convert this thread into a poll asking if it should have been a poll, then that's what we should do. Of course, I'm not really sure if the majority wants that. We should create a poll to find out.
Is this Pollception?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Thread starter always wields 51% of the vote. So...no poll about anything to do with a poll on a poll about a poll unless an external poll reveals the necessity for a poll.
I demand a poll where we vote on that there should be no more polls.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
This has yet to be established...
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Steely, I think that will lead us into petition territory...
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
i demand
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
So we need to have a poll to determine if the thread starter carries most of the vote on whether there should be a poll asking if we should convert this thread into a poll, asking if it should have been a poll.This has yet to be established...
Actually he wasn't, the question was about "allowing transgender" people in the military. I think that Huckabee is right though and in the right context as well. The military can't be a social experiment even if it means restricting people's freedoms in the military. Until such time that relaxing these freedoms are clearly shown not to have any negative impact on troop morale or readiness, that is. But, then again, they didn't have a lot of time to answer.
By the way, a lot of people (24m or so) watched the debate. I would have watched more of it if Fox's website actually allowed me to view it on my PC. (despite me having a cable subscription, it only worked for mobile devices...)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote