Almost as much as I like it when a man tells a woman what to believe or what her meetings should be focusing on? Irony alert!
Why is this board so liberal?
- Thread starter IDontWannaLargeFarva
- Start date
I think it can be relevant when you break ideas down into basic philosophical concepts. Too many politicians want to label themselves "pragmatic" which just allows them to pick and choose positions based on votes.
You are right about who thinks about that stuff. BUT, they DO think about the issues that result from how the Constitution is applied which is the result of a country divided over how it should be interpreted. Some folks like the outcomes of SCOTUS interpretation over the last few decades and some do not like it. There is the difference for those who couldn't explain it in the terms we are discussing. The choices of Supreme Court appointments was a very large issue that caused millions of people to vote as they did. Even those poor unwashed schmuck's who can talk about it in words of five syllables and/or using gerund phrases.
We've seen that claim here including self identified atheists using selected quotations from the Bible in an effort to support their argument. Sure enough, they did learn or copy some of what the Bible says. They don't believe it though. They just use it at a weapon. We've seen plenty of it here including non-Christians/atheists claiming certain traits or beliefs of Christians. We had a long discussion once here - posts in the hundreds as I recall. Not one non-Christian ever could post the fundamental tenants of Christianity they so passionately hate. Its quite a shame.
When Pres Obama won he didn't have any credentials that made him qualified either. Were you a supporter of his?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I'm not at all. I'm saying that @CO. Hoosier frequently decides what it means to be conservative. In this case he's committing an egregious sin by shoeing classic liberalism into his definition of conservatism.
I happen to consider classic liberalism, as taught by Hayek, to be a great philosophy and approach...but I'm not calling it conservative.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Well, I don't think we are saying totally different things. Yes, weaponizing the Bible is foolish and not useful. But pretending that the actual words of the Bible, where they conflict with the fundamental tenets, are just "words of humans" is also foolish and is rationalizing.
My point, and the reason I arrived at agnosticism after being raised as a practicing Catholic is because I actually read the Bible. This triggered an internal conflict and a series of critical thinking that just destroyed it all for me. My point is that I'm not alone in this journey. I don't know of any atheists / agnostics who are such because they are lazy, were raised atheist, or any other intellectually poor approach.
That's your opinion. The reason people voted for Trump was that he talked about good paying jobs. That was the message that got him elected IMO. Union rank and file in the Midwest gave up on their leadership and therefore gave up on the Dems. Almost every election comes down to the economy.
You're talking about Senator Barack OBama who was president of Harvard Law Review, right?
All of us could probably bath more often. I agree that the Supreme Court was a decisive issue for many, particularly evangelicals. I just think we confuse ourselves when we think this is a debate about judicial philosophy or political philosophy or any other kind of philosophy. If it ain't about philosophy what is it about?
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Exactly how does that translate into experience relevant for serving as the Chief Executive of the USA? I've heard it here a few times, maybe mostly by you, and I've never understood why it's thought significantly relevant. The fact is that candidate Obama had the thinnest executive experience resume of just about anyone running for President since candidate Abraham Lincoln. He learned to be an executive via OJT while serving as President. Whether he ever really became good at it is mostly a matter of opinion, but whether he had any significant executive experience prior to his election as President isn't - he didn't.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Love ya battle buddy but you're kinda cherry picking what's required for leadership experience by focusing on the word "executive" which wasn't mentioned in the OP.
Of course we can all agree that he had very little Exec experience. But he had significantly more political experience than this current train wreck had.
End rant. Navy sucks.
Ah yes, catering to the extremes because the two party system is absolute shit. That unquestionably hurt Hilldawg IMO as she ran a campaign that was further left of center than she historically has been.
I think nearly everyone believes that executive experience is a very important qualifier for POTUS, who is our country's chief executive officer. Don't you believe that?
Regardless, just how does President of the Harvard Law Review translate into a significant credential for POTUS? I have never understood it. It's not like he campaigned on that experience. If he had, he wouldn't have been taken seriously.
This President wasn't the right Chief Executive to be elected President. I think there are many out there without any governmental political experience (there is politics in any organization and I'm not one that thinks that's a bad thing) that would have made excellent Presidents, but the thought that he'd be one of them NEVER crossed my mind. Still hasn't.
Go Navy, Beat Army!
Also, I don't believe candidate Obama had much significant or relevant leadership experience either. However, he was elected and got a whole lot of OJT.
Its not about judicial or political philosophy. Its about the outcomes, practices, perceptions and fears resulting from the use and intentions of people and groups who hold certain of those philosophies. Example - the Supreme Court was a HUGE issue motivating votes for Trump among those who were strong 2nd Amendment folks, among those who oppose abortion, among tax cutter advocates, among those who wanted less federal government intrusion in their lives to name just a few. Just a relative few folks could discuss strict originalism as the source of their hopes for SCOTUS future, but they understood the risks. Those folks may or may not be Evangelicals but they perceived a threat to their beliefs and lives and voted accordingly by the millions. It appears that the liberal side of the great divide either doesn't understand that, can't allow themselves to admit it or prefer to continue to delude themselves about what happened. It further appears that libs, so certain of their correctness, refuse to consider, cannot understand or both, the view held by others.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I don't disagree that chairing the law review is not a proxy qualification for the presidency. I've never promoted that kind of messaging. But boy, BO's pre-presidential experience sure sounds a lot like that of our 16th president.
Some of our best presidents have had exec experience (Reagan, Eisenhower) and so have some of our worst (Bush 2, A. Johnson, Carter). Some of our best presidents have had very little exec experience (FDR, Lincoln, Jefferson) and so have some of our worst (LBJ).
So, no, Aloha, I don't think it's a predictor of performance.
An awful lot of senators ( 16 to be exact) go on to be President, so I'd assume voters think that is a decent background. As for Harvard Law Review, I think it is an example that the recipient at least has a basic understanding of history and how laws in our country work, something 45 obviously has not even a minimal degree of comprehension.
Are you somehow under the illusion that Burke-ian conservatism somehow resembles what is served up as the conservatism of today?
FDR and Jefferson were both Governors. FDR was also Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Jefferson was Secretary of State. They both had significant executive experience. It's not a perfect predictor, but just like I don't hire people that don't have relevant experience, I tend not to like voting for Presidential candidates with little relevant experience.
Obama's experience at getting himself elected to a higher officer shortly after getting elected to the lower office is the most relevant experience he had.
Many of them had more than Senatorial experience. Also, few started running for President essentially as soon as being elected Senator. I'm not nearly as impressed with the Harvard Law Review thing as you are, but to each his (or her) own.
I have said that the Supreme Court was a huge issue. I agree. Why do people care? Exactly for the reason you say. Because they perceive court decisions to represent a threat to their beliefs and lives. The same can be said on the liberal side. I don't think people on either side were deluded. Where people delude themselves is the belief that they are on the winning side. You think you are on the winning side because you won an election. We have had a Supreme Court tilted to the right since Reagan. We just had 8 years of Obama and 8 years of Clinton that put a check on that rightward shift. Historically, the sides ebb and flow but, somehow, the battles have shifted over time from the rights of slave holders, to the rights to vote for African Americans and women, to the right to contraception and abortion, to the rights of gays and lesbians, to the rights of transgendered...over the course of our history the battle lines are shifting in ways that liberals like. Perhaps many hope that some of these changes will be reversed. Maybe they will for a time. But looking at the preferences of millenials and the alienation the GOP has produced among people of color I think the moral arc of the universe will keep on bending.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Good call on Jefferson and FDR. To quote our new president, "well somebody told me that."
In sincerity, when I looked them up they were brief governors, didn't seem to finish a full-term. Anything to the contrary is just fake news.
Many of those 16 senators actually accomplished things as a senator. LBJ and JFK for example. Obama didn't do squat, Hillary had more accomplishments that he did.
Being elected president of the law review says nothing about his understanding of history and how laws work. In fact he has since demonstrated profound ignorance about both. Even if you are correct, that has nothing to do with being president. In addition, he published exactly zero papers about the law. Highly unusual for a law review president and for somebody who was in legal academics for as long as he was.
The truth is the voters didn't care about Obama's background. They were more concerned about "the promise of Obama" as one poster here said.
I was IU College Republicans VP back in the mid-90s. A lot of us were the children of Reagan. I didn't vote for Trump because in many ways, he's the anti-Reagan. It's hard to debate actual policy when you have to navigate so much non-ideological insanity demonstrated by this administration.
We can't get anywhere with telling others what they should believe, but I think I have more of rational basis to establish Burke and Hayek are more similar than you do saying they are not similar.
Burke and Hayek, in short, represent the same political tradition. Not only do they subscribe to the same substantive political philosophy, but they hold similar views regarding the nature of society, the role of reason in human affairs, the proper tasks of government, and, to a certain extent, the nature of moral and legal rules. Although there are differences between their views as well, differences that stem from Burke’s orthodox Christianity on the one hand and Hayek’s religious agnosticism on the other, the area of substantive agreement between their respective views is far greater than that of their disagreement. The heart of the matter is that both Burke and Hayek remained, as Hayek put it, "unrepentant Old Whig"4 to the end.
LOL. You guys have been marching about abortion and reproductive rights since the 70's and you still march about that. That ship sailed two generations ago. We've had equal pay laws since the 60's and women still don't have the same incomes as men. So you still march about equal pay. You march because it is easy and makes you feel good. The way to full equality and respect is not to wear pussy hats when you march about the system, it about participating in the system. Get out of the women's studies classes and into the STEM classes. Speak up for all women. Ivanka is the best friend women have in this administration* and she is shunned, ridiculed and boycotted by idiots who can't do anything useful so they act like adolescent malcontents--and they think that is important.
What a country.
*Remember her convention speech.
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I've never voted for a republican presidential candidate, but I'd be giddy if this was all just a bad dream and when I awoke Mitt was actually our president.
Sigh. Anybody who has spent 5 minutes studying the lack of women in STEM understands the contribution of women’s studies in addressing the problem. Unless, I suppose, that person is a man who criticizes women for wearing pussy hats, and votes for someone who brags about grabbing women by the pussy.
Once again, thank you for your concern and advice. I will definitely keep it in mind and pass it on. I know women are certainly impressed with the experience that a fashion designer would bring to the table. I think what you are actually worried about is that women are doing many things besides marching, they actually are participating. That seems to concern you.
I am enjoying this wistful yearning for Romney. I voted for him. My recollection is that he was undone not by the Tea Party, but by a DNC plant who filmed the 47% comment which was used to claim he didn't care about 47% of the population. He also was involved in bullying a kid in high school, his strapped his sick dog to the roof of his station wagon, and according to a non-existent friend of Harry Reid, didn't pay any taxes.
It wasnt the Tea Party who didn't have room for Mitt. It was the MSM in conjunction with the DNC. Ergo, we have Donald Trump, a candidate so flawed as to be innoculated from the standard character assassination that torpedoed Romney. Hooray America!
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
Mitt lost my vote because of the Tea Party. I didn't care about the 47% fiasco. His need to cater toward the know-nothings of the Tea Party and his outright denying all of the good that he did in MA were enough for me to chalk him up as a coward and I preferred the status quo of Obama.
So it's not that the Tea Party "did him in", it's that their existence and influence made him look like a sleazy waffler.
It's called entrepreneurship.
Doesn't worry me a bit. I admire that. My role model and frame of reference for my posts to you about this subject are my stoker and also my long time female law partner, whom I describe as a compulsive overachiever, as well as other female lawyers I practiced with. My partner actually contributed to the Obama (I remind her of that frequently) so she is not another whacko.
Republicans didn't mobilize for Romney but they did for Trump. Democrats didn't mobilize for Hillary but they did for Obama. So there you have it. Obama is the best expression currently of what Dems are about, Trump is the best expression currently of what Repubs are about. You give way to much credit to political froth.
