Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

True.  But I have heard vague family rumors myself, that I think it should probably be reversed, and not make claims without at least somewhat solid proof.    

 

 

Note: On a small level, I do somewhat understand mind you.  From what I do know of my own line for sure is that there are a lot of Irish, German, and some Scottish surnames on the tree.  And I have probably been guilty of being more fascinated as it were of the Irish side of things, even though a deeper delving would result in not any appreaciative larger amount than German (and if anything German would probably be the somewhat higher percentage.  (and given my study of history, I've learned enough about our ancestor's migratory patterns to know that all kinds of unexpected stuff can be found in the DNA if you go back far enough.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hermit said:

 

Haven't had time to read it. It looks like the question they're fact checking is whether she used it go get the Harvard job. The Harvard gig is only one of her transgressions, though. Here's an article from CNN that has a rundown of some of her claims, and another from GQ that goes over some of the Native American (actual tribal members) perspective:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/29/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american-pocahontas/index.html

 

https://www.gq.com/story/elizabeth-warren-dna-tests

 

I don't think I've mentioned this one before, but here's a fun fact about Native Americans and police violence:

 

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.html

 

Native Americans still face a lot of persecution and unfair treatment, but are often forgotten about because of their small numbers. Had Warren claimed to be black, she'd be facing a lot more heat, I think.

 

Warren should be deeply ashamed of herself, IMO.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

I'm 1/16th Choctaw, and actually qualify for tribal membership, unlike Warren. I don't try to use that to get ahead, since I wasn't raised in the culture, also unlike Warren.

 

My wife is Choctaw, the last generation which would allow a family member to qualify for membership in the tribe. I encouraged her to file the appropriate paperwork since she's interested but she's afraid they'd think she was money-grubbing for a cut of casino cash.

 

I get peeved at people like Warren. There's just no excuse, in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Old Man said:

The beauty of the NPV is that it takes the Electoral College entirely out of the equation, so campaigns will be less focused on states and more focused on popular issues.

 

And I'd point out that "popular" issues are really often regional issues.

 

If the country was small and homogeneous so that what was popular opinion in one portion of the country was always popular opinion everywhere else on every issue, ruling the country strictly by popular opinion would be fine.

 

But since we have a wildly diverse country with a huge number of often conflicting regional issues, electing a president in a manner which ignores the concerns of many regions of the country isn't any more fair than the current system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Badger said:

 

Just the opposite, actually.  Unless what you mean by "popular issues" is what is important to CA, NY and TX and a handful of others. (While totally telling the WYs to "#### off, because we will do what we please to you, and you'll love us for it or else).  The EC was created so WY and similar states could have a bare smidgen of power, without being stomped continuously by the big states.  Just because 2016 didn't go the "right way", is no excuse to change that  (or the idea to suggest that EC voters should have thrown away their constituents votes because they didn't vote for the right candidate).

 

Just FYI, 10 of the 11 members (plus DC) of the Compact all signed on from 2007 to 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, archer said:

 

 

But since we have a wildly diverse country with a huge number of often conflicting regional issues, electing a president in a manner which ignores the concerns of many regions of the country isn't any more fair than the current system.

 

It hardly ignores anyone's concerns when they still get to vote.  The entire concept of states would become irrelevant in the presidential election, as it ought to be.  There are no other US elections where one person's vote carries more weight than another person's.  Not only does the EC make the presidency vulnerable to gerrymandering through proportional voting, it's also why states like Ohio and Florida carry more weight in presidential elections than they should. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of gerrymandering... That's why I suspect that Badger's notion of giving each Congressional district one electoral vote would likely create as many problems as it solves. The parties have already become too skilled at picking their voters. The extreme case I heard about some months back is the major city in Texas -- Houston, maybe? -- that has a Democratic mayor and city government, but is represented in Congress by five Republicans. The city's been divided among five districts, combined with other areas so Dems can never have a majority.

 

At least with state-by-state voting, the parties are stuck with boundaries they have no way to change.

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, csyphrett said:

Has anybody had to deal with the new tax work yet? I'm having a hard time figuring if I owe anything

CES 

 

H&R Block did mine earlier this week.

 

We had outlandishly huge medical expenses last year (like around 35% of our gross income) which was the only reason we didn't owe a lot on our taxes. (This year we were no longer eligible for a couple of credits we'd been getting in recent years, though the change in the law wasn't the reason for that.)

 

Though the tax prep person did point out a couple of places where the change in the law benefited us such as dropping a tax bracket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire Warren thing just baffles me. So we have no proof that she gained any advantage. We have several family members who said they all were told the same thing so she didn't just make it up. She is far from the only person to ever believe they had a different heritage then whey actually do. ( I was 1/4 German until I was around 30 then suddenly I wasn't!). And this is a huge deal. OTOH We have Trump who claimed his dad gave him a small loan to start him off and he made billions all on his own. There is hard proof that none of that is true and the proof has been out there for a long time. Even with the proof out there he continues to say it. He gained a huge advantage both financially and politically from this lie. And again he received this money so he was fully aware all along that none of it was true.  How is it that Warren is demonized for this by the press? Seriously the Trump story is never talked about but every time you so much as mention Warren someone has to talk about her "heritage" as proof she can't be President.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you read the GQ article I linked above? It gives a pretty good rundown on why a lot of people think what Warren has been doing is offensive. You could read it while enjoying a nice helping of Pow Wow Chow. (That's not a recipe link, it's an article about another racist Warren gaffe. Edit: With a side helping of plagiarism.)

 

As far as what Trump has done:Warren is responsible for her own actions, not Trump. No matter how bad Trump is, it doesn't excuse a thing that Warren has done. The lesser of two evils thing only comes into play when it comes time to step into the ballot box.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, mojo_bones said:

The entire Warren thing just baffles me. So we have no proof that she gained any advantage.

 

We don't have proof that she gained any advantage.

 

We do know that she intentionally used it in a job interview when it could have given her an advantage. The reason you include stuff during job interviews is to try to display every feature you have in order to get the job.

 

Is it the intentional attempt which makes a person guilty of something? Or do you have to prove that they succeeded before they're guilty of something? If you're talking about bank robbery or murder, just making the attempt makes you guilty rather than innocent.

 

I'd argue that if you are trying to pass off family lore as facts during a job interview that you are guilty of not telling the truth.

 

During WWII, my grandfather was wounded three times during the fight across Europe and had three Purple Hearts to prove it. He told us that the first Purple Heart was on D-Day. He also told us that at one point his squad was trapped behind enemy lines.

 

I don't tell people that my grandfather "acted heroically" on D-Day because I don't know for sure that he fought on D-Day or that he acted heroically there if he did. He admitted that while he wandered around lost behind enemy lines that he ran and hid with his squad and eventually jumped an enemy supply train and rode it back toward the front so I don't tell people that he "fought" behind enemy lines because he never mentioned any fighting there.

 

And I wouldn't mention any of it in a job interview because I don't think it is particularly ethical to trade on my ancestors in order to get an advantage in landing a job. I also wouldn't tell them that he was at various times a hobo and a moonshine runner before the war if I were interviewing for a job at a homeless shelter or a brewery.

 

I've got another ancestor, direct lineage, who fought in the Revolutionary War and got a small government pension for his service during that war. And I wouldn't use that fact in a job interview either even though my aunt found his pension paperwork and confirmed that the story was true.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D&D Party Member with -3 Charisma Keeps Trying to Roll Deception

 

https://thehardtimes.net/harddrive/dd-party-member-with-3-charisma-keeps-trying-to-fucking-roll-deception/

 

Quote

WASHINGTON — Sarah Huckabee Sanders, roleplaying as Press Secretary, was seen attempting yet another Deception roll despite her character sporting an abysmal 5 total Charisma score, according to insiders from within the Trump administration. The low roll of 3 (natural 6 minus 3 when factoring in Charisma) was contested by the entire nation’s passive Insight, which at the time of reporting currently sits at 9.

Though Sanders is specced into primarily Intelligence to bolster her spellcasting ability to allow her to conjure up fantastical images and fake realities, other players at the table have commented....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make Gamers a Protected Class in the United States

 

Sign the petition today:

https://www.change.org/p/president-of-the-united-states-make-gamers-a-protected-class-in-the-united-states

 

This would be funnier if I hadn't had bosses who gave out breaks if you drank coffee or smoked cigarettes but wouldn't give you a break if you did neither and wanted to do something else during a break.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, mojo_bones said:

The entire Warren thing just baffles me. So we have no proof that she gained any advantage. We have several family members who said they all were told the same thing so she didn't just make it up. She is far from the only person to ever believe they had a different heritage then whey actually do. ( I was 1/4 German until I was around 30 then suddenly I wasn't!). And this is a huge deal. OTOH We have Trump who claimed his dad gave him a small loan to start him off and he made billions all on his own. There is hard proof that none of that is true and the proof has been out there for a long time. Even with the proof out there he continues to say it. He gained a huge advantage both financially and politically from this lie. And again he received this money so he was fully aware all along that none of it was true.  How is it that Warren is demonized for this by the press? Seriously the Trump story is never talked about but every time you so much as mention Warren someone has to talk about her "heritage" as proof she can't be President.

 

At this point, no one expects anything better from Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, archer said:

 

We don't have proof that she gained any advantage.

 

We do know that she intentionally used it in a job interview when it could have given her an advantage. The reason you include stuff during job interviews is to try to display every feature you have in order to get the job.

 

Is it the intentional attempt which makes a person guilty of something? Or do you have to prove that they succeeded before they're guilty of something? If you're talking about bank robbery or murder, just making the attempt makes you guilty rather than innocent.

 

I'd argue that if you are trying to pass off family lore as facts during a job interview that you are guilty of not telling the truth.

 

During WWII, my grandfather was wounded three times during the fight across Europe and had three Purple Hearts to prove it. He told us that the first Purple Heart was on D-Day. He also told us that at one point his squad was trapped behind enemy lines.

 

I don't tell people that my grandfather "acted heroically" on D-Day because I don't know for sure that he fought on D-Day or that he acted heroically there if he did. He admitted that while he wandered around lost behind enemy lines that he ran and hid with his squad and eventually jumped an enemy supply train and rode it back toward the front so I don't tell people that he "fought" behind enemy lines because he never mentioned any fighting there.

 

And I wouldn't mention any of it in a job interview because I don't think it is particularly ethical to trade on my ancestors in order to get an advantage in landing a job. I also wouldn't tell them that he was at various times a hobo and a moonshine runner before the war if I were interviewing for a job at a homeless shelter or a brewery.

 

I've got another ancestor, direct lineage, who fought in the Revolutionary War and got a small government pension for his service during that war. And I wouldn't use that fact in a job interview either even though my aunt found his pension paperwork and confirmed that the story was true.

 

That's a mighty high standard that I think most people would not live up to. Again I told people all the time that I was 1/4 German. Turns out my mother and grandmother were wrong. But, why would I have doubted them? What reason did I have to think it wasn't true? Until quite recently most people had no easy way of verifying these stories IF (big if) they had some reason to doubt what they had been told by their elders since a very early age.  And all of the still misses the point. Trump's story was verifiable and clearly a lie. A lie that he KNEW was a lie. It's not like his dad told him the money fairy gave him millions of dollars throughout his life. He used that story throughout his life and into his political career to gain advantages. He told that story again and again not only after he knew it was false (because he always knew) but after the proof was in the public. And yet...barely a grumble. When he started running for president telling this story no one batted an eyelash. It was not something people thought of as proof he couldn't be President.  When Trump calls Senator Warren Pocahontas people laugh or say it's racist. I NEVER hear anyone say how can a man who has lied about his family story try to chastise someone else for simply not knowing theirs.  Again the "left leaning media" does not do that. Nor do I ever see it posted anywhere. The double standard on this is staggering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it seems they never held Trump accountable. He has told these stories often and it was never made into media outrage story.  So again why is it that Warren is held to anincredibly high standard on this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, mojo_bones said:

That's a mighty high standard that I think most people would not live up to. Again I told people all the time that I was 1/4 German. Turns out my mother and grandmother were wrong. But, why would I have doubted them? What reason did I have to think it wasn't true? Until quite recently most people had no easy way of verifying these stories IF (big if) they had some reason to doubt what they had been told by their elders since a very early age.  And all of the still misses the point. Trump's story was verifiable and clearly a lie. A lie that he KNEW was a lie. It's not like his dad told him the money fairy gave him millions of dollars throughout his life. He used that story throughout his life and into his political career to gain advantages. He told that story again and again not only after he knew it was false (because he always knew) but after the proof was in the public. And yet...barely a grumble. When he started running for president telling this story no one batted an eyelash. It was not something people thought of as proof he couldn't be President.  When Trump calls Senator Warren Pocahontas people laugh or say it's racist. I NEVER hear anyone say how can a man who has lied about his family story try to chastise someone else for simply not knowing theirs.  Again the "left leaning media" does not do that. Nor do I ever see it posted anywhere. The double standard on this is staggering.

 

I'm not arguing that there's not a double standard coming from the people who ignore what Trump says and does. Trump is a lying idiot and the people who blindly defend him on everything are almost as guilty as he is.

 

I'm saying that what Warren did was wrong. I would think Warren was in the wrong even if Trump didn't exist. Given my political leanings, having Trump say bad things about her makes me prone to be a little more sympathetic to her than I'd otherwise have been.

 

Out of curiosity, did you tell people that you were 1/4th German in order to gain an advantage in some situation for your personal benefit? Or have you done it only in casual conversation?

 

I don't personally think it's a "mighty high" standard to avoid bringing up your "only known from family hearsay" racial heritage in a job interviews and when campaigning for public office.

 

YMMV

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, archer said:

 

I'm not arguing that there's not a double standard coming from the people who ignore what Trump says and does. Trump is a lying idiot and the people who blindly defend him on everything are just as guilty as he is.

 

I'm saying that what Warren did was wrong.

 

Out of curiosity, did you tell people that you were 1/4th German in order to gain an advantage in some situation for your personal benefit? Or have you done it only in casual conversation?

 

I don't personally think it's a "mighty high" standard to avoid bringing up your "only known from family hearsay" racial heritage in a job interview.

 

YMMV

Again, for most people if you grew up being told your entire life you were part whatever, why would you think you were not part whatever? To be clear if I went to an interview in my 20s where I thought being 1/4 German would have helped get the job, I would have told them I was 1/4 German and I would have firmly believed I was telling the the honest truth. If you think Senator Warren is the only one to do this, I suggest you might want to look through other resumes especially for people from the Midwest as well as  Oklahoma.  There is a reason that 23 and me and Ancestory.com are so popular. Look at their commercials. They are filled with people saying "I thought I was German, but it turns out I'm Dutch!" or "Who knew my Great Grandfather was from Peru!" And this has not just been made to be as bad as intentionally lying about your past but actually worse.  Trump's outright intentional lies about his personal history are ignored so that he can attack Warren on this issue and people on both the left and the right go right along with it. As I said I am simply baffled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mojo_bones said:

Again, for most people if you grew up being told your entire life you were part whatever, why would you think you were not part whatever? To be clear if I went to an interview in my 20s where I thought being 1/4 German would have helped get the job, I would have told them I was 1/4 German and I would have firmly believed I was telling the the honest truth.

 

Thank you for your response. That's not the way my mind works and I'll try to wrap my head around the concept of how your mind works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, for most people if you grew up being told your entire life you were part whatever, why would you think you were not part whatever? To be clear if I went to an interview in my 20s where I thought being 1/4 German would have helped get the job, I would have told them I was 1/4 German and I would have firmly believed I was telling the the honest truth.

 

I've been  told all my life I'm 25% Polish so... yeah. I totally understand this. 

 

But honestly with Warren I'm less interested if she was mistaken about her heritage and more interested in that she has fought hard for consumer rights and protections among other things I agree with.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There aren't any saints running for president, at least none that will ever get close enough to the job that you ever hear of them.

 

Back when I was applying for college my mom recommended that I claim the native american that family legend says that I possess to give me a edge in the process.  It didn't seem right to me so I firmly told mom, "No".

 

However, if Elizabeth Warren making the opposite decision that I did is the worst thing that they that they can find about her, then by politician standards she might as well be a saint.  Barack Obama was a former druggy,  George W was a draft dodger.  Bill Clinton was a serial adulterer.  George H Bush denounced the historic 1964 Civil Rights Act when running for senate in Texas not because he didn't believe in civil rights, but because he believed more in getting elected and he knew racism played well in Texas.  Ronald Reagan was another adulterer and helped Joseph McCarthy ruin peoples lives.  Okay, Jimmy Carter was and is pretty much a saint, but he was a lousy president and the only reason that he got elected was because after Nixon the country was desperate for a good man.

 

Still, as a nation we a very sanguine about the fact that the men that run for the highest office in the nation have dishonorable actions on their records.  Yet

for some reason, we seem unwilling to allow female candidates the same human moral frailty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ranxerox said:

Still, as a nation we a very sanguine about the fact that the men that run for the highest office in the nation have dishonorable actions on their records.  Yet

for some reason, we seem unwilling to allow female candidates the same human moral frailty. 

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, DShomshak said:

Speaking of gerrymandering... That's why I suspect that Badger's notion of giving each Congressional district one electoral vote would likely create as many problems as it solves. The parties have already become too skilled at picking their voters. The extreme case I heard about some months back is the major city in Texas -- Houston, maybe? -- that has a Democratic mayor and city government, but is represented in Congress by five Republicans. The city's been divided among five districts, combined with other areas so Dems can never have a majority.

 

At least with state-by-state voting, the parties are stuck with boundaries they have no way to change.

 

Dean Shomshak

 

 

Hence, why only a idea

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 3:06 PM, Old Man said:

 

It hardly ignores anyone's concerns when they still get to vote.  The entire concept of states would become irrelevant in the presidential election, as it ought to be.  There are no other US elections where one person's vote carries more weight than another person's.  Not only does the EC make the presidency vulnerable to gerrymandering through proportional voting, it's also why states like Ohio and Florida carry more weight in presidential elections than they should. 

 

Why don't we just eliminates states altogether then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...