Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Politics
 President Trump
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author  Topic Next Topic
Page: of 25

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 12/22/2016 :  21:55:24   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

You're blaming the wrong people.
No, I'm blaming all sorts of people. But the idea that the media were on Clinton's side is ludicrous. And the idea that Comey's pronouncements had no effect is to deny reality.
People voted for Trump because Liberals have so completely lost touch with ordinary people...
"Ordinary people" being a code phrase for "blue-collar workers who have lost their jobs in Michigan and Wisconsin," obviously. There can't possibly be any "ordinary people" in California or New York, because Clinton has "completely lost touch" with "ordinary people" but she won those states, by a lot. Therefore, a lot of "not ordinary people" must have voted for her.

I think it's really important to point out that powerful Republicans in the "ordinary people" states have been screwing over their own citizens for years. For example, the state of Michigan is now facing class-action lawsuits because the legislature basically robbed their unemployment insurance funds to cover the losses from their idiotic tax reduction scheme.

The "ordinary people" sure do have things to be angry about, but Trump pointed at immigrants and Muslims and even the Jews instead of the rich Republicans running their states. Talk about blaming the wrong people. But the "ordinary people" didn't care about getting it right, either. They were looking for a demagogue to tell them who to be angry at, and they got one. Truth be damned.
...that the word "Liberal" has actually become a pejorative...
That's why we're called "progressives," now. The Republicans in the Reagan years purposefully set out to make "liberal" a four-letter word, and they were successful.
...and people who identified as liberal 10 or 20 years ago are now not liberal enough and are being labeled as racists and bigots.
Name one.
Because of the bad-name the liberal extremists have created...
Like Bernie Sanders? He's so liberal he calls himself a socialist.
...people are now ashamed to even admit they are liberal.
Yeah, from dirty tricks politics during the 1980s, as I said.
They have either been exiled by an extremist, shrieking, hysterical, caricature of Liberalism, or are so sick of it they would rather vote for a braindead demagogue.
Except for the fact that Clinton won the popular vote by almost three million.
Today when people hear the word 'liberal' people don't think about equal rights, or women getting the vote. They think about safe spaces...
I certainly hope so. Trump and Cruz both called for safe spaces during the campaign, too. They have liberals to thank for that idea.
...speakers on campus being shouted down...
Yeah, conservatives have never done that. Nosireebob.
...insane gender politics...
Like what?
...refusing to admit that we have a problem with islamic terrorists.
Yeah, that's why Obama has been droning and bombing the shit out of them for many years. What is it with you people and the insistence that our leaders use a specific phrase to identify the enemy? ISIS is made up of Islamic terrorists, and Obama spoke many times about the problems we have with ISIS and other terrorist groups. But no, he has to say "radical Islamic terrorism" or it doesn't count? Are those somehow magic words?
No one wants to be in that group anymore.
I am sure that nobody wants to be in a group like you describe, but you're nowhere close to describing mainstream liberals.

Or do you think the extremists are the norm? In which case, I must conclude that you think all conservatives are klansmen.
Instead of conducting a rational and honest presidential campaign, Hilary doubled down on the nonsense and hand waving that people had become sick of.
That is neither a rational nor honest assessment of where the DNC and Clinton screwed up.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 12/23/2016 :  10:07:05   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
This is why Trump won:
...I guess I thought that, you know, he [Trump] would not do this. That they would not do this, would not take the insurance away. Knowing that it's affecting so many people’s lives. I mean, what are you to do then if you cannot … purchase, cannot pay for the insurance?

...I guess we really didn't think about that, that he was going to cancel that or change that or take it away. I guess I always just thought that it would be there. I was thinking that once it was made into a law that it could not be changed, but I guess it can? Yes?
And this is why Trump won:
...If these women think defunding Planned Parenthood is a deal-breaker, why did they vote for a candidate who promised to do exactly that? After all, in a September letter addressed to “Pro-Life Leaders,” Trump pledged to strip Planned Parenthood’s federal funding unless it stops performing abortions. But many of the people in the focus groups didn’t know he’d made this assurance, and those who did didn’t take it seriously. It seemed as if Trump’s lasciviousness, which Clinton hoped would disqualify Trump with women, actually worked in his favor. The focus group participants couldn’t imagine that Trump would enact a religious right agenda. “He’s probably paid for a few abortions himself,” said the 58-year-old in Phoenix, eliciting a roomful of laughs.
And this:
Most skilled political leaders are aware of the realities of voter ignorance and do what they can to exploit them. Nixon was far from the last to peddle economic snake oil for political gain. Many other politicians on both sides of the political spectrum have done much the same thing. Donald Trump’s immigration and trade policy stances are a particularly blatant recent example. If implemented, his proposed tariff increases would greatly damage the US economy, and harm many of the very workers he claims to want to help. But, from Trump’s point of view, the long run economic harm might be outweighed by short-term political gains.

Unlike in the case of Nixon, it is often difficult to say whether Trump and other recent manipulators of public ignorance are being cynical. Most don’t leave behind smoking guns like the Nixon tapes. Perhaps they genuinely believe their own rhetoric. Sadly, however, the harmful effects of their actions – and the public ignorance they exploit – are likely to be the same either way.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 01/02/2017 :  13:32:23   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.
Simple logic: people who want to avoid deportation tend not to commit crimes that will get themselves noticed.
Except some of them do commit these crimes.

I already noticed your switcheroo when Kil said "tends to" and you countered with the fact that there is at least one illegal immigrant in prison for a felony. Some percentage of illegal immigrants commit felonies. Some percentage of U.S. citizens commit felonies. The evidence demonstrates that the percentage of illegal immigrants committing felonies is less than the percentage of U.S. citizens committing felonies. "Less than" does not imply "zero," so the fact that the rate at which illegal immigrants commit felonies is not zero does not imply that their rate is equal to or greater than that of U.S. citizens.
Why is your standard that they commit less than American citizens? We can eliminate most of these felonies from occurring by better immigration screening.

The only way to drop the rate of felonies committed by illegal immigrants to zero is to prevent all immigration, which is impossible.
I agree. No, we would need to stop all illegal immigration. Which I agree is impossible. But we can do better than just letting them in without trying to see who they are.


People with concealed gun licenses are the least likely group in America to commit a crime.
Where are your data to support that claim?

Here is Texas data: https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
Another Texas study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518334/
“Results. CHL holders were much less likely than nonlicensees to be convicted of crimes. Most nonholder convictions involved higher-prevalence crimes (burglary, robbery, or simple assault). CHL holders’ convictions were more likely to involve lower-prevalence crimes, such as sexual offenses, gun offenses, or offenses involving a death.”

Note that "law-abiding gun owners" can become murdering criminals in the blink of an eye.
So can anyone else on the planet. Less than 1% of convicts obtained their guns from gun shows and 40% said they obtained them illegally from street dealers.


Comey's later statements (just before the election) were that the "new emails" included no new information. Nothing there, either.

But it didn't matter that there wasn't anything there. After making these statements - no matter how lenient - Clinton's popularity went down each time.

He's no idiot. He must have known the effect his statements would have. He may have violated the Hatch Act - and he definitely defied long-standing DoJ rules - in order to make the statements he made.
I disagree with “nothing there”

From Comeys report: Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

“For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”

“With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

And this beauty:

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system





So yes, his statements were made for political reasons: to hurt Clinton's attempt to become president.
You cannot possible know this.

How about "C" is for "colored"?
This could be but since the case was settled sadly we may never know what he actually did. Do you think people can change since 1973?

Or how about Trump calling a Venezuelan beauty-pageant winner "Miss Housekeeping?"
There is no proof he said this except from a disgruntled Miss Universe that Trump did not like. Clinton herself made the accusation.

Or how about his statements that the majority of Mexican illegal immigrants are "rapists"?
He never said majority. You can maybe conclude that he meant most are criminals but not rapists. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Or how about his statement that Judge Curiel couldn't possibly be unbiased against him because Trump is anti-immigrant? Even Paul Ryan responded, "Claiming a person can't do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable."
So a judge that has direct ties with the La Raza organization that is actively opposed to Donald Trump cannot be biased? Sounds like a conflict of interest at best.

I am not a fan of Trump but he does get unfairly treated by the press. I know you disagree but Hillary has said some terrible things in her career that never got the light of day in the media.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2017 :  09:45:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by Dave W.
Simple logic: people who want to avoid deportation tend not to commit crimes that will get themselves noticed.
Except some of them do commit these crimes.
So do U.S. citizens. Should we screen them better, too?
Why is your standard that they commit less than American citizens?
Because that's the question: why do you want better immigration screening? So there will be less crime. But the immigrants commit less crime to begin with (thus dropping the average crime rate by a little, compared to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants alone), so a better use of our time and money is to prevent crimes by U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.
We can eliminate most of these felonies from occurring by better immigration screening.
No, we can't, because the bulk of illegal immigrants were legal when they entered the country. You can't screen for who is going to overstay their work or tourist visa.
But we can do better than just letting them in without trying to see who they are.
Who is doing so little? The immigrants least vetted are those who come here under the Visa Waiver Program, and even then they (and their passport-issuing country) must meet several criteria. But the VWP allowed in over 20 million people last year, and similar numbers going back to 1986. How many of them committed crimes while here?
People with concealed gun licenses are the least likely group in America to commit a crime.
Where are your data to support that claim?
Here is Texas data: https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/chl/reports/convrates.htm
You said "America," not "Texas." You said "commit a crime," not "be convicted of a crime."

Besides which, how can you trust data that claims that there were 12 convictions of non-license holders under a section of Texas law that only addresses licensed gun holders? "UNL CARRY HANDGUN LIC HOLD" (unlawful carry by a handgun license holder) is when a person with a handgun license behaves badly with a handgun. So how can Texas convict anyone who is not a licensed handgun owner under that category? Yet it's 12 total convictions, but only 4 of licensed handgun owners. It should be 12/12.
Another Texas study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3518334/
“Results. CHL holders were much less likely than nonlicensees to be convicted of crimes. Most nonholder convictions involved higher-prevalence crimes (burglary, robbery, or simple assault). CHL holders’ convictions were more likely to involve lower-prevalence crimes, such as sexual offenses, gun offenses, or offenses involving a death.”
Again, Texas isn't America, and being convicted of a crime is not the same as committing a crime.

But even then, look at what the authors say: people carrying concealed, if they get convicted, they get convicted of something really serious. While non-CHL holders get convicted of "lesser" crimes.

Also, you neglected a section:
Conclusions. Our results imply that expanding the settings in which concealed carry is permitted may increase the risk of specific types of crimes, some quite serious in those settings. These increased risks may be relatively small. Nonetheless, policymakers should consider these risks when contemplating reducing the scope of gun-free zones.
In other words, the authors say that allowing concealed carry in more places (say, schools) may increase the risk of "sexual offenses, gun offenses, or offenses involving a death" in those new places.
Note that "law-abiding gun owners" can become murdering criminals in the blink of an eye.
So can anyone else on the planet. Less than 1% of convicts obtained their guns from gun shows and 40% said they obtained them illegally from street dealers.
Leaving more than 59% of convicts (almost a super-majority) getting their guns from legal gun stores or legal private sales. But that's hardly the point. The gun-fondlers' argument is that more regulations place a burden on "law-abiding gun owners." But that title is only applicable until a law-abiding person turns into a criminal, which can happen just by getting someone angry enough. Or drunk enough. Or careless enough.

More people have been shot by toddlers with guns since 2001 than died in 9/11. Most of those toddlers' adult family or friends were "law-abiding gun owners" right up until the point where they allowed their weapon to be grabbed by someone under age five. Actually, in 23 states it isn't illegal at all to allow toddlers access to firearms, and in six more states, it's only illegal if and only if the person allowing the child access to the firearm knows "of a substantial risk that the minor will use the firearm to commit a crime." So being a completely irresponsible gun owner is - in over half of the U.S. - still being a "law-abiding" gun owner.
I disagree with “nothing there”
I was speaking of things that would end in a criminal conviction.
And this beauty:

“To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.”
"Security or administrative sanctions" means "losing one's security clearance," or "getting an official reprimand" or even "losing one's job." Those do not involve prosecution for a crime. This is the difference between "rules" and "laws" in this country's government. The question before the FBI was, "did Clinton break U.S. law?" and not "did Clinton violate State Department rules?"

Besides, neither the FBI nor the entire DOJ could have placed any "security or administrative sanctions" on Secretary of State Clinton, not only because the DOJ doesn't oversee the State Department, but especially because she wasn't Secretary anymore when the investigation concluded. You can't fire someone who has already resigned.
So yes, his statements were made for political reasons: to hurt Clinton's attempt to become president.
You cannot possible know this.
I just explained my reasoning. If you disagree, you can point to where my reasoning is flawed. Don't forget: I am assuming that he is not an idiot, and so could reasonably predict the consequences of his actions.
How about "C" is for "colored"?
This could be but since the case was settled sadly we may never know what he actually did.
See above re: "convicted of a crime" vs. "committed a crime." The government had enough evidence to think that prosecution could end in a conviction (see above re: Clinton's emails).
Do you think people can change since 1973?
Yes. Do I think Trump has changed? No.
Or how about Trump calling a Venezuelan beauty-pageant winner "Miss Housekeeping?"
There is no proof he said this except from a disgruntled Miss Universe that Trump did not like. Clinton herself made the accusation.
No, Alicia Machado made the accusation. Are you calling her a liar? When he admitted to calling her "Miss Piggy," is "Miss Housekeeping" too big a gap to cross?
Or how about his statements that the majority of Mexican illegal immigrants are "rapists"?
He never said majority.
If only "some" are "good people," then the majority are not. Try not to over-think Trump's statements. He certainly doesn't.
You can maybe conclude that he meant most are criminals but not rapists.
Even if that's what Trump meant, it's still racist. Unless the "crime" they are bringing is "illegal immigration," because illegal immigrants don't cause more crime (see above about them lowering the average).
Or how about his statement that Judge Curiel couldn't possibly be unbiased against him because Trump is anti-immigrant? Even Paul Ryan responded, "Claiming a person can't do the job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment. I think that should be absolutely disavowed. It's absolutely unacceptable."
So a judge that has direct ties with the La Raza organization that is actively opposed to Donald Trump...
Where is your evidence that the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is "actively opposed to Donald Trump," other than their statement defending the impartiality of Judge Curiel and pointing out that were Trump's allegations of bias to be allowed, criminals could get judges and lawyers thrown off of all sorts of cases?
...cannot be biased?
No, the question isn't whether Judge Curiel might be biased. Trump claimed that he must be biased. Every judge in every case could be biased against one side or another, but to make a demand of recusal stick, there has to be something solid behind the accusation. Mere innuendo doesn't count.
Sounds like a conflict of interest at best.
There was no conflict until Trump spoke about the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association.

Even if Judge Curiel were a member in good standing of the National Council of La Raza (which is what you probably meant), conservative criminals (for example) cannot demand recusal of liberal judges merely for being liberal (or vice versa). There's a century of precedent on these topics. Here's the relevant part of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association statement:
The notion that Judge Curiel’s Mexican heritage precludes him from being impartial as he presides over the Trump University lawsuits is completely at odds with the views of legal experts across the nation and untethered from reality. African–American judges have presided over civil rights cases; female judges have presided over gender discrimination matters; both have done so impartially. One need only look to Justice Clarence Thomas of the U.S. Supreme Court who has repeatedly ruled to strike down laws enacted to protect the rights of African-Americans, despite his own ethnic background.
And here's my favorite conservative lawyer (my bolding):
...Federal courts have ruled many, many times about what is a "reasonable" question and what isn't. "Reasonableness" is defined in the context of some fundamental assumptions about the legal system — especially that judges generally won't act like sectarians based on their race and religion. Moreover, courts recognize that all judges had lives before becoming judges, and those lives necessarily involved a wide range of affiliations. Plus, the test is based on the perception of a reasonable person, a "well-informed, thoughtful, and objective observer, rather than the hypersensitive, cynical, and suspicious person."...

...Many courts have considered and rejected the argument that a judge of a particular ethnicity, gender, or religion is inherently biased because of the nature of the case. In fact, the argument has been so repeatedly and thoroughly rejected that it's sanctionable to make it.

...It's extremely well established — as well-established as anything in federal law — that you can't judge-shop by being a douche. A party's insults, criticisms, and even threats are not a valid basis for recusal. Otherwise you could judge-shop by attacking judges until you found one you liked.

...Leaving aside for the moment whether the attack is deliberately dishonest because it conflates a bar association with a political advocacy group, membership before becoming a judge isn't grounds for recusal. Moreover, membership in a religious organization is not grounds for recusal. Membership in bar associations and legal associations like the one at issue here has repeatedly been found not to require recusal. That's not just for ethnic organizations. So, for instance, membership in the Guild of Catholic Lawyers was not a basis for recusal in a suit against the New York Archdiocese.
Hoatson v. New York Archdiocese, 280 Fed.Appx. 88 (2nd Cir. 2008).

...Even if one argues that Judge Curiel's membership in a Latino attorney organization might show bias, Trump's lawyers would have a problem: they'd be arguing that the alleged bias didn't arise until long after Judge Curiel started hearing the case. Trump's argument, to the extent it can be nailed down, is that Trump wants to build a wall and Judge Curiel is a member of a Latino organization and therefore Judge Curiel is biased. But Trump didn't start talking about building a wall until Judge Curiel had already been hearing the case for years. In general, a party can't manufacture bias through new conduct after the judge has been assigned. That stops parties from judge-shopping. So, for instance, if I don't like how my case is going before a Turkish-American federal judge who is a member of a Turkish-American group, I can't force a judge-switch by becoming a loud advocate for official recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

...Judge Curiel hasn't refused [to recuse himself] because Trump's lawyers haven't made a motion for recusal, because they know it's without merit. Recusal motions are governed by Title 28, United States Code, section 144... Trump's made no such motion.

...as far as I know Trump never got upset about federal recusal law until he ran for President. And I haven't heard him, or his supporters, argue that he's being oppressed by a century of wrongly-decided law; I've heard them make uninformed or deliberately false statements about what the law requires.
Of course, Trump settled that suit (but he never settles lawsuits), so questions of Judge Curiel's bias are now moot, but Trump's lawyers never did file a motion for recusal in the last months of the case. Judge Curiel still had to approve the settlement, so it wasn't out of his hands until the last signatures hit the documents. His bias must not have been all that strong.
I am not a fan of Trump but he does get unfairly treated by the press.
Yeah, by accurately quoting his statements in context.
I know you disagree but Hillary has said some terrible things in her career that never got the light of day in the media.
Then how do you know about them? What "terrible things" has she said? Be sure to cite something that is not any part of "the media" for support.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2017 :  09:46:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
So much for draining the swamp.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13377 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2017 :  10:14:20   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

So much for draining the swamp.
Who needs ethics? This is congress we're talking about.

Paul Ryan is against this, probably because it looks bad. They are now getting hammered by the media over the amendment, just as he expected they would. I think Ryan is going to run into most of the problems his predecessor did. And now you add to that Trump republicans and Trump himself. Not that I feel sorry for him. I don't. On the things those guys do agree on, they are positioned to do great harm. And that's their plan, only they don't call it "harm."


Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2017 :  10:50:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Yeah, and I've got to stop using the word "conservative" in relation to Trump and the far-right fringes in Congress. They're all about as conservative (with regard to the use of Federal power) as Joseph Stalin. I am more conservative that Trump, for example, because I wouldn't try to use the government's power to force companies to stay in the U.S.

Republicans? Yes. Conservatives? No.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2017 :  22:01:03   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

So much for draining the swamp.
Looks like the swamp-filling has been delayed until August. Apparently, the Repubs who were all gung-ho about eliminating the independent ethics committee weren't particularly steadfast in the face of criticism. One might think they were Democrats for all the backbone they displayed, withdrawing their amendment less than 24 hours after secretly voting for it.

Of course, Trump said that they had more important things to do, but that completely misses the point (par for the course, for Trump).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Kil
Evil Skeptic

USA
13377 Posts

Posted - 01/03/2017 :  23:34:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Kil's Homepage  Send Kil an AOL message  Send Kil a Yahoo! Message Send Kil a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Do you suppose they'll listen to Ryan the next time he doesn't agree with them?

Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.

Why not question something for a change?

Genetic Literacy Project
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

United Kingdom
1255 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2017 :  01:07:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Originally posted by Dave W.
Simple logic: people who want to avoid deportation tend not to commit crimes that will get themselves noticed.
Except some of them do commit these crimes.
So do U.S. citizens. Should we screen them better, too?


Avoiding the point, Dave. If someone was born here what would you screen them for? Are you suggesting criminals get booted out? There's nowhere for them to go. Simple fact is that a nation is encumbered with it's own criminals, reformed or otherwise. But that nation can still try to prevent more criminals from coming in. Whether than means stricter screening, or more efforts to prevent illegals which cannot be screened at all.



Originally posted by Christian HedonistWhy is your standard that they commit less than American citizens?
Because that's the question: why do you want better immigration screening? So there will be less crime. But the immigrants commit less crime to begin with (thus dropping the average crime rate by a little, compared to U.S. citizens and legal immigrants alone), so a better use of our time and money is to prevent crimes by U.S. citizens and legal immigrants.


More total crime but less average crime. Great.

Edited by - On fire for Christ on 01/04/2017 01:10:08
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2017 :  08:44:06   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Yeah, and I've got to stop using the word "conservative" in relation to Trump and the far-right fringes in Congress. They're all about as conservative (with regard to the use of Federal power) as Joseph Stalin. I am more conservative that Trump, for example, because I wouldn't try to use the government's power to force companies to stay in the U.S.

Republicans? Yes. Conservatives? No.
Many of us conservatives stopped calling ourselves republicans over the last few years. The republican party does not have conservative values any longer on many issues and they don't fight for the ones they say they do have. I think they wanted Hillary to win because they have a good thing going in congress and they don't have to be responsible for leading. I have a 80% confidence that they will not change much with control of the government. They would have to give up too much power to actually implement conservative ideas.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2017 :  10:40:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by On fire for Christ

Avoiding the point, Dave. If someone was born here what would you screen them for? Are you suggesting criminals get booted out? There's nowhere for them to go.
No, I wasn't avoiding the point, I was making the point. Didn't you see the question mark?
But that nation can still try to prevent more criminals from coming in.
Again: how many of the tourists under the VWP (the least-vetted of our legal immigrants) have committed crimes while here?
Whether than means stricter screening, or more efforts to prevent illegals which cannot be screened at all.
That's where you're still wrong, because most of our illegal immigrants are illegal because they overstayed their visas after screening. How much are you willing to increase our taxes to hire a deportation force to follow tourists around, checking the calendar?
More total crime but less average crime. Great.
We'll only have less total crime if (A) we reduce the population or (B) we spend a bunch of money to prevent crimes before they happen. Over the last four decades, the total number of crimes in the U.S.A. has gone from 8.1 million to 9.2 million. But the population has gone from 203.2 million to 321.4 million, so the crime rate has dropped from nearly 4% to 2.9%. More total crimes, but a lower rate.

A U.S. citizen today is nearly 40% less likely to be murdered than they were in 1970. I'd much rather have more total crime with lower crime rates, since that means I'm less likely to be a victim of a random crime.

Anyway, undocumented immigrants are responsible for a tiny fraction of the total crime in the U.S., so going after them while at the same time defunding after-school programs and other efforts to prevent crimes by U.S. citizens will just make the overall crime rate rise, and also smacks of racism (or at least xenophobia).

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2017 :  10:58:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Many of us conservatives...
But back on page 3, the only idea that suggests a conservative use of Federal power was nullifying the 17th Amendment.

The abortion ban is an example of a conservative ideal only in the sense that sometimes "conservative" is used to mean "traditional" (and even then, culture fluctuates so frequently that banning abortion can hardly be considered "traditional" - abortion was legal until about 1880). [See also conservative ideas about "traditional marriage," ha!]

But such a ban would represent a very liberal use of Federal power, since state and local police cannot be expected to or coerced to enforce Federal laws (a Constitutional amendment banning abortion would require Congress to pass Federal laws regarding how the ban is enforced). Probably, more tax money would need to be funneled to the FBI so that they could investigate alleged abortions, and arrest the appropriate parties. Or maybe, since it's a medical procedure, the ban would require the National Institutes of Health to create their own police force (still more tax money).

So... how is it that you're a conservative?

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

Christian Hedonist
Skeptic Friend

99 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2017 :  12:39:32   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Christian Hedonist a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dave W.

Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

Many of us conservatives...
But back on page 3, the only idea that suggests a conservative use of Federal power was nullifying the 17th Amendment.

The abortion ban is an example of a conservative ideal only in the sense that sometimes "conservative" is used to mean "traditional" (and even then, culture fluctuates so frequently that banning abortion can hardly be considered "traditional" - abortion was legal until about 1880). [See also conservative ideas about "traditional marriage," ha!]

But such a ban would represent a very liberal use of Federal power, since state and local police cannot be expected to or coerced to enforce Federal laws (a Constitutional amendment banning abortion would require Congress to pass Federal laws regarding how the ban is enforced). Probably, more tax money would need to be funneled to the FBI so that they could investigate alleged abortions, and arrest the appropriate parties. Or maybe, since it's a medical procedure, the ban would require the National Institutes of Health to create their own police force (still more tax money).

So... how is it that you're a conservative?
The abortion issue is to me a moral issue and whether it is conservative or not does not sway me. I simply believe that any definition of a human being beyond conception is ultimately arbitrary and that we cannot know when someone becomes a human, so we should default to conception. Conservatives in my opinion are not for no government but we are for a limited and just government.

I also stated that I am against the death penalty which many conservatives support. I never understood this as a conservative value. I think that allowing the government to kill its citizens is giving it too much power and is disastrous if it is mishandled as we see today. It is not administered fairly and many people are being exonerated by new evidence. This is not a conservative position in my opinion.
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
25909 Posts

Posted - 01/04/2017 :  15:25:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Christian Hedonist

The abortion issue is to me a moral issue and whether it is conservative or not does not sway me. I simply believe that any definition of a human being beyond conception is ultimately arbitrary and that we cannot know when someone becomes a human, so we should default to conception.
When a zygote is merely eight cells, it is most definitely not a human - it can't think, feel, etc. (We know what those eight cells are, and they aren't nerves.) Therefore, the line dividing non-human from human must be somewhere in the middle, and I don't trust anyone in the government to make the decision. That's why it should be left to those who are pregnant, their significant others and/or their doctors to decide together what to do.

A complete ban turns some women into unwilling baby factories, which is morally repugnant all by itself.

Plus, if God intends for zygotes to be aborted, who are you to try to stop it?
Conservatives in my opinion are not for no government but we are for a limited and just government.
Exactly: a conservative use of government power.
I also stated that I am against the death penalty which many conservatives support.
But a ban on the death penalty is an exercise of Federal power. What we have now, where the states make up their own minds, is the conservative option.
I never understood this as a conservative value.
I think it only gets weird when someone is pro-death penalty but anti-abortion.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 25  Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.45 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000