Your Presidential Pick

I'm asking what the alternative is.

I have no problem with the dems slowalking all the cabinet picks.  Sure ask all the combative questions you want.  But to just stop showing up for your job?

If I didn't like the software my company bought and I just stopped showing up for work as a boycott, I'd be fired.  That's just juvenile.

Hell, even in high school sports if one team doesn't show up for a game, they forfeit it.

ZombieHavoc wrote:

Administration does as they please. Got it.

I'm sorry but the more I think about it the more ludicrous this response is. 

If one player in a tennis match fails to show up, what's the person who is present supposed to do, wait forever?

I completely understand that you don't like this administration, you don't like their policies and you don't like the cabinet appointees.  But setting aside the fact that extreme liberal Harry Reid made this whole "simple majority" thing possible when the Dems ran everything and now the Reps are just playing by his rules, what would you suggest the Reps do to get things moving? 

I have no ideas.  Setting aside the fact that government isn't supposed to be a "team sport" in the first place (even though we all know it is), when one team doesn't even have the courtesy to show up what is the other team supposed to do?

why even argue? the country's already gone to shit anyway. i feel like we've been in the era of decline for a good while. politics is nothing more than a shill for corporate interests, and that's the only thing in our government that is bi-partisan.

our country has made the fatal mistake of dividing ourselves ideologically into to two extremes (each side leaving no viable room for other deviating viewpoints), when most people fall somewhere in between the two poles. it seems all i ever see on either side of the spectrum is purely baseless, raving vitriol that does nothing but breed more contempt for their "opposition." i am worried that there will never be any real positive change under any of the current political parties, and that what it will take is a complete collapse of our current governmental hierarchy for any system that doesn't spread hatred, misinformation, and generalization to take its place.

i just am beyond tired of seeing people proliferate hatred over something as silly as political beliefs. as long as everyone's hating one another and exacerbating division, everyone's political opinions are wrong. we (and our representatives) should be working to accept and understand each other's unique points of view, in order to have governance that comes from a place of humanitarianism and goodwill. instead, each side of the political spectrum acts as though their understandings of the way of the world are the only viable ones, when in reality, there are as many understandings as there are people. a crumbling, malfunctioning governmental system with a reality tv host/misogynist/dingus as a figurehead is not a problem i know how to fix.

i just hope by the end of this presidency that we're not entangled in a global-scale conflict that threatens the very world we live in.

just my two cents, though.

I totally agree with you; well said.

That's why I'm not trying to argue, I'm asking questions. I'm looking to exchange ideas and try to understand all viewpoints.

So in this latest discussion, if ZH is appalled that Republicans "rammed through" some cabinet nominees because Democrats refused to show up for hearings, I'm asking what his alternative way of handling the situation would be.   When the game requires two teams and one team says "the hell with that, we're not showing up", what is the other team supposed to do?

I honestly don't know the answer.  I don't like that Republicans are going down the same path Democrats did when they controlled everything but I also don't know what the alternative is when the political divisions are this deep.

i'd imagine that the protocol would be to wait until the entirety of the reps "are able" to convene... but that's just speculation on my end. and that would also presuppose that the men who are our elected voices in legislation are fair-minded and not-entirely childish.

i agree totally though. in the case of a republican supermajority, like we've got, i wish we could at least have a republican president who was actually a level-headed human being and not some cult of personality, so that we could avoid these idiotic executive orders and cabinet appointments. for instance, nancy devos is a reprehensible choice to be in charge of the education department, and it directly effects my career path as a teacher. i'm worried she will implement "incentives" for states to move towards privatizing education, which undermine the kinds of practices and values i've gained in my education towards my teachers' licensure. i feel that would've been entirely avoided had we had almost any other republican president right now.

Wurthless wrote:

it directly effects my career path as a teacher. i'm worried she will implement "incentives" for states to move towards privatizing education, which undermine the kinds of practices and values i've gained in my education towards my teachers' licensure

(IMHO) Saying "it directly effects" and then "worried she will implement incentives" is a contradiction of terms.

That aside, different states might benefit from privatization while others not. If you have the skill set, does it really matter who you work for ? From my window, educators are more concerned with getting tenure than educating children. (IMHO) teachers should be evaluated and not ever be in a position that poor performance still guarantees employment. Also the practice of getting an advanced degree after tenure to retire with a Masters/PHD salary is taking advantage of the taxpayer.

You are all right. I have no answers.

Charter Schools are a flawed idea in general, more of them is not necessarily a good thing as they can kick kids out for no good reason at any time.  There's a disturbing trend of Charter schools kicking out special needs kids just to improve their test scores, and as someone with Asperger's Syndrome I find that unacceptable.  Don't let the documentary "Waiting for Superman" fool you into thinking that Charter Schools are the magic bullet that will save kids from failing.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/03/charter-schools-suspend-more-black-students-disabilities-test-scores

Betsy is horrifically unqualified for the job and I feel truly sorry for any kid in school today, the system is already changing for the worse with schools aggressively trying to cut recess and extracurricular activities and trying to start preparing kids for college earlier and earlier(some schools start doing that as early as first grade, for god's sake whatever happened to just letting kids be kids?), and the way they're doing that is through those bogus standardized tests(which I have a long list of problems with, not the least of which is they are often not an accurate predictor of how a person will turn out-just because a person scores high on one of those tests does not necessarily mean they will have a succesful career, and plenty of smart kids fail those tests due to stress), some schools have even gone so far as to outright help kids cheat to get all the correct answers for the tests, which is completely insane:http://michiganradio.org/post/teachers-suspended-wayne-county-school-accused-helping-kids-cheat-state-test

Wurthless wrote:

why even argue? the country's already gone to shit anyway. i feel like we've been in the era of decline for a good while. politics is nothing more than a shill for corporate interests, and that's the only thing in our government that is bi-partisan.

our country has made the fatal mistake of dividing ourselves ideologically into to two extremes (each side leaving no viable room for other deviating viewpoints), when most people fall somewhere in between the two poles. it seems all i ever see on either side of the spectrum is purely baseless, raving vitriol that does nothing but breed more contempt for their "opposition." i am worried that there will never be any real positive change under any of the current political parties, and that what it will take is a complete collapse of our current governmental hierarchy for any system that doesn't spread hatred, misinformation, and generalization to take its place.

i just am beyond tired of seeing people proliferate hatred over something as silly as political beliefs. as long as everyone's hating one another and exacerbating division, everyone's political opinions are wrong. we (and our representatives) should be working to accept and understand each other's unique points of view, in order to have governance that comes from a place of humanitarianism and goodwill. instead, each side of the political spectrum acts as though their understandings of the way of the world are the only viable ones, when in reality, there are as many understandings as there are people. a crumbling, malfunctioning governmental system with a reality tv host/misogynist/dingus as a figurehead is not a problem i know how to fix.

i just hope by the end of this presidency that we're not entangled in a global-scale conflict that threatens the very world we live in.

just my two cents, though.    

Political beliefs aren't inherently silly though(I sure as hell could never in a million years be friends with someone who thinks that all LGBTQ people are pedophiles, or that all minorities are violent thugs), some are downright disturbing.  I'm less disturbed by Trump(He's pretty much exactly what I was expecting him to be, so it's hard to really be dissapointed there) then I am by Steve Bannon, he is a dangerous man who desperately wants to wage a holy war against all Muslims(I cannot take anyone seriously who thinks that Islam is an "evil" religion), that executive order has his grubby fingerprints all over it, Trump is essentially his puppet(much like Bush was for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, though even they look sane next to some of Trumps cabinet, hell Cheney himself said the executive order was total BS).  The fact there is a white nationalist in the white house should greatly disturb people regardless of which side of the fence they fall on, i'm very worried for what that means.

Quote :

Political beliefs aren't inherently silly though(I sure as hell could never in a million years be friends with someone who thinks that all LGBTQ people are pedophiles, or that all minorities are violent thugs), some are downright disturbing.  I'm less disturbed by Trump(He's pretty much exactly what I was expecting him to be, so it's hard to really be dissapointed there) then I am by Steve Bannon, he is a dangerous man who desperately wants to wage a holy war against all Muslims(I cannot take anyone seriously who thinks that Islam is an "evil" religion), that executive order has his grubby fingerprints all over it, Trump is essentially his puppet(much like Bush was for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, though even they look sane next to some of Trumps cabinet, hell Cheney himself said the executive order was total BS).  The fact there is a white nationalist in the white house should greatly disturb people regardless of which side of the fence they fall on, i'm very worried for what that means.

Hmm...Most all Christians (regardless of party) actively say and preach that Islam is an evil religion..even alot of Jews and Athiest believe that... As for Christians thats what the Christian Bible says...
As for having a White Nationalist in the white house..well, you might be surprised how many people would agree with his thinking.. I live in Oklahoma (from Texas)with relatives in Alabama and Arkansas as well as Texas and Oklahoma and a huge amount of folks where we all live have the white nationalist thinking, escpecially the older ones (even though they might not would say it in public).. I have a confederate flag tattooed on my forearm where its very noticeable..does that make me a white nationalist or someone with southern pride?

brokentulsa wrote:

Quote :

Political beliefs aren't inherently silly though(I sure as hell could never in a million years be friends with someone who thinks that all LGBTQ people are pedophiles, or that all minorities are violent thugs), some are downright disturbing.  I'm less disturbed by Trump(He's pretty much exactly what I was expecting him to be, so it's hard to really be dissapointed there) then I am by Steve Bannon, he is a dangerous man who desperately wants to wage a holy war against all Muslims(I cannot take anyone seriously who thinks that Islam is an "evil" religion), that executive order has his grubby fingerprints all over it, Trump is essentially his puppet(much like Bush was for Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rove, though even they look sane next to some of Trumps cabinet, hell Cheney himself said the executive order was total BS).  The fact there is a white nationalist in the white house should greatly disturb people regardless of which side of the fence they fall on, i'm very worried for what that means.

Hmm...Most all Christians (regardless of party) actively say and preach that Islam is an evil religion..even alot of Jews and Athiest believe that... As for Christians thats what the Christian Bible says...
As for having a White Nationalist in the white house..well, you might be surprised how many people would agree with his thinking.. I live in Oklahoma (from Texas)with relatives in Alabama and Arkansas as well as Texas and Oklahoma and a huge amount of folks where we all live have the white nationalist thinking, escpecially the older ones (even though they might not would say it in public).. I have a confederate flag tattooed on my forearm where its very noticeable..does that make me a white nationalist or someone with southern pride?

"Most christians", where did you get that idea? Where there studies done that showed that most Christians think Islam is evil? Because as someone who does have Christian friends I find that pretty offensive and I have a very hard time actually believe that.

I don't care if people have the flag tattooed on their body or have it on their trucks or in their house or whatever, it's when that flag is in a public place like the state Capitol building that I have a problem with it.

I don't remember anything about the Bible saying that Islam was evil, that must be a new edition.

Vexer6...i meant no offense. .. and i dont want to start a religious debate..however i will pm you the verses from the christian bible that back up what i am saying.

brokentulsa wrote:

Vexer6...i meant no offense. .. and i dont want to start a religious debate..however i will pm you the verses from the christian bible that back up what i am saying.

Thanks but no thanks, and there are lots of different versions of the Bible anyways.

how the hell would the Bible contain words condemning Islam when Islam wasn't founded until the 7th century or so? doesn't make any sense. If you actively believe that almost a quarter of the world's population espouses evil, you're making a baseless generalization that diminishes an entire religious tradition on the basis of very few individuals. it's like calling all christians idiots for believing literally in every word of the bible; not everyone holds that belief, even though it's easy to make sweeping generalizations based off of that fringe belief.

Wurthless wrote:

how the hell would the Bible contain words condemning Islam when Islam wasn't founded until the 7th century or so? doesn't make any sense. If you actively believe that almost a quarter of the world's population espouses evil, you're making a baseless generalization that diminishes an entire religious tradition on the basis of very few individuals. it's like calling all christians idiots for believing literally in every word of the bible; not everyone holds that belief, even though it's easy to make sweeping generalizations based off of that fringe belief.

Yeah I take people who believe that nonsense as seriously as I take people that think the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Vexer6 wrote:

Wurthless wrote:

how the hell would the Bible contain words condemning Islam when Islam wasn't founded until the 7th century or so? doesn't make any sense. If you actively believe that almost a quarter of the world's population espouses evil, you're making a baseless generalization that diminishes an entire religious tradition on the basis of very few individuals. it's like calling all christians idiots for believing literally in every word of the bible; not everyone holds that belief, even though it's easy to make sweeping generalizations based off of that fringe belief.

Yeah I take people who believe that nonsense as seriously as I take people that think the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Actually, it does. In the book of Leviticus and some of the writings of apostle Paul.

Troublezone wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Wurthless wrote:

how the hell would the Bible contain words condemning Islam when Islam wasn't founded until the 7th century or so? doesn't make any sense. If you actively believe that almost a quarter of the world's population espouses evil, you're making a baseless generalization that diminishes an entire religious tradition on the basis of very few individuals. it's like calling all christians idiots for believing literally in every word of the bible; not everyone holds that belief, even though it's easy to make sweeping generalizations based off of that fringe belief.

Yeah I take people who believe that nonsense as seriously as I take people that think the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Actually, it does. In the book of Leviticus and some of the writings of apostle Paul.

That quote is often misinterpreted:http://www.notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/

Quote :

how the hell would the Bible contain words condemning Islam when Islam wasn't founded until the 7th century or so? doesn't make any sense. If you actively believe that almost a quarter of the world's population espouses evil, you're making a baseless generalization that diminishes an entire religious tradition on the basis of very few individuals. it's like calling all christians idiots for believing literally in every word of the bible; not everyone holds that belief, even though it's easy to make sweeping generalizations based off of that fringe belief.

Simple..Christian scriptures teach that only those who put their faith alone in christ alone for salvation and believe he was raised from the dead will be saved and that anyone teaching or believing any message other than that is evil, lost, and damned.. Then there is the whole original sin teaching in christianity that says we are all born evil and that only the believers in Jesus escape evil and become righteous. Islam doesn't teach or believe those ideas..it teaches that only their way gets you to heaven.. you could say christian scriptures teach that all other religions and beliefs are lies, evil and wrong and that Islamic scriptures teach the same about their religion... Personally I am a Christian and believe the things I just shared with ya..but I also think everyone has a right to their own belief and that each of us will answer to God about our beliefs in the next world..another words its between you and God

Here is a serious question that no one seems to be able to give a serious answer to... what exactly is the agenda of all these protesters..what exactly do they want... do they believe in states rights..

Uh oh, things are heating up in here. :O

I just realized how many people we're getting in the White House with zero experience. Trump? Bannon? DeVos? Really? REALLY?? This is some sort of alternate universe I slipped into at some point.

Vexer6 wrote:

Troublezone wrote:

Vexer6 wrote:

Wurthless wrote:

how the hell would the Bible contain words condemning Islam when Islam wasn't founded until the 7th century or so? doesn't make any sense. If you actively believe that almost a quarter of the world's population espouses evil, you're making a baseless generalization that diminishes an entire religious tradition on the basis of very few individuals. it's like calling all christians idiots for believing literally in every word of the bible; not everyone holds that belief, even though it's easy to make sweeping generalizations based off of that fringe belief.

Yeah I take people who believe that nonsense as seriously as I take people that think the Bible condemns homosexuality.

Actually, it does. In the book of Leviticus and some of the writings of apostle Paul.

That quote is often misinterpreted:http://www.notalllikethat.org/taking-god-at-his-word-the-bible-and-homosexuality/

Is that link supposed to be the ultimate authority on the subject? I skimmed over it and it's obviously from a collection of liberal churches. One point they tried to make is that homosexuality isn't mentioned "enough times" to be a valid sin... Some people are gonna alter the bible to fit their lifestyle because otherwise, it's an inconvenient truth they can't get past. These liberal churches are not gonna tell anyone to repent, so they just disregard and claim certain verses are misinterpreted. How many times does a sin need to be mentioned to be valid? I don't care what others do, but don't try to lie or omit a verse to pacify a lifestyle.

The Book of Leviticus is composed of laws pertaining to the Jewish people and their practices that were appropriate as an extension of Mosaic Law (all having to do with the correct temple practices and procedures; the second temple was destroyed in 70 CE, though), and it's a little shaky if you're gonna try and condemn modern people's lifestyles based off of it (there are also condemnations included in Leviticus about staying away from women when they're on their periods, and restrictions on eating shellfish... so if you like shrimp, enjoy hell). you can't pick and choose.

Unfortunately, You can't really denounce Paul's claims as being interpreted incorrectly, because they do explicitly say homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God... but once again, because his letters were intended for a different time and place, you should take some of his suggestions to those early christian communities with a grain of salt. They are not all going to be directly applicable, or even morally appropriate, for the modern world we live in where acceptance of all peaceful lifestyles is the social norm.

I just feel it should be pretty easy to intuitively see that Christ's teachings would not exclude homosexuals (or more specifically, anyone who proclaims their acknowledgment of his sacrifice for humanity), because he advocated transcendent love for all people. Plus, Paul had never even met Jesus in the first place, and only claimed the knowledge he did have (emphasis on faith rather than the torah, the ekklesia (greek for "church") as the corporate body of the Christian people, the liturgy of the eucharist, etc.) on basis of divine revelation. Which is always gonna be at least a little fishy to me, regardless of how much stock you put in his claims.

Really though, at the end of the day if you discriminate against someone, or exclude them from a religion explicitly for gentiles and the meek merely on the basis of where they like to put their penises, you're a piece of shit, through and through. Obviously that's just my opinion, though.

Fair enough wurthless...for me personally its most important to be true to ones political, religious and moral beliefs regardless of anyone elses views.. another words i dont care what others think as long as i am true to myself.. being called a racist, bigot, trumpster, piece of shit or whatever means nothing to me.. great chat though.

corplhicks wrote:

Uh oh, things are heating up in here. :O

I just realized how many people we're getting in the White House with zero experience. Trump? Bannon? DeVos? Really? REALLY?? This is some sort of alternate universe I slipped into at some point.

True, we had Obama for eight years with zero experience.