(05-21-2020 12:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:28 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  I also don't get (a) the Democrat's infatuation of Stacey Abrams and (b) the folks here incredible negative views of her. I don't think she's done enough in the grand scale of things to merit either type of response.

You sort of answered at least one of your questions. The negative views of her are because she hasn't done enough in the grand scale of things. That, plus the fact that she has expressed a number of views on issues that are quite repugnant to many of us. She is basically a female Obama with even more radical views and even less experience.

Wait... I thought you guys said that she is a one-issue politician? Is fighting voter suppression repugnant to you?

Quote:As for the other, she is black and female, and in today's identity politics version on the democrats, that makes her a superstar. If only she were a lesbian, that would be the trifecta.

Weren't you the one that for months (if not years) said "done deal... Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee" because she checks the boxes for identity politics? And then we ended up with two elderly white men?

Nope, that was not me. I really wish you'd pay attention to what I write instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

Sorry. I thought that was you but it was a long time ago. TBH you and OO seem to be in lock-step on most issues so sometimes it's hard to differentiate. I should have gone back to the old posts to have been certain, though.

For my penance, here is an image that should bring you great joy.

Numbers and I do agree on a lot, but we also disagree from time to time, and when we do, he takes me to task just as much as he takes you or anybody else. I am happy to NOT be one of his students.

He works from a very different background and perspective as me. He has military experience - I have none. He has extensive international experience - mine is limited to Mexico.

He is primarily a Libertarian, who votes Republican if he thinks he must. I am a conservative, who votes Republican usually as a lesser evil.

To say we are in lockstep would be like saying you are in lockstep with Lad or AtEase. Most issues, many issues - probably so. I have no background on his tax and healthcare proposals, but they sound good to me, especially as an alternative to what most leftists are proposing.

I didn't know Numbers in college, although I an just a couple of classes before him. But it doesn't matter - back then, before I had experience in the real wold, I was pretty liberal, though not activist. No idea about him, but I am not the same person I was in the 60's.

Yes, we happen to agree on a lot of things, just as you and others happen to agree on a lot of things. But make no mistake - we re not in lockstep. We each march to our own drummer.

(05-21-2020 12:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I didn't know Numbers in college, although I an just a couple of classes before him. But it doesn't matter - back then, before I had experience in the real wold, I was pretty liberal, though not activist. No idea about him, but I am not the same person I was in the 60's.

I have pretty much always been libertarian. I'm not sure I was ever consciously aware of it until my alumni interview for Rice. The interviewer asked if I considered myself liberal or conservative. I answered that I was generally conservative on political issues like defense or foreign policy or fiscal issues (taxes, balanced budget) but that I was pretty liberal on social issues. That's pretty much the libertarian credo, and I really haven't changed much in 55 years since that interview.

(05-21-2020 12:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I didn't know Numbers in college, although I an just a couple of classes before him. But it doesn't matter - back then, before I had experience in the real wold, I was pretty liberal, though not activist. No idea about him, but I am not the same person I was in the 60's.

I have pretty much always been libertarian. I'm not sure I was ever consciously aware of it until my alumni interview for Rice. The interviewer asked if I considered myself liberal or conservative. I answered that I was generally conservative on political issues like defense or foreign policy or fiscal issues (taxes, balanced budget) but that I was pretty liberal on social issues. That's pretty much the libertarian credo, and I really haven't changed much in 55 years since that interview.

(05-21-2020 12:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 12:05 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 11:29 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 08:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 06:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  You sort of answered at least one of your questions. The negative views of her are because she hasn't done enough in the grand scale of things. That, plus the fact that she has expressed a number of views on issues that are quite repugnant to many of us. She is basically a female Obama with even more radical views and even less experience.

Wait... I thought you guys said that she is a one-issue politician? Is fighting voter suppression repugnant to you?

Quote:As for the other, she is black and female, and in today's identity politics version on the democrats, that makes her a superstar. If only she were a lesbian, that would be the trifecta.

Weren't you the one that for months (if not years) said "done deal... Kamala Harris will be the Democratic nominee" because she checks the boxes for identity politics? And then we ended up with two elderly white men?

Nope, that was not me. I really wish you'd pay attention to what I write instead of trying to put words in my mouth.

Sorry. I thought that was you but it was a long time ago. TBH you and OO seem to be in lock-step on most issues so sometimes it's hard to differentiate. I should have gone back to the old posts to have been certain, though.

For my penance, here is an image that should bring you great joy.

Numbers and I do agree on a lot, but we also disagree from time to time, and when we do, he takes me to task just as much as he takes you or anybody else. I am happy to NOT be one of his students.

He works from a very different background and perspective as me. He has military experience - I have none. He has extensive international experience - mine is limited to Mexico.

He is primarily a Libertarian, who votes Republican if he thinks he must. I am a conservative, who votes Republican usually as a lesser evil.

To say we are in lockstep would be like saying you are in lockstep with Lad or AtEase. Most issues, many issues - probably so. I have no background on his tax and healthcare proposals, but they sound good to me, especially as an alternative to what most leftists are proposing.

I didn't know Numbers in college, although I an just a couple of classes before him. But it doesn't matter - back then, before I had experience in the real wold, I was pretty liberal, though not activist. No idea about him, but I am not the same person I was in the 60's.

Yes, we happen to agree on a lot of things, just as you and others happen to agree on a lot of things. But make no mistake - we re not in lockstep. We each march to our own drummer.

Well, he is definitely more vociferous in defending his right to refer to women as "sluts" than you are. So there's that.

(05-21-2020 12:36 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Well, he is definitely more vociferous in defending his right to refer to women as "sluts" than you are. So there's that.

Not to refer to women as sluts, but to refer to sluts as sluts.

(05-21-2020 12:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 12:20 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I didn't know Numbers in college, although I an just a couple of classes before him. But it doesn't matter - back then, before I had experience in the real wold, I was pretty liberal, though not activist. No idea about him, but I am not the same person I was in the 60's.

I have pretty much always been libertarian. I'm not sure I was ever consciously aware of it until my alumni interview for Rice. The interviewer asked if I considered myself liberal or conservative. I answered that I was generally conservative on political issues like defense or foreign policy or fiscal issues (taxes, balanced budget) but that I was pretty liberal on social issues. That's pretty much the libertarian credo, and I really haven't changed much in 55 years since that interview.

I was not asked that, and I am not sure how I would have answered it. I was not activist in any sense. My current views started coalescing when I was in business. I became much more of a free market capitalist and small government guy then. But without making it a focal point of my thinking, I was always for racial equality, and tolerance for gay people. One reason why the racist accusations thrown at any conservative rankle so.

(05-21-2020 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Nobody asked me, but 93... Clearly the 1 issue has been articulated as 'race'.

I get that... but now #'s is saying that she has been taking positions on multiple positions that are repugnant to him.

Not speaking for others, but I've made similar observations of others. I think numbers also uses this phrase... when your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail.

I think numbers takes issue with the positions that she takes.
I think OO is taking issue that she reaches those positions through the same flowchart.

As a generic example only... again not speaking for them....
But if the only voter suppression she's worried about ending is black democrats, that's an issue for anyone who is being suppressed, but isn't a black democrat. This is commonly noted when people's only political experience is representing a narrow constituency... Boxer in CA never had to consider Republicans very much.

(05-21-2020 12:50 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  But without making it a focal point of my thinking, I was always for racial equality, and tolerance for gay people. One reason why the racist accusations thrown at any conservative rankle so.

Same here, which is why the same accusations rankle me as well.

(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 09:48 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Nobody asked me, but 93... Clearly the 1 issue has been articulated as 'race'.

I get that... but now #'s is saying that she has been taking positions on multiple positions that are repugnant to him.

Not speaking for others, but I've made similar observations of others. I think numbers also uses this phrase... when your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail.

I think numbers takes issue with the positions that she takes.
I think OO is taking issue that she reaches those positions through the same flowchart.

As a generic example only... again not speaking for them....
But if the only voter suppression she's worried about ending is black democrats, that's an issue for anyone who is being suppressed, but isn't a black democrat. This is commonly noted when people's only political experience is representing a narrow constituency... Boxer in CA never had to consider Republicans very much.

You can see the type of election reforms Abrams advocates for by going to the Fair Fight website. Then you can decide whether or not the only voter suppression she's worried about ending is black democrats.

https://fairfight.com/legal-action

With respect to Abrams, let's talk about issue positions:

- She favors expanded gun controls, which I oppose.
- She opposes stricter voter ID laws, which I favor.
- She opposes school vouchers, which I favor.
- She favors ending cash bail for defendants, which I oppose.
- She opposes a proposed bill which requires the government to prove a “compelling governmental interest” before it interferes with a person’s exercise of religion, which I favor.

That's enough for now. Those are not all show-stoppers, but some are. And her resume is pretty thin on other issues.

(05-21-2020 01:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  With respect to Abrams, let's talk about issue positions:

- She favors expanded gun controls, which I oppose.
- She opposes stricter voter ID laws, which I favor.
- She opposes school vouchers, which I favor.
- She favors ending cash bail for defendants, which I oppose.
- She opposes a proposed bill which requires the government to prove a “compelling governmental interest” before it interferes with a person’s exercise of religion, which I favor.

That's enough for now. Those are not all show-stoppers, but some are. And her resume is pretty thin on other issues.

Uhhh..... what differentiates Abrams points from any other progressive person, let alone any Democratic politician?

I mean you just listed the grab bag default position of every Democrat out there. You left off 'kill the pipelines' and 'regulate hydrocarbon extraction and use' to death, so I would propose tossing those in there as well.

(05-21-2020 02:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  With respect to Abrams, let's talk about issue positions:
- She favors expanded gun controls, which I oppose.
- She opposes stricter voter ID laws, which I favor.
- She opposes school vouchers, which I favor.
- She favors ending cash bail for defendants, which I oppose.
- She opposes a proposed bill which requires the government to prove a “compelling governmental interest” before it interferes with a person’s exercise of religion, which I favor.
That's enough for now. Those are not all show-stoppers, but some are. And her resume is pretty thin on other issues.

Uhhh..... what differentiates Abrams points from any other progressive person, let alone any Democratic politician?

Nothing that I am aware of. They are all the enemy to me.

Quote:I mean you just listed the grab bag default position of every Democrat out there. You left off 'kill the pipelines' and 'regulate hydrocarbon extraction and use' to death, so I would propose tossing those in there as well.

I said she had a thin resume. I cannot find positions that she has taken on those issues, but I'd tend to guess they are probably predictable.

(05-21-2020 01:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-21-2020 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Not speaking for others, but I've made similar observations of others. I think numbers also uses this phrase... when your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail.

I think numbers takes issue with the positions that she takes.
I think OO is taking issue that she reaches those positions through the same flowchart.

As a generic example only... again not speaking for them....
But if the only voter suppression she's worried about ending is black democrats, that's an issue for anyone who is being suppressed, but isn't a black democrat. This is commonly noted when people's only political experience is representing a narrow constituency... Boxer in CA never had to consider Republicans very much.

You can see the type of election reforms Abrams advocates for by going to the Fair Fight website. Then you can decide whether or not the only voter suppression she's worried about ending is black democrats.

https://fairfight.com/legal-action

What part of my response did not make it crystal clear that I was not speaking for anyone, or about anyone... but merely making 'generic' statements? This is why I think your obtuseness is intentional... because I couldn't possibly have been more clear.


As to Stacy Abrams, she's not on any ballot where I am registered to vote and if she were to become so, I can't imagine there is anything that she could support that would cause me to vote for Biden. I've said it before and will repeat it here... NOT because I support his policies, but I'd have voted for Bernie over lots of Republicans.

That said, purely out of courtesy to you... (which you routinely deny me, I might add)... I looked at the website. Hardly a laundry list of her positions.

I'm shocked to see that a professional website doesn't say... 'I'm a racist, just not in the traditional manner'. /sarcasm I'm sure Trump's website doesn't say "I'm a Russian asset' or 'I hate immigrants'.


But lets play....

She wants to end use it or lose it. I don't know GA's policy and am not going to look it up, but I've seen many of these that I support 100%. If you go 8 years without voting or re-registering, I don't think purging is a bad idea. Passports, which only allow an American Citizen to return to their home country expire every 10. I don't see these policies as things that simply need to be ended... Amended, maybe... What alternative does she support? Registering to vote is easy, especially with all the 'get out the vote' drives, often funded by minority support groups. I don't support her here.

Ending 'exact match'. My father, son and I all have the same first and last names. Not for anything important, certainly not voting, but I can't say we've never 'abused' this. If I did a search of all the Ham Bone's in the country, there are probably tens of thousands of us. Again, what is the specific policy (I'm not asking, I just mean it could be abused but doesn't have to be abusive) but again. what alternative does she have to ensure that people don't improperly vote?

Ending machine voting and using paper.... pretty dumb idea in my book. Paper is much less secure than electronic... and electronic can be verified by getting a print-out of the vote. The 1980's want their technology back.

Ensuring uniform election procedures... That's a bit like saying 'fair fight'. It depends on how you define fair... on what you want done in each place. N. Korea under the Kim's is/was pretty uniform.

Ensuring votes are counted fairly and consistently... ensuring fair elections... wow... she's really going out on a ledge with that idea.

I see a whole lot of 'people were disenfranchised' comments, including supposed anecdotes, but little in the way of facts.

It will be interesting if such a case ever goes to trial if any of those people actually come forward. In a fairly recent SCOTUS case regarding supposed disenfranchisement because of voter ID, I recall that a great story about percentages of people who could possibly be disenfranchised as a result... totalling thousands of possible voters... Despite allegations of thousands of such people, there was not one single actual person presented who simply had no way of verifying their eligibility... and was not given numerous opportunities to correct it, both before and after the election. The court noted this in their decision... which iirc, was not 5-4 but more like 6-2 with someone abstaining because of a conflict. Going from memory, but the basic point is true. Lots of people think/claim to be disenfranchised who are victims of their own 'gaming' of the system... like they register in one place so they can get their kids in that school, but then live somewhere else... or they don't put an address so their ex can't find them for child support. I personally know a person I just described... listened to them complain all about it so I tried to help them... Re-register... nope, won't do that. Okay, go vote where you 'say' you live' ... nope. I should have the right to vote 'here' even though I don't live 'here'... okay... go rent a UPS box with a physical address... nope... it's $48 while a USPS (not elegible as a physical address) is only $28.

A voter ID could take a little time and trouble to get. It is not time or trouble enough enough to stop anybody who wants it. The same ID can and sometimes must be used for lots of other reasons. I have not heard of anybody unable to register for jobless benefits. Just yesterday I had to show ID (Driver's Lic) to get a medical test done.

My sister does not drive. So she would have to get somebody to drive her. Not a problem. The facility where she lives has people on staff to do just that. I would do that. But if nobody would do that, I am sure she could call the local Democratic Party and they would send somebody. Or the Republican party. Or they would sen a crew to the facility to get them all.

I think of the people in West Texas on remote farms or remote tiny communities. It must be tough, especially if they don't have a drivers licence to start with. Yet somehow these people get into a larger town every so often, to buy groceries, to get haircuts, to see dentists, to do a lot of things. Fifteen more minutes at the DPS doesn't seem too much for somebody who cares about their franchise.

I live in a small town. when I go to vote,, it is "Hi, Phil, Hello Juan, hows it going Joe". They all know me but I have to show ID anyway. I have it.

Klobuchar being vetted

...and others.

(05-22-2020 07:57 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

Change the "I" to "Barrack and I" and it sounds like Biden.

(05-22-2020 08:21 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 07:57 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

Change the "I" to "Barrack and I" and it sounds like Biden.

Burn.

(05-22-2020 07:57 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

I saw that clip on the evening news. It is pretty clear that he was joking around about the fact that a negative test is actually a positive thing. It's a fairly well-known joke -- I've heard others make it at various times over the last 30 years, and I've made it myself.

Trump is certainly prone to inexplicable comments, but this one is a nothing.

(05-22-2020 10:30 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(05-22-2020 07:57 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

I saw that clip on the evening news. It is pretty clear that he was joking around about the fact that a negative test is actually a positive thing. It's a fairly well-known joke -- I've heard others make it at various times over the last 30 years, and I've made it myself.

Trump is certainly prone to inexplicable comments, but this one is a nothing.