(01-20-2020 08:26 AM)Foff Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 10:46 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  On the facts, Harris comes across as a vicious, dishonest, scheming, evil woman who would do anything--legal or illegal, moral or immoral--to advance her career--the last thing we need in the white house, or the senate, for that matter.
I am not using the terms [skank etc] to apply derisively to all women, merely to those for whom the shoe fits.

you are a fan a of donny,,, our vicious, dishonest, scheming evil president,,, so i have to assume only the last word in "vicious, dishonest, scheming, evil woman" is what bothers you. yes/no?
and im curious,,, what is the proper english word to describe man who marries cheats divorces, sleeps around, marries divorces, marries cheats, is PROUD of CHEATING, gets mistress pregnant and has 5 babies with 3 women?
is it skank? sleaze? ********? bag of human excrement?
nothing feels quite right....

You start out wrong with your first sentence. I am no fan of Donald Trump. I don't deny any of his faults, although I do think the left has engaged in considerable hyperbole on that point.

You compound that error by making an incorrect assumption. You know, assume = ass of u and me. You describe Trump as vicious, dishonest, scheming, and evil. I would use the same words to describe Harris and other democrat candidates. The difference has nothing to do with sex or gender. I don't like Bernie any better than Harris or any of the others.

The difference is what I've said before. Every democrat in the presidential field has at least two or three issues that are drop-dead show-stoppers for me--mostly around single-payer health care (which as a 70-something prostate cancer survivor, I see as a personal death sentence), confiscatory tax schemes that will drive investment and growth out of our economy, and gun controls. So the difference between Trump and the democrats is issue positions. I don't like him, but I don't like them either, and although I disagree with him on several issues, including his major ones--tariffs and the wall--none of those differences are drop-dead show-stoppers for me.

"...donny,,, our vicious, dishonest, scheming evil president"

So this is what being unbiased looks like to a leftist. Reason and logic replaced by hate.

I think all politicians scheme - isn't planning another word for that? Setting strategy and tactics?

I think all politicians are dishonest in some way - for example the 100 Senators who swore to be unbiased in the impeachment trial. You really think they are all going into this with an open mind?

Vicious. Did Trump chase you out of his yard?? Woof woof.

and of course evil. Some see the world in black and white, some see it in shades of gray. Good thing it is not 500 years ago or somebody would be lighting fires to burn people at the stake, and I think I now who it would be.

Oh, well, hard to argue in the face of so much purity.

(01-20-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...donny,,, our vicious, dishonest, scheming evil president"

So this is what being unbiased looks like to a leftist. Reason and logic replaced by hate.

I think all politicians scheme - isn't planning another word for that? Setting strategy and tactics?

I think all politicians are dishonest in some way - for example the 100 Senators who swore to be unbiased in the impeachment trial. You really think they are all going into this with an open mind?

Vicious. Did Trump chase you out of his yard?? Woof woof.

and of course evil. Some see the world in black and white, some see it in shades of gray. Good thing it is not 500 years ago or somebody would be lighting fires to burn people at the stake, and I think I now who it would be.

Oh, well, hard to argue in the face of so much purity.

So saying that about Trump makes some biased and hateful. But say that about Harris and????

(01-20-2020 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...donny,,, our vicious, dishonest, scheming evil president"
So this is what being unbiased looks like to a leftist. Reason and logic replaced by hate.
I think all politicians scheme - isn't planning another word for that? Setting strategy and tactics?
I think all politicians are dishonest in some way - for example the 100 Senators who swore to be unbiased in the impeachment trial. You really think they are all going into this with an open mind?
Vicious. Did Trump chase you out of his yard?? Woof woof.
and of course evil. Some see the world in black and white, some see it in shades of gray. Good thing it is not 500 years ago or somebody would be lighting fires to burn people at the stake, and I think I now who it would be.
Oh, well, hard to argue in the face of so much purity.

So saying that about Trump makes some biased and hateful. But say that about Harris and????

How about this?

Donald Trump is vicious, dishonest, scheming, and to some degree evil.

So are Bernie, Harris, Warren, Buttigieg, and all of the other democrats.

The last two presidents we had who were at least somewhat pure were GWB and Carter, both of whom were horrible.

The difference is not that one of them is a better person than the others. The difference is issue positions. I disagree with Trump on his two major issues--the wall (I would prefer a rational needs- and merit-based immigration policy, and would have traded the wall to get one) and tariffs (I would prefer a consumption tax to level the field with the whole world, not just China, and at the same time balance the budget). But those are differences of degree and approach, not drop-dead show-stopper differences.

Every democrat has at least two or three issue positions that are absolute drop-dead show-stoppers. I've listed them before, so won't rehash them here. I've been pretty clear that the differences are issue positions, and quite frankly I am quite annoyed that others keep mis-attributing my preferences to other reasons. I suppose it's just a lot easier to attribute differences to racism or sexism and cut off conversation than it is to debate issues.

(01-20-2020 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...donny,,, our vicious, dishonest, scheming evil president"

So this is what being unbiased looks like to a leftist. Reason and logic replaced by hate.

I think all politicians scheme - isn't planning another word for that? Setting strategy and tactics?

I think all politicians are dishonest in some way - for example the 100 Senators who swore to be unbiased in the impeachment trial. You really think they are all going into this with an open mind?

Vicious. Did Trump chase you out of his yard?? Woof woof.

and of course evil. Some see the world in black and white, some see it in shades of gray. Good thing it is not 500 years ago or somebody would be lighting fires to burn people at the stake, and I think I now who it would be.

Oh, well, hard to argue in the face of so much purity.

So saying that about Trump makes some biased and hateful. But say that about Harris and????

I didn't say that about Harris.

So she used her sexuality to further her career. BFD. But I don't think Trump did that as well. Even his most rabid haters don't say he slept his way to wealth and power.

So she sent a lot of people of color to jail for petty things. BFD. Who has Trump put in jail?

Harris was FAR from the worst Democrat running. That person is still running and leading in some polls.

Just noting the bitter irrational hatred that characterizes so many in the antiTrump movement.

(01-20-2020 01:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...donny,,, our vicious, dishonest, scheming evil president"

So this is what being unbiased looks like to a leftist. Reason and logic replaced by hate.

I think all politicians scheme - isn't planning another word for that? Setting strategy and tactics?

I think all politicians are dishonest in some way - for example the 100 Senators who swore to be unbiased in the impeachment trial. You really think they are all going into this with an open mind?

Vicious. Did Trump chase you out of his yard?? Woof woof.

and of course evil. Some see the world in black and white, some see it in shades of gray. Good thing it is not 500 years ago or somebody would be lighting fires to burn people at the stake, and I think I now who it would be.

Oh, well, hard to argue in the face of so much purity.

So saying that about Trump makes some biased and hateful. But say that about Harris and????

I didn't say that about Harris.

So she used her sexuality to further her career. BFD. But I don't think Trump did that as well. Even his most rabid haters don't say he slept his way to wealth and power.

So she sent a lot of people of color to jail for petty things. BFD. Who has Trump put in jail?

Harris was FAR from the worst Democrat running. That person is still running and leading in some polls.

Just noting the bitter irrational hatred that characterizes so many in the antiTrump movement.

I know you didn't say that about Harris. But when it was said about Harris you were mum. But when it was said about Trump, you came out swinging.

(01-20-2020 02:21 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 01:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 11:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-20-2020 11:02 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  "...donny,,, our vicious, dishonest, scheming evil president"

So this is what being unbiased looks like to a leftist. Reason and logic replaced by hate.

I think all politicians scheme - isn't planning another word for that? Setting strategy and tactics?

I think all politicians are dishonest in some way - for example the 100 Senators who swore to be unbiased in the impeachment trial. You really think they are all going into this with an open mind?

Vicious. Did Trump chase you out of his yard?? Woof woof.

and of course evil. Some see the world in black and white, some see it in shades of gray. Good thing it is not 500 years ago or somebody would be lighting fires to burn people at the stake, and I think I now who it would be.

Oh, well, hard to argue in the face of so much purity.

So saying that about Trump makes some biased and hateful. But say that about Harris and????

I didn't say that about Harris.

So she used her sexuality to further her career. BFD. But I don't think Trump did that as well. Even his most rabid haters don't say he slept his way to wealth and power.

So she sent a lot of people of color to jail for petty things. BFD. Who has Trump put in jail?

Harris was FAR from the worst Democrat running. That person is still running and leading in some polls.

Just noting the bitter irrational hatred that characterizes so many in the antiTrump movement.

I know you didn't say that about Harris. But when it was said about Harris you were mum. But when it was said about Trump, you came out swinging.

When it was said by Harris, it was one guy.


I came out commenting on the widespread and generic demonization of Trump by the left.

(01-20-2020 03:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When it was said by Harris, it was one guy.
I came out commenting on the widespread and generic demonization of Trump by the left.

And for the record, I think I was the one guy who said it about Harris. Of course, I also noted that the same comments could be applied to Trump.

So on the issues of honesty and integrity, Trump and Harris are a push. And while I probably considered her the worst of the democrats, it was not by much. And when it comes to issues, Trump beats Harris, and indeed all the democrats, by light years in my estimation.

I wish the republicans had someone other than Donald Trump to run in 2020. He is certainly not someone that I would put on a pedestal of honesty and integrity. But neither are any of the democrats, and I simply cannot tolerate any of the democrats on policy issues, so I am still afraid that Trump will do something stupid and lose the election.

Anecdote:

Last night I was seated next to a woman I know slightly. She had the Senate proceedings up on her phone and was watching.

At the break, she commented to herself "what a waste", and when she noticed I had overheard, she expanded. "What a waste of taxpayer money. I want mine back".

She never said a thing about Trump, pro or con. She never said a thing about the Democrats or Republicans, just the proceedings.

It made me wonder: how many people are neither pro or anti Trump, but they are anti impeachment? And, I wonder how those people may vote in November.

I think the Democrats may be surprised unpleasantly by the back lash in November. I hope so. I doubt they will generate a groundswell of support for their party with this action.

Well, that's the story folks. Gnash your teeth and tell me it isn't so.

(01-22-2020 10:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Anecdote:

Last night I was seated next to a woman I know slightly. She had the Senate proceedings up on her phone and was watching.

At the break, she commented to herself "what a waste", and when she noticed I had overheard, she expanded. "What a waste of taxpayer money. I want mine back".

She never said a thing about Trump, pro or con. She never said a thing about the Democrats or Republicans, just the proceedings.

It made me wonder: how many people are neither pro or anti Trump, but they are anti impeachment? And, I wonder how those people may vote in November.

I think the Democrats may be surprised unpleasantly by the back lash in November. I hope so. I doubt they will generate a groundswell of support for their party with this action.

Well, that's the story folks. Gnash your teeth and tell me it isn't so.

Polls generally indicate >50% of the country supports impeachment, while <50% support removal from office.

The anecdote of a single random person doesn't move me in either way. The government wastes insane amounts of money. Not sure what the senate impeachment trial costs, but it is surely orders of magnitude less than Trump has had the government pay himself by golfing at his own resorts. At least the senate impeachment trial makes it look like they are working on something for a few days.

And the gnashing has begun. BAM!

I SAID it was an anecdote. I did not claim it was a POLL.

I used words like "think", and "hope", and "doubt". I guess some people cannot stand even that much equivocation or opinion.

And, Big, I never, never, never thought that this anecdote would move you in any way.

(01-22-2020 11:00 AM)mrbig Wrote:  The anecdote of a single random person doesn't move me in either way. The government wastes insane amounts of money. Not sure what the senate impeachment trial costs, but it is surely orders of magnitude less than Trump has had the government pay himself by golfing at his own resorts. At least the senate impeachment trial makes it look like they are working on something for a few days.

That being said, I guess the time honored tradition of the 'single person exemplar' of the injustices of Voter ID shouldnt move you either, should it?

(01-22-2020 11:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 11:00 AM)mrbig Wrote:  The anecdote of a single random person doesn't move me in either way. The government wastes insane amounts of money. Not sure what the senate impeachment trial costs, but it is surely orders of magnitude less than Trump has had the government pay himself by golfing at his own resorts. At least the senate impeachment trial makes it look like they are working on something for a few days.

That being said, I guess the time honored tradition of the 'single person exemplar' of the injustices of Voter ID shouldnt move you either, should it?

I honestly do not know what that means. Dumb it down for me.

(01-22-2020 11:19 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 11:13 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-22-2020 11:00 AM)mrbig Wrote:  The anecdote of a single random person doesn't move me in either way. The government wastes insane amounts of money. Not sure what the senate impeachment trial costs, but it is surely orders of magnitude less than Trump has had the government pay himself by golfing at his own resorts. At least the senate impeachment trial makes it look like they are working on something for a few days.

That being said, I guess the time honored tradition of the 'single person exemplar' of the injustices of Voter ID shouldnt move you either, should it?

I honestly do not know what that means. Dumb it down for me.

Even I can figure that one out.

Big:

First, I have no issue that 'the anecdote of a single random person doesn't move me [Big] in either way.'

But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

And, going further, I think you need to show us objective proof of how bad Voter ID laws inhibit voting, come to think of it.....

EVIDENCE!!!

(01-22-2020 11:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Big:

First, I have no issue that 'the anecdote of a single random person doesn't move me [Big] in either way.'

But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

And, going further, I think you need to show us objective proof of how bad Voter ID laws inhibit voting, come to think of it.....

I have primarily seen people discuss studies evaluating the potential or actual effect of voter ID laws and not single individuals' anecdotes.

(01-22-2020 11:04 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  And the gnashing has begun. BAM!

I SAID it was an anecdote. I did not claim it was a POLL.

I used words like "think", and "hope", and "doubt". I guess some people cannot stand even that much equivocation or opinion.

And, Big, I never, never, never thought that this anecdote would move you in any way.

Uh, you said:

Quote:It made me wonder: how many people are neither pro or anti Trump, but they are anti impeachment? And, I wonder how those people may vote in November.

I think the Democrats may be surprised unpleasantly by the back lash in November. I hope so. I doubt they will generate a groundswell of support for their party with this action.

Polls have been done that provide insight into how much support the impeachment has overall. You can dig deeper into Dems/Reps/Ind. 538 shows a % split of 87/11/47 in favor of impeachment.

(01-22-2020 11:51 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Big:

First, I have no issue that 'the anecdote of a single random person doesn't move me [Big] in either way.'

But, the sole issue that is continuously trotted out as the anathema any Voter ID law is just that. Typically an anecdote of a single person.

And, going further, I think you need to show us objective proof of how bad Voter ID laws inhibit voting, come to think of it.....

(01-22-2020 12:06 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  EVIDENCE!!!

Ok...

New insights on US voters who don’t have photo ID:

Quote:Meredith and his colleagues estimate that 0.3 to 0.6 percent of Michigan voters didn’t have photo IDs when they showed up to vote during the 2016 general election.

Quote:In Texas, ID-less voters were rarer than in Michigan, according to a paper another research team prepared for the 2018 State Politics and Policy Conference, held in Pennsylvania in June. Of the about 9 million Texans who voted in the 2016 general election, 16,002 filled out a form indicating they didn’t have the correct ID.

Quote:Texans offered various reasons why they didn’t have a qualifying ID for the 2016 general election. Nearly 30 percent said their IDs had been lost or stolen. About 11.5 percent cited work obligations while another 4 percent said family obligations prevented them from getting one.

Nearly 36 percent of individuals without IDs checked the “other” box, many of whom indicated they had moved so their current address didn’t match what was listed on their IDs.

Of those who selected the “other” option, 1.4 percent — 82 people — cited cost as the reason they didn’t have the appropriate ID.

Voter ID laws and the evidence: A report from the Government Accountability Office:

Quote:Among 10 academic studies selected and reviewed because of their sound methodology and social science principles, “Nine of these studies of driver’s license and state ID ownership in selected states and the one nationwide survey showed that, depending upon the study, estimated ownership rates among registered voters ranged from 84% to 95%.”

Long lines, photo ID laws and how voters behave at the polls:

Quote:Lead author Robert M. Stein, a professor of political science at Rice University, says what voters experience at the polls can affect their ballot selections as well as the likelihood they will participate in future elections.

“It is a consumer experience and it’s consequential,” Stein explains. “Just like going to a grocery store or restaurant, good service breeds repeated use. Voters have a finite time to vote. If they lost time getting there [to the polls], there’s less time for voting. Longer lines may mean they don’t complete the ballot.”

Quote:“In majority-white polling places, the effect of requiring a photo ID to vote reduces check-in time on average by forty seconds,” the authors write. “In majority nonwhite polling places, where we expect a lower percentage of voters to have a valid photographic ID, a photo ID requirement significantly lengthens the time to check in by thirty-two seconds.”

An anectdote collected by the BBC about a 67-year-old sight-limited Wisconsin voter who had significant difficulties getting the proper ID for voting:

Quote:67-year-old Leroy Switlick is angry.

He's angry because he's made three separate trips to the Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) office in Milwaukee to get a photo ID so he can vote in next month's general election.

Each time he's come away empty-handed.

Leroy has voted in every presidential election for more than 40 years, but Wisconsin's new voter ID law means that even though he's registered, he will not be able to cast his ballot without showing photo ID such as a driving licence or passport.

"It's silly," he says.

Switlick, who has been partially sighted for most of his life, never learned to drive - and so never had a driver's license. He was not previously required to have a state-issued ID for any other purpose.

"The first question the man behind the counter asked me was 'Can I see your photo ID?' Now if I'm coming to get a photo ID, how can I already have a photo ID?"

Quote:He's is one of an estimated 300,000 registered voters in Wisconsin who may not have the requisite ID to cast their ballot under the state's new rules.