Republican Nominee 2024

Quote: Mission146

Why does flying a flag linked with racism and secession ameliorate Southern pride? I don't see why they couldn't be proud of the South without doing that. You guys allegedly have, "Southern Hospitality," and, "Neighbors helping neighbors," as go those cliches...as if nobody ever helps anyone else elsewhere. I'd say be proud of those things, instead.

Consider this---the symbol for, "Southern Pride," actively causes other people to think less of the South. How can effectuating people to think less of you possibly increase the level of pride? It's counterintuitive.

You are pushing an open door. I am just saying there are perceptions of southern pride (and not just in white people), and some of these groups use that flag to represent this. I agree it is foolish, misguided, and in many cases intentionally hateful (not always).

I do not think it should be banned any more than any other symbol. But, I think we should keep it out of governments (with the possible exception of government museums or historical depictions to show an accurate picture, etc....)

Quote: Mission146

I agree with all of that. I would not advocate for the total banning of that flag. If the people of possible racism and questionable national pride want to wear that on their sleeves, or lawns, all the better for the rest of us that they should make themselves so easily identifiable.

I have national pride. I hate the confederate flag. Its not a national pride thing. Its a southern pride thing (including many who do not even live in the south). And, I already agree that southern pride is foolish. If you want to have local pride in where you live, most people do (and sometimes its preference, but its often guided in logical decisions with local polices and communities, such as I like to research places before moving, etc....). But, to choose one very broad region is generally silly (especially if that region is only based on former confederate states, which is not something anyone should be proud of).



I am proud of my city, and I am a proud American. And, I have logical reasons for both (even if the "American" part is not by choice, does not mean my pride is illogical).

Quote: Mission146

Religion is not a logical reason for that because religion is not logical. If religion is itself illogical, then nothing that comes about as an exclusive result of religion can be logical. Even then, not everyone subscribes to the religion, so those of the faith should make no attempt to hold others to their purported morals by any formal or legal mechanism.

I 100% agree. And, I never used the word "logical" for that reason.

However, if somebody is a follower of a religion, abnormal behavior can be personally justified. If you truly believe that you are going to eternal paradise for blowing yourself up, you will blow yourself up, even if you are a millionaire with a PhD. There is another phrase that I am badly paraphrasing, " Bad people will always do bad things. But only religion can make good people do bad things with no doubt". Basically if you truly believe that you are making the universe a better place because of your actions, in your mind it is "logical" (even if you have to be following a particular strand of religion to think so).

But, for the more social issue of gay rights. Religion is the biggest barrier. No secular straight person cares.... Even if somebody is grossed out, that would not give them the motivation to march on the capital to ban gay sex....

Quote: Mission146

Maybe. You seem to know more about this than I do. I haven't seen any studies in this regard and have limited Empirical observations because I've never conducted any sort of poll of people who were converted into the church v. those who were always there.

I have my own anecdotes. And, I have read some studies in the past. I think it is very fair to say that people who are converts (voluntarily join a religion as an adult) are more devout than people who grow up in that religion. This is also intuitive, if as a adult you either seek out or become convinced of a religion, you will think that "you found the truth" versus somebody just going through the motions to please their family.

Quote: Mission146

That's on me. I shouldn't be mixing substantive conversation with an excuse to make a cheap joke. Maybe they did watch the debate. I just don't see how you couldn't vote for Warnock...he's a preacher and I can't think of very many other Senators I'd rather have representing my interests than Warnock. That's saying something, because him being a preacher causes me to immediately start out with a slightly unfavorable opinion.

I agree, him being a preacher was my main reason to be hesitant on him. But, even so, there was minimal contest, his opponent was totally out of touch.

Quote: Mission146

I honestly don't see what the problem with it is. I actually kind of like your runoff system because (since it goes to the two highest vote-getters---as I understand it) that gives third-party candidates a theoretical chance. All they would have to do is be in the Top Two with the #1 not having a simple majority, then they at least get into the 1 on 1 competition that they are so often denied.

I agree, it is an interesting system, and I am still open to arguments from both sides. I certainly see the merits. I was a little thrown off when I first moved here such as, "what do you mean, the mayor election was just over, why are we voting again".

Quote: Mission146

Tha's the argament I would make, y'all.

Cheap point. Accent is not slang. I think you know this, but you seem to hate "southern accents", which is you right, but you can speak properly with a southern accent.

Quote: Mission146

Ten-ish years, assuming I still want to by then. It's a little much to even really say, "Planning," on it. The probability of me changing my mind and choosing somewhere else is over 50%.

Oh that is quite a ways away, by then I will probably be long moved on. But, if it is your retirement goal, that is certainly a great location to plan (or think about) going for. Great region, great beach town, with reasonable cost of living.

Quote: Mission146

(Remaining Quote Deliberately Omitted)

Re: Mormon Church. As you said, I'd have to do more research. I lack sufficient knowledge to offer a comment on anything you said.

If you are interested (or concerned) I would highly advise doing some research and watching docs on it. They have more power and influence than you probably realize. If you are concerned about religion (which you seem to be), it is worth knowing.

Quote: ams288

I’m going to go out on a limb and say Donny will NOT be the Republican nominee in 2024.

Probably not. But, if he attempts to be, it will be good for the left. If he runs intendent on some made up party, even better!

That is the one reason I do not want him impeached (again and convicted). I think that he can cause turmoil for Republicans next election, which will only be good for the Democrats. If the Republicans are smart they will convict him to prevent this (but I would not bet on it).

Quote: Gandler

Probably not. But, if he attempts to be, it will be good for the left. If he runs intendent on some made up party, even better!

That is the one reason I do not want him impeached (again and convicted). I think that he can cause turmoil for Republicans next election, which will only be good for the Democrats. If the Republicans are smart they will convict him to prevent this (but I would not bet on it).

Good point.

I should think a good portion of them won't want him kneecapping their chances as a third party candidate vs the Democrats.

Fascinating
Alex Jones going off on a Qanon caller
"Your full of s**t"
https://deadstate.org/alex-jones-explodes-on-qanon-caller-youre-full-of-sh-everything-you-predict-doesnt-come-true/

Quote: terapined

Fascinating
Alex Jones going off on a Qanon caller
"Your full of s**t"
https://deadstate.org/alex-jones-explodes-on-qanon-caller-youre-full-of-sh-everything-you-predict-doesnt-come-true/

Well, at least he's railing against some nonsense which is better than nothing. Not a high bar for Jones to be better than his reputation.

Quote: Gandler

You are pushing an open door. I am just saying there are perceptions of southern pride (and not just in white people), and some of these groups use that flag to represent this. I agree it is foolish, misguided, and in many cases intentionally hateful (not always).

I do not think it should be banned any more than any other symbol. But, I think we should keep it out of governments (with the possible exception of government museums or historical depictions to show an accurate picture, etc....)

We're pretty much in 100% lockstep here. I wouldn't ban it just because it gives me an easy way of knowing that I'd prefer not associating with a particular person.

Quote:

I have national pride. I hate the confederate flag. Its not a national pride thing. Its a southern pride thing (including many who do not even live in the south). And, I already agree that southern pride is foolish. If you want to have local pride in where you live, most people do (and sometimes its preference, but its often guided in logical decisions with local polices and communities, such as I like to research places before moving, etc....). But, to choose one very broad region is generally silly (especially if that region is only based on former confederate states, which is not something anyone should be proud of).

I pretty much agree with all of that. Community pride is usually a good thing, makes people want to make the community better.

Quote:

However, if somebody is a follower of a religion, abnormal behavior can be personally justified. If you truly believe that you are going to eternal paradise for blowing yourself up, you will blow yourself up, even if you are a millionaire with a PhD. There is another phrase that I am badly paraphrasing, " Bad people will always do bad things. But only religion can make good people do bad things with no doubt". Basically if you truly believe that you are making the universe a better place because of your actions, in your mind it is "logical" (even if you have to be following a particular strand of religion to think so).

But, for the more social issue of gay rights. Religion is the biggest barrier. No secular straight person cares.... Even if somebody is grossed out, that would not give them the motivation to march on the capital to ban gay sex....

I guess it might be construed as logical to them. If you accept the Bible as true, and you interpret the Bible a particular way, (incorrectly) then it could be internally perfectly logical.

Quote:

I have my own anecdotes. And, I have read some studies in the past. I think it is very fair to say that people who are converts (voluntarily join a religion as an adult) are more devout than people who grow up in that religion. This is also intuitive, if as a adult you either seek out or become convinced of a religion, you will think that "you found the truth" versus somebody just going through the motions to please their family.

I would agree with that when only comparing the two subsets, but I also have to imagine there are extremely devout lifers. I don't see how it could be otherwise for some of the extremely weak-minded and susceptible ones.

Quote:

I agree, him being a preacher was my main reason to be hesitant on him. But, even so, there was minimal contest, his opponent was totally out of touch.

Even I could win against a mannequin...well, maybe.

Quote:

Oh that is quite a ways away, by then I will probably be long moved on. But, if it is your retirement goal, that is certainly a great location to plan (or think about) going for. Great region, great beach town, with reasonable cost of living.

Vermont is also on the table. It's pretty much a subject we are always discussing.

Quote:

If you are interested (or concerned) I would highly advise doing some research and watching docs on it. They have more power and influence than you probably realize. If you are concerned about religion (which you seem to be), it is worth knowing.

The truth of it is that I wouldn't be terribly worried about it if they didn't let it influence their voting habits. If they kept it mostly in the churches and the homes...and perhaps the necessary public outreach to get people to visit...all of that would be just fine with me. It's when they think their religious beliefs should dictate the lives and choices of other people that I get ticked off.

That's especially true when you look at wanting to take rights away, or not wanting to create certain new rights. These rights are all positive, by which I mean that they do not represent something a religious person has to do themselves if they don't want to.

(I am going to cut a lot of the quote since we basically agree, and where we don't we are unlikely to settle it here).

Quote: Mission146

Vermont is also on the table. It's pretty much a subject we are always discussing.

Vermont is a pretty awesome state in the summer. (I love Burlington). The issue is the winter is terrible (cold, snow, ice, etc....) But, that is just my personal preference (I know you like the cold). But, for me there would be no contest between FL and VT for fulltime living (especially speaking for long term retirement plans).

Quote: Mission146

The truth of it is that I wouldn't be terribly worried about it if they didn't let it influence their voting habits. If they kept it mostly in the churches and the homes...and perhaps the necessary public outreach to get people to visit...all of that would be just fine with me. It's when they think their religious beliefs should dictate the lives and choices of other people that I get ticked off.

That's especially true when you look at wanting to take rights away, or not wanting to create certain new rights. These rights are all positive, by which I mean that they do not represent something a religious person has to do themselves if they don't want to.

The issue is not that it influences their voting habits, which it does. And, in my view people have the right to vote based on their religion, even if I think it is silly. The bigger issue is the instance effect on massive international organizations (like the BSA), both the gay ban and the atheist ban were directives from them in the 70s (too lazy to look up the exact year), where before that the BSA's philosophy was to stay out of personal lives... That has an overnight impact on millions of lives. And, that example of religions using their funding to pressure non-profit (especially in regards to youths) is not exclusive (it is just an example that I have the most experience with). Yes, technically you don't have to stay in such an organization, but when the rules change overnight because of the donor's wishes, that can be massively problematic for people who already have years in....

I know you think the Mormon Church is smiles and good humor making fun of themselves etc.... , but they have a lot more power and influence than you seem to realize behind their friendly face. Also, aside from Scientology, it is probably the most absurd mainstream religion, like just blatantly absurd to the point where you have to wonder how people buy into it. (At least Islam and Christianity have age going for them and you can always chalk up strange quotes to translations errors, plausible deniability, etc....). But, there is almost no way to try to explain away Mormonism or Scientology (you can watch Youtube videos of people trying and its both amusing and scary). Both were founded by known fraudsters in relatively recent history....

Dershowitz makes a very good point.
Pelosi says they want Trump tried
in the Senate after he's out of
office to keep him from running.
Dershowitz says this is not only
illegal, it's patently ridiculous.
If they can try a private citizen
to keep him from running, they
can try anybody they don't like
to keep them from running. That
Trump is an ex president means
nothing as soon as he leaves
office. Even if SCOTUS had 9
Lib judges this would get thrown
out.

Quote: Evenbob

Dershowitz makes a very good point.
Pelosi says they want Trump tried
in the Senate after he's out of
office to keep him from running.
Dershowitz says this is not only
illegal, it's patently ridiculous.
If they can try a private citizen
to keep him from running, they
can try anybody they don't like
to keep them from running. That
Trump is an ex president means
nothing as soon as he leaves
office. Even if SCOTUS had 9
Lib judges this would get thrown
out.

You may be right. You may be wrong. The difference is is that he was impeached while he was POTUS. And it appears there have been 3 ‘private citizens’, who were no
longer in office that were tried after they were out of office. It seems like before a trial the Supreme Court would rule on it. If I had to bet, I’d bet on a trial, with an acquittal.

Quote: Evenbob

Dershowitz makes a very good point.
Pelosi says they want Trump tried
in the Senate after he's out of
office to keep him from running.
Dershowitz says this is not only
illegal, it's patently ridiculous.
If they can try a private citizen
to keep him from running, they
can try anybody they don't like
to keep them from running. That
Trump is an ex president means
nothing as soon as he leaves
office. Even if SCOTUS had 9
Lib judges this would get thrown
out.

There have been convictions before after officials have been federally impeached (and left office). Never a President.

However, saying it "means nothing" that Trump is an ex President is not correct, if he is on trial for conduct while President. (Similar to past impeachments of federal judges who were out of office and I think at least one Senator). Again, different rules from Presidents (though many similarities and it speaks to at least some precedent). I don't think it really matters because he will not be convicted (which is great for the Democrats politically, basically locks up 2024 since Trump is going to destroy the primary process and possibly the general with his nonsense ....)

Its a similar concept to being in the military, while in the military you are subject to UCMJ, the day you are out you are not. However, if you violated UCMJ while on active duty (and its within the statues of limitations) you can be tried decades later.
A popular example is Tim Hennis in 1985 being accused of killing a woman and her daughters. He was found not guilty in civilian court. Decades later forensic evidence implicated him again, but he could not be tried due to double jeopardy protections. However, since he was in the Army at the time he committed the murders, he was court martialed in 2010 and found guilty. (This is not double jeopardy because the first time it was a State prosecuting him, the second time it is the Federal government).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastburn_family_murders


The point being, even if you are no longer in a position where such rules apply to you, you can often be punished for breaking the rules after leaving such a position.

Quote: SOOPOO

You may be right. You may be wrong. .

You mean Dershowitz and a bunch of
other constitutional scholars 'may'
be wrong. They only do this for
a living, why would they be right.
Dershowitz also says the last
impeachment is illegal for about
10 reasons and would be overturned
if challenged. Which nobody will because
Trump is leaving office.