|
Post by Christine on Jan 21, 2018 20:21:03 GMT -5
Theoretically, I can see the arguments of both the Repubs and the Dems voting for and voting against here ... but in the end I just see this as the worst of the worst in politics. The government should not have shut down. Hopefully it's a weekend thing, and thus inconsequential. Hopefully. The majority of these politicians (on both sides) are unwilling to work together to reach a compromise, and are acting in the interest of political aspirations, not ethical concerns, imo. The government should stay open. That should be the prime directive, with a compromise reached to that end. If only politicians weren't kowtowing to Trump and the base on the GOP side and setting up their narratives for 2018 races on the Dem side. How many businesses would shut down for weeks over differences in policy, failing to serve their customers because the BOD are squabbling over differences in policy? Answer: zero. This is the most glaring advantage of free market over government, and a point in favor of anarchists. When government shuts down, people suffer. There is no competitor, no alternative. For the love of God, don't let Don be right again.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 21, 2018 20:36:01 GMT -5
I've been following the shutdown story on Twitter tonight. It sounds increasingly like Stephen Miller may be the biggest single factor causing the shutdown. There IS a bipartisan agreement that would have enough votes. Graham thinks Trump would sign it, were it not for Miller, but thanks to Miller, he won't. McConnell won't bring a vote when he's not sure Trump's not on board. (He's apparently lost sight of that coequal branch of government thing.
But I think it's important to remember -- there IS a bipartisan compromise that would get 60 votes.
It's clear to me what SHOULD happen.
ETA:
To be clear, what SHOULD happen is that they vote on the bipartisan compromise and pass it tonight. And Miller needs to go the way of Bannon, the Mooch, etc.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 21, 2018 20:40:44 GMT -5
They're all to blame. Congress' numero uno job is to manage the country's finances, to pass a budget and make sure government agencies are operating.
This shutdown stuff now is no different than it was under Obama in 2013, when the repubs were refusing to go forward unless ACA issues were addressed to their satisfaction. Now the dems demand that DACA issues be addressed to their satisfaction in order to move forward. Pretty much everyone involved in both is full of crap.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 21, 2018 23:34:02 GMT -5
They're all to blame. Congress' numero uno job is to manage the country's finances, to pass a budget and make sure government agencies are operating. And which party is in the majority in the House of Representatives? Republicans. And which party is in the majority in the Senate? Republicans. And which party is in control in the White House? Republicans. They're not all to blame. The Republicans are to blame. There has never been a government shutdown when one party controlled both houses of Congress and the Oval Office. Not until now. Not until the Republicans came to Washington to run things and have proven they can't be trusted to run a McDonald's in a strip mall. This is a Republican shutdown. This is their ugly puppy that followed them home. They OWN this. They wanted the power and they got the power. Whose damn fault is it they don't know what to do with it? This is what happens when a political party runs on a platform that government is evil, wasteful, destructive and incompetent. Then they get elected and prove it. In 2013, the Republicans refused to properly and fully fund the federal government based upon malicious spite. They hated the Affordable Care Act and figured by cutting off the cash to everything, they might be successful in their goal to kill off Obamacare. Five years later and the Democrats aren't trying to kill DACA. They're trying to get the Republicans to move off their dead asses and seriously come to the table to work out a deal for the Dreamers. What the GOP is putting on the table is insufficient from protecting DACA from Trump's petty, vindictive and mean-spirited spite and bigotry. Democrats have offered to give Trump his dumb wall in exchange for a DACA remedy, but the Republicans won't play ball How are Democrats "full of crap" when they are fighting to protect kids? All the Republicans are fighting for is Trump to begin deporting them in March. The Dems are trying to help people while the Repubs are trying to fuck them over.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Jan 22, 2018 4:12:38 GMT -5
This is what happens when a political party runs on a platform that government is evil, wasteful, destructive and incompetent. Then they get elected and prove it. Agreed. Democrats (at least some of them) are often guilty of saying stupid, pandering stuff but at least they as a party (for the most part) try to accomplish things that align with their promised goals and stated values. Republicans, for the most part (at least for the past decade or so), often directly contradict themselves once they get into office, or at least reveal that their bullshit promises were mostly half-truths. "Government is too big and intrusive. We're gonna shrink government and get it out of people's lives!" And then they create the largest expansion of government in modern history (Dept. of Homeland Security) and try to pass dozens of laws at the federal and state levels trying to control what women can do with their bodies, trying to control who can get married to whom, what types of sexual relationships are acceptable, etc. "We're gonna get Americans out from under the burden of high taxes." And then they reveal the half-truth that it's mostly only RICH Americans they're going to cut taxes on. "We're going to fix healthcare." And then they fuck it up even worse by ensuring that the poorest and most in-need people are unable to get adequate medical coverage without ever even bothering to come up with a rational or even coherent plan of what they're going to do to "fix" it other than simply destroy what progress has already been made. "We care about education!" Cut funding, cut funding, cut funding, cut funding. "We care about blue collar workers in the factories and coal mines!" Dismantle unions, strengthen corporations, relax employment regulations. "We uphold the Constitution!" Until it becomes too inconvenient for them by interfering with their religious Dominionism, denying rights to atheists and muslims, infecting public education with religious nonsense, giving special privileges to religious organizations of their choosing, etc. Etc., etc., etc.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 22, 2018 9:07:17 GMT -5
Funding is not the same thing as caring. Just because someone is willing to throw someone else's money at a particular problem, it doesn't follow that they actually care about that problem. And just because someone is not willing to do that, it doesn't follow that they don't care about that problem. Consider CHIP (once known as SCHIP). On it's face, it sounds like a great program imo, a smart use of funds, helping insure children whose parents maybe don't quite have the resources to do so, yet can't quite qualify for Medicaid. But back when SCHIP was up for re-authorization under Bush (2007), Congress wanted to expand SCHIP to cover families with incomes as high as $80,000+ dollars. That's hardly consistent with the program's supposed purpose. Yet, it was easy enough for Dems to paint Bush as uncaring, because "the children!" He vetoed the expansion, anyway (good for him, imo). Regarding the current situation with CHIP, what I'd like to know is why CHIP is around, at all. Because the way the ACA was sold, one would have thought it would have made CHIP unnecessary. Yet here we are, still dealing with funding it as a program, still arguing about its extent. We continue to have serious problem with budgeting and spending that neither party is really willing to address, imo. And this reaults in a lot of programs and initiatives being funded that maybe shouldn't exist at all (because they are ineffective, because they overlap with other programs, and so on). But many are sacred cows that are too easy to defend by accusing anyone who questions them as having a lack of compassion or the like.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 22, 2018 10:02:00 GMT -5
Another problem with any short-term deal to reopen the government is continuing resolutions instead of a clean budget, is how it hurts military readiness. As broken as the system of governing is and the dearth of leadership, we're unlikely to see anything bold or innovative or brave in whatever Chuck Schumer and Mitch McConnell agree upon to fully fund federal agencies.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 10:13:16 GMT -5
If you are supporting a family on 80K a year in NYC, you are barely getting by, if you are getting by at all. Indeed, as a single person, you're going to be living in a tiny apartment and you won't have savings. That's assuming you aren't paying hefty student loans, don't have immense medical bills, etc. I assume the same is true in some other urban areas.
My increasingly big problem with the Republican party -- it is far more concerned that someone, somewhere might be milking the system than with making sure that no one falls through the cracks and starves. In a wealthy nation, that is fucking ass-backwards, in my opinion. Yes, I do care about waste, corruption, fiscal prudence, and so forth, and yes, we should close loopholes and make things efficient and cost-effective. But our first priority, IMO, is making sure people are taken care of -- especially children, elderly, disabled people, our active military, and veterans, who should, IMO, NEVER, ever fall through the cracks.
We've all agreed that Obamacare is imperfect and needs fixing. I'm sure CHIP could use some work, too. But the answer, IMO is never, ever, "well then, let's just end this and let some kids and sick people suffer while Congress negotiates interminably for a brand new shiny perfect program." Fix the problem, THEN end any superfluous programs, if they exist. If there's a bit of extra spending while that's sorted out, so be it -- let it be a spur to sort it out more quickly. No one in this country, especially kids, should go without basic stuff, ever, even if it means someone, somewhere, takes advantage of a program beyond the point they are entitled to do so.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 22, 2018 13:34:40 GMT -5
Wow, there's no way I can address everyone's comments to me to anyone's satisfaction (only so many hours in a day, after all) but I will respond to some. Prozyan: I agree that Trump can't take full credit for every single thing I mentioned, and some he's still working on (border security). But there are reasons why he deserves credit. 1) If Trump stepping out of the way (like handing the day to day, minute to minute decisions to generals in the field re: Isis, rather than trying to manage from Washington, results in something positive, then he at least gets some credit for getting out of the way. He did, however, say we would "bomb the shit out of Isis", so it's not like that wasn't in his plan to begin with. 2) Putting the right people in place to get things done should allow Trump some credit, even if they get things done despite him. A POTUS has to delegate, right? 3) Fortune magazine agrees with me that Trump can take some credit for the stockmarket/economy. After all, as this article points out, some of the stock market performance is based on expectations, and Trump said from day one he would make tax reform a priority and be pro-infrastructure. fortune.com/2017/07/20/donald-trump-economy-stock-market-jobs-reports-credit/ Nighttimer: you and I have such different perspectives and philosophies that we can look at the same things and you see bad and I see good. I will always appreciate, however, that you explain your points with evidence of Trump's policies and actual information rather than simply attacking me personally or quoting some blowhard. I will comment on a few things you said: 1) I concede that the SCOTUS position given to Gorsuch is a thorn in the Dem's side, and although I like Gorsuch a lot, it does seem unfair. I absolutely give you that. Even though no laws were broken, it does seem McConnell played things as far as they could be played. And that stinks for the Dems. However, I'm not going to blame Trump for that. Would you be angry at the Dems if it had been the opposite parties doing that? And I am going to give Trump credit for the justices he has put into place, even though I know he didn't pick them himself. He gets credit for listening to folks who know what they are talking about. 2) I still think this will result in more positives for the U.S. than negatives, including for the average American. If this incentive for corporations to move to the U.S. really works, then that's a good thing. And here is evidence it is likely working: money.cnn.com/2018/01/11/news/companies/fiat-chrysler-tax-reform-bonus-jobs/index.htmlAlso, Apple: www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-17/apple-is-said-to-give-employees-2-500-bonuses-after-new-tax-law?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social 3) I don't read your quote by Trump in comments to military veterans with PTSD the same way that you do at all. I think Trump has an awkward way of saying things a lot of the time, but his goal is to help the veterans with PTSD. 4) Regarding your points about Trump not supporting military veterans with cuts to funding - the VA is a hugely complex organization and is not efficiently run in many aspects. I worked full time at a VA hospital for over ten years. I think it's important to note in the following explanation that there are good things about the proposal: www.blogs.va.gov/VAntage/38275/care-benefits-veterans-strengthened-186-billion-va-budget/And that the VA was responsive to the American Legion and others concerns about disability benefits being cut, as you stated above: www.stripes.com/news/va-backs-off-budget-proposal-to-cut-benefits-for-disabled-unemployable-vets-1.473551Of course it will take many tries to find the right balance of cuts and increases in such a massive and complex organization with so many needs, but the important thing to me is that Trump wants to improve Veterans care and his administration is trying to do well by our vets. 5) the U.N. *sigh* I greatly dislike the hypocrisy and bias of the U.N. and am not particularly concerned that some think Trump has bashed it. I also think Nikki Hayley is doing a great job there and has found a good balance of standing up for what's right, but with more tact than The Donald. Amadan: I admit I was more grouchy yesterday than usual, but I get annoyed by the snark sometimes, and yesterday I pushed back. By educated elite, I was referring to the tone and content in Cassandra's post that 'it should actually bother 'me'...' I don't like being told what should bother me. I like to decide myself what bothers me. Especially when part of "what should bother me" is inaccurate. Trump and the GOP have already said multiple times that there will be a fix for the Dreamers. Who actually believes they will be deported? Or that CHIP will be defunded? The offers on the table by the GOP have already offered those two things, and they were refused by the Dems. I also don't like to be told what should bother me because "intellectuals" say it is so. That's a typical educated elite POV. Sorry, but Kristol and McMullen are blinded by Trump hatred. I think true conservatives should stick to principle and stop judging this administration because they think Trump is so horrible. They should start giving Trump credit if he deserves it and blame if he deserves it. There is simply no objectivity left in Kristol or Flake or Rick Wilson. Sorry. Kristol can vote for Oprah if he wants. I don't care, and I don't put much stock into his tirades anymore. They are tiresome. Cass likes to say she's objective. I'm supposed to believe someone who has lived in New York for years and has said many times she hated Trump for years before he ran for POTUS, can be objective? I am looking at policy and results. If Trump acts like an idiot or an unrestrained blowhard, then I will call him on it depending on what he says and about what. I have said before I hate many of his Tweets. I wish he wouldn't Tweet a lot of his Tweets. I didn't like the fact that he said "shithole countries", though I still don't know the full truth or context, and I believe Durbin is using and embellishing that whole thing for political points. I hate that he had an affair, but does that disqualify him from being POTUS? Should JFK have been removed from office? I abhorred his "good people on both sides" comment re: the Charleston rally. That was really bad. His speech to the Boy Scouts was embarrassing. I don't like the White House telephone message happening right now during the shut down. It's not classy. Trump doesn't have the composure or the class I wish our POTUS would have. But that doesn't mean everything he does or says is bad. My bottom line is that Trump was elected POTUS and remains our POTUS. And during these 4 years, I'm going to judge the policies and actions of the administration. I will not reflexively criticize Trump because Trump. I will give him credit when he deserves it. And I will call him out when he deserves that, too. I'm also giving him some leeway because he's new at this game. But I'm not going to apologize for being happy about the direction our country is going. And as far as DACA - to Amadan - I think it would be reasonable for the Dems to be content with legalization of the Dreamers, short of citizenship. And they should give more funding to the wall, though I'm not expecting everything the POTUS is asking for. And they should hopefully agree to at least the beginning of doing away with chain migration/lottery, just like Chuck Schumer believed was appropriate years ago - did you see that video I posted of him saying that exact thing? And really, they should just do the funding and work on DACA after the funding.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jan 22, 2018 14:41:43 GMT -5
I also don't like to be told what should bother me because "intellectuals" say it is so. That's a typical educated elite POV. Sorry, but Kristol and McMullen are blinded by Trump hatred. I think true conservatives should stick to principle and stop judging this administration because they think Trump is so horrible. They should start giving Trump credit if he deserves it and blame if he deserves it. There is simply no objectivity left in Kristol or Flake or Rick Wilson. Sorry. Kristol can vote for Oprah if he wants. I don't care, and I don't put much stock into his tirades anymore. They are tiresome. Cass likes to say she's objective. I'm supposed to believe someone who has lived in New York for years and has said many times she hated Trump for years before he ran for POTUS, can be objective? Nobody is "objective" if by "objective" you mean "never formed an opinion on this topic before now." Of course people have feelings about the Republicans, the Democrats, and Trump going back years. You are not objective. When Trump utters another blooper, your immediate impulse is to defend, or cast doubt that the Democrats or the Liberal Media (tm) is accurately representing what he "really" said, etc. You would not (and did not) give Obama or Clinton that kind of benefit of the doubt. I find it fascinating that you respond to Trump banging a porn star with a sad shrug. I wasn't reading your posts back during the Clinton years, but I would bet money that you had somewhat stronger feelings about his infidelities. The point here is that I do not look for that mythical beast "objectivity," but intellectual consistency. If I had given Clinton a pass on the Lewinsky scandal but thought Trump is unfit to hold office because he cheated on his wife with a porn star, you could legitimately call me a hypocrite. (For the record, I thought Clinton was a low-down scoundrel, but that getting a BJ from an intern made him sleazy but had little impact on his fitness as President - the same thing I think about Trump. Trump's unfitness to be President is for many more serious things than having affairs.) Fine, so maybe he likes puppies? I mean, even the most dedicated Trump haters are probably not going to seriously claim that he has never in his life said or done something they agreed with. I think this is also a straw man; you can give a Church Lady frown to Trump's pussy-grabbing comments, and his "shithole countries" comments, and his "good people on both sides" comments, but you still think he's a good President. What would he have to say for you to actually question his character?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 15:03:57 GMT -5
My opinion of Trump was formed based on years of watching his behavior and his business dealings. I lived in one of his buildings for a few years. I also know a great deal about his business ventures -- not only because the New York papers have been covering them in-depth since long before he dabbled in politics, but because, as a lawyer, I hear things that don't necessarily make the papers. His antics and character here are well known and have been for a long time. Based on that, I concluded that he's a grifter who cheats contractors, customers, and wives, lies constantly and shamelessly, self-aggrandizes himself to an almost unbelievable degree, has no impulse control, no solid principles of any kind, and has some damn ugly views (his take on the Central Park Five, for example, was notorious long before he ever considered a run for president).
In other words, my opinion on his character as a human and a businessman was formed NOT because of any bias to do with his political views (which have bounced all over the place over the years, btw) but because of long experience watching his antics.
It is beyond bizarre to me that an opinion based on long experience and observation would be rejected as "biased" precisely because of that experience and observation. And that what would be held up as "objective" (and I agree with Amadan's assessment -- intellectual consistency is a better litmus) is a complete willingness to overlook everything about someone's behavior, character, and actions, past and present, in the interests of having one's own pet policies put into place.
It is also bizarre to me that to Trump True Believers, fidelity and consistency to conservative ideals (not to mention love for their country and its values) -- displayed consistently by the likes of Evan McMullin, Bill Kristol, Rick Wilson, et al. (much, much more consistently than by, oh, Trump himself) -- is now utterly subordinate to Trump loyalty. If you don't like Trump -- think him actually harmful to your country and/or conservative ideals -- nothing else matters. The Trump Train folks cast you aside as unworthy and "biased", your opinion discarded like so much fake news. That's just stunning to me, especially given the pile of evidence, dating back years and years, that justifies such a poor opinion of Trump.
I don't agree with everything these guys would want in a government, but I greatly respect their refusal to compromise their principles by kissing Trump's ass and turning their heads away from his grift and disgusting behavior. A side effect is that I take their opinions on substantive stuff more seriously because I cannot dismiss them as mere partisan parrots. I may not end up agreeing with those opinions, but I listen and think about it. I'm afraid I do the opposite with those who show themselves mere partisan shills who put party over country and values.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Jan 22, 2018 18:15:26 GMT -5
I don't disagree with any of that.
Nope, that's not correct at all. The "bias" is when someone like Kristol cannot separate Trump the man of poor character from the good Trump has done in advancing the conservative agenda. Or when someone like you, who has good reasons to dislike Trump, thinks the world or our country is on the brink of destruction because of him, which is just not true.
Nope again. I don't completely overlook it. I've identified some things above that I find objectionable. But I do think the macro is more important than the micro. Policies which to me strengthen our country, economy, freedoms, security are WAY more important than if the man cheated on his wife. I don't know why that is so controversial. If he hasn't done anything impeachable, I'm certainly not going to try to get him out of office simply for being a jerk.
I disagree. I think they ARE compromising their (conservative) principles by hoping and trying to make this administration fail. I think the Never-Trumpers just don't want to admit they were wrong (about the direction this country would go under Trump), and they want to capitalize on the anger and disgust people have with Trump, whether it be for future candidacies, more hits on their blog, whatever.
Again, if my party reflects and will advance my values, and I truly believe those values are best for my country, then I'm putting country and values over my dislike of a man who has character flaws. IMO, that is ranking things in order of importance from most important to least important.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Jan 22, 2018 19:38:19 GMT -5
If you are supporting a family on 80K a year in NYC, you are barely getting by, if you are getting by at all. Indeed, as a single person, you're going to be living in a tiny apartment and you won't have savings. That's assuming you aren't paying hefty student loans, don't have immense medical bills, etc. I assume the same is true in some other urban areas. It may be the same in some other urban areas, but it's certainly not the same in all of them. And most people in this country--most families--do not live in NYC. I know that's tough for New Yorkers to process, but it's true. Moreover, why must the cost of living in places like NYC just be accepted as "the way that it is" and all other things be adjusted to meet it? Why doesn't NYC do something about that situation? Because $80,000 a year in most places is not "barely getting by" at all. And still, the whole point of the ACA was delivering health insurance to those without, because of cost. Between the ACA markets and subsidies and medicaid expansion, it seems to me that CHIP should have been swallowed up, especially given the supposed technocrat skill behind the makers of the ACA. Yet it remains, another sacred cow that can't be touched because doing so automatically makes one an uncaring rat bastard.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 22, 2018 20:59:12 GMT -5
If you are supporting a family on 80K a year in NYC, you are barely getting by, if you are getting by at all. Indeed, as a single person, you're going to be living in a tiny apartment and you won't have savings. That's assuming you aren't paying hefty student loans, don't have immense medical bills, etc. I assume the same is true in some other urban areas. It may be the same in some other urban areas, but it's certainly not the same in all of them. And most people in this country--most families--do not live in NYC. I know that's tough for New Yorkers to process, but it's true. Moreover, why must the cost of living in places like NYC just be accepted as "the way that it is" and all other things be adjusted to meet it? Why doesn't NYC do something about that situation? Because $80,000 a year in most places is not "barely getting by" at all. And still, the whole point of the ACA was delivering health insurance to those without, because of cost. Between the ACA markets and subsidies and medicaid expansion, it seems to me that CHIP should have been swallowed up, especially given the supposed technocrat skill behind the makers of the ACA. Yet it remains, another sacred cow that can't be touched because doing so automatically makes one an uncaring rat bastard. I am all ears on your proposal for making housing and living costs in NYC and San Francisco comparable to those in North Dakota and Mississippi. Until we enact your plan, however, it seems to me that programs that take income into consideration also take into consideration that how far that income goes differs dramatically across the country. (A fact I recognize regularly on this site, so not sure why you think I don't process it. I must have said a dozen times that I'd be very comfortably off in Buffalo on what would get me a rathole in NYC.) Seems to me there's likely formulas to address that. I've no idea if CHIP does that, but it should. And I've agreed with you a zillion times that the ACA needs fixing, and am all ears for better solutions -- indeed, was open to and genuinely interested in hearing Republican solutions until it became clear they had none except to kill the ACA. As for sacred cows, mine come down to this: certain categories of citizens (I've named them -- children, the elderly, etc.) should never, ever be left without basic stuff, especially in a nation as rich as ours. By all means let's do that as efficiently and cost-effectively as we can, but they shouldn't be suffering in the meantime while we sort it out. ETA: Believe it or not, I care a lot about keeping programs cost effective and sensible, and have caught a fair amount of flack for it among some of my more liberal friends. I have the perfect example: Here in NYC, we give shelter to the homeless, regardless of whether they are from NYC or not. Alas, we've got a huge homeless problem right now and we are handling it (and have long been handling it) in a really (IMO) stupid manner. There is a homeless shelter in my neighborhood (they are scattered throughout the city -- there's a fair share law). Insanely, the government is paying the landlord more than $3500 a night for a tiny room with 2 bunkbeds. No kitchen facilities. Bathrooms shared by an entire floor. It does not include job placement help or drug treatment. They could get a nice one bedroom apartment for that, a decent two bedroom, or, if they were out of Manhattan or Brooklyn, a still larger apartment. The only one making out here is the landlord, who is getting more for an 8x10 rathole than he could get for a nice apartment. There were articles about this a while back -- scumbag landlords are getting wealthy from this. Some of them have shoved tenants out of affordable housing so that they could convert their buildings into homeless shelters. Ironically, some of their tenants, no longer able to find an affordable place, have ended up moving back in as homeless people. It's seriously crazy. Add to that, there is no screening for people with dire mental health and drug problems, so you have people who are simply a bit down on their luck (many of whom are employed, btw, and just can't afford housing in this insane city, and some of whom have small children) mixed in with people who are at best dreadful neighbors and at worst dangerous and violent. There have been numerous violent incidents, including murder, in the shelters. I spoke at length to a very nice woman who lives with her toddler in one of the shelters. She said it's terrifying to share a bathroom with these people, and she's always scared about her kid. I don't blame her. I do not want to simply shut down the shelters and shove all these people into the snow, but I DO want the government to figure out something that makes more sense -- that works towards putting these people back on their feet, if possible, treating problems if they have them, and in general serving some good purpose other than enriching scumbag slumlords (and it is a fact that too many of the landlords of these buildings have simply horrifying track records). Is the program as-is a sacred cow for me? Absofuckinglutely not. It's incredibly badly done and I'd like DeBlasio to get off his smug ass and work on it. But the idea of sheltering those who need it? Yeah, sacred cow. I'm willing to grit my teeth and put up with the idiocy while the government comes up with a sensible program -- I just want them to fucking work on such a program, which as far as I can see, they really aren't. But for that viewpoint (i.e., caring how our tax dollars are spent and thinking it's a bad idea to mix poor but functioning families with dangerous, mentally-ill drug addicts), I get called heartless and a NIMBY. I just can't win.
|
|
|
Post by nighttimer on Jan 22, 2018 23:02:43 GMT -5
Nighttimer: you and I have such different perspectives and philosophies that we can look at the same things and you see bad and I see good. I will always appreciate, however, that you explain your points with evidence of Trump's policies and actual information rather than simply attacking me personally or quoting some blowhard. celawson, there are only a few people on this or any other board I can say I honestly wish I had the chance to sit down with or have a drink, smoke a joint or break bread with and you are on that short list. For what its worth. I shouldn't respond. It's Monday and I'm a little fucked up off a combination of good bourbon and cheap beer. I'm sitting here with my stomach growling in misery and my vision blurred off the alcohol. But I just came from the hospital where my younger brother is lying in a bed being incubated with a fucking tube down his throat because he had his birthday on the 11th and nine days later he had a stroke and I've been trotting back and forth to the ICU since then. Emotionally, I'm a wreck. So I shouldn't respond. I have nothing of particular worth to add to this topic or any other one here. I'm just too far outside the norm and my approach is too goddamn hard to figure out or deal with for some folks here. Not that I'm losing any sleep over it. I read this quote by Christopher Priest, the talented and outspoken comic book writer who took on the thankless task of taking a lame-ass third-stringer like the Black Panther and making him so cool he's now the star of a $200 million superhero tentpole that has my daughter who could give two shits about a Black Panther comic book totally hyped and geeked for a Black Panther movie ( Yes, White America. Black folks can be total nerds who read comic books too. Including Superman, Captain America, Batman, Wonder Woman, Thor, and all the other whiter than a glass of milk super folks. Every so often we get a Luke Cage or Black Panther to interject some color into the proceedings. Who knew?). Priest puts it right out there in the first fucking sentences. "I'm an asshole. I’m abrasive. I am so sure that I’m right about virtually everything. I can sing you an aria of reasons to not like me,” says comics writer Christopher Priest, his bass voice rising to the brink of anger but never quite tipping over. “Not liking me because I’m black is so juvenile and immature, because there’s many reasons to not like me."Sound like anyone you and I know? I'm still a little bit buzzed and I'm still balancing my pain and distress with the pure pleasure of a Luther Vandross deep dive on Spotify, but allow me to arouse myself from my misery/stupor long enough to respond to something celawson said. Not now, not today or yesterday but six months ago. Back when I quoted some infamous words uttered by one Donald John Trump. That was August 24, 2017. Here's what I said to you. Four days later you responded.So, how was dinner? Six months later I'm not expecting any answers from you, celawson. Your silence was the answer. I don't know you well enough to say definitively, but I believe there's a part of you that is totally embarrassed by your pig of a president. Any decent human being would be, but while I'm still only guessing, I believe you've reconciled yourself to take the bad of Trump with the good he does for the causes you've previously referenced. That part I understand. That part I get. Eight years is a long time to live under the administration of a president whose beliefs and policies are the antithesis of everything you personally believe in and hold dear. Barack Hussein Obama was my president. Not necessarily yours, though you attempted and probably struggled to accept him as the only one you had at that time. Now that Obama is gone its time for a Republican and a conservative to fix what Obama broke and right the wrongs of the past eight years. Which is exactly what I was hoping for on January 20, 2008 when Obama took the Oath of Office. My job used to require me to sign out a car and travel across the great state of Ohio. I will always remember until I draw my last breath how on the road from Columbus to Toledo, my GPS failed me and forced me to travel on two-lane roads all the way. When I wasn't blasting heavy metal out of the car stereo, I was counting how many "Trump/Pence: Make America Great Again" signs I passed. Oh, there was the odd Hillary Clinton yard sign here and there, but they were outnumbered by Trump signs by two-to-one. That's when I realized something was happening in rural Ohio those of us who reside in urban Ohio weren't hip to. Something was going out on there. We just didn't know exactly what until November 8, 2016 had come and gone and the paradigm shifted. Being a thoughtful and decent person, you probably thought Obama wasn't so much a bad person as much as he was a terribly bad president whose liberalism mixed with amateurism made for an awful combination that put the nation's statue and very safety at risk. Even when Obama was trying to do the right thing, he didn't inspire confidence he was doing it the right way or for all Americans, including those who didn't vote for him. Say what you will, but whatever else one can say about Trump, nobody could say he lacks confidence. Which is not to say Trump hasn't been a total failed abortion of a president. I believe you're not a White supremacist, celawson. You just decided to support one. That's your right to do, but the hidden fee of that ticket you bought is whatever evil, mean, petty, foul shit Trump gets into, is evil, mean, petty and foul shit on your hands as much as they are. You don't have to be a White supremacist to say, " Fuck it. I'll go with the guy who is one. " I'm not expecting you to defend or justify your decision to me or anyone else. But you can't take the good you say Trump does for you while being oblivious to the bad he does to everyone else. You are Trump's base and I am not. Trump is interested in making you and yours happy while he makes me and mine miserable. Well, elections have consequences and those of us who aren't included among the winners are excluded among the losers. So, congratulations on after eight years of wandering in the wilderness to once again feel there's someone in the White House who shares your concerns and is looking out for your interests. There never has been a president whom truly represented all Americans because America is not a monolith. It's a nation of 323 million who can't agree snow is white. It's also a nation where one man is exclusively concerned about Whites. I don't feel at home in your America, celawson. I've never despised a president the way I despise Trump. A few weeks ago I had dinner with family and friends and someone said after Trump's "shithole" remark, "I'm not saying someone should take him out. It just wouldn't bother me if someone did." I didn't agree with the person who said it. But I didn't vocally disagree with the person who said it either. Mostly, I just focused on my chicken wings before they got cold. Maybe that makes me an awful, terrible person, but so is Trump, so I don't give a fuck. I'm just trying to get through now and to later when I can walk into the voting booth and cast my ballot against each and every mother's son and daughter with a "R" beside their name. Partially out of spite. Partially because every Republican deserves to be scourged for allowing their party to be co-opted and corrupted by a reality show conman. Partially because if I can't vote Trump in 2018, I sure as shit can vote against every Republican who has aided and abetted this gross monstrosity passed off as just another normal right-turn that comes with a conservative presidency. It's not. There's nothing normal about a candidate who grabs women by the pussy going on to become president and then behaving just as recklessly, crazily and foolishly as he did before he got the gig. Chances are any chance we will ever meet for that dinner, that drink or that joint are somewhere between slim and none, so this is as far as we'll ever go, celawson. I don't understand how you balance your basic decency with a man who treats women like objects, stirs up racial resentment, wages war on anyone not blessed with being White and wealthy, has zero compassion for the poor, the needy, the uneducated and the downtrodden because they're sad losers and cheats on both his wife and his taxes. All I can do is speculate is your relief in avoiding Hillary Clinton and Obama Lite for another four years has led you to conclude a deal with the devil isn't so bad as long as the devil is cutting taxes, supports Israel and talks shit to the United Nations, NATO and our erstwhile allies around the globe. If Make America Great means making it great for the few who supported Trump and making it lousy for the many who didn't, I want no part of that America. More to the point, I'm committed to making sure that America never comes to pass. Thanks for taking the time to read through this celawson. Respond if you wish or don't if you don't. Makes no never mind either way. What you didn't say six months ago speaks far louder than anything you ever could say today. As James Baldwin put it, "I can't believe what you say because I see what you do." You voted for Trump and everything else that came with it. I hope you can live with it because I'm trying to do my best to make sure I live through it. Take care of you and yours and I'll do the same for me and mine. By any means necessary.
|
|