I Wonder if Obama Even Cares....

[AZGrizFan]

Both.

Yup. One begets the other.

Oh, if that were only true. The grossly unlevel playing field ensures that even if someone has GREAT positions on the issues, if they're not running as a D or an R, the D's and R's will ENSURE their positions are never (or rarely) heard. Witness the made up requirement that Johnson must be polling above 15% to be allowed the privilege of standing on the debate stage against the D & R candidates.

Any candidate--ANY candidate--not aligned with the two party system is fighting a horrible up hill battle to ever get heard in the current configuration. It's all about concentration of power and maintaining the status quo for the D's & R's.

[Chizzang]

Yup. One begets the other.

Oh, if that were only true. The grossly unlevel playing field ensures that even if someone has GREAT positions on the issues, if they're not running as a D or an R, the D's and R's will ENSURE their positions are never (or rarely) heard. Witness the made up requirement that Johnson must be polling above 15% to be allowed the privilege of standing on the debate stage against the D & R candidates.

Any candidate--ANY candidate--not aligned with the two party system is fighting a horrible up hill battle to ever get heard in the current configuration. It's all about concentration of power and maintaining the status quo for the D's & R's.

Gosh I hope nobody on this forum is actually arguing against ^ that point...
Because I kinda thought it was completely obvious and beyond debate

[89Hen]

Oh, if that were only true. The grossly unlevel playing field ensures that even if someone has GREAT positions on the issues, if they're not running as a D or an R, the D's and R's will ENSURE their positions are never (or rarely) heard. Witness the made up requirement that Johnson must be polling above 15% to be allowed the privilege of standing on the debate stage against the D & R candidates.

Any candidate--ANY candidate--not aligned with the two party system is fighting a horrible up hill battle to ever get heard in the current configuration. It's all about concentration of power and maintaining the status quo for the D's & R's.

Gosh I hope nobody on this forum is actually arguing against ^ that point...
Because I kinda thought it was completely obvious and beyond debate

I wouldn't argue against the point, but I think there is more to it. It is in the best interest of both parties to limit other parties from crashing the electorate and the field is tilted, no doubt.

But I posted an article a while back that gave the reason why a third party really struggles, even without being hindered by the GOP or DNC themselves. A third party can't possibly ride the middle without having half of each side disagree with half of their platform.

[AZGrizFan]

Gosh I hope nobody on this forum is actually arguing against ^ that point...
Because I kinda thought it was completely obvious and beyond debate

I wouldn't argue against the point, but I think there is more to it. It is in the best interest of both parties to limit other parties from crashing the electorate and the field is tilted, no doubt.

But I posted an article a while back that gave the reason why a third party really struggles, even without being hindered by the GOP or DNC themselves. A third party can't possibly ride the middle without having half of each side disagree with half of their platform.

I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.

[AZGrizFan]

Oh, if that were only true. The grossly unlevel playing field ensures that even if someone has GREAT positions on the issues, if they're not running as a D or an R, the D's and R's will ENSURE their positions are never (or rarely) heard. Witness the made up requirement that Johnson must be polling above 15% to be allowed the privilege of standing on the debate stage against the D & R candidates.

Any candidate--ANY candidate--not aligned with the two party system is fighting a horrible up hill battle to ever get heard in the current configuration. It's all about concentration of power and maintaining the status quo for the D's & R's.

Gosh I hope nobody on this forum is actually arguing against ^ that point...
Because I kinda thought it was completely obvious and beyond debate

Well, when one equates positions to polling numbers, it's apparent they don't believe its obvious...

[Chizzang]

I wouldn't argue against the point, but I think there is more to it. It is in the best interest of both parties to limit other parties from crashing the electorate and the field is tilted, no doubt.

But I posted an article a while back that gave the reason why a third party really struggles, even without being hindered by the GOP or DNC themselves. A third party can't possibly ride the middle without having half of each side disagree with half of their platform.

I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.

Man,
you're killin' it right now

I also agree with you
I am fearful of the Liberal idea that "more taxes" fixes everything
(sweet mother of dog, that's bass ackwards)

and I am fearful of the Conservative anti-science anti-intellectual
The myopic joy of unenlightened backwards nonsense

Both Parties give credibility to their weakest fringe by pandering to it...
and in the process lose me completely

[AZGrizFan]

I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.

Man,
you're killin' it right now

I also agree with you
I am fearful of the Liberal idea that "more taxes" fixes everything
(sweet mother of dog, that's bass ackwards)

and I am fearful of the Conservative anti-science anti-intellectual
The myopic joy of unenlightened backwards nonsense

Both Parties give credibility to their weakest fringe by pandering to it...
and in the process lose me completely

That's because those fringes are the easiest to get whipped up/lathered up to vote and also the most uninformed/uneducated. Perfect combo for the D's and R's to maintain power and status quo.

[CAA Flagship]

I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.

Man,
you're killin' it right now

I also agree with you
I am fearful of the Liberal idea that "more taxes" fixes everything
(sweet mother of dog, that's bass ackwards)

and I am fearful of the Conservative anti-science anti-intellectual
The myopic joy of unenlightened backwards nonsense

Both Parties give credibility to their weakest fringe by pandering to it...
and in the process lose me completely

Enough with the science thing.
Growing up I was told that when I brush my teeth, I need to scrub hard to get the food, plaque, tartar, and other shit off my teeth. Now dentists are saying to use a soft brush to simply stir up the microbes (or whatever) so that they can do the cleaning. I don't know what's right, but science evolves but we never know when it will end. So if you are talking about climate change being solely man-made, you better be right because you are putting our economic standing at risk if we are the only ones doing something about it.

[89Hen]

I wouldn't argue against the point, but I think there is more to it. It is in the best interest of both parties to limit other parties from crashing the electorate and the field is tilted, no doubt.

But I posted an article a while back that gave the reason why a third party really struggles, even without being hindered by the GOP or DNC themselves. A third party can't possibly ride the middle without having half of each side disagree with half of their platform.

I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.

But you'd have to get 33% of Dems and 33% of R's to join you in this new party to have a chance. You really see that happening? There' s a unicorn around here somewhere.

[Chizzang]

Enough with the science thing.
Growing up I was told that when I brush my teeth, I need to scrub hard to get the food, plaque, tartar, and other shit off my teeth. Now dentists are saying to use a soft brush to simply stir up the microbes (or whatever) so that they can do the cleaning. I don't know what's right, but science evolves but we never know when it will end. So if you are talking about climate change being solely man-made, you better be right because you are putting our economic standing at risk if we are the only ones doing something about it.

I have already said I don't care about global climate change
Settle down Francis / and that was a really stupid example of the horrors of science


I'm talking about the idiots that think dinosaur bones were placed by Jesus
and the earth is 6,000 years old
and that ID should be in schools
and that women are cattle
and that Religion is part of Governing

[89Hen]

Enough with the science thing.
Growing up I was told that when I brush my teeth, I need to scrub hard to get the food, plaque, tartar, and other shit off my teeth. Now dentists are saying to use a soft brush to simply stir up the microbes (or whatever) so that they can do the cleaning. I don't know what's right, but science evolves but we never know when it will end. So if you are talking about climate change being solely man-made, you better be right because you are putting our economic standing at risk if we are the only ones doing something about it.

I have already said I don't care about global climate change
Settle down Francis / and that was a really stupid example of the horrors of science


I'm talking about the idiots that think dinosaur bones were placed by Jesus
and the earth is 6,000 years old
and that ID should be in schools
and that women are cattle
and that Religion is part of Governing

and that a baby is a tumor

[Chizzang]

I have already said I don't care about global climate change
Settle down Francis / and that was a really stupid example of the horrors of science


I'm talking about the idiots that think dinosaur bones were placed by Jesus
and the earth is 6,000 years old
and that ID should be in schools
and that women are cattle
and that Religion is part of Governing

and that a baby is a tumor

I'll admit that I don't think local or Federal governments
should be getting in between women and doctors
I understand that's a controversial view



and it is consistent with all of my views about our government

[89Hen]

and that a baby is a tumor

I'll admit that I don't think local or Federal governments
should be getting in between women and doctors

I don't either.

[Chizzang]

I'll admit that I don't think local or Federal governments
should be getting in between women and doctors

I don't either.

Yes you do
You just use semantics and chose other words

Please explain how you don't then..?

[CAA Flagship]

Enough with the science thing.
Growing up I was told that when I brush my teeth, I need to scrub hard to get the food, plaque, tartar, and other shit off my teeth. Now dentists are saying to use a soft brush to simply stir up the microbes (or whatever) so that they can do the cleaning. I don't know what's right, but science evolves but we never know when it will end. So if you are talking about climate change being solely man-made, you better be right because you are putting our economic standing at risk if we are the only ones doing something about it.

I have already said I don't care about global climate change
Settle down Francis / and that was a really stupid example of the horrors of science


I'm talking about the idiots that think dinosaur bones were placed by Jesus
and the earth is 6,000 years old
and that ID should be in schools
and that women are cattle
and that Religion is part of Governing

Well not all of them are cattle, but if the moo fits.......

[AZGrizFan]

I fundamentally disagree with that point. I think polling shows there's a huge centrist electorate in this country that believe in fiscal conservatism, limited government, and getting the government out of our personal lives (social issues). The alignment may not be perfect, but it's certainly not a choice of "disagreeing with half of their platform". Because I, personally, disagree with almost the entire social half of Republicans' platform, and the fiscal half of Democrats' platform....so I'm ALREADY in that boat.

But you'd have to get 33% of Dems and 33% of R's to join you in this new party to have a chance. You really see that happening? There' s a unicorn around here somewhere.

No I wouldn't. Only 33% right now identify as Republican anyway. I believe a substantial percentage of Americans ALREADY identify in this way but currently have to plug their nose and vote for one of two shitty candidates because a) it's all they're given and b) they are convinced their vote is "wastes" otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

But you'd have to get 33% of Dems and 33% of R's to join you in this new party to have a chance. You really see that happening? There' s a unicorn around here somewhere.

No I wouldn't. Only 33% right now identify as Republican anyway. I believe a substantial percentage of Americans ALREADY identify in this way but currently have to plug their nose and vote for one of two shitty candidates because a) it's all they're given and b) they are convinced their vote is "wastes" otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I agree. I don't know what the percentages are but it only needs to be 1/3 to have a chance at President. If a third party can somehow get just 10% of the Senate, that group could be very influential. It wouldn't be too difficult to get support at the State level to get certain Senators elected.

[89Hen]

I don't either.

Yes you do
You just use semantics and chose other words

Please explain how you don't then..?

That's rich. A baby is now semantics.

I don't care what a woman does to her body. Stomach stapled, botox injection, preemptive mastectomy... whatever she wants to do, none of my business.

[Chizzang]

Yes you do
You just use semantics and chose other words

Please explain how you don't then..?

That's rich. A baby is now semantics.

I don't care what a woman does to her body. Stomach stapled, botox injection, preemptive mastectomy... whatever she wants to do, none of my business.

fetus by definition is not a baby
See baby in the dictionary
and then check fetus in the dictionary

then answer my question again but this time be honest
instead of your usual dishonest self (it'll be hard to do, honesty comes difficult to Catholics)

[CAA Flagship]

Yes you do
You just use semantics and chose other words

Please explain how you don't then..?

That's rich. A baby is now semantics.

I don't care what a woman does to her body. Stomach stapled, botox injection, preemptive mastectomy... whatever she wants to do, none of my business.

Fix-A-Flat can give you "Dat Ass".

[89Hen]

That's rich. A baby is now semantics.

I don't care what a woman does to her body. Stomach stapled, botox injection, preemptive mastectomy... whatever she wants to do, none of my business.

fetus by definition is not a baby
See baby in the dictionary
and then check fetus in the dictionary

then answer my question again but this time be honest
instead of your usual dishonest self (it'll be hard to do, honesty comes difficult to Catholics)

And you've resorted to that. Discussion is over. You knew it wouldn't go your way.

[Chizzang]

fetus by definition is not a baby
See baby in the dictionary
and then check fetus in the dictionary

then answer my question again but this time be honest
instead of your usual dishonest self (it'll be hard to do, honesty comes difficult to Catholics)

And you've resorted to that. Discussion is over. You knew it wouldn't go your way.

Really...
So you would argue that the Catholic Church has behaved in a manner supported by rigorous honesty..?
It effects your entire ability to "check yourself"
Dishonesty is a learned trait

it devolves into a kind of confirmation bias that descends into laughable absurdity
See Joe for example A

it has to be said:
If they've duped you this long, you're lost

[GannonFan]

That's rich. A baby is now semantics.

I don't care what a woman does to her body. Stomach stapled, botox injection, preemptive mastectomy... whatever she wants to do, none of my business.

fetus by definition is not a baby
See baby in the dictionary
and then check fetus in the dictionary

then answer my question again but this time be honest
instead of your usual dishonest self (it'll be hard to do, honesty comes difficult to Catholics)

Merriam-Webster calls a fetus "a human being...in the later stages of development before it is born" and it calls a baby "a very young child". How do those definitions help in anyway in this discussion? Seems both indicate, as science indicates, that both are human.

[89Hen]

Cleetzang, why are you trying to change the discussion?

[Chizzang]

Cleetzang, why are you trying to change the discussion?

Because having a debate with somebody that cannot be fundamentally honest on a particular topic
is a waste of time

Everybody has to play by the same ground rules
lying about our position and about what we don't know and do know makes it worthless