The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns
mtierney said:
that is the slant that gives stay at home moms the shive.
Oh dear God.
It's not a "slant." The women in the article really ARE white supremacists.
drummerboy said:
mtierney said:Really? By whom? Where? When? Examples?
The right to chose “traditional homemaker/fulfilled woman” is denigrated
(I know, I know)
Sadly, often by other women.
mtierney said:
I respect the office of the presidency and the president and the millions of American voters who made a choice.
Sadly the office is disrespected by its present occupier.
Millions of voters did make a choice. Too bad the majority voter choice was voided.
mtierney said:
drummerboy said:Sadly, often by other women.
mtierney said:Really? By whom? Where? When? Examples?
The right to chose “traditional homemaker/fulfilled woman” is denigrated
(I know, I know)
And there are some women who denigrate other moms who choose to work outside the home.
There are a lot of people who like to make it known that they consider their life choices superior to those of others.
“There are a lot of people who like to make it known that they consider their life choices superior to those of others.”
Are we then to say that choosing a life of crime is an alternative to be respected?
I'm not sure why you would draw that conclusion from what I wrote.
But given that the Trump Organization was found to be guilty of money laundering several years ago, I can understand why you might feel criminal misconduct is worthy of your respect.
mtierney said:
“There are a lot of people who like to make it known that they consider their life choices superior to those of others.”
Are we then to say that choosing a life of crime is an alternative to be respected?
I don't believe you explained to me yet how a Christian can support Trump.
BG9 said:
mtierney said:Sadly the office is disrespected by its present occupier.
I respect the office of the presidency and the president and the millions of American voters who made a choice.
Millions of voters did make a choice. Too bad the majority voter choice was voided.
For heaven’s sake, time to give it a rest, already. It is what it is, as seen on tee shirts. Let’s all agree that DJT is not a historical poster child for the Presidency, but he just might be the right man to deal with the world’s dictators.
mtierney said:
Let’s all agree that DJT is not a historical poster child for the Presidency, but he just might be the right man to deal with the world’s dictators.
Um.... no.
If you think DJT's meeting with Kim is going to be anything but a lose for the US you are even stupider than he is. We are putting a man who thinks his bankruptcies are evidence of his mastery of the "art of the deal" in a room with a man who has managed to be the last man standing in a political system where the loser is (literally) fed to the dogs. How can that be anything other than a disaster for the US?
Klinker said:We are putting a man who thinks his bankruptcies are evidence of his mastery of the "art of the deal" in a room with a man who has managed to be the last man standing in a political system where the loser is (literally) fed to the dogs. How can that be anything other than a disaster for the US?
I agree, Kim is going to run circles around him and he won't even know it. And the chinese, europeans, canadians, and many others will too. Too bad for us. And depending on how stupid US voters are, this either will continue for another 2 1/2 years, or 6 1/2 years. Not a real rosy outlook. So much for american excellence (I actually haven't heard that term a lot lately, not even from our republican friends).
Trump wins, in his mind, if he dominates the news cycle and remains the center of attention. He's happy to claim a win regardless of the facts.
if this board is an example, there is much gnashing of teeth and head scratching over how/why DJT won in 2016. Dowd ponders the question here...
The Bard’s quote in her column: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves” hits the mark.
mtierney said:
if this board is an example, there is much gnashing of teeth and head scratching over how/why DJT won in 2016. Dowd ponders the question here...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/opinion/sunday/obama-ben-rhodes-world-as-it-is.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times
The Bard’s quote in her column: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves” hits the mark.
Trolls read the NYT?
mtierney said:
if this board is an example, there is much gnashing of teeth and head scratching over how/why DJT won in 2016. Dowd ponders the question here...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/opinion/sunday/obama-ben-rhodes-world-as-it-is.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times
The Bard’s quote in her column: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves” hits the mark.
Well, I’m sure there are plenty of people on this board saying “it wasn’t me, I voted for Clinton.”
Meanwhile, we’re stuck with this idiot, thanks to those who voted for him.
mtierney said:
if this board is an example, there is much gnashing of teeth and head scratching over how/why DJT won in 2016. Dowd ponders the question here...
It seems to me that you are the one who keeps bringing that up. One or two others keep writing about but mostly in response to you.
If anyone still wants to have a serious discussion about the 2016 election it should be about how Trump won the Republican Nomination not how he won the Electoral College because the principal reason for the latter is the former.
Take as much time as you need. I'll check back on Wednesday or Thursday. 
mtierney said:
I’ll need time to work on that, Lost — middle of next week maybe.
FYI, the finger and the thumb in the shape of an L on the forehead means you are calling someone a "loser."
Sorry everybody. This seemed like the place.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/
ridski said:
Sorry everybody. This seemed like the place.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/
Single-payer health care would be fantastic in the US. It would save us all a lot of money, and it would deliver health care for all. And if, in order to get there, it has to be the conservative's idea (however distasteful) then so be it.
However, the case in the article is somewhat flawed:
- It claims that there is objective data that single-payer would objectively lower costs and increase health, and therefore conservatives will support it. I would counter that with: so how did that work out for global warming?
- It claims Democrats are internally divided over single-payer, and therefore conservatives will somehow leap-frog them. But in reality, the democratic debate over single-payer is entirely tactical. Bernie said we need single-payer, Hillary said that she agrees but it may be too big of a step and we should go incrementally.
- The Tea Party has made conservative politics extremely tribal. If Obama, or Hillary, or Pelosi, or Schumer said that the sky is blue, they will vote for a constitutional amendment denying it. So the fact that Democrats support single-payer is the end of the road for them.
I hope we get to single-payer soon, but if we do it will be because Democrats took over, not because of conservatives.
mtierney said:
if this board is an example, there is much gnashing of teeth and head scratching over how/why DJT won in 2016. Dowd ponders the question here...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/02/opinion/sunday/obama-ben-rhodes-world-as-it-is.html?rref=collection%2Fissuecollection%2Ftodays-new-york-times
The Bard’s quote in her column: “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves” hits the mark.
Ms. Dowd doesn't have to "ponder the question". Ms. Dowd is the answer to the question, as she is a prime example of how Trump got his way. Example from April of 2016 -
Just as Barack Obama seemed the more feminized candidate in 2008 because of his talk-it-out management style, his antiwar platform and his delicate eating habits, always watching his figure, so now, in some ways, Trump seems less macho than Hillary.
He has a tender ego, pouty tweets, needy temperament and obsession with hand sanitizer, whereas she is so tough and combat-hardened, she’s known by her staff as “the Warrior.”
The prime example of commander-in-chief judgment Trump offers is the fact that, like Obama, he thought the invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea.
He can sound belligerent, of course, saying that he would bomb the expletive-deleted out of ISIS and that he would think up new and imaginative ways to torture terrorists and kill their families.
But he says that in most cases he would rather do the art of the deal than shock and awe.
“Unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct,” he said in his maiden foreign policy speech in Washington last week, adding, “A superpower understands that caution and restraint are really truly signs of strength.”
mtierney said:
The right to chose “traditional homemaker/fulfilled woman” is denigrated — white or black . Are there crazies in this movement? You betcha — as there are in any social change startup .
Homemakers are not “less than” but actually needed more than ever — kids need someone there for them.
I believe having one stay at home parent is a good thing but economic necessity limits this as a choice. Feminists claim to be about giving women choices but seem to marginalize or disregard women who choose to be homemakers, vis-a-vis critical outcries against gendered expectations. There is less stigma attached to a stay at home Dad nowadays.
lord_pabulum said:Feminists claim to be about giving women choices but seem to marginalize or disregard women who choose to be homemakers, vis-a-vis critical outcries against gendered expectations.
What does this mean?
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said: Feminists claim to be about giving women choices but seem to marginalize or disregard women who choose to be homemakers, vis-a-vis critical outcries against gendered expectations.What does this mean?
When a woman chooses to be a homemaker (traditional gendered role) it goes against the feminist ideal.
lord_pabulum said:
dave23 said:When a woman chooses to be a homemaker (traditional gendered role) it goes against the feminist ideal.
lord_pabulum said: Feminists claim to be about giving women choices but seem to marginalize or disregard women who choose to be homemakers, vis-a-vis critical outcries against gendered expectations.What does this mean?
You have empirical evidence that such women are "marginalize or disregarded," I assume.
dave23 said:
lord_pabulum said:You have empirical evidence that such women are "marginalize or disregarded," I assume.
dave23 said:When a woman chooses to be a homemaker (traditional gendered role) it goes against the feminist ideal.
lord_pabulum said: Feminists claim to be about giving women choices but seem to marginalize or disregard women who choose to be homemakers, vis-a-vis critical outcries against gendered expectations.What does this mean?
Nope, my opinion based on discussions with people and things I've read. If you pasted my whole quote you would note that I prefaced it with "I believe...".
I believe the "feminist ideal" has evolved. There may have been a time when choosing to be a SAHM was considered as bowing to the patriarchy, but I don't think it is now. Only those who call into right wing radio shows seem to make a big deal out of it these days. Women now make up 47% of the US Labor Force, so it really shouldn't be a big deal at all. What is a damn shame is that most jobs don't pay enough to allow either parent to make the choice to stay home and raise the kids.
It's a big country with hundreds of millions of people and an enormous diversity of thought. You can find plenty of feminists who denigrate stay at home moms, and you can find just as many stay at home moms who denigrate moms who work outside the home. For that matter, you can find a whole lot of women who denigrate feminism.
It makes it convenient for people to believe whatever they choose to believe.
Klinker