Stern: "Trump actually hates his own supporters".

^
vote-early-vote-often-vote-democrat.jpg



...sums it all up.
 
Woko Haram said:
The actions of Foucault and his friends in supporting NAMBLA in the 70s made it clear what the next step is.
Click to expand...

Foucault was a French philosopher who has been dead for nearly 40 years. The first two words of NAMBLA are North American, and they were founded at the end of the 1970's. I doubt there was much support for NAMBLA in France, before they were founded. Age of consent laws in France of the 1960's are not current events.

I myself support a hard limit of 18, with the only possible exception those who are very close in age. So an 18 year old will not go to prison as a pedophile for having sex with a 17 year old. And two 17 year olds will not go to prison for having sex with one another. Obviously, as that age gets younger, there should be definite involvement of the authorities. If two 12 year olds are having "consensual" sex, they probably do not belong in prison, but they definitely need help in seeing the error of their ways (probably psychological help).

I think Nugent needs to be in prison. No more of this pretending he is a reasonable person. He has openly, repeatedly had sex with minors. He adopted a child to take over state lines for sex. This is not acceptable.

I think Polanski needs to be in prison for the same reasons. Whatever he has done in France, is French business, but he crossed the line in America, so that is our business. Foucault is both dead, and did whatever he did in France.
 
Woko Haram said:
France and Norway are the first 2 countries that come to mind. Both lowered their ages of consent to 14 in the last 20 years or so.
Click to expand...

That is simply not true. The age of consent in France has been 15 since it was raised to 15 in 1945. It has not changed in 75 years, and is has never been 14. The age of consent in Norway was 16 since 2005, I cannot find what the previous age of consent was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

In America, the age of consent headline number ranges from 16 to 18, but red states have enough carve outs for old men to have sex with children as young as 14. It is not right.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,



You're right, but the Democratic Party is not as 'bought out' as the Republican Party. The two party duopoly is well established. That's why we do not have ranked choice voting. The parties have agreed they don't want to give people the chance to express their true preferences on ballots. They want voters to be forced to choose only between the two major parties, which results in most voters actually feeling like they are not so much voting FOR someone as voting AGAINST someone.

Ranked Choice Voting is a far superior system already in place in many locations. It allows a voter to rank their choices and vote for as many candidates as they like. If their first choice does not get a majority, that vote is disregarded, and their second choice is considered. And if their second choice does not get a majority, their third choice counts. And so on, for as many choices as a voter marks on a ballot.

It is also called Instant Run Off Voting. The system eliminates the need to ever have a run-off vote, thus saving election expenses.

If America really wanted a modern Democracy, we would have automatic voter registration so everyone of voting age is registered to vote, internet voting, and use the Ranked Choice Voting system.

If the internet is safe enough to do your taxes and banking online, or conduct capitalism, then it is safe enough for voting.

But of course the power-junkie voting supprerssors would never have it, fight it to the death. Power to the people is the last thing they want.
Click to expand...

I disagree with your assessment of the GOP, but I agree with the rest of this.
 
Walt said:
Foucault was a French philosopher who has been dead for nearly 40 years. The first two words of NAMBLA are North American, and they were founded at the end of the 1970's. I doubt there was much support for NAMBLA in France, before they were founded. Age of consent laws in France of the 1960's are not current events.

I myself support a hard limit of 18, with the only possible exception those who are very close in age. So an 18 year old will not go to prison as a pedophile for having sex with a 17 year old. And two 17 year olds will not go to prison for having sex with one another. Obviously, as that age gets younger, there should be definite involvement of the authorities. If two 12 year olds are having "consensual" sex, they probably do not belong in prison, but they definitely need help in seeing the error of their ways (probably psychological help).

I think Nugent needs to be in prison. No more of this pretending he is a reasonable person. He has openly, repeatedly had sex with minors. He adopted a child to take over state lines for sex. This is not acceptable.

I think Polanski needs to be in prison for the same reasons. Whatever he has done in France, is French business, but he crossed the line in America, so that is our business. Foucault is both dead, and did whatever he did in France.
Click to expand...

Well, prepare to be labeled as a bigot in about 20 years.
 
Walt said:
That is simply not true. The age of consent in France has been 15 since it was raised to 15 in 1945. It has not changed in 75 years, and is has never been 14. The age of consent in Norway was 16 since 2005, I cannot find what the previous age of consent was.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

In America, the age of consent headline number ranges from 16 to 18, but red states have enough carve outs for old men to have sex with children as young as 14. It is not right.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I made a mistake in identifying which countries have it at 14. The map from your link shows a large portion of Europe that is at 14, however.
 
StoneByStone said:
The age of consent is still 15 in France and 16 in Norway. It's also not clear cut like in America.



Plants don't have a central nervous system. They don't feel pain like animals do and the growing of plants isn't destroying the planet like the breeding of animals is.

I don't think veganism is feasible for the entire world just yet, but it is certainly feasible in a rich industrialized country like America.

Is it authoritarian to have laws against animal cruelty or unnecessary/excessive pollution?




Any chance you have a link that is free to read?
So far, all that's happened is that jails have, like I said before, been speeding up the process of seeing which people could be let out. And these are usually people who up for parole soon. We're not talking about serial killers with no chance of parole.



I don't doubt that things like this happen, but this isn't a widespread leftist idea. I used to live in NYC and I never even heard of this. It seems like at most, this is a law recently passed in New York that has had one major drawback.
Click to expand...

If you used to live in NYC, then I think that explains why we'll never see eye to eye.

Living in a city that big results in government that becomes overbearing. It explains part of why you'd even consider having government mandate veganism. If you're used to having the state already dictate all sorts of minutiae, then adding a few more things to the list doesn't seem that big of a deal.

I've never lived in a city even close to that big, nor do I ever intend to. When you have so many humans crowded into a small area, it seems to warp their minds with collectivism.

Our priorities are so vastly different that I don't think we can really relate at all. We might as well be speaking different languages.
 
PoliTalker said:
Hello Woko Haram,



Yeah, I sorted that out a long time ago. I am an atheist, so I am not religious. But that doesn't mean I have no faith. I do. I have faith that in the long run humanity improves itself, and thus good prevails over bad. Doesn't happen every time, but it does happen more than bad prevailing over good. Thus, I believe people are generally good, and want to do good, want to treat their neighbors well and live in a society where others feel the same way. We certainly don't see this in every individual, so there are always going to be anti-social people. But most people understand you have to get along with your neighbors, your fellow citizens, and ultimately your fellow humans. I can't prove it, but I believe it.

There are lots of thing I can't prove, but I believe.

One of them is that The Donald doesn't like people, is not happy, and holds his own followers in disregard.
Click to expand...

I don't believe people are generally good. I believe they're generally selfish. Culture is all that keeps humans from killing each other. This is why cultural changes have the potential to be really good or really awful.
 
Woko Haram said:
I don't believe people are generally good. I believe they're generally selfish. Culture is all that keeps humans from killing each other. This is why cultural changes have the potential to be really good or really awful.
Click to expand...

Hey, another thing we agree on.

Though there is some evidence that we evolved altruism, so maybe on some level, people are good. It might just be that altruism requires long-term thinking, which humans are horrible at.
 
Woko Haram said:
If you used to live in NYC, then I think that explains why we'll never see eye to eye.

Living in a city that big results in government that becomes overbearing. It explains part of why you'd even consider having government mandate veganism. If you're used to having the state already dictate all sorts of minutiae, then adding a few more things to the list doesn't seem that big of a deal.

I've never lived in a city even close to that big, nor do I ever intend to. When you have so many humans crowded into a small area, it seems to warp their minds with collectivism.

Our priorities are so vastly different that I don't think we can really relate at all. We might as well be speaking different languages.
Click to expand...

See from my point of view, this is just about a fear of change. We already have laws against animal cruelty and excessive and/or unnecessary pollution. So why would it be overbearing to ban animal breeding? If we did this, your life would barely change. The only difference is you'd be healthier and your descendants would grow up in a cleaner environment.
The only reason banning the breeding of animals, thus creating forced veganism, sounds so scary is because it's a new idea.

If that doesn't convince you, consider this. Why are Conservatives, especially small town Conservatives, so scared of legalizing drugs and prostitution? This would decrease the size of government and we'd be letting adults do what they want with their own bodies. It's seem so obvious that these things should be legal in a free country. But it's not about government or freedom, it's about tradition and a fear of change.

In big cities, people are forced to learn tolerance, which conditions them to be ok with change. That's not to say we think all change is good, but we're not afraid of it. So we're able to examine issues logically instead of just saying everything should stay the same.
 
StoneByStone said:
See from my point of view, this is just about a fear of change. We already have laws against animal cruelty and excessive and/or unnecessary pollution. So why would it be overbearing to ban animal breeding? If we did this, your life would barely change. The only difference is you'd be healthier and your descendants would grow up in a cleaner environment.
The only reason banning the breeding of animals, thus creating forced veganism, sounds so scary is because it's a new idea.

If that doesn't convince you, consider this. Why are Conservatives, especially small town Conservatives, so scared of legalizing drugs and prostitution? This would decrease the size of government and we'd be letting adults do what they want with their own bodies. It's seem so obvious that these things should be legal in a free country. But it's not about government or freedom, it's about tradition and a fear of change.

In big cities, people are forced to learn tolerance, which conditions them to be ok with change. That's not to say we think all change is good, but we're not afraid of it. So we're able to examine issues logically instead of just saying everything should stay the same.
Click to expand...

There is no tolerance on the left, there is no "You live your life and I will live mine" when it comes to people who dont think "Right".... the project on the Left is to make a better human, one who is ready for UTOPIA, which is so important a project with them that the Mind Molding begins in Pre-K.
 
Hello Woko Haram,

Woko Haram said:
I don't believe people are generally good. I believe they're generally selfish. Culture is all that keeps humans from killing each other. This is why cultural changes have the potential to be really good or really awful.
Click to expand...

Interesting.

You wanted to know why I believe something which cannot be proven, so I told you about my atheist faith.

Apparently that did the trick. You dropped the angle about believing in something which cannot be proven in order to reflect on an unproven thing that you yourself believe in.

And that's OK.

I appreciate the honesty. Thank you for that. I almost clicked a Thank You to your post but hesitated because I didn't want people to get the idea that I agreed with it. I don't, but I do appreciate straight up honesty. So many on these forums only want to play games and mess with other people. It's refreshing to talk with someone who does not play those shallow games. Thanks.
 
What a shallow man we have elected!

January 11th, 1993:

"19:35 Trump calls his early sex life "a rampage," and claims that he was faithful to Ivana for "many years, until I realized the marriage wasn't going to work." He also says that Ivanka's accent began to grate on his as years went by.

21:25 Trump doesn't recommend marrying women with foreign accents. "It's great for the first year but after that it can be murder."

23:07 Stern asks women in attendance if they would rather have sex with Trump or Seinfeld. Stern's sister chooses Trump, Jackie "The Jokeman" Martling's wife chooses Seinfeld, and May Pang (girlfriend of John Lennon in the early 1970s) chooses both.

25:04 Extended discussion of Princess Diana. Stern mother says she heard that Princess Diana wanted to buy an apartment in Trump Tower - Trump confirms the story. He also discusses his attraction to her. Stern claims she is mentally ill.

28:32 Trump claims that he hasn't had sex at all that week.

29:55 Trump discusses an upcoming party at Mar-a-Lago.

30:40 Gary claims that all the female interns "have been fighting to determine who gets to escort Mr. Trump out" (Gary always calls him "Mr. Trump"). Stern has the interns introduce themselves to Trump.

33:20 Trump says that he has never had a homosexual experience, although he claims to have been approached by men "many times"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top