Ten oz

You are inviting a deflection, false equivalent, or total repositioning.

Today which party do the majority of Nazi's and White Nationalist vote for?

Instead we implement sanctions which are demonstrable more negatively impactful on the average citizens than the leaders we seek to remove. From Iran and Syria to North Korea we have purposefully handicapped economies and stifled the growth ability of populations attempting to bend them to our demands. It has rarely worked if ever at all meanwhile the people suffer and the leaders stay.

He clearly states that he let down his state, colleagues, and those who expected him to be a champion for women's rights. If he were denying that he did anything wrong then how exactly did he let them down? We can sit here all night going back and forth parsing his words from each individual one of his now numerous apologizes and he has made the media rounds but to what end; he has apologized and pretending he hasn't is nonsense.

Why aren't you being serious minds can change that is a well illustrated fact. I much rather try to change minds through some combination of purposeful generosity and role model behavior than threats of destruction. Telling people to do as you say or else, even when it works, tends to keep all parties involved angry, displeased, and plotting. Sadly it doesn't seem the U.S govt willing or able to do anything except reflexively antagonize when prodded. I follow politics closely and have no clear understanding of what the U.S. plans to do. I understand what the want but stated goals and the steps to reach those goals are not one in the same.

He acknowledges that he made people feel bad, it is behavior that shouldn't happen again, and that as a result people have lost trust in him. That is a standard apology in my opinion. By default no apology good as they the aftermath of something bad. People would prefer the bad thing never happened at all and apologizes don't change that. Additionally the one apologizing is incriminating themselves which isn't a natural thing for anyone to do.

Doesn't this create a bit of a standard where one is better off just doing the wrong thing and denying their accusers further victimizing them?

You are not wrong. This is about Franken. It seems everyone has agreed that he should be held accountable for his actions. Currently from Roy Moore to Matt Lauer there are many high profile people embroiled is various scandals related to sex and the mistreatment of women. So it is somewhat difficult to singularly focus on Franken without commenting on the while environment for context. I personally would prefer some references to the other at large events in this thread than for the whole forum to fill up with individual threads treating each individual case as though they exist in a vacuum.

I think, could be wrong, that waitforufo is attempting to imply that claiming Republicans aren't environmental friendly today is fake news because 60yrs ago Nixon was...

My above post is from the first page of this thread! The FACT that Nixon created the EPA has was already acknowledge. I gave you a new rep for pretending otherwise.

The U.S. create Nuclear Weapons yet still actively pursue disarmament amongst nuclear powers and actively work to prevent countries from having nuclear weapons. A nation or party creating something 60yrs ago and being that things best advocate today isn't automatic. John F. Kennedy said "a raising tide lifts all boats" when selling tax cuts. A line Republicans use today. Since Kennedy was a Democrat does that mean Democrats are the party of tax cuts in 2017? You are strip issues and history of all context.

I think this confuses the evolution of technology and lifestyle with biological evolution. Computers (electrical processing) didn't exist a hundred years ago and do exist now. That isn't an example of human evolution. Just human putting accumulated knowledge to use. A child from a hundred years ago, or ten thousand years ago for that matter, could be taught how to use a computer no different that children today.

He refused to specific what he wanted done so no one here can really say what he meant. In the simplest terms middle ground can be described as mid field between two end zones. By refusing to specify what policies he does or does support tar won't reveal the location of his end zone. It is unfortunate. Waitforufo is doing the same. Answering specific policy questions with broad rhetoric about the wonders of trickle down economics is a nonstarter as trickle down is an economic theory and not a specific set of laws or policies. I find it extremely intellectual cowardly to dance around specifics at a time when Congress is hammer out the specifics: tax cut bills, next year's budget, another go at the ACA mandate repeal, etc. How can middle ground even be pursued with people refusing to even address what is happening?

Kim Jong Un's latest ballistic missile test flew 10 times higher than the International Space Station and twice as high as any satellite in low-earth orbit, according to South Korea's military. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/amp/north-korea-missile-went-10-times-higher-space-station-n824821#ampshare=https://www.nbcnews.com/news/north-korea/north-korea-missile-went-10-times-higher-space-station-n824821

Politicians run for office and upon being elected are paid to work on legislation and advocate for policy. People to not paid to board planes of do so with expectation of being sexually harassed. This is a false equivalent.

We aren't starting from scratch. Can you please explain the policy changes required for the "structure"? Thank you! Finally an actual purposed policy idea you acknowledge. I do my taxes at the end of the year on "thoughts". I do them based on laws. You need to get a lot more specific.

Replace it with what? How? How? Who will pay for this; if us should there be additional taxes or spending cuts to offset that cut?

You failed to even address policy nevermind write it. We elect Representative to govern and it is their responsibility to formally write legislation but who holds them accountable; us (the people). To hold them accountable we must understand what they are doing. So avoiding the nuts and bolts of which policies are being considered is an irresponsible position in my opinion. You advocated that our government encourage other countries to change their laws so that U.S. beef can be more easily sold in their country. You listed it as something you'd like to see included in our trade policy. It is that position I addressed. If you want to purchase land and raise cows no one in stopping you. It is legal for you to do so.

You failed to address a single policy or change currently being considered. What some the corporate tax rate be should there be any caveats to that rate? Should every tax cut be covered by a spending cut to ensure the deficit isn't increased; if so what do we cut? Should we reduction or eliminate the ability for individuals to deduct their local and state taxes? What should be the income tax rate and how should be tier by income or should it? To find middle ground policy must be addressed. It simple isn't enough vaguely say you want to see "simplified" or "reasonable" changes. Those words are relative and mean little outside of your own mind. Put your big boy pants on an plant some goal post indicating what the fields size is and what constitutes a score. Again, not one single piece of policy addressed. There can be no middle ground between if you lack the insight or honesty to just say specifically what it is you want. Should the ACA mandate be repealed? Should be eliminate medicare or reduce subsidizes for it? Should any employers be required to provide insurance and if so what are the caveats? Should hospitals be able to turn away those with out insurance? How should bankruptcy with regard to medical bill debt be structured? Trump has mentioned a 20% tariff on all products from Mexico do you agree or not? Should we (U.S. govt) provide tax cuts and other incentives to keep business from leaving the country and or bring back jobs; If so how does that square with you position on taxes and what would the caveats be for keeping and or bring back a job? Is Trump currently re-negotiating NAFTA or just saying at some point he'd like to? If he is re-negotiating can you explain a single specific part of what he is looking to eliminate or change? Beef is the least efficient major source of protein which exists. It requires significantly more land, water, and energy to produce a calorie of beef than it does to produce a calorie of pork or chicken. That is easy to see on display in the "free market" where the average cost of a pound of beef is double that of chicken or pork even with Beef being the most heavily govt subsidized form of protein( BTW, how do those subsidizes fit into your tax policy ideas? ). Of course using more land, water, and energy to produce also means a greater carbon foot print and overall environmental impact, assuming that matters to you at all which it might not. Considering the inefficiency of beef I don't think my government should be wasting time and money trying to force other countries to change their laws so we can sell them beef. We can get more out or land and resources stateside with other agriculture products than an expansion in the beef industry. The below link show the math for the efficiency of Beef, Pork ,Poultry, eggs, milk, and etc. http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/105002 In the U.S. all or even most Republicans are NOT Nazi's, White Nationalists, or etc. That said most Nazi's, White Nationalists, and etc in the U.S. vote Republican and identify as conservatives. That is a fact and one I think too many self identifying Republicans and conservatives are overly dismissive of.

This is why facts matters. Some people attempt to create false equivalences between BLM, kneeling football players, and White Supremacists but free speech and murder aren't equivalent.

Jobs? Rgr that, jobs! You're welcome. Oh, it isn't jobs anymore?Huh, it is GDP now? Okay, which agencies official numbers shall we use?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Can any Military service member say whatever they want or does the UCMJ takes presidents? Can anyone with a top secret security clearance exercise their "first Amendment" rights? I am not familiar with any definition for Dictator which restricts the title to someone who override or eliminated a govt branch.

Unemployment at the end of Obama's tenure was good as Reagan's or Bush 41's. So by this your standard Obama (Democrat) delivered the same economic conditions as Reagan or Bush 41? https://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet