The GREATEST President in history acquitted...

[Yggdrasill]

Originally Posted by Reason10

On 80% of the country being mainstream conservatives: the Gallup poll referenced in the article states that 37% Americans self-identify as conservatives; how do you get 80% from that? Also, it's worth noting that there are no definitions of conservative in the poll, so whether they conform to your definition cannot be stated.

Gallup, (and other polls) mostly call Democrats.

I don't know that that's true, and neither I suspect do you since you provided no evidence. Gallup wouldn't be very useful as a polling service if it had a persistent bias. In any case, if that's true, why reference an article that cites a Gallup poll for its conclusion? You decided instead simply to "adjust' the number from 37% to 80%? Was there a mathematical formula you used, as a math teacher? I have seen you in others posts, here and on other sites, claim that 80% of the electorate is conservative. Why don't you just admit that you're wrong and move on, given the mountains of evidence against your assertion? Or did that 80% elect Obama in 2012?

Originally Posted by Reason10

I like your list of conservative values, though it's pretty simplistic. But I'm not criticizing because, to be fair, I asked a large, open-ended question.


Simplistic probably because the education level in this place isn't exactly Rhodes Scholar tiers. A long time ago when I briefly taught Business English at a community college in Orlando, I told my students they had to find ways to use as few words as possible to get their message across. Long winded certainly doesn't work here, especially with the massive amount of windbags you have.

Windbags that "I" have? Not my site, not my windbags.

Originally Posted by Reason10

I can say with certainty that many non-conservatives would agree with some of these, and possibly with most, depending on the details.

That is a joke. Woke Liberals wipe their asses on the rule of law. They look at "Free market" anything like a turd in the swimming pool. They look at secure borders as racist.

No joke. I am serious. My conclusion is based on many conversations and much reading. And despite your fervent desire to frame the world this way, liberals, conservatives, progressives, evangelical voters, and independents are not homogenous groups. Divergent views exist within each group; to claim otherwise is just convenient over-simplification to create an aura of credibility for your argument.

I wouldn't describe myself as a "woke liberal" but I am no Trump supporter and am extremely devoted to the rule of law. It's a big reason I find the Republican Party (though not all Republicans obviously), and former President Trump to be so cringeworthy: their absolute disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution.

Secure borders are incredibly important. Calling Mexican immigrants rapists and murderers, and punishing dark skinned people for being poor and desperate on the other, is racist.

Originally Posted by Reason10

For example, adherence to the rule of law, adherence to the Constitution (basically the same things), a trustworthy election system, freedom balanced with personal responsibility, streamline government, secure borders. I like free market capitalism so long as its excesses are checked.

Like I said, Woke Liberals wipe their asses on the Constitution. Personal Responsibility, to a Woke? Might as well call a nun a whore.

Is this your backhanded way of calling me personally irresponsible? And you know this because you know so much about me?

Originally Posted by Reason10

Unfettered capitalism leads to disaster, every time.

In history, there has NEVER been a case of unfettered capitalism. It has absolutely never been tried. Government involvement in capitalism always leads to disaster and that has always been a constant in history.

I should have used more careful wording; how about, "insufficiently and/or ineptly fettered capitalism leads to excesses and disastrous consequences, every time." This is because capitalism contains a built-in paradox, one that Adam Smith well understood. On the one hand, society benefits from harnessing the efficiency, productivity and innovation that comes from competition and the freedom of market actors to sort out the best solutions to problems. On the other hand, the ultimate goal of any market actor is dominate their market space, resulting in inefficient and socially undesirable monopoly/duopoly/oligopoly.

Smith did not have the benefit of foreseeing the incredible power of large, transnational corporations, and their ability to socialize many of the costs of their activities, e.g., pollution, labor exploitation, environmental destruction. This is nowhere more true than in the (largely predatory and unproductive) financial sector. Remember who got bailed out and who lost out in 2008?

Capitalism naturally creates an expand-and-contract business cycle, which in and of itself is not a bad thing. In fact, it is unavoidable in a system that is governed by feedback loops with millions and billions of individual decision makers. However, unregulated business cycles tend to be larger, more abrupt and more disruptive to the economy as a whole and to individual households. Good regulation seeks to attenuate the peaks of that cycle, to create a moderated, less volatile ebb and flow of economic activity.

I think there is a lot of evidence to establish that private-public partnerships create the most efficient and socially beneficial outcomes. This is because the private sector and the public sector have symbiotic strengths and weaknesses.

Originally Posted by Reason10

I have no idea what you mean by protection of the family unit.

The nuclear family unit of husband (male) and wife (female) to take care of and raise children is the ONLY reason the human race hasn't gone totally extinct over the centuries.

(The book Men and Marriage by George Gilder is an excellent source of information, in case the concept of FAMILY is alien to you. Also, you might want to research individual state Family Law statutes, all of which were carefully crafted by state legislatures to preserve the nuclear family. Just because ignorant uneducated Woke Libs hate the idea of a regular family doesn't diminish it's monumental importance over the history of mankind.)

It has been under attack from liberalism probably since the mid-Sixties with the Great Society welfare plantation. Welfare has destroyed families, created a permanent underclass of dependents and accounts for most of the crime in the large cities.

First, go eff yourself with snarkastic comments like, "in case the concept of FAMILY is alien to you." Who the fuck do you think you are and whom do you think you are talking to with that kind of superior attitude? You seem to have some sociopathic need to objectify and dehumanize an interlocutor, and I will not take that kind of shit from you or anyone else. I have brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, children, nieces and nephews, and a spouse who are the most important things in my life. So not only do I understand family, apparently I also understand the concept of civility better than you do.

The nuclear family as a dominant form of social organization is an extremely recent development in human history. It certainly was not dominant through any period where humanity's survival was in doubt (except maybe the nuclear arms race, and I don't know how much impact it had on that). Larger social groupings such as extended families and especially small communities of 200-500 were historically and prehistorically far more important for survival because they offered sufficient labor and skill diversification for economic self-sufficiency and protection.

What evidence do you have that welfare has destroyed families? When it comes to black families in the United States, I would argue that massive and disproportionate incarceration of black males has done much more to destroy family cohesion.

I understand the concept of a Family Law Statute, but they seem more designed to govern the breakup of a family than to preserve it. For example, such statues typically cover things like grounds for divorce, child custody, division of property, alimony and child support. Why don't you share with me one that you think was crafted to preserve the nuclear family, and how exactly the government can keep together spouses who don't want to be together?

[Pio1980]

Open SmartNews and read "Texas museum removes wax Trump figure after visitors kept punching it" here: https://share.smartnews.com/jMm7
To read it on the web, tap here: https://share.smartnews.com/ZEqB

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

Open SmartNews and read "Texas museum removes wax Trump figure after visitors kept punching it" here: https://share.smartnews.com/jMm7
To read it on the web, tap here: https://share.smartnews.com/ZEqB

I think they missed an excellent opportunity for generating additional revenue. I'd pay a few bucks to punch that (in absence of the real thing) in the face.

[Pio1980]

Mar-A-Lardo partially shuttered for Covid 19.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...break-n1261621

[Pio1980]

More schadenfreud;
Glory days of Trump's gold-plated 757 seem far away as plane sits idle at a sleepy airport
https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0YycS...99&pd=07Awuxuy

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

More schadenfreud;
Glory days of Trump's gold-plated 757 seem far away as plane sits idle at a sleepy airport
https://www.newsbreakapp.com/n/0YycS...99&pd=07Awuxuy

Everything Lord Lardo touches turns to caca.

The choice to leave it outside at a northeastern airport, exposed to the elements, has baffled aviation experts who spoke with CNN. They note that it's just a few hours' flight to warmer, more arid climes. Snow, rain, and moisture can lead to metal corrosion of the airframe and the engines -- hard to detect, and, in severe cases, catastrophic. Large airplanes are typically stored for long stretches of time in the desert southwest, where the dry climate makes corrosion nearly impossible.

Can't take off with just one engine and nobody's going to take Donny's IOU for the engine repairs.

[Oerets]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Everything Lord Lardo touches turns to caca.

Can't take off with just one engine and nobody's going to take Donny's IOU for the engine repairs.

I venture to guess it is not paid for and will never be, in short soon repo'd!

[RickeyM]

If someone could tag it (think graffiti) with the word LOST after "the name that shall not be mentioned", that'd be great

[Rajoo]

From Forbes:

While it’s unclear the value of Trump’s 757 – most of it is in the unique VIP interior – there’s no doubt that the Citation X is a rounding error for Forbes Billionaires List rivals like Jeff Bezos or Michael Bloomberg.

According to Controller magazine, a 2009 version with 3,231 flight hours is currently on the market for $4.9 million. Another from the same year, but with 3,655 hours, is being offered at $2.7 million. The wide variance likely has to do with upcoming maintenance needs. Trump’s Citation X reportedly has over 10,000 hours.

Trump's plane was made in 1991 and if a 2009 version is only $3M-$5M, it seems to me like he is hoping to junk it and take a tax deduction than fix it and fly it.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/douggol...h=33ebc8061cc5

[Rajoo]