shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 10, 2015 10:07:30 GMT -5
and whackadoodles (Bernie Sanders I've heard this criticism before, and I've honestly never understood it. What about Sanders is "whackadoodle"? I keep thinking folks are confusing him with Ross Perot. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 10, 2015 10:19:19 GMT -5
and whackadoodles (Bernie Sanders I've heard this criticism before, and I've honestly never understood it. What about Sanders is "whackadoodle"? I keep thinking folks are confusing him with Ross Perot. Yeah, I'm also interested in hearing the rationale for calling Bernie Sanders a whackadoodle. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2015 10:21:20 GMT -5
I assume that the description stems in large part from his self-identification as a Socialist. Doesn't bother me in the slightest (quite the opposite, in fact), but my impression is that to the average American that's pretty much the equivalent of calling oneself a Satanist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 10, 2015 10:31:51 GMT -5
I think we can discuss the man's policies, ethics, and behaviors, without taking cheap shots at his appearance/health. While we're on the subject, can we keep the shots at religion somewhat respectful? Granted, when a candidate drags his religion into the political race as if it's an endorsement, criticism is fair game. But perhaps we could avoid terms that offend normal people who are religious (ie. "Jesus humper"). One of the things that I find disheartening about christianity and politics is how quiet the non-insane religious people are when somebody like Huckabee or Rubio or Walker or Santorum or JEB! or Carson starts yammering on and making statements about religion and the bible and so on.
Christians need to speak out. They need to be very vocal that Mike Huckabee is an embarrassment to their religion, that the crazy things he says are not in the bible, that millions of Christians are disgusted by fundamentalist overreach, that they have the courage and the freedom to speak out and not face ostracism in their communities.
It doesn't happen nearly enough.
I will find another phrase for Jesus humper. But in addition to suggesting that I change the terminology, I would hope that reasonable christians would think about telling their fellow religionists to stop humping Jesus.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 10, 2015 10:37:53 GMT -5
and whackadoodles (Bernie Sanders I've heard this criticism before, and I've honestly never understood it. What about Sanders is "whackadoodle"? I keep thinking folks are confusing him with Ross Perot. Maybe it was an unfair characterization, but I just can't get onboard with his Democratic Socialist views (which I completely understand are not your father's old-school USSR socialist views). He's just a little too far out there for me, and while he likes to talk a lot about how his brand of "socialism" works so well in countries like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, he ignores the fact that those are much smaller, nearly homogeneous cultures with strong anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic attitudes, as well as very high taxes and a growing belief that their system is unsustainable as they continue to borrow money from the Chinese to prop up an increasingly-larger portion of the population that either cannot find work or refuses to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Aug 10, 2015 10:47:05 GMT -5
While we're on the subject, can we keep the shots at religion somewhat respectful? Granted, when a candidate drags his religion into the political race as if it's an endorsement, criticism is fair game. But perhaps we could avoid terms that offend normal people who are religious (ie. "Jesus humper"). One of the things that I find disheartening about christianity and politics is how quiet the non-insane religious people are when somebody like Huckabee or Rubio or Walker or Santorum or JEB! or Carson starts yammering on and making statements about religion and the bible and so on.
Christians need to speak out. They need to be very vocal that Mike Huckabee is an embarrassment to their religion, that the crazy things he says are not in the bible, that millions of Christians are disgusted by fundamentalist overreach, that they have the courage and the freedom to speak out and not face ostracism in their communities.
It doesn't happen nearly enough.
I will find another phrase for Jesus humper. But in addition to suggesting that I change the terminology, I would hope that reasonable christians would think about telling their fellow religionists to stop humping Jesus.
I actually agree wholeheartedly with this. I can't even begin to guess how many times I've been embarrassed by some political or otherwise public person waiving their religious affiliations like a flag while spouting rhetoric that was not only hurtful & ridiculous but 100% contrary to any religious teaching.
Too often well meaning religious people will cling to one hot-button issue, like abortion, and accept any candidate who says what they want to hear on that issue, ignoring all the other garbage they say. Sometimes I feel like the "voice calling in the wilderness" in situations like these, so I agree that more Christians need to speak out to disavow these nut-jobs that are giving the rest of us a bad name.
|
|
|
|
Post by DE Sinclair on Aug 10, 2015 10:50:55 GMT -5
If Joe Biden enters the race, is his hair plugs fair game? Personally I'd focus on his many gaffes and general air of befuddlement, but if you believe his hair plugs have a bearing on his governing, then to each his own. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 10, 2015 10:51:10 GMT -5
One of the things that I find disheartening about christianity and politics is how quiet the non-insane religious people are when somebody like Huckabee or Rubio or Walker or Santorum or JEB! or Carson starts yammering on and making statements about religion and the bible and so on.
Christians need to speak out. They need to be very vocal that Mike Huckabee is an embarrassment to their religion, that the crazy things he says are not in the bible, that millions of Christians are disgusted by fundamentalist overreach, that they have the courage and the freedom to speak out and not face ostracism in their communities.
It doesn't happen nearly enough.
I will find another phrase for Jesus humper. But in addition to suggesting that I change the terminology, I would hope that reasonable christians would think about telling their fellow religionists to stop humping Jesus.
I actually agree wholeheartedly with this. I can't even begin to guess how many times I've been embarrassed by some political or otherwise public person waiving their religious affiliations like a flag while spouting rhetoric that was not only hurtful & ridiculous but 100% contrary to any religious teaching.
Too often well meaning religious people will cling to one hot-button issue, like abortion, and accept any candidate who says what they want to hear on that issue, ignoring all the other garbage they say. Sometimes I feel like the "voice calling in the wilderness" in situations like these, so I agree that more Christians need to speak out to disavow these nut-jobs that are giving the rest of us a bad name.
I was going to write a response as well, but you summed this up just as I would have. I love Jesus, but I'm really disappointed and frankly embarrassed by many of those who claim to be Christians. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 10, 2015 10:55:19 GMT -5
I've heard this criticism before, and I've honestly never understood it. What about Sanders is "whackadoodle"? I keep thinking folks are confusing him with Ross Perot. Maybe it was an unfair characterization, but I just can't get onboard with his Democratic Socialist views (which I completely understand are not your father's old-school USSR socialist views). He's just a little too far out there for me, and while he likes to talk a lot about how his brand of "socialism" works so well in countries like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, he ignores the fact that those are much smaller, nearly homogeneous cultures with strong anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic attitudes, as well as very high taxes and a growing belief that their system is unsustainable as they continue to borrow money from the Chinese to prop up an increasingly-larger portion of the population that either cannot find work or refuses to do so. I can see what you're saying here, and I agree that his ideas are a bit outside of the norm, but then there's the big contradiction -- we don't like the Hillarys and Jebs who are establishment and will change nothing, but we distrust the guy who agrees with us and wants to make big changes. This is why I think it's important that you do vote in the election. America needs to know which side of the pot you're on. Do we want politicians who will stick to the way things are, or are we willing to risk supporting someone who has plans to try something new? And really, with 20 hats in the ring for the presidency, there's got to be SOMEONE who begins to align with your beliefs and preferences. Not voting is pretty much a vote for the establishment -- the Jebs and the Hillarys have their buddies spend fortunes to bus in mobs of voters, and that swings the election if the reasonable people didn't go out to vote at all. |
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Aug 10, 2015 11:10:11 GMT -5
I am frankly puzzled by anyone who thinks that Hillary Clinton - even the worst Fox News Fantasy World version of her - wouldn't be a whole hell of a lot better for the country than Donald Trump or Jeb Bush.
The Supreme Court nominations alone should be enough incentive to vote for Hillary.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 10, 2015 11:29:19 GMT -5
Maybe it was an unfair characterization, but I just can't get onboard with his Democratic Socialist views (which I completely understand are not your father's old-school USSR socialist views). He's just a little too far out there for me, and while he likes to talk a lot about how his brand of "socialism" works so well in countries like Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, he ignores the fact that those are much smaller, nearly homogeneous cultures with strong anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic attitudes, as well as very high taxes and a growing belief that their system is unsustainable as they continue to borrow money from the Chinese to prop up an increasingly-larger portion of the population that either cannot find work or refuses to do so. I can see what you're saying here, and I agree that his ideas are a bit outside of the norm, but then there's the big contradiction -- we don't like the Hillarys and Jebs who are establishment and will change nothing, but we distrust the guy who agrees with us and wants to make big changes. This is why I think it's important that you do vote in the election. America needs to know which side of the pot you're on. Do we want politicians who will stick to the way things are, or are we willing to risk supporting someone who has plans to try something new? And really, with 20 hats in the ring for the presidency, there's got to be SOMEONE who begins to align with your beliefs and preferences. Not voting is pretty much a vote for the establishment -- the Jebs and the Hillarys have their buddies spend fortunes to bus in mobs of voters, and that swings the election if the reasonable people didn't go out to vote at all. I'm on the outside of the pot, because there will likely never be a candidate that remotely matches what I'm looking for. I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti-death penalty, pro-gun control, but also a fiscal conservative. I believe the federal government should do less regulating so that businesses can thrive in this country without being told how to run their operations by bureaucrats who by and large have never worked in the private sector and thus have no clue how businesses actually work. I believe that we should have a social safety net to help out the least of those among us, but that it should not be a means by which people can live their entire lives unless they are truly and completely unable to work. I believe that the United States should continue to encourage legal immigrants who can add something to the future of the country, but that it should do more to secure its borders so that we do not become a destination point for other countries' undesirables. I believe the United States should let the rest of the world's countries figure out their own domestic problems rather than sticking our noses into each and every conflict that arises, and I believe the United States should leave the United Nations, which at best takes the US for granted and at worst scapegoats us for the world's problems while we stand by and let them. So, which candidate in the upcoming election should I vote for?  |
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Aug 10, 2015 12:17:22 GMT -5
My wife and I were discussing the current slate of potentials on both sides of the aisle over coffee yesterday morning and came to the conclusion that we're probably not voting next year. It's such an uninspiring collection of entrenched insiders (Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden) and whackadoodles (Bernie Sanders, pretty much the entire Republican ensemble) that we just can't see taking the time to go out and cast a ballot that implies that we endorse one of these folks and their party's platform. If only Canada weren't so cold, I think I could probably convince her to move there at this point. Why is Sanders "whackadoodle"? I don't see it. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 10, 2015 13:53:55 GMT -5
I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion, I think I know what you mean, but I'm not positive. Could you elaborate? Hillary or Sanders Depends upon your idea of fiscal conservation. Do you mean tightening government spending, looking at net cost vs. net gain, etc? Sanders would argue he's trying to put more money back into the pockets of 99% of Americans, and he sees most of that coming from having corporations pay more taxes (they contributed 33% of the government's income in the 1950s, down to 11% today). Technically, this is not contrary to being fiscally conservative, but it all depends upon how you define it. Kasich may be your man. The majority of what you're looking for in this latter portion matches up very well with John Kasich. The only places he differs with you are on gay marriage, gun control, and the death penalty. But none of those are his core platform. It's possible that enough like-minded people, articulating views similar to your own, could persuade a good candidate struggling to get into double digit approval numbers, to consider revisiting some of his past policies. That's my recommendation to you. It's a lot more proactive than just walking away from the process, and it just might get you the America you are looking for. I can't stand Kasich, but he's a better candidate than the GOP front-runners, and he aligns well with what you're looking for. |
|
|
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 10, 2015 14:29:52 GMT -5
I'm pro-choice but anti-abortion, I think I know what you mean, but I'm not positive. Could you elaborate? Abortion is an abhorrent act and one that we should strive to eliminate through better sexual education (none of this "abstinence only" crap, as if the advocates of that position forgot what it's like to be young and horny) and better access to birth control (I'd give condoms to anyone who would actually use them to prevent unwanted pregnancies). While my sincere hope is that no woman would ever choose to have one, it is not my place to limit someone else's ability to make decisions for their life based on my beliefs or desires. I want less government spending by the reduction of not only the size of the government itself but also through the elimination of redundant or outdated departments or services. I would also like to see a significant reduction in the size of the tax code so that it wasn't so much a game to see how much one can get out of paying. However, while I know this is unpopular, I also believe that everyone should have some skin in the game, even those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder; it doesn't have to be punitive nor should it, but at the very least, do not give people back more than they put into the system due to credits and the like. From everything I've read and researched previously, Kasich does seem to align pretty well with most of my beliefs, outside of the social issues you mention. If he had any shot at all of being nominated, I'd be excited, but I have as much chance of waking up tomorrow morning between Kate Upton and Karen Gillen as Kasich does in getting the nod. That will leave my choice to be between Hillary and whichever lunatic manages to stir the Republicans into the biggest frenzy between now and then, and that is my "giant douche/turd sandwich" dilemma. Thanks for engaging rather than judging. I appreciate it. |
|
shaxper
CCF Site Custodian
Posts: 22,871
|
Post by shaxper on Aug 10, 2015 14:38:20 GMT -5
From everything I've read and researched previously, Kasich does seem to align pretty well with most of my beliefs, outside of the social issues you mention. If he had any shot at all of being nominated, I'd be excited, but I have as much chance of waking up tomorrow morning between Kate Upton and Karen Gillen as Kasich does in getting the nod. That will leave my choice to be between Hillary and whichever lunatic manages to stir the Republicans into the biggest frenzy between now and then, and that is my "giant douche/turd sandwich" dilemma. But the only reason Kasich wouldn't have a shot would be because other people gave up on him and the process just as you intend to do. Don't you see the irony in this? No problems ever get solved, and no minds ever get changed, when folks judge one another  |
|
