timschochet's thread- Mods, please move this thread to the Politics Subforum, thank you (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Do you support the legalization of same sex marriage? learn more



Yes
No

No, allow civil unions but don’t call it marriage
No, marriage should be defined as between a man and woman
Take the government out of marriage and instead make it a religious decision
Yes, but allow churches the right to refuse same-sex ceremonies
Add your own stance
 
Again I hate the way these questions are written. For me, the most accurate answer is "Yes, but allow churches to refuse". I've never met a pro-gay marriage person who didn't have this point of view. But the way it's written out it seems like I'm saying "Yes- BUT", which I don't want to do. 
 
And here's another issue that's very important to me. But it's done with. Even if a conservative supreme court comes in due to a Republican President. it seems to me extremely unlikely that they're going to overturn the decision anytime soon. So I suppose that in terms of importance for this election, I should give this a 1. But it feels wrong to give it a 1. 

 

[timschochet]

Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood? learn more



Yes
No

Yes, as long as funding is not used for abortion procedures
Yes, their services reach far beyond abortions and can save many lives through cancer screening, prenatal services, and adoption referrals
No, and the government should not give funds to any organizations that perform abortions
No, and the government should not give funds to any organizations
Add your own stance
 
OK this one's easier for me. The answer is yes. I would like to see it funded more. I would like to see us pay for abortions for poor people, even though we don't do that now. 
IMO, the attacks against Planned Parenthood last year were unwarranted and the people that did them deserve to be prosecuted. I have pretty strong feelings on this issue. But in terms of importance, I can't make it a major deal in this election, compared to the economy, climate change, etc. That would be irresponsible. I give it a 2 out of 5. 

 

[timschochet]

Ok Tom now I have a complaint, would you please take some effort to format your c&p posts? 

I'm sorry I don't know how. I'm so lame at this stuff and the new board here has made it even more difficult.

Is it so annoying that you can't read those posts? Because if so, i'll stop. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I'm sorry I don't know how. I'm so lame at this stuff and the new board here has made it even more difficult.

Is it so annoying that you can't read those posts? Because if so, i'll stop. 

It's cool I was trying to lighten the mood a little.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm very much aware you have this opinion of me. Obviously I disagree with you, and I find, with gratitude, that many others don't share your opinion. 

I'm not the only one who has posted some interesting thoughts in this thread- far from it. If you don't choose to respond to what I have to say, I hope you will at least stick around and respond to others. When you're not insulting me, you offer interesting and thoughtful opinions. 

There are many interesting points to be made about this election.  You won't have a part in making any or them.  You have created and been the top contributor in many awful discussions about it.  Even worse, you have spent many of these discussions insulting and belittling your fellow posters. It is obnoxious to suggest that you are part of any helpful discourse.  This thread title is an affront to its purported title. 

You are, and continue to be, the biggest hypocrite on this board.

 

[Uwe Blab]

but I actually think the more abortions the better (please keep in mind I don't believe fetuses are babies.) 
 

You're typically a reasonable guy and a very good read on a lot of different historical topics.

That said there really isn't a much more evil and nasty opinion on this board.  Just vile stuff.  But you've acknowledged how out in left field you are on this.  So, whatevs, carry on.

Man how I miss the halcyon days of even "safe, legal, and rare."  The world done gone crazy.

 

[timschochet]

There are many interesting points to be made about this election.  You won't have a part in making any or them.  You have created and been the top contributor in many awful discussions about it.  Even worse, you have spent many of these discussions insulting and belittling your fellow posters. It is obnoxious to suggest that you are part of any helpful discourse.  This thread title is an affront to its purported title. 

You are, and continue to be, the biggest hypocrite on this board.

Well I'm sorry you feel this way. I won't deny that I've written some stuff that I now regret. Hopefully at some point in the future you will decide to give my posts another chance and I will change your mind. If not, not. Either way I wish you well. 

 

[timschochet]

You're typically a reasonable guy and a very good read on a lot of different historical topics.

That said there really isn't a much more evil and nasty opinion on this board.  Just vile stuff.  But you've acknowledged how out in left field you are on this.  So, whatevs, carry on.

Man how I miss the halcyon days of even "safe, legal, and rare."  The world done gone crazy.

I've read you on this subject, I know you feel this way, and I do respect your opinion (while also being aware that you don't respect mine.) I don't think it's an issue worth arguing about at this point, because IMO people of good will simply hold very opposite views. 

 

[timschochet]

Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs? learn more



Yes
No

Yes, but only for small businesses
Yes, any business should be able to deny service for any reason
Yes, but the owner must post a sign stating their beliefs and what they refuse
No, all customers deserve to be treated equally
 
 
This is really a difficult question for me. It used to be easy, back when I was more libertarian than I am now. I believed then that any private entity should be able to deny service to anyone. But I no longer believe that. The question then becomes if homosexuals should be treated as a protected class in the way that African-Americans are treated as a protected class. And the answer is: I don't know. 
 
I do know that there should be no difference between small businesses and large businesses. And I know that the posting a sign option is a terrible idea, reminiscent of Nazi Germany "This store does not serve Jews." Because I have so many gay friends, I would like to be able to insist that everyone treat them like everybody else, and that you can't refuse service. And yet...I don't know. 
However, this is not a crucial issue to me, not with all of our problems. In fact it stunned me that during the last Republican debate, Hugh Hewitt, whom I normally respect very much, stated that "religious liberty" was the single most important issue facing the nation in the coming election. What planet is he on? 

 

[Slapdash]

Well I'm sorry you feel this way. I won't deny that I've written some stuff that I now regret. Hopefully at some point in the future you will decide to give my posts another chance and I will change your mind. If not, not. Either way I wish you well. 

I try my best to take everything at face value, but I can only do as I see it.  You're not a dumb guy.  Plenty of people will come into this thread to debate you.  And you're better for it. 

But...you've gone off the deep end recently.  I've commented on it several days ago.  It culminated over the weekend. This thread title is the ultimate piece.  Don't pretend to be above the trashy discourse that is in many ways emblematic of our TrumpNation.  You cannot act above the fray if you're one of the worst contributors in the swirl. Be better.

 

[timschochet]

I try my best to take everything at face value, but I can only do as I see it.  You're not a dumb guy.  Plenty of people will come into this thread to debate you.  And you're better for it. 

But...you've gone off the deep end recently.  I've commented on it several days ago.  It culminated over the weekend. This thread title is the ultimate piece.  Don't pretend to be above the trashy discourse that is in many ways emblematic of our TrumpNation.  You cannot act above the fray if you're one of the worst contributors in the swirl. Be better.

I'm not above the fray. I'm cognizant that I was as bad as anyone else. My point in starting this new discussion was to try to change that. 

 

[timschochet]

53. The Charm School

Nelson De Mille

1988, 644 pages

Suspense

Since John Le Carre's The Spy Who Came In From the Cold first appeared in the early 1960s, the Cold War spy novel became a staple of suspense fiction. This staple pretty much died out in 1990 with the fall of the Soviet Union. Before that happened, a string of popular writers produced some great thrillers: Le Carre, Len Deighton, Frederick Forsythe, Robert Ludlum, Tom Clancy just to name a few. Nelson De Mille is not known as one of these; his specialty is thriller fiction, and he only wrote a couple of books dealing with the USSR. However, his 1988 thriller The Charm School is, for me, the best of the genre. 

Moscow in the late 1980's: Glasnost and Perestroika are popular. But an American tourist accidentally discovers a secret that both the Soviets and the State Department want hidden: US Vietnam POWs are still alive in a gulag, training Soviet spies to act American. Can they be rescued? Will it destroy peace between the two countries? 

Nelson De Mille is quite simply the best suspense writer I have ever read. I have 4 of his books on this list, starting with this one. He is able to make his characters believable and likable, even the villains, and that's what makes the suspense so great. This novel is the definition of a "page turner."

Up next: Richard Bachman's story of weight loss...

 

[AAABatteries]

Tim, I either missed it or you didn't reply to Saints about campaign finance reform - why do you even see a need for it?  You seem to have zero problem with Hillary's ties to corporations.  For a lot of us it is one the the things we dislike the most about her.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I either missed it or you didn't reply to Saints about campaign finance reform - why do you even see a need for it?  You seem to have zero problem with Hillary's ties to corporations.  For a lot of us it is one the the things we dislike the most about her.

I think we'd be better off as a nation with some kind of controls on campaign finance. I'm not 100% sure what those controls should be or how it should work. That's a separate issue from Hillary the candidate: she can and should take advantage of the laws in place. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I think we'd be better off as a nation with some kind of controls on campaign finance. I'm not 100% sure what those controls should be or how it should work. That's a separate issue from Hillary the candidate: she can and should take advantage of the laws in place. 

Tim, why again? Hillary has taken in more money from more corporate and shadowy sources than anyone ever. If she is not corrupted why would people taking in many times less?

 

[timschochet]

Tim, why again? Hillary has taken in more money from more corporate and shadowy sources than anyone ever. If she is not corrupted why would people taking in many times less?

I may not understand your question correctly. But corruption isn't defined by how much money one receives. It's defined by ether or not one breaks the law in exchange for that money. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize Hillary for taking corporate money because she looks after corporate interests, but that's not corruption, any more than it is for a conservative lawmaker to take money from the NRA because he shares their views on gun control. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I may not understand your question correctly. But corruption isn't defined by how much money one receives. It's defined by ether or not one breaks the law in exchange for that money. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize Hillary for taking corporate money because she looks after corporate interests, but that's not corruption, any more than it is for a conservative lawmaker to take money from the NRA because he shares their views on gun control. 

Ok then why the need for campaign finance reforms, if Hillary and other politicians look after corporate issues and the corporations support them so they can do that, let them.

 

[timschochet]

Ok then why the need for ca

mpaign finance reforms, if Hillary and other politicians look after corporate issues and the corporations support them so they can do that, let them.

Because it's not quite democratic enough for me. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Because it's not quite democratic enough for me. 

Why not? You're saying Hillary is thwarting democracy by looking after corporate interests? How so?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim if what you say is true you support the epitome of why campaign finance is not needed, and Hillary has no more interest or passion for true reform than you do. It's a pretty absurd claim when you don't even know why it's needed.

 

[timschochet]

Why not? You're saying Hillary is thwarting democracy by looking after corporate interests? How so?

It's not as simple as that. 

Forget Hillary for a moment. I believe in pluralism. Corporate interests, union interests, special interests, environmental groups, grass roots movements, individuals- everybody gets to compete for what should happen. That's our system and its a good system. 

But the problem is that money can swamp everything else, which makes business or corporate interests more powerful than everyone else. I don't mind them being powerful but there should be limits on that power so that the other forces of pluralism have a chance to influence events. Hence campaign finance reform. But how much we should have is open to debate. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I think we'd be better off as a nation with some kind of controls on campaign finance. I'm not 100% sure what those controls should be or how it should work.

We already have lots of controls on campaign finance. If you don't know what the controls should be, how do you know whether the ones we have need reform?

 

[timschochet]

Tim if what you say is true you support the epitome of why campaign finance is not needed, and Hillary has no more interest or passion for true reform than you do. It's a pretty absurd claim when you don't even know why it's needed.

Hillary is going to appoint judges that believe that campaign finance reform is not unconstitutional. That is the greatest possible contribution she could make to this issue. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

It's not as simple as that. 

Forget Hillary for a moment. I believe in pluralism. Corporate interests, union interests, special interests, environmental groups, grass roots movements, individuals- everybody gets to compete for what should happen. That's our system and its a good system. 

But the problem is that money can swamp everything else, which makes business or corporate interests more powerful than everyone else. I don't mind them being powerful but there should be limits on that power so that the other forces of pluralism have a chance to influence events. Hence campaign finance reform. But how much we should have is open to debate. 

Tim, Hillary is the contradiction of your point, none of this has happened with her has it? If it's not a problem for her why is it a problem for anyone else? Can you even give one concrete example of what you are talking about? You don't even seem to believe in what you're talking about here.

In real life you are supporting the antithesis of what you're discussing.

 

[TripItUp]

Is this the thread where we are labeling Trump supporters as racists and bigots?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Is this the thread where we are labeling Trump supporters as racists and bigots?

Tim has promised to be "nice" in this thread.

He's made no such guarantee about coherence.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hillary is going to appoint judges that believe that campaign finance reform is not unconstitutional. That is the greatest possible contribution she could make to this issue. 

Nobody believes that all campaign finance reform is unconstitutional. Just like nobody believes that all campaign finance reform is constitutional.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, Hillary is the contradiction of your point, none of this has happened with her has it? If it's not a problem for her why is it a problem for anyone else? Can you even give one concrete example of what you are talking about? You don't even seem to believe in what you're talking about here.

In real life you are supporting the antithesis of what you're discussing.

Hillary, like almost every politician, takes advantage of a system already in place. I don't think it's fair to say to single her out. I certainly don't think she represents the antithesis of what I believe. 

 

[timschochet]

Is this the thread where we are labeling Trump supporters as racists and bigots?

No. But if I think somebody truly deserves that title I will point it out. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary, like almost every politician, takes advantage of a system already in place. I don't think it's fair to say to single her out. I certainly don't think she represents the antithesis of what I believe. 

Ok so you're right. What's wrong with the system? No harm results despite unbelievable quantities of money. Where's the harm? Can you give one real example?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hillary, like almost every politician, takes advantage of a system already in place. I don't think it's fair to say to single her out. I certainly don't think she represents the antithesis of what I believe. 

Also note here you say that the campaign finance system needs fixing yet Hillary is not the antithesis of this stance, so your argument must be that she is part of the problem. But we know that's not what you mean at all, she is the exemplar for the politician who cannot be corrupted. Hillary and other politicians demonstrate why no reform is needed.

 

[timschochet]

Ok so you're right. What's wrong with the system? No harm results despite unbelievable quantities of money. Where's the harm? Can you give one real example?

Sure. Fracking is good for the economy, bad for the environment. There ought to be a middle ground if possible: allow fracking to continue because of all the wealth and jobs it creates, but have necessary protections and make the fracking companies responsible for any problems that are caused. This is a reasonable role for government. 

But the fracking companies have so much money that they stampede over the opposition, preventing the kind of compromise I'm talking about. In their greed to wring every dollar they can, these companies fight off any regulation whatsoever- until some major accident horrifies the public and allows for an extreme response sought by the encironmentalists: shut the fracking down. 

If the fracking companies were limited in the amounts they could contribute, then there would be a much better chance for the sort of compromise I'm talking about. 

 

[timschochet]

Also note here you say that the campaign finance system needs fixing yet Hillary is not the antithesis of this stance, so your argument must be that she is part of the problem. But we know that's not what you mean at all, she is the exemplar for the politician who cannot be corrupted. Hillary and other politicians demonstrate why no reform is needed.

You keep trying to steer this to Hillary. She's one politician among many. most of them, including Bernie Sanders, take money from special interests. 

 

[Zegras11]

I now have earthquake insurance on my Okla properties.  Can't take the chance.

 

[timschochet]

I now have earthquake insurance on my Okla properties.  Can't take the chance.

And it may very well be that fracking is just too dangerous and we should shut it down altogether. Many people think so; I'm not sure. But I was using it to illustrate a larger point: there should be room in our society for the competing interests of business expansion AND environmental safety. We need to protect both if we can. Without campaign finance reform, we protect the business too often at the expense of everything else. 

 

[Zegras11]

And it may very well be that fracking is just too dangerous and we should shut it down altogether. Many people think so; I'm not sure. But I was using it to illustrate a larger point: there should be room in our society for the competing interests of business expansion AND environmental safety. We need to protect both if we can. Without campaign finance reform, we protect the business too often at the expense of everything else. 

I'm for it in areas where there is very little population within 100 miles.  The data in Okla is not good. Lucky it's only $8/unit/mo.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You keep trying to steer this to Hillary. She's one politician among many. most of them, including Bernie Sanders, take money from special interests. 

Again you fail to make the point. So yes let's say Sanders too takes money from special interests and he too is not corrupted. Sanders has also proved that he can compete without big corporate money. Then why is campaign finance reform necessary to you? Where is your evidence that supports your claim that there is a need for this? You make this demand and point constantly yet you seem to have zero basis or reason thus it seems unjustified and unjustifiable.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

It's not as simple as that. 

Forget Hillary for a moment. I believe in pluralism. Corporate interests, union interests, special interests, environmental groups, grass roots movements, individuals- everybody gets to compete for what should happen. That's our system and its a good system. 

But the problem is that money can swamp everything else, which makes business or corporate interests more powerful than everyone else. I don't mind them being powerful but there should be limits on that power so that the other forces of pluralism have a chance to influence events. Hence campaign finance reform. But how much we should have is open to debate. 

The Supreme Court has said in the past that campaign finance laws motivated by this objective are unconstitutional.  With that said, I do have sympathy for your argument.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The Supreme Court has said in the past that campaign finance laws motivated by this objective are unconstitutional.  With that said, I do have sympathy for your argument.

The problem with Tim's argument is that he can point to no instance where this has happened in real life. His arguments instead are always how the reprsentation of corporate interests are entirely legitimate even when done in abundantly disproportionate amounts.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yes, Saints, I'm enjoying your cross-examination of Tim.  

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

I've read you on this subject, I know you feel this way, and I do respect your opinion (while also being aware that you don't respect mine.) I don't think it's an issue worth arguing about at this point, because IMO people of good will simply hold very opposite views. 

I can same sex marriage (equal rights for all) and stricter gun laws on the liberal side of things but I just don't understand the abortion opinion.  We have technology that shows a heartbeat in the womb for anyone that doubts that's a person/baby in there. Why is it okay to murder a baby in the womb but not okay to murder the same baby after birth?

 

[timschochet]

The problem with Tim's argument is that he can point to no instance where this has happened in real life. His arguments instead are always how the reprsentation of corporate interests are entirely legitimate even when done in abundantly disproportionate amounts.

I never suggested they weren't legitimate. As with the fracking example that I offered, money swamps all other interests in a legitimate way, and I would like to see that corrected. But it has nothing to do with corruption. 

 

[RCon]

Have to say, I agree with Saints here.  If the existing campaign finance laws aren't causing any conflict of interest for Hillary or Bernie, then I'm not sure what the argument is that they would ever cause a problem.  And if they're not a problem, why are we against the existing laws again?

 

[RCon]

I never suggested they weren't legitimate. As with the fracking example that I offered, money swamps all other interests in a legitimate way, and I would like to see that corrected. But it has nothing to do with corruption. 

How does "money swamp all other interests in a legitimate way"?  What's a legitimate way compared to an illegitimate way?

 

[timschochet]

I can same sex marriage (equal rights for all) and stricter gun laws on the liberal side of things but I just don't understand the abortion opinion.  We have technology that shows a heartbeat in the womb for anyone that doubts that's a person/baby in there. Why is it okay to murder a baby in the womb but not okay to murder the same baby after birth?

I understand your position. There is no way I can possibly answer your question in a manner that you would regard as satisfactory. I believe that a woman's right to her own body comes first. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Have to say, I agree with Saints here.  If the existing campaign finance laws aren't causing any conflict of interest for Hillary or Bernie, then I'm not sure what the argument is that they would ever cause a problem.  And if they're not a problem, why are we against the existing laws again?

Tim is already on record that he has no problem at all with firms and other interest groups donating money directly to candidates as personal income.  To him, not only does that not constitute corruption, it's not even evidence of corruption.  So yeah, I'm not getting how he manages to go from that position, to the position that campaign contributions are somehow problematic.  

 

[Rove!]

regardless of who wins, would they be able to govern?  Both of the top candidates are vuiewed unfavorably by more than half of the people.  Would they be able to rally people around anything?

 

[timschochet]

How does "money swamp all other interests in a legitimate way"?  What's a legitimate way compared to an illegitimate way?

Legitimate: two candidates run for office. One of them is supported by corporate interests, the other is not. The corporate interests flood television with hundreds of commercials that the other guy can't possibly afford. Corporate guy wins. This is perfectly legitimate, but I don't think it's good for our system. There should be some form of limitation to allow the non corporate guy to have a reasonable chance to present his views. 

Illegitimate: after the election, corporation tells official they want him to vote yes for a business project they want. The official says give me $50,000 in unmarked bills. Corporation pays. Official takes money and sticks it in his freezer. This sort of corruption goes on all the time and will continue to go on no matter what the campaign laws are. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I never suggested they weren't legitimate. As with the fracking example that I offered, money swamps all other interests in a legitimate way, and I would like to see that corrected. But it has nothing to do with corruption. 

Then what does it have to do with and what harm has ever been caused by it? You've argued before that even the disproportionate amounts contributed are necessary because of the extreme importance of certain industries for our economy. Disproportionate benefits justify disproportionate contributions don't you think?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

regardless of who wins, would they be able to govern?  Both of the top candidates are vuiewed unfavorably by more than half of the people.  Would they be able to rally people around anything?

The last two presidents have faced completely unreasonable levels of hatred (IMO), so there's very little reason to think that the next person would fare much better regardless.  That said, I do think that Hillary or Trump would both probably take things to a brand new level.  Just speaking for me personally, I don't think I would even recognize Donald Trump as a legitimate leader, and my opposition to Trump is fairly moderate compared to many other folks'.  (I wouldn't go that far with Hillary, personal dislike aside).