posted
So she has a boyfriend she had sex with without protection and got pregnant.
Is she implying that it's she had sex that's a disappointment? I kind of have to wonder what she was thinking to have not used protection if she was going to have sex 'knowing' the risks.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok listen, plebians. I've already made a great deal of money lecturing, but what's important now is that nobody lecture me. I don't care if the irony gives you whiplash. Just be silent, rabble, and perhaps if my investments don't go well I'll see you again in a year or two for more lecturing. From me. Not to me. I HAVE SPOKEN!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Using contraception would be acknowledging that she's doing something "wrong". These same people are against doing things like giving out clean needles to addicts.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This pregnancy announcement comes a month after her wedding was called off. It's not that she had sex with her boyfriend, it's that she very likely cheated on her Medal of Honor recipient fiancé.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can I say I'm loving the people who are incensed about the recent moves against the Confederate flag that are bemoaning how next they're going to try to attack the US flag?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The most unusual opinion of the lot came from Justice Jefferson D. Hughes, III, who dissented from the court’s conclusion that it actually must comply with binding constitutional precedents handed down by the United States Supreme Court. “Judges instruct jurors every week not to surrender their honest convictions merely to reach agreement,” Hughes began. “I cannot do so now.” Hughes’s opinion is only two paragraphs. It cites no authorities and provides no legal arguments in support of his position. It does, however, include an apparent suggestion that gay parents are pedophiles. “This case involves an adoption,” he writes, adding that “[t]he most troubling prospect of same sex marriage is the adoption by same sex partners of a young child of the same sex.”
quote:Today, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush, who as of-late has gone relatively gaffe-free, uttered a phrase that may not go over too well with the constituency he seeks to reach. During an interview that was live-streamed on the app Periscope, Bush told New Hampshire's "The Union Leader" that to grow the economy, "people should work longer hours."
He was answering a question about his plans for tax reform and responded:
"My aspiration for the country and I believe we can achieve it, is 4 percent growth as far as the eye can see. Which means we have to be a lot more productive, workforce participation has to rise from its all-time modern lows. It means that people need to work longer hours" and, through their productivity, gain more income for their families. That's the only way we're going to get out of this rut that we're in."
Already the Democratic National Committee has pounced, releasing a statement that calls his remarks "easily one of the most out-of-touch comments we've heard so far this cycle," adding that Bush would not fight for the middle class as president.
A 2014 Gallup poll found that already many Americans employed full-time report working, on average, 47 hours a week, while nearly 4 in 10 say they work at least 50 hours a week.
posted
In other news, '4% growth as far as the eye can see' is in many ways a much bigger and more dangerous 'misstatement', because it's a concrete number and a specific claim rather than 'work harder'. Either he actually believed indefinite 4% growth is attainable, or he's doing the over the top lying (sorry, 'stump speech') thing already.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's ok-boatloads of those people are adequately compensated with overtime pay!
I laughed.
The last time I worked an hourly wage job (where I could have a chance of overtime) I was 20 years old. I know the "millennials are all lazy and underworked" is a pretty popular trope among his ilk, but I wonder how deeply sheltered from people with actual jobs you have to be to not understand that the "40 hour work week" is long dead - it's now an absolute minimum.
Working from home can blur those lines too. For me, I do my 40+ at the site I'm contracted at, then do an additional 5-10 hours/week of work at home that my company asks me to do "when you get the chance but no later than Friday", or attending video conferences, and work related calls and e-mails adds to that total as well. The whole concept of a concrete, definite end of the workday is rapidly evaporating in light of ubiquitous technology that makes it possible to work anywhere. I would guess that, if anything, that 47 hour median is lowballing it.
But yeah, Jeb is right, the real problem here is laziness. Who needs to see their kids anyway?
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trump is destroying any chance the Republicans have at the White House in a way Democrats never could.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was such a stupid remark (politically stupid, I mean) that I can't help but wonder if this is Trump doing something that will give him an excuse to bail out. I mean, it's obvious he's going to drop out anyway as he always does. He's raised, what, like 1/5 what other contenders have at this point?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think at this point he has to be trying to piss off as many people as possible. What the hell.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually wonder if someone else in the field is paying Trump to stay in to manipulate the timing of media events.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm torn between duplicitous motives and simple ego. I doubt Trump is actually stupid enough to be doing this for anything other than publicity and money, which would lead me to think duplicity, but he is certainly vain enough. Of course it could be both.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's the zany conspiracy theory that he worked this out with Clinton in order to torpedo the Republican field. I don't believe it, but there it is.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I actually wonder if someone else in the field is paying Trump to stay in to manipulate the timing of media events.
they better be paying him a hell of a lot of money, because it would have to compensate for how he's torpedoing his media franchises and future business branding
but it's not like it would be out of character for trump to make decisions that cost him billions of dollars~
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a pretty sad testament on the Republican field (actually, probably more on the Republican voter base), that Trump is polling so well - even with deserving to have an entire thread like this dedicated just to him.
I think the favorite line I've seen so far has been "it's like he's a Comments Section running for president".
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I actually wonder if someone else in the field is paying Trump to stay in to manipulate the timing of media events.
they better be paying him a hell of a lot of money, because it would have to compensate for how he's torpedoing his media franchises and future business branding
but it's not like it would be out of character for trump to make decisions that cost him billions of dollars~
quote:Originally posted by FlyingCow: I think it's a pretty sad testament on the Republican field (actually, probably more on the Republican voter base), that Trump is polling so well - even with deserving to have an entire thread like this dedicated just to him.
I think the favorite line I've seen so far has been "it's like he's a Comments Section running for president".
the really ugly thing about the trump surge that conservatives need to confront* is that the bump in numbers is precisely because trump is saying what the conservative base believes. The GOP base wants its politicans to say the things that Trump says and fight against the things that Trump wants to fight, and they hate that politicians are not 'allowed' to call it like Trump does. He's in the lead right now because when Trump "calls it like it is," GOP voters agree with what he's saying.
That's it, no big mystery, that's really just what's up.
posted
some conservatives who still lurk on this board read what i just wrote and got rankled but yes actually agree with the substance of trump's xenophobia so there's that let's just not think about it ok
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
polling for favorability across multiple candidates doesn't really work that way. He is the highest polling candidate across all candidates and who is currently resonating the best across all candidates among the base. That top polling came directly after his set of incendiary comments and is still lasting.
It's not a clean cut of only the people who voted him highest agree with his views and then everyone else doesn't agree with his views at all, and when you poll the gop base on their views on, say, them dirty rapist mexicans (or what legislation they favor to handle the issue, or whatever) — you get some surprising majority views.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, I was looking at percentage who put him at the top of their list, rather than favorability.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would guess that most of the republican field, excepting the truly long shots who would need more time to build credibility, are thankful for Trump. He provides them a perfect opportunity to paint themselves as centrist and dignified without actually having to say anything other than mock disdain for his buffoonery. It will make the primaries more of a sprint but will provide a much smaller body of pandering they will have to backpedal from in the general.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
people go back and forth wondering whether trump is more a strategic benefit (keeping heat off of the 'viable' candidates) or if he is a disaster, tying down the republican image to zealously bigoted tripe that further divides them away from the non-white vote
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also keep in mind that in polling circles, at this stage in the game, polls are almost entirely about name recognition.
All the polls are doing that show Trump in the lead is tell is that the other candidates haven't distinguished themselves yet.
Though yes, there's a certain amount of enthusiasm for having the Conservative Republican Id run for president.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
i can see the name recognition thing and in all fairness would not be surprised to, after it is all said and done (and the gop machine has ground him under the gears as fast as they can for the sake of self preservation) we can look back at the poll data and trends and see that the push to the top had a huge boost from recognition.
the reason i don't see it as the primary force behind his #1 slot is because most of his gains were a surge promptly after his comments. you don't surge when you say something that turns you off the base.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Trump wins the primary polls, does the RNC have to pick him as their candidate or can they take whomever they want and the primaries are merely to guide their decision?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The GOP primary process is determined via Delegates chosen via Caucases or Primaries; I believe it is 100% this, and the Democrats have "superdelegates" determined by the party power people.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Democrats have a mix of voter-determined delegates and superdelegates. But the process actually gets more complicated if there's not a winner by the first ballot. After the first ballot, delegates basically become superdelegates and can choose anyone they want, so it turns into a big charlie foxtrot.
I believe GOP delegates also are locked into voting for their designated candidate on the first ballot. So unless a solid core of 3 or 4 candidates win their own handful of primaries, it probably won't come into play. And if Trump actually by some miracle hangs on for 6 more months and wins the first few primaries...well...I'm not sure the GOP smoke-filled back room has a lot of recourse written into their bylaws.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
