Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Political Party:
    No Party/Other

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,291 profile views
  1. Private 'ownership' of land is a myth. You don't own it. You rent it from the government. Your rent is called 'property taxes'. When you don't pay your rent, they evict you. So all of us property owners, including Gates, are merely sharecroppers on the government plantation. If we don't produce enough rent, they will kick us out and give another sharecropper a chance to try. I wonder how much Gates has to pay in taxes on all that land...
  2. Good video. It makes my point about kind, caring engagement being the best way to deprogram people and help them readjust.
  3. I'm not trying to "normalize Trumpism". I'm trying to normalize the people who voted for Trump. I want to bring them (as many as possible) back to normalcy. Most Trump voters are not racist or bigoted and they certainly don't celebrate ignorance. If you ask them, they'll tell you those characteristics are more closely associated with the Democrats. Why would they believe that? Their leaders tell them that...and...Democrats refuse to engage with them to prove the narrative false. That belief is false. But, with a dialogue that consists of yelling at them and calling them n
  4. You should start a thread on this topic. I would be interested in seeing if anyone disagrees with you.
  5. When I speak against emotion, I'm talking about the response, not the logic behind it. Your opinions of Republican leadership motives are based on a reasonable interpretation of the facts. But, calling 70+ million people ignorant racist bigots is an emotional attack and not a reasoned argument. I'm not saying you shouldn't think that Republican motives are bad. I'm saying that, in order to have constructive dialogue and move the country forward, we need to keep those thoughts internal. Expressing them publicly does no good for anyone, and I'd argue it does much harm. When you
  6. The real issues you mention above absolutely need to be addressed. These have been concerning to Democrats for many years. Confidence in the security our elections is essential to the peaceful transfer of power. No good American wants voter suppression, foreign interference, or insecure voting mechanisms. Republicans have concerns too. We need to give them a path to peacefully and legally raise their concerns. You don't defuse a bomb by hiding it in a closet. We need to consider their concerns (in a bipartisan forum) with regard to their logic, ethics, and legality...not wit
  7. In my opinion, this is not sexism. Like so many other things, these are not a permanent conditions. A doctor can rearrange flesh with a scalpel and hormones. But, even that doesn't fully reverse biological reality. No liberal wants transgender people to be discriminated against in areas like jobs or housing. On the other hand, I believe women have legitimate concerns when it comes to 'female only' areas and activities. It's a complex issue. Personally, I don't have a position yet so seeing a good discussion would be helpful to me.
  8. Absolutely correct. And the purpose of an election integrity commission would not be to give the GOP leadership what it wants (their leadership puts power and party success ahead of the national interest), but to convince all Americans that their elections are fair and safe from unlawful interference. We have to avoid reflexively opposing everything that the other side wants just because their motive is bad. Look at what the effects would be. Would those effects be good for the nation? I really believe it's possible to have our cake and eat it too. We can have elections wh
  9. Hopefully Trump has finally 'jumped the shark' and a majority of his supporters will leave him. I think many believe it. The ones who traveled to DC believe it. The ones who broke into the capital definitely believe it. But, these are not the majority of Trump's (former?) supporters. He got 74 million votes, but only a few thousand went to DC on the 6th. The Republican mainstream doesn't know whether there was significant election fraud or not. But, they'd like to see a thorough investigation and measures taken to bolster election integrity in
  10. The feedback loop between radical left and radical right (they're really symbiotes, neither of which can survive alone) needs to be broken. The radical left needs the radical right to create fear and support. The radical right needs the radical left for the same reason. They both lead to authoritarianism. Telling me the radical left is better than the radical right is like telling me cyanide tastes better than strychnine. I appreciate your opinion, it may even be true, but I will not join you. Radical of any flavor is bad for the nation.
  11. Do you have any evidence, statistics, or facts to support your opinion? Federal employees (in 2016) were 58.2% male and 63.6% white (OPM). Mathematically, your statement above about the poor "White Man" is unsupportable. If you understand the math, at least 37% of federal employees are both white and male. According to Wikipedia, the general US population is 49.3% male and 73.0% white. So, about 36% of the population is both white and male. It looks like the federal government counts Hispanics as 'minorities' (presumably to boost their diversity stats) while the Wikipedia s
  12. I haven't posted on NHB much in recent years, so my positions may be confusing. I'm not a Democrat or a Republican; neither a 'by the book' liberal nor conservative (thus the name Renegade). Just because I support government funded college education, that doesn't mean I'm against charter schools. Just because I'm against privatizing Social Security, that doesn't mean I'm in favor of raising the minimum wage. I take every issue as a unique and independent puzzle to solve. And sometimes I still change my mind. I had the chance to observe our federal government up clo
  13. Here's an article on the same subject: The Urgent Case for Shrinking the Economy "When limited resources are directed toward clean energy infrastructure, public health care, and regenerative agriculture, it will still be possible to build and power modern 24-hour hospitals in every city, but not to have Xbox consoles, two-car garages, and giant appliances in every home. The post-growth economy could not succeed solely by redistributing wealth; it would have to redefine it, too."
  14. That's a fair question that deserves a good answer. Anarchy is the only society/government that does not "force others" to do things they don't want to do. I'm going to assume that you reject anarchy as a good model for our society. Government services like traffic laws, common defense, and police protection for life and property are generally helpful (and contribute to happiness). These are not all 'rights'. No one has a right to sensible traffic laws. But, we choose to have them and we choose to collect money (taxes) to enforce them and we don't really care if a few oddbal
  15. It is this statement which I took issue with, enough so that I dragged your post over here to discuss. First, a person's "happiness" is highly subjective and resides 100% with the individual to determine what makes him or her happy. Why do you believe two statements in opposition? I agree that an individual person (and only that person) can decide what makes them happy. So, if a government wanted to measure the happiness of its citizens, it would have to ask them and not just assume higher GDP = more happiness. I never called these 'rights'. I don't
  • Create New...