Trump's Staff and Cabinet

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you don't believe in addressing climate change you obviously have your head in the sand, or at least believe in waiting until there is a crisis to act. Both are idiotic recipes for disaster. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I refuse to go down catering to the greed and ignorance of corporatists who brazenly don't care a lick about climate change and it's effects, after all, those most deeply affected will be in poor low lying countries. If it's a problem, it needs to be addressed. If it isn't a problem it needs to be prevented. Waiting for a crisis before acting is just plain stupid.

If you oppose mandatory paternity leave (the mandate that employers offer paternity leave) you are ANTI-FATHERHOOD. If you don't feel like taking paternity leave, don't. But don't deny other fathers the right to do so and to be involved in the first years of their child's life, especially the opportunity to be help to their wives who are now young mothers. Even in ancient Israel soldiers were relieved of military duty for one year upon getting married so that they could cultivate intimacy with their wives and sire children. Paternal leave is of the same moral fabric.

If one feel that business has a greater right to force employment on new fathers, over the right of new fathers to be with their children. I ask that they please tie a mill stone around their neck and jump in the ocean. They'd be of more value to the efforts of TRUE FATHERHOOD if they did.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but you sir are a bona fide raving lunatic.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you don't believe in addressing climate change you obviously have your head in the sand, or at least believe in waiting until there is a crisis to act. Both are idiotic recipes for disaster. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I refuse to go down catering to the greed and ignorance of corporatists who brazenly don't care a lick about climate change and it's effects, after all, those most deeply affected will be in poor low lying countries. If it's a problem, it needs to be addressed. If it isn't a problem it needs to be prevented. Waiting for a crisis before acting is just plain stupid.

If you oppose mandatory paternity leave (the mandate that employers offer paternity leave) you are ANTI-FATHERHOOD. If you don't feel like taking paternity leave, don't. But don't deny other fathers the right to do so and to be involved in the first years of their child's life, especially the opportunity to be help to their wives who are now young mothers. Even in ancient Israel soldiers were relieved of military duty for one year upon getting married so that they could cultivate intimacy with their wives and sire children. Paternal leave is of the same moral fabric.

If one feel that business has a greater right to force employment on new fathers, over the right of new fathers to be with their children. I ask that they please tie a mill stone around their neck and jump in the ocean. They'd be of more value to the efforts of TRUE FATHERHOOD if they did.

You might want to consider getting your information from a different source. There is no such thing as man made climate change.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you don't believe in addressing climate change you obviously have your head in the sand, or at least believe in waiting until there is a crisis to act. Both are idiotic recipes for disaster. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. I refuse to go down catering to the greed and ignorance of corporatists who brazenly don't care a lick about climate change and it's effects, after all, those most deeply affected will be in poor low lying countries. If it's a problem, it needs to be addressed. If it isn't a problem it needs to be prevented. Waiting for a crisis before acting is just plain stupid.

Or, we recognize it for the complete and utter scam it is. The Earth has had ZERO change in the average temperature, for the past 14+ years. The oceans haven't risen to overtake the coastal cities. The icebergs haven't all melted away, and in fact are even bigger than ever. It's called facts. Learn them, love them, live them.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If you oppose mandatory paternity leave (the mandate that employers offer paternity leave) you are ANTI-FATHERHOOD. If you don't feel like taking paternity leave, don't. But don't deny other fathers the right to do so and to be involved in the first years of their child's life, especially the opportunity to be help to their wives who are now young mothers. Even in ancient Israel soldiers were relieved of military duty for one year upon getting married so that they could cultivate intimacy with their wives and sire children. Paternal leave is of the same moral fabric.

Okay, let's look at your comment about Israel. They were given one year off after marriage, to *sire* children, not to raise them. Assuming the wife got pregnant right away, at best the father would be home for the first few months (and that's assuming everything happened on an immediate schedule). If it took 6 months for the wife to get pregnant, then the father wouldn't be there when his child was born. How does that - in any way, shape or form - help you with your argument about paid paternity leave?

If your employer wants to offer that, then so be it, but don't make it a mandatory regulation, that just adds further unnecessary burdens to small businesses.

Originally Posted by Aquila

If one feel that business has a greater right to force employment on new fathers, over the right of new fathers to be with their children. I ask that they please tie a mill stone around their neck and jump in the ocean. They'd be of more value to the efforts of TRUE FATHERHOOD if they did.

Yet, you're more than willing to force the employer to pay for something that's not their responsibility. Those fathers chose to be so, it wasn't the employers choice. Why should they be forced to pay for an employee to sit at home, drawing away funds from the company while not contributing to it?

Oh, and if you expect me to place a mill stone around my neck, and go jump in the ocean, you can take that mill stone and shove it where the sun don't shine.

Why do Democrats always get violent when pushing their agenda?

[Originalist]

Amen to all points.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Originalist

This statement proves what Esaias has said time and again, the NeverTrumpers still do not understand the Trump phenomenon, that it's not about Trump. Ah, but to support him at all, in your mind, is to, "trust him with your life". That is such a nonsensical false narrative if there ever was one. What this shows is that it is people like you who are indeed looking for a leader you can trust with your life. Trump supporters do not have such a mentality. Trump is a means to and end, a bridge, and nothing more.

But what can I expect from someone who plays the "Mein Kampf" card. Pathetic, silly.

Wow! Great post O!

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Placing 44th on the Electoral College chart isn't a huge upset, but listen to KellyAnne Conway without checking the facts. She is turning out to be quite the exaggerator like her boss.

He didn't even win the popular vote, so I have no idea where you are getting that he is a phenomenon. .

The Founders were brilliant. They constructed a Democracy that prevented certain states from dominating elections. "Losing the popular" vote sounds significant but when you understand why the Electoral College is genius, then the statement loses its mojo. Losing the popular vote in this case means that Trump got trounced in places like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. All hubs for liberal populations. The heartland, rural areas, blue collar communities would never be able to compete with the power of those voting blocs. The EC is an effective construct.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

The media pushed out the other candidates. Case in point, Megyn Kelly hitting Ted Cruz on illegal immigration, later admitting that he had a consistent record all along. This she did AFTER the debate and only during the post debate interview - when the majority of the viewers had tuned out. That was done deliberately, because like Esaias, they honed in on the video showing how Ted Cruz was working to kill the bill and using it, dishonestly, as a sound bite to prove he was for illegal immigration. They knew that video alone would work against his credibility and so they pushed it for all it was worth. At that point, not even Jeff Sessions, coming to his defense, could save him. Yea, like that kind of stuff.

Good Lord PO. I wanted Cruz to be president too, but really. Get over it.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Think of it this way...

If we treat global warming seriously, and it is found to be exaggerated, we move to cleaner energy and a cleaner environment. We open new markets and entirely new industries. And as a result we either succeed in addressing climate change, or prevent it. Win/win.

If we treat global warming as though it is a joke and it is real.... you deserve to pay before Almighty God for the hell that will be unleashed as the ocean levels rise and entire low lying nations are sent fleeing for their lives. Also, the cost of money lost as the environment is destabilized will be greater than the world community will be able to absorb. It even makes long term financial sense to address the concern of global warming.

If you believe in global warming and man's contribution to the problem, we have a moral responsibility to act and address the crisis. If you don't believe in it, we have a moral responsibility to prevent.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

What??? You want to wait until it is a crisis to act???? Even denying global warming doesn't remove the responsibility to prevent it from ever becoming a reality.

If you believe in a zombie apocalypse we have a moral responsibility to act an address the crisis. If you don't believe in it, we have a moral responsibility to prevent it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

The Founders were brilliant. They constructed a Democracy that prevented certain states from dominating elections. "Losing the popular" vote sounds significant but when you understand why the Electoral College is genius, then the statement loses its mojo. Losing the popular vote in this case means that Trump got trounced in places like California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Chicago, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc. All hubs for liberal populations. The heartland, rural areas, blue collar communities would never be able to compete with the power of those voting blocs. The EC is an effective construct.

You are right concerning the Electoral College. But, that is not the point being made. We aren't discussing the merits of the Electoral College.

Originalist is calling Trump a phenomenon, which isn't true.

KellyAnne Conway says that 306 Electoral Votes is a Historic. Blowout.

That isn't true.

Trump is way below average for a winner's total:

1984—525
1980—489
1988—426
1996—379
1992—370
2008—365
2012—332
2016—306
2004—286
2000—271

1 1820 James Monroe - 231
2 1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt - 523
3 1984 Ronald Reagan - 532
4 1972 Richard Nixon - 520
5 1804 Thomas Jefferson - 162
6 1864 Abraham Lincoln - 212
7 1980 Ronald Reagan- 489
8 1964 Lyndon B. Johnson - 486
9 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt - 472
10 1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower - 457

44 - Donald Trump - 306

Ronald Reagan was a phenomenon. Aren't we tired of the fake news and lying this campaign season? I, for one, am tired of it.

KellyAnne knows that if you say something loud enough and long enough, everyone will believe it.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Good Lord PO. I wanted Cruz to be president too, but really. Get over it.

So, when we discuss "facts", we discuss, ummmm, people. GASP!! We even mention the "names" of the people involved in the discussion.

In order to make the point that Trump wasn't really the person casting out the candidates, I had to bring up a "fact" about the media handing of Ted Cruz.

You need to stop being offended and get that Dorito off your shoulder.