HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » athena » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

athena

Profile Information

Member since: Sat Aug 7, 2004, 11:55 PM
Number of posts: 2,196

Journal Archives

Has this person listened to any of President Obama's speeches?

Has she missed the parts where he says that when other people struggle to pay their bills or get the health care they need, it hurts all of us? Does she not see that when the weakest among us do well, we all do better?

Does she not understand that she is already paying to support McDonald's workers? People who can't make ends meet end up needing welfare and food stamps. By allowing the minimum wage to be so low, we're using our taxes to enrich the owners and highest-paid earners at McDonald's. The money that could be used to build roads and bridges instead goes toward feeding the people McDonald's should be paying fairly in the first place.

If this is the level at which this person thinks and functions, her education has been completely wasted on her. Seriously, people like this cause me to lose all hope for this country's future. It's sad that such selfishness and such a total lack of empathy are not considered shameful in this country. People should feel ashamed, not proud, to express such views.

A rising tide lifts all boats.

If a fast-food worker can make $15, many people who are in jobs that currently pay less, or not much higher, will have an incentive to leave their jobs for one that pays better. As a result, employers who underpay their workers will feel pressure to increase their wages. This process will repeat itself, each time at a higher wage level, until everyone's wages will go up.

Seriously, this argument is incredibly selfish. It always depresses me that people can be so self-centered. If we're so near-sighted that we only care about ourselves and don't want anyone else to do better, we will never achieve much as a society. I hope most people are smart and thoughtful enough to be able to see the trees and the forest.

I find it very interesting

(and a little depressing) that people are so uncomfortable with the idea of a male First Spouse being just a First Spouse. It's pretty outrageous to suggest that the position of First Spouse be upgraded to Second-Vice-President when the First Spouse happens to be male.

For some reason, when the First Spouse is female, regardless of her level of education, career background and accomplishments, people assume that she has zero say in what happens and no influence whatsoever on her husband. People seem to think that the President doesn't even talk to his wife about the things he's working on and thinking about. (I wonder if this says something about how some men still treat their wives in the twenty-first century.)

Well, to those people, I can only say that Bill Clinton, when he is First Spouse, will be a traditional First Spouse. Hillary will listen to Bill as much as Barack listens to Michelle. Bill will have as much influence on the governing of the country as Michelle does now. To think anything else is not only sexist but also dangerous: the First Spouse is not an elected office and must therefore be a position that comes with very limited power. Fortunately, Bill is smart enough to understand this, and feminist enough to respect that his wife, not he, will be the one who is President.

What other minority group's concerns have "gotten old and dull"?

Pray tell. LGBT people's concerns: have they "gotten old and dull"? How about Jewish people's concerns about antisemitism? Or Black people's, or Asian people's concerns about racism? Is that "old and dull"? After how much time do we decide that a group has complained about unequal treatment long enough and should just shut up?

Let me guess: every other group that is and has been discriminated against has the right to speak out and deserves to be listened to, except women. Women should know our place and shut up. Right? Because no one wants to hear women talk about our desire for equal and fair treatment. No one wants to hear about women's perspective on the way we're treated in this society. The status quo, in which women know our place, suits everyone just fine, as long as women just accept it and avoid complaining about it.

It is so offensive that so many people think that women's concerns are irrelevant, old, or annoying. It is incredibly insulting. Sadly, all it shows is that women still are not considered the equal of men in our society. We're supposed to sit quietly, look beautiful and smile while we're young, and sit quietly, serve men, and disappear into the background when we're old. I'm sick of it.

This is great!

I've thought for a long time that Democrats should not have abandoned Howard Dean's idea of fighting in all 50 states. It's not right to ignore certain states because they've been red for a long time. People change, and their beliefs change. The Republican Party's ideas are weak and unrepresentative of people's interests. There is no reason we should not be able to turn several red states blue with sustained effort over several election cycles.

Seriously?

You're telling someone who has told you that she used to be suicidal and would have committed suicide if she had a gun, that she is doing a "disservice" to those who choose to commit suicide?

The insensitivity in your post is breathtaking. We're talking about people who are suffering so much that they are considering ending their lives. What they need is easy access to mental health services, not easy access to guns.

When you're considering killing yourself, moments count. If a friend shows up and talks to you, you can get out of the mental state you're in, at least temporarily. If you had a gun in your house at the time, your friend might show up only to find you dead.

This is not a theoretical argument. This is real. People -- sensitive, loving, beautiful people -- die every day because they get suicidal and are able to immediately act on that impulse. We need to do all we can to make life worth living for those people, not give them the tools to let them take their lives more easily.

This whole sub-discussion started with a poster claiming that suicides should not "count" in deaths by gun. If anything is disrespectful of suicidal people, it is that.

That's what they said about GWB.

That four years of GWB wouldn't be so bad, and that staying home on election day would teach the Democratic Party a lesson.

Of course, 9/11 happened, and for the next six years, the Democratic Party, along with the media, moved so far right that it almost became indistinguishable from the Republican Party.

If progressives had not convinced so many of us that Gore was just as bad as Bush, there would have been no Iraq War; hundreds of thousands of innocent people would be alive; the environment would be in much better shape; and ISIS would probably not exist today.

She is not against abortion in the third trimester.

She has said restrictions can be placed, which is not the same as saying she is in favor of restrictions.

To win the country, a presidential candidate has to be a politician. Being a politician means being very careful about how one answers questions. Bernie supporters seem to have a problem with that. They seem to prefer blanket statements that make them feel good but would sink the candidate in the general election.

If you actually listen to what Hillary says, instead of taking it out of context and twisting it into a pretzel, you will see that her positions are very progressive. That's why so many of us die-hard liberals support her.

ETA: Have you even read Planned Parenthood's endorsement of Hillary?

https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/elections/candidates/president/hillary-clinton

Thereís no question: Hillary Clinton holds the strongest record on reproductive rights of all presidential contenders in not just this election, but in American history. She doesnít just support womenís health ó she has been a proactive leader on expanding access to womenís health care. In fact, no other 2016 candidate has shown such strong, lifelong commitment to the issues Planned Parenthood Action Fund cares about.

Trump is not as stupid as he looks.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/06/23/why-trump-was-inevitable/

One of the main reasons many political commentators were surprised by Donald Trumpís success in the primaries was his willingness to take extreme positions and use unusually harsh rhetoric in talking about immigration and related issues. Indeed, Trumpís comments about Mexican immigrants and Muslims have been at the center of his campaign. And his pronouncements on these topics have greatly concerned many Republican leaders and elected officials who feared they would harm the partyís image and damage its electoral prospects. But how did his positions and comments play with Republican primary voters?

The clear answer is that they reflected the views of likely Republican voters extremely well. We asked a series of questions about Trumpís controversial proposals (banning Muslims from entering the US, building a wall on the Mexican border, and identifying and deporting illegal immigrants). On all three issues overwhelming majorities of likely Republican voters supported his positions: almost three quarters (73 percent) favored banning Muslims from entering the US, 90 percent favored identifying and deporting illegal immigrants as quickly as possible, and 85 percent favored building a wall on the Mexican border.

Trump supporters were more in favor of these proposals than supporters of other candidates, but ... large majorities of likely Republican voters who did not support Trump for the nomination did support Trumpís positions on his three central issues. Almost two thirds favored his proposal to ban Muslims from entering the US and four fifths favored building the wall and identifying and deporting illegal immigrants. In fact 60 percent of non-Trump supporters took his position on all three of his distinctive issues.

I'm sure Trump is a fine person to have a drink with.

In fact, he often reminds me of people I've met at bars.

That doesn't mean he should be anywhere near the presidency. Quite the opposite, in fact. Who would want some drunk guy at the local bar to run the country?

I wish we could, once and for all, get rid of this idea that whether someone would be fun to have a drink with has anything whatsoever to do with whether they should be elected president.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 Next »