ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Oh noes, subsidies!

Also, denier crock:

In October 2017, the White House announced that President Donald Trump had selected Kathleen Hartnett White to serve as chair of the Council on Environmental Quality. White is a fellow at TPPF. A climate change denier, White has said that climate change does not exist and that United Nations findings on climate change are "not validated and politically corrupt."^<22><23> She has argued that carbon dioxide levels are good for life on Earth, that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant, and that "fossil fuels dissolved the economic justification for slavery."^<24> In February 2018, the White House confirmed their intention to withdraw their nomination of Hartnett White as a senior advisor on environmental policy.^<25><26>

Crockster fare.

 kurtster wrote:

lol Texas Public Policy Foundation. Now do gasoline! Figure in the costs of eminent domain for pipelines and rail transport, keeping BLM lands "public" so they can be drilled, pollution cleanup shucked off onto the public, etc. etc.

'Overcharged': Major Study Shows True Cost of Owning an EV, 'Fueling' Equal to $17.33 Per Gallon

 islander wrote:

I meant to emphasize that the two MAGA candidates knocked each other out, allowing a guy in that 2/3 of Wyoming GOP voters did not support. AND YET the party rails against ranked choice.

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

A hangnail.  As you get more people understanding the system, your bog standard guy might have made the 2nd choice on a lot of the middle of the road voters lists too. chicken/egg - no too few people participate in the primaries because no one likes the candidates. We need more engagement, but everyone hates the system so they don't engage. Half the people don't get their preferred guy, so they think the system sucks (they are right), but if 65% of the people got their first or second choice...  It's not a perfect (or even great) system, but what we have now is a cancer that's killing us.

 islander wrote:

Both teams like to fantasize that they'll always be able to get to 50% and then they do whatever it takes to get there, and once they have, they don't need to form any alliances, they can just steamroll their way around. So they fight it.

Our current governor won with 35% of the primary vote... he's a bog-standard republican, but he had two MAGAs* fighting it out and they each took 30%. So Ranked Choice would have put one of the ugh candidates in. 

*Of those, one is now a US Representative, and the other is dead. Comme çi, comme ça.

 haresfur wrote:

I do not understand the resistance to this idea. Even with the issues that are legitimate, it is SOOOOOO much better than the status quo. It's like if Cancer had an obvious cure, but 1 out of 50 people get a hangnail when they use it so everyone just keeps on going with cancer, because hangnails suck right?

Sen. Menendez returns to New York court to enter plea to new conspiracy charge

 R_P wrote:

Yeah, that's why rank-choice voting is more fairer...er

Biden world moves to stave off Cornel West and No Labels threat
Democrats fear repeating history from third-party challengers threatening Biden’s 2024 bid.

 I - slander wrote: 

Oh, so in your opinion ...  A lack of empathy ?  It was a good news / bad news thing.  The bad news was that he had been hospitalized, the good news (for people who don't like his political positions) was the he is not able to vote since he cannot be present when it is time to vote.

Are you going to pretend that no one from your side of the aisle thinks the same about McConnell ?  The situations are identical.  Do you have any empathy for good old Mitch ?  I don't.  But I wish, and have said, that McConnell should have left when Boehner did.  I'm no fanboy of Mitch.

 

* Say's who ?  You ?  You know this for a fact or are you just speculating because you think you know me so well ?  Or are you just lumping me in with other republican / conservative types in general ?

You then look up little factoids thinking that because you don't know, then neither do I.  I call that projection.
 

I see.  Yes, I did know before I wrote my statement that the only thing affected was his ability to vote.  The / his Senate office continues to function as normal, constituents are still being served.  The only thing affected is his ability to vote.  Now if you had taken Civics, you would already know this and not have to look it up.  The Senate unlike the House under Pelosi did not allow remote voting and still does not.  Nor did the Senate require masking on the Floor during the pandemic as did the House under Pelosi.

So you have also insulted my intelligence based upon your own shortcomings. 

Then you double down and try to equate the event of a sitting Senator with someone running for office.  They are different situations, at least to me.  People get sick and fall ill.  It is when that matters as far as the point you are trying to make.  It is also a failed attempt of whataboutism.

I am against anyone with a debilitating medical condition that affects cognitive abilities running for office.  Rehab and a clear bill of health, then run for office.  You clearly have different standards on this, too, based upon your statements.

.
You go through all this just to justify calling me an asshole. Well, if nothing else you have helped to prove the old axiom ... It takes one to know one ...

 Beaker wrote:

I thought you were new around here. 

 Beaker wrote: 
Not to make it exclusively personal but, I didn't say it was easy. You're going to pass from this world one day. We all are. Don't waste your time in vain. Change comes in the heart first. Let the chips fall where they may. Fear and its prodigy hatred are no match for courage, humility and mercy. Please consider it, all who hear this. 

Ah.  I see nothing has changed.  Same old, same old.

Oh well.

 kurtster wrote:
< Sigh > sure, whatever.

 kurtster wrote:

That part is just jerky. It shows lack of empathy. It's especially notable from you, a person who has significant health issues that have impacted their life, but manages it well with assistance from others and accommodations from their place of employment. 

Here's the hypocritical part:
 kurtster wrote:
This is likely not a position you would take for a Republican.  

The disingenuous part is where you act like you don't know this already and expect other people to explain it to you in detail even though you don't really care.

You're not an idiot. You've got some genuine grievances. But your anger is directed at the wrong places, and you actions are targeted at the wrong people. 

 I - slander wrote: 
Well since you insist on keeping this going ...

 I - slander wrote: 
So please tell me why this is hypocritical:

 kurtster wrote: 

 kurtster wrote:

You should take up soccer, that's a world class dive right there.

 kurtster wrote: 
That's just not true, Kurt. You like to take your shots. Not a thing wrong with that. You've paid some dues getting through. Silence from other folks actively on the forum needn't be construed as anything other than contemplation. The rightness or wrongness of anything is mostly a side show. What's really going on is the need to feel like something matters. Well it all does matter.
What matters is found in contemplation within one's self. Who am I? Where am I? Where have I been? Where am I going? How can I find peace of mind and still feel relevant? Still feel alive? 

This quote or a similar one has been repeated many times by many people over the years. Life is 1% about what happens to you, and 99% how you react. No one should feel pushed around or ganged up on without being able to fight back, but the real fight is for us to learn how to accept what is often unacceptable. If we can work with those dark corners of dissonance then we all become artists from the inside out.
This is to say, in the grand scheme, to be a reactionary is to be late to the opportunity. I know. Sounds good on paper. One part pipe dream. One part courage. One part undeterred.
No wish to offend anyone. I've been saying the same thing since I first came to Radio Paradise. How we treat each other in this world; that's a biggie. It's naïve. It's idealistic. It has always been that way. Sorry. I never grew up... 

 I - slander wrote: 
So that is your justification for making it nasty with your personal attacks ?  Instead of just disagreeing and saying why ?

I don't see you going after anyone else like this.  You must feel entitled or have special privileges here in order to throw around personal attacks and insults without any fears of censure or sanctions.

You're not going to push my buttons and get me to go off the rails and get booted like you have many others.

You avoid hypocrisy by not taking any positions on anything, just lording over this place and making pronouncements as you see fit or your mood suits you.  You are in essence stalking me just trying to push my buttons as I do not start any interactions with you.   You need to start punching up, instead of punching down, which is what a bully does because they are afraid to take on people of the same or greater stature than their own or without any substance.  I'm an easy target because I am held in low regard here in the first place, so no one minds when people take swings at me.  As evidenced by SFW's post right below.  But you take it to different level by insisting on making it personal instead of just disagreeing.  And it seems to please others when you do.

You're an arrogant, elitist SOB.  Try being a man and go pick on someone your own size for a change.