"Very Fine People on Both Sides"

koobookie wrote: So you're fine with a presidential candidate that openly states that he will abuse the office of the president on day one.

Again, how is reversing what Biden reversed on day one considered an abuse of office? When Biden decided to invite the world to our border and open it, was that done in the spirit of "democracy"? If Trump gets elected and closes the border so we can get a better grasp on who is trying to break into the country, how is that a bad thing?

If you want to know what dictators do, look at history. Dictators ALWAYS attempt to jail or kill their political enemies. Trump could have done that to Hillary for her blatant crimes of destroying classified documents and destroying all the devices and hard drives.

BUT, we know that the government hid Hunter Biden's crimes for years and tried to take out Trump since his first day as president. It's not hard to see what side is using dictator tactics, you just have to be honest and look at the facts.

Wow. I hardly know where to start.

Rick wrote: Again, how is reversing what Biden reversed on day one considered an abuse of office? When Biden decided to invite the world to our border and open it, was that done in the spirit of "democracy"? If Trump gets elected and closes the border so we can get a better grasp on who is trying to break into the country, how is that a bad thing?

I don't think you understand. Trump said he would abuse the powers of the president on day one. That should concern you, no matter what he intends to reverse. It's clear to pretty much everyone in the nation, except you and the other MAGA's, that he wants absolute power.

Rick wrote: If you want to know what dictators do, look at history. Dictators ALWAYS attempt to jail or kill their political enemies. Trump could have done that to Hillary for her blatant crimes of destroying classified documents and destroying all the devices and hard drives.

Is it your contention that Trump did not break any laws, that he is being indicted and prosecuted as a political retribution? Because the evidence against him, in the 91 indictments and four trials, is pretty damning.
Remember, it is Trump who has publicly stated that he will weaponize the DOJ against his political enemies and the media.
www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-n...eelected-1234875220/

Donald Trump gave his first interview to Univision on Thursday and reminded the nation that should he resume the presidency, he could very well embark on a revenge tour against his political enemies. The next morning his son, Don Jr., floated installing an acting attorney general who wants to unleash a “reign of terror” against those responsible for Trump’s indictments, as well as a pro-white nationalist press secretary.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/...interview-univision/

In an interview that aired Thursday night on Univision, former president Donald Trump indicated that if he’s elected in 2024, he may use the federal government to punish his critics and he defended his administration’s separation of migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border.

You and I both know that he is insecure and petty enough to do that.
Do you remember the chant of "Lock her up" during his 2016 campaign? How is that not a threat of political revenge against her? Then remember that Hillary was investigated, during the Trump administration, and was not charged with any crime, despite what you might think.

Rick wrote: BUT, we know that the government hid Hunter Biden's crimes for years and tried to take out Trump since his first day as president. It's not hard to see what side is using dictator tactics, you just have to be honest and look at the facts.

You really need to step back and reconsider what you believe. I know that you have a strong hatred for what you call "leftists", but geeez, Rick, demonizing half the American population is not a healthy activity. You're gonna blow a gasket with all that hatred.
I still don't know where you get your "facts."

koobookie wrote: Wow. I hardly know where to start.

Rick wrote: Again, how is reversing what Biden reversed on day one considered an abuse of office? When Biden decided to invite the world to our border and open it, was that done in the spirit of "democracy"? If Trump gets elected and closes the border so we can get a better grasp on who is trying to break into the country, how is that a bad thing?

I don't think you understand. Trump said he would abuse the powers of the president on day one. That should concern you, no matter what he intends to reverse. It's clear to pretty much everyone in the nation, except you and the other MAGA's, that he wants absolute power.
Do you consider an executive order to be an abuse of power? Because that is all Trump can do, just like Biden has done far more than Trump. Everything you fear is what Biden has already done.

Rick wrote: If you want to know what dictators do, look at history. Dictators ALWAYS attempt to jail or kill their political enemies. Hillary absolutely destroyed classified evidence, she destroyed hard drives and devices, and the system let her off. Trump didn't have the system behind him like Joe does so he couldn't take her down like the Democrats and the system are doing to Trump. She even said Trump stole the election, but the system Dictators need all parts of the government to follow orders... Trump never had any of that advantage like Biden has.

Is it your contention that Trump did not break any laws, that he is being indicted and prosecuted as a political retribution? Because the evidence against him, in the 91 indictments and four trials, is pretty damning.
Remember, it is Trump who has publicly stated that he will weaponize the DOJ against his political enemies and the media.
www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-n...eelected-1234875220/

Donald Trump gave his first interview to Univision on Thursday and reminded the nation that should he resume the presidency, he could very well embark on a revenge tour against his political enemies. The next morning his son, Don Jr., floated installing an acting attorney general who wants to unleash a “reign of terror” against those responsible for Trump’s indictments, as well as a pro-white nationalist press secretary.

www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/...interview-univision/

In an interview that aired Thursday night on Univision, former president Donald Trump indicated that if he’s elected in 2024, he may use the federal government to punish his critics and he defended his administration’s separation of migrant families at the U.S.-Mexico border.

You and I both know that he is insecure and petty enough to do that.
Do you remember the chant of "Lock her up" during his 2016 campaign? How is that not a threat of political revenge against her? Then remember that Hillary was investigated, during the Trump administration, and was not charged with any crime, despite what you might think.
Hill;ay is a corrupt piece of trash that destroyed classified documents and got a hand slap for it, while Trump is being charged for much less, and he was the President who has more authority the the Secretary of State. She should have been locked up but Trump did nothing to her. Also remember she said Trump stole the election... election deniers are ok in you are a Democrat.

Rick wrote: BUT, we know that the government hid Hunter Biden's crimes for years and tried to take out Trump since his first day as president. It's not hard to see what side is using dictator tactics, you just have to be honest and look at the facts.

You really need to step back and reconsider what you believe. I know that you have a strong hatred for what you call "leftists", but geeez, Rick, demonizing half the American population is not a healthy activity. You're gonna blow a gasket with all that hatred.
I still don't know where you get your "facts."

Please don't put words in my mouth, I never said "I hate leftists"... I hate leftist politicians who are destroying the country. Big difference there.
My parents and a few of my friends are leftists and I love them all... I'd probably like you in real life if we met under different circumstances. I think they are wrong in their thinking, but that's just politics... how could anyone "HATE" another person based on political beliefs alone? That would be silly and it would cause me to to shut out my friend and family, which I would NEVER do.

Rick wrote: Do you consider an executive order to be an abuse of power? Because that is all Trump can do, just like Biden has done far more than Trump. Everything you fear is what Biden has already done.

If Trump is elected, he will have the executive branch and the supreme court on his side. He will probably also have the legislative branch, thanks to all the gerrymandering and voter suppression by the Republicans. He will pretty much be able to do what he wants, since all the chips will be on his side.
Look at how the Congressional Republicans all cower before him. You think they will defy him and incur the wrath of the MAGA's? Any suit brought before the SCOTUS will be beat down by Clarence and the other five. This is a real and stark possibility.

Rick wrote: Hill;ay is a corrupt piece of trash that destroyed classified documents and got a hand slap for it, while Trump is being charged for much less, and he was the President who has more authority the the Secretary of State. She should have been locked up but Trump did nothing to her. Also remember she said Trump stole the election... election deniers are ok in you are a Democrat.

Again, she was investigated by Trump's DOJ and not charged with any crimes. Also, she didn't encourage her supporters to storm the Capitol to try to subvert an election. She conceded, something Donald can never seem to do.

You can call it "Trumps DOJ", but that doesn't mean anything. Look at how many people turned on Trump, even those he picked. We saw guys like General Milley openly defying Trump and talking to our enemies behind his back. Trump never had the backing of the system/deep state/government employees and never will. A dictator needs the backing of government law enforcement and the military (not the soldiers, the top brass). Trump doesn't have that because the people he would need are mostly Democrats who don't even want him in the president's chair, let alone allowing him to be a dictator. Having a few allies in congress (aka "maga extremists") don't give him any of the power he would need.

It comes down to the balance of Republicans and Democrats in positions of government power, and I think it's pretty obvious that there are far more life long Democrats in powerful non-elected government positions than there are Republicans, especially if there is a union. People in government are no different than you and me when it comes to political biases. Trump would be defied by all of our federal agencies if he came anywhere close to trying to be a dictator and cancel elections ( see lunatic Rachael Maddow for that claim)

koobookie wrote: Again, she was investigated by Trump's DOJ and not charged with any crimes. Also, she didn't encourage her supporters to storm the Capitol to try to subvert an election. She conceded, something Donald can never seem to do.

BTW, it was Obama's FBI that gave Hillary a pass for hiding and destroying classified documents. The same FBI was there when Trump was elected, so why would anything change?

Hillary conceded, but then spent the next seven years saying Trump stole the election. Trump also never told anyone to "storm the capital". This is one of those times when you need to give Trump's full and complete quote instead of doing what the media does and give your own interpretation.

Rick wrote: The Democrat party can only get and keep power by creating victims and villains. The problem they never see is that there is no such thing as "equality". Nobody is equal to anyone else, everybody is different and everyone has different abilities. They want to pretend that male and female bodies/minds are interchangeable... they are not. God or nature made us differently for a reason, just like in the animal kingdom.

It used to be normal for the men to provide a home, food, and everything else a family needs while the women took care of the family. Both are equally important for a society to survive and thrive. The fact that that "norm" has drastically changed and the results of that change are not always good, tells me that humans are not very good at changing natural order for the better. That may make you angry, but it doesn't mean that I'm wrong. The destruction of the nuclear will be the death of this country imo, along with the willful surrender of our freedoms to a centralized world government.

There are many reasons for differences in pay and you can't make blanket statements without looking at the individual careers and individual circumstances. That goes for everything else on HA's list... circumstances matter a lot.

WHAT has changed is the "norm" was a good factory job/skilled workers of occupational positions...welders,wood makers,mechanics,plumbers,electric wizards that brought home a GOOD wage,unions assisted with that. ONE paycheck would cover a middle class lifestyle,( the need for an SUV, a sportscar AND a truck,the need for a 52 inch TV screen, a three car garage,a membership to the gym/golf course,a cruise to an exotic place,THE latest trending clothes was not even on the radar.) THAT is what changed. When the woman found B.C. pills that freed her from unwanted children and allowed her a gift of what life could look like,not being burdened with babies to bounce on her hip.....SHE saw what men take for granite......autonomy and control of their lives.

SORRY, PARITY is a problem...if I am doing the exact same job and doing it exceptionally well,my pay should not be based upon my gender. ("the man has a family to support"....here's a little bump to your check)

The Chairman of the Board of Trustees and the President of the University of Pennsylvania have resigned. The reason being the remarks of the President at a U.S. House of Representatives committee.She along with the presidents of M.I.T. and Harvard refused to admit that calls for genocide on their campuses was a breach of their codes of conduct.
Why the resignations? A $100 million donor took back his pledge of donation.
Once again, money talks. This time for the right reason.

h[u]omeagain wrote:

Rick wrote: SORRY, PARITY is a problem...if I am doing the exact same job and doing it exceptionally well,my pay should not be based upon my gender. ("the man has a family to support"....here's a little bump to your check)

I agree 100% if you're doing the exact same job. I hope you also understand that there are a lot of jobs that the majority of women could not do because of physical limitations. There's a reason why the military lowers standards for women and men over a certain age (I believe it's around 45). The biological differences don't make men "better" than women, it just makes the average man more capable than the average woman in situations where physical strength is an important qualification.

Looking at all life forms on this planet, there is no doubt the males and females are almost always universally different in their natural roles. It's only the human species that has decided to go against those natural abilities and roles, even to the point of pretending to change genders to fit a confused mind. But that is a topic for another thread , not this one.

Rick wrote:

h[u]omeagain wrote:

Rick wrote: SORRY, PARITY is a problem...if I am doing the exact same job and doing it exceptionally well,my pay should not be based upon my gender. ("the man has a family to support"....here's a little bump to your check)

I agree 100% if you're doing the exact same job. I hope you also understand that there are a lot of jobs that the majority of women could not do because of physical limitations. There's a reason why the military lowers standards for women and men over a certain age (I believe it's around 45). The biological differences don't make men "better" than women, it just makes the average man more capable than the average woman in situations where physical strength is an important qualification.

Looking at all life forms on this planet, there is no doubt the males and females are almost always universally different in their natural roles. It's only the human species that has decided to go against those natural abilities and roles, even to the point of pretending to change genders to fit a confused mind. But that is a topic for another thread , not this one.

www.britannica.com/animal/sea-horse

The reproductive behaviour of seahorses is notable in that the male carries the fertilized eggs. After an elaborate courtship, the female uses an ovipositor (egg duct) to place her eggs into a brood pouch located at the base of the male’s tail where the eggs are later fertilized. Depending on the species, the eggs remain in the pouch between 10 days and six weeks. During this time the male nurtures the developing young by regulating the chemistry of the fluid inside the pouch, slowly transforming it from that of his internal body fluids to that of salt water as pregnancy progresses. To nourish the growing young, the male also produces inorganic compounds and releases the hormone prolactin, which helps break down the proteins contributed by the female. Once the eggs hatch, the male convulses his body and expels the young through a single opening in the pouch. The young are miniature versions of their parents that receive no further care. The male can receive another brood of eggs almost immediately after giving birth

There r MANY other species that have sex traits that r not "normal"(according to your definition) Please
understand that other species r just like humans.......one size does not fit all and sex diversity is quite common in other creatures here on earth.

You did not speak to the issue of WHY previous "normal" is obsolete.. I agree that military standards r different,I am not speaking of that sector....I am speaking of civilian life. PARITY IS POOR.

ANOTHER example of previous discussion

wildlifeinformer.com/animals-that-reproduce-asexually/

16 Animals That Reproduce Asexually (Pictures)