No politics in the politics forum?

https://i.postimg.cc/4N45Gx6s/df.png

I respectfully disagree. I think it's okay if we discuss politics in the politics forum.

We just need to be cautious about being respectful and kind to each other and not repeatedly dehumanizing people by following them from thread to thread merely to call them names like "goblin", "troll," "witch," "ogre," etc., or trying to delegitimize their perspective by questioning their race or national origin.

For heaven's sake, y'all, this is why I avoid the POLITICAL FORUM! I'm not naive, I just don't like the arguing.

If you don't like the political "discussion" in a Political Forum, don't go there!

TriDeltSallie, What, LM, GA, et al.:

All my posts in which I express support for President Trump and hope his health recovers are now being deleted one by one (e.g. http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/sh...d.php?t=247345, etc.), so that only the accusations that I'm a troll, pig, or a "foreign" spy due to my being an immigrant remain.

XXXI construe that to mean commenting in support of Trump in the politics forum or expressing opposition to Biden's policies is out of bounds and my time here is done.XXX Correction, all my posts are being deleted by the mods, including those in Greek Life forum, except this thread. Sorry for jumping to conclusions.

I thank you for the friendship you've extended over the two weeks I was here. While the level of passion expressed by another user was - to put it mildly - unexpected, overall I enjoyed our discussion greatly. Kindly pass on my regards to the other ladies if this post is deleted prior to them seeing it.

Take care and best regards,
Ronaldo

To second Ronaldo9,

The beauty of GreekChat is that there are multiple forums. If you don't like what is going on in one forum, you have the ability to two-step over to another. You are never forced to stay in any thread or forum. Freedom is liberal here. Mods(including me) are monitoring this thread, as we do any "hot-topics". Differing views do not warrant closure.

[QUOTE=Ronaldo9;2480249]No politics in the politics forum?

[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/4N45Gx6s/df.png[/


Do you seriously not understand what a troll is in Internet parlance?

T’would have been a mite hard, considering she was dead.

Re the British spellings...decadence/Pip, ITY???

Well, I think “defer to your husband” is new.

This isn’t like, “Ugh. I hate Bush, but good for her!”

This is working for those who do NOT play in any acceptable, respectable, or even precedented way. Merrick Garland should be on the court. The Handmaid could have been nominated after the election.

Full Stop

Stating the obvious, it may turn out the Electoral College does it again for Trump while the popular vote again goes to the Democrat candidate. :eek:

I played around on that fivethirtyeight site, entering my own predictions for how I think each state will go....and ended up with an electoral college tie :p

It really hinges on how just a couple of states fall, for me.

I only see the Democrats losing one seat to Republicans (Alabama) but the Republicans losing numerous seats to Democrats. Some are still too close to call.

The seats that will definitely flip from Republican to Democrat will be:
- Arizona: Kelly over McSally
- Colorado: Hickenlooper over Gardner
- Special Election Georgia Seat: Warnock over Loeffler and Doug Collins

The seats that will most likely flip from Republican to Democrat:
- North Carolina: Cunningham over Tillis
- Maine: Gideon over Susan Collins

The seats that are a dead heat that could possibly flip from Republican to Democrat:
- Iowa: Ernst and Greenfield are split in the polls
- Montana: Bullock and Daines are equal
- For the other Georgia seat, Perdue deserves to lose to Ossoff after his poor performance in the last debate caused him to withdraw from the final debate and possible insider trading charges pending.

Benzgirl—I completely concur ⬆️. Your Senate picks are mine exactly.
And as for Perdue backing out on the last debate because Ossoff totally demolished him in Debate #2–he ABSOLUTELY deserves to lose!

I am so over the histrionics of the progressive left. So, was it precedented when that paragon of virtue, Chappaquiddick Ted, led the charge to derail Robert Bork and coined a brand-new verb: Borking? Was it precedented and respectable when the media and the left went bonkers on a totally unsubstantiated charge against Judge Kavanaugh? Was it precedented when Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option to approve judicial nominations? (Oh I know, it didn’t apply to SCOTUS, since they didn’t need it at that time. Don’t kid yourself, they would have included that in a New York minute if it had suited their ends.) This is the same Harry Reid who blatantly lied about Mitt Romney’s taxes on the floor of the Senate, and when asked about it after the election said with a smirk, “I don’t regret that at all. Romney didn’t win, did he?” Spare me the self-righteous preaching. The left has historically been full of political power plays. It’s just that they are taken by surprise when the right decides to fight back in kind.

Even though there are no Senate seats up for election in my state this year, I'm keeping a very close eye on the down-ballot races in other states.

Mitch McConnell is a &^*@)#&$^@*))$&)!><. There is nothing nice I have to say about that SOB and needs to be yanked out of his majority leader seat.

However, in the special election a candidate must receive 50% of the vote or there is a run-off on January 5th. Once Loeffler's and Collins' bases combine forces then it will be a harder road for Warnock.

I agree with the rest of your predictions, though I do think Greenfield will pull it out in Iowa.

However, in the special election a candidate must receive 50% of the vote or there is a run-off on January 5th. Once Loeffler's and Collins' bases combine forces then it will be a harder road for Warnock.

I agree with the rest of your predictions.

Concur with ComradesTrue about Georgia.

Yeah, that Georgia special election is kind of whackadoo.

I've been registered here since 2002. I'm not a frequent poster and I always enjoy the updates during rush, etc.
I think I'm done. Personal insults, name calling, strident positions that seem like shouting...seriously?

(I can be meaner but it's not worth it...)

^^^^^^^As other GC members have mentioned...

Perhaps by 2021 we'll all be a little more calm with the election over, covid closer to control, and the daylight getting longer once again.

Honestly, the shade you tried to throw to me about Cotillion made me laugh hysterically. I don't live in the land of Stepford and no cotillion has existed here in over 60 years.

So if you can't like my non-name calling of Mitch McConnell, move along to the entertainment forum.

Taking your grievances one-by-one, I think you are correct in observing that the Bork nomination changed the character of Supreme Court appointments in that the Senate's advice and consent became consequential.

As far as attacking Ted Kennedy as a "paragon of virtue," the conservative support for the current President tells me that character doesn't actually matter to any conservative, so I'm not sure how you think that attack lands.

As far as Bork goes, he represented a danger to the entire concept of substantial due process which underlies many of the liberties we now consider today to be fundamental. He also expressed in earlier legal writings that the First Amendment protected political speech only and that academic speech or any other kind of speech was not protected.

His appointement, much like ACB's appointment was an attempt to shift the Court and unravel decades of law. It's just that back then, the GOP didn't have the votes. I don't think either side, especially today is going to lay down and allow the other side to rack up points.

And if the reason you raise this issue is to complain that "they started it," that's about as convincing as my 5-year-old justifying out-of-line playground behavior.

[quote]Was it precedented and respectable when the media and the left went bonkers on a totally unsubstantiated charge against Judge Kavanaugh?

"Totally unsubstantiated" isn't accurate. "Poorly substantiated" would do. And yes, both sides have demonstrated a lack of understanding at how they would be viewed historically. I don't really understand the Democrats' strategy in this one in that had Kavanaugh's confirmation failed, Trump would just appoint someone else with substantially the same views to fill the seat. There may be some allowance for 'fog of war' type of decisions, but in retrospect, the better play would have been to just get out of the way and do as little damage to themselves as they could.

Now you're definitely guilty of only complaining about one side of the equation. Harry Reid had the votes and McConnell had blocked every single Obama nominee including a Republican Secretary of Defens nominee. McConnell's abuse of the filibuster in this case was what was historically out-of-line. Never before had it been used to such an extent. If Obama was to have a presidency, which is something McConnell didnt' hide that it was his objective to deprive Obama of that, Reid did what he had to do.

Again, since I assume you support Donald Trump's candidacy and Trump has repeatedly lied and obfuscated about his own taxes, I don't think this punch lands.

And as I've said, the GOP shouldn't be surprised when the Dems to the next logical thing and, assuming tomorrow goes their way, go ahead and reform the Court.

I'm hopeful that if they do so, they leave us with a balanced Court, and hopefully a bipartisan framework to put a halt to these political power plays. I definitely won't hold my breath though.

Crazy member with 34 posts comes back here after a 10 year absence to pull a "Ronaldo".

And some of us are over the militant MAGA tactics that are scaring the life out of people for their safety.

Post count isn't indicative of anything and calling her crazy is baseless.

Cotillion references were an obvious attempt at humor, with a bit of self-deprecation thrown in.
I'm sorry if you think I was "throwing shade", truly. I'm of an age where I really don't know how that's done, actually.
It's not that I "can't like" your #*!%*?:& of McConnell. It's what I termed strident verbiage. It's usually seen and expected on other message boards, but I've enjoyed the different tone most of us have employed here on GC because I believe it has resulted in an enjoyable atmosphere and exchange of ideas.

My degree is in political science. Defend your position, respect the other person's viewpoint, and THINK.

By the way, I am on other message boards. I'm not as genial there but neither are the other participants. You know upfront what the arena looks like, and you put on your big girl pants and go in by choice.
We don't do that so much over here. Most of us still don't.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/obam...challenge.html

Good for Justice Barrett and good for KD.

These latest posts remind me of when KD posted (FB and Instagram) congrats to Judge Barrett for achieving the highest court in the land. Then just as quickly they removed the congrats (and said something that seemed lame, to me anyway, for why they removed it) after many members protested the congratulatory post because they thought her views were seen as so anti-women, etc. The congrats had nothing to do with her viewpoint, but everything to do with achieving the highest position she can achieve in her field. But seems like some folks couldn't see that.

So now that she's siding with the liberals on the Court (this is not the first time either) I wonder if KD and those members would be willing to congratulate her or even be proud that she's a KD.

Agree
 

Not the first time I wish we had a "like" button on Greek Chat.

Hey! That's my #&@# frat brother your talking about. :) :) :)

It seems that there is no path they can take (except for no path) and not upset thousands of members. Pretty sad.

Here's how I feel about that: if you congratulate one member for something major, you should congratulate any others who achieve the same. Doesn't matter which party they're in, doesn't matter who's upset--what works for one works for all.

The Girl Scouts pulled the same crap and lost a ton of money - including mine, and I'm a 50-year Scout with 9 daughters who were Scouts for 13 years each. None of my granddaughters have ever been Scouts and I don't care.

So would you say you've cancelled GSA and that's the solution? I don't envy these organizations during these times.

Yeah, they aren't listening to anyone with any experience. They've alienated so many people; this last crap was kind of the cherry on top of several fails.

This was online today. https://www.aol.com/news/boy-scouts-...152735470.html I feel like the article is trying to blame the pandemic and the fact that kids have a lot of activities to choose from for the dip in membership numbers in Scouting.

Girl Scouting seems to be responding in this article by going on and on about their STEM programs. Those are one reason why so many girls have quit. They don't want that in Scouts! They don't want to learn to be coders! They get that in school! Girl who join want to camp and hike and all the traditional stuff. There's a troop here that left Girl Scouting and became a Boy Scout Adventurers unit. If my daughters were still in school (and it hasn't been that long), I would permit them to do that but not Girl Scouting--for the superior outdoor program and to avoid the political sh** that GSUSA got involved in.

Hmm. Even when I was in school and a Girl Scout, we had issues recruiting members, because so many viewed it as outdated. Can’t imagine that viewpoint has improved in the last 20 years.

Somehow, I'm just seeing this. And echo the sentiment.