trump off the CO ballot

[Admin]

That's why people vote for Donald Trump.

Which is pretty pathetic and exactly why voting should be carried out by people aged 16-50. It's their future; stupid old cunts who think the past was wonderful can fuck off.

The world doesn't need them, and Trump is a glaring example of why that's the case.

[President Bush]

That's why people vote for Donald Trump.

Which is pretty pathetic and exactly why voting should be carried out by people aged 16-50. It's their future; stupid old cunts who think the past was wonderful can fuck off.

The world doesn't need them, and Trump is a glaring example of why that's the case.

Aren't you a stupid old cunt who thinks the past was wonderful and can fuck off... uh, I mean over 50, TA?

[stanky]

The whole gang is over 50, male and white. Probably straight, too.
Inbred?

I think we should be allowed to sell our vote.
Free speech.

Or, more realistically, only billionaires vote.
The outcome would reflect reality.

One thing can be said for the past...lots fewer stupid old cunts.
There's 3 times more people now then when i came on.
I'd imagine there's 10x the cars; 20x the garbage.
(Maybe i'll google it)

One thing i miss about 500 years ago was the natural beauty. And the fishing. Wow.
10,000 years go, the hunting was amazing.
and less old cunts.

sounds crazy to say.

[President Bush]

That's why people vote for Donald Trump.

Which is pretty pathetic and exactly why voting should be carried out by people aged 16-50. It's their future; stupid old cunts who think the past was wonderful can fuck off.

The world doesn't need them, and Trump is a glaring example of why that's the case.

I'm 68 years old. I'd like a candidate who understands what it's like to not understand a fucking thing.

[Meadmaker]

FEMA prioritizing "the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment" * is why people vote for Donald Trump?

The short answer is yes.

Are you suggesting FEMA ought not be doing that

The short answer is no.

, uh, so as not to alienate voters?

FEMA, and other government agencies, are created by laws passed by Congress and are charged with administering various programs delegated to those agencies. FEMA, and other governement agencies, should administer all of their programs in accordance with those laws, without regard to their impact on voter opinion or political impact of any party or candidate.


Now, if you are interested, I could elaborate on the above. I could try to explain why those policy statements alienate voters. I could try to explain why I am sympathetic to some of the voters who are alienated, and how the Democratic Party, including those political appointees chosen from the ranks of that party, could better serve the American people if they stopped making statements like that. I could also explain my belief that, in the course of doing so, they would alienate fewer voters, and thus win more elections, or at the very least not feed the popularity of Donald Trump and his ilk.

However, to be perfectly honest, I doubt you are interested in the sort of dialog necessary to achieve those ends. It would involve tryoing to actually understand arguments you don't agree with. That doesn't seem to be a priority of most people when talking about politics, and I don't think you are an exception to that pattern.

[stanky]

I wonder if all the contentiousness in the air is contagious?

It's like a bickerfest here lately.


Where's Di?

[President Bush]

FEMA prioritizing "the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment" * is why people vote for Donald Trump?

The short answer is yes.

Are you suggesting FEMA ought not be doing that

The short answer is no.

, uh, so as not to alienate voters?

FEMA, and other government agencies, are created by laws passed by Congress and are charged with administering various programs delegated to those agencies. FEMA, and other governement agencies, should administer all of their programs in accordance with those laws, without regard to their impact on voter opinion or political impact of any party or candidate.


Now, if you are interested, I could elaborate on the above. I could try to explain why those policy statements alienate voters. I could try to explain why I am sympathetic to some of the voters who are alienated, and how the Democratic Party, including those political appointees chosen from the ranks of that party, could better serve the American people if they stopped making statements like that. I could also explain my belief that, in the course of doing so, they would alienate fewer voters, and thus win more elections, or at the very least not feed the popularity of Donald Trump and his ilk.

However, to be perfectly honest, I doubt you are interested in the sort of dialog necessary to achieve those ends. It would involve tryoing to actually understand arguments you don't agree with. That doesn't seem to be a priority of most people when talking about politics, and I don't think you are an exception to that pattern.

" I could try to explain why those policy statements alienate voters."

Go ahead, please.

[Meadmaker]

Go ahead, please.

As I said, I don't think you are actually interested.

However, I'll start with an attempt to do so briefly, and see where it goes.

FEMA's primary job is to distribute aid following disasters. That's a task that is largely independent of any of the categories mentioned as underserved communities, especially those related to sexual orientation or gender identity. Many people, including me, suspect that FEMA holding workshops on serving the LGBTQ+ community indicates a lack of focus on their primary mission. I, and others, would prefer to see something like "efficiency" or "effectiveness" as the first item in FEMA's strategic plan.

THis obsession with race, gender, sex, etc permeates so many of our institutions in government and even industry. Donald Trump is opposed to that obsession and the agenda that accompanies it, and his opposition to that agenda is more forceful even than most other Republican politicians.

For me, that doesn't excuse all of his many other faults, but I can understand the appeal.

[President Bush]

Go ahead, please.

As I said, I don't think you are actually interested.

That's nice.

However, I'll start with an attempt to do so briefly, and see where it goes.

FEMA's primary job is to distribute aid following disasters. That's a task that is largely independent of any of the categories mentioned as underserved communities, especially those related to sexual orientation or gender identity. Many people, including me, suspect that FEMA holding workshops on serving the LGBTQ+ community indicates a lack of focus on their primary mission. I, and others, would prefer to see something like "efficiency" or "effectiveness" as the first item in FEMA's strategic plan.

THis obsession with race, gender, sex, etc permeates so many of our institutions in government and even industry. Donald Trump is opposed to that obsession and the agenda that accompanies it, and his opposition to that agenda is more forceful even than most other Republican politicians.

For me, that doesn't excuse all of his many other faults, but I can understand the appeal.

Looks to me as if your preoccupation with sexual orientation or gender identity leads you to overlook the other communities that were mentioned in FEMA's Executive Order 13985. Here they are, as listed in that (I left out the ones you seem preoccupied with):

“the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.

You can understand the appeal of being opposed to that obsession and the agenda that accompanies it. That's nice.

[Meadmaker]

Go ahead, please.

As I said, I don't think you are actually interested.

That's nice.

However, I'll start with an attempt to do so briefly, and see where it goes.

FEMA's primary job is to distribute aid following disasters. That's a task that is largely independent of any of the categories mentioned as underserved communities, especially those related to sexual orientation or gender identity. Many people, including me, suspect that FEMA holding workshops on serving the LGBTQ+ community indicates a lack of focus on their primary mission. I, and others, would prefer to see something like "efficiency" or "effectiveness" as the first item in FEMA's strategic plan.

THis obsession with race, gender, sex, etc permeates so many of our institutions in government and even industry. Donald Trump is opposed to that obsession and the agenda that accompanies it, and his opposition to that agenda is more forceful even than most other Republican politicians.

For me, that doesn't excuse all of his many other faults, but I can understand the appeal.

Looks to me as if your preoccupation with sexual orientation or gender identity leads you to overlook the other communities that were mentioned in FEMA's Executive Order 13985. Here they are, as listed in that (I left out the ones you seem preoccupied with):

In my second paragraph, I led with "race", because that's the biggest obsession of all. I mentioned the gender and sexual orientation aspects as being especially irrelevant to FEMA's mission because at least when it comes to ethnicity, race, etc, one could make an argument about disproportionate effect, because those other categories are frequently associated with poverty or living conditions. You can't really do that with gender identity. Hurricanes do not have any disparate impact on people with nontraditional gender identities.

I'm unconvinced that looking after the special needs of Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color is really an effective way to respond to emergencies. Poor people who live in densely populated areas might be affected differently than wealthy suburbanites, but I think focusing on those factors that cause an actual difference in the sort of response required by FEMA in the event of a disaster might be more effective than talking about skin color or ancestry.