Joe Ferguson forever

Well he’s 78 so I’d say 60 but I’m not an authority. To some it might be 21.

Trump will likely sue Kelly. What is his motivation to place himself in that mess? Loathing him wouldn’t be enough for me.

So I was at a table with about 10 other folks today after working on clean up in Damascus (it's going well, still lots to be done- the house we worked at has no heat due to the heat pump getting fried.) The guy next to me asks for a 1/2 lemonade and 1/2 water (I guess to limit calories?). I said "you should order an Arnold Palmer". Not sure if there were many R's at the table but everyone roared.

good. Is your definition of "better" universal to all Americans?

what is motivating John Kelly.? He was well enough respected by Maga to be chief of staff to trump. do you really believe he leans left? don't be gullible.

Yes, there is. Her campaign wants people to know the urgency for them to get out and vote. Voter turnout is probably going to decide this election.

The fundamentalists will say that her destiny is to obey and submit to men...

Here you go. setzer is correct. trump is talking to those people. authoritarian adjective au·thor·i·tar·i·an ȯ-ˌthȯr-ə-ˈter-ē-ən ə-, -ˌthär- Synonyms of authoritarian 1 : of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority had authoritarian parents 2 : of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people an authoritarian regime I don't know a single liberal who advocates for this. There are certainly maga's who applaud when trump talks about the power he will wield. And just for giggles:: “Well, looking at the definition of fascism: It’s a far-right authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy,” Kelly said. He said trump falls within that definition.

Yes, but to not impose following those concepts on others with the exception of a public health crisis when those concepts protect the entire population. As far as what is best for the kids, it would be best for them go to top tier schools with highly motivated parent(s) as opposed to lousy schools with lousy mentors but no one is proposing that those people can't have children. Or maybe you are? I'd rather see a kid with a motivated, supportive single parent than have meth head "traditional" parents. btw, I don't believe most single parents are that by choice.

Creepy Weird btw, I have a 17 jersey and don't think it's weird at all.

the methodology of the study is to ask questions that one or the other groups on different sides of the political spectrum would disagree with or agree with and weight them based on the level of agreement. You seem to be reading far too much into "there is no one correct way to live". Nevertheless, strongly disagreeing with that statement would show a strong desire to believe that you are the authority on such questions and your beliefs should be followed. ie Authoritarian

That's why there are 6 possible responses to each question

Logical question and response Right-wing authoritarianism is measured by the RWA scale, which uses a Likert scale response. Subjects are given a questionnaire with 22 statements, and for each statement on the questionnaire, they must express how far they agree with the statement with one of these ratings: "very strongly disagree", "strongly disagree", "moderately disagree", "slightly disagree", "completely neutral", "slightly agree", "moderately agree", "strongly agree", and "very strongly agree". The examiner will then score each response according to how authoritarian it is, ranging from 1 to 9.[14] Some of these statements are authoritarian in nature while others are liberal, so the examiner scores them differently. If the subject "very strongly agrees" with question #4, the examiner will give him 1 point because it is a liberal statement, and if he "very strongly agrees" with #3, the examiner will give him 9 points because it is an authoritarian statement. This mixture of authoritarian and liberal statements is designed to prevent test subjects from succumbing to acquiescence bias. The established authorities generally turn out to be right about things, while the radicals and protestors are usually just "loud mouths" showing off their ignorance. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in people's minds. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps. Our country needs free thinkers who have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if this upsets many people. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at our moral fiber and traditional beliefs. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even if it makes them different from everyone else. The "old-fashioned ways" and the "old-fashioned values" still show the best way to live. You have to admire those who challenged the law and the majority's view by protesting for women's abortion rights, for animal rights, or to abolish school prayer. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us back to our true path. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government, criticizing religion, and ignoring the "normal way things are supposed to be done." God's laws about abortion, pornography and marriage must be strictly followed before it is too late, and those who break them must be strongly punished. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action. A "woman's place" should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell us to do, and get rid of the "rotten apples" who are ruining everything. There is no "ONE right way" to live life; everybody has to create their own way. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional family values." This country would work a lot better if certain groups of troublemakers would just shut up and accept their group's traditional place in society.

From Wiki Bob Altemeyer, the Canadian-American social psychologist who first coined the term and its meaning in 1981, defined the right-wing authoritarian as someone who exhibits:[4] a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives. a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities. a high degree of adherence to the social conventions that are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities. In his writings, Altemeyer sometimes refers to right-wing authoritarians as "authoritarian followers". This is to emphasize that he is not speaking of authoritarian leaders, which is the more commonly understood meaning of "authoritarian".[5] Altemeyer refers to authoritarian leaders by the term "social dominator", and he has written extensively on the relationship between authoritarian followers and social dominators. Submissiveness Right-wing authoritarians tend to accept what their leaders say is true and readily comply with their commands. They believe that respecting authority is an important moral virtue that everyone in the community must hold. They tend to place strict limits on how far the authorities can be criticized, and believe that the critics are troublemakers who do not know what they are talking about. RWAs are extremely submissive even to authority figures who are dishonest, corrupt, and inept. They will insist that their leaders are honest, caring, and competent, dismissing any evidence to the contrary as either false or inconsequential. They believe that the authorities have the right to make their own decisions, even if that includes breaking the rules that they impose on everyone else.[6] Sound familiar?

See, there's this thing called data in studies. To get it they define the terms, in this case authoritarianism. The survey uses the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWAS), which was first developed in The Authoritarian Personality (1950) in the wake of the horrors of fascism in the Second World War, and the Child-Rearing Authoritarian Scale (CRAS), an alternative measure of authoritarianism that uses preferred childhood traits. PRRI finds that while most Americans do not hold highly authoritarian views, a substantial minority does: 43% of Americans score high on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale (RWAS), while 41% score high on the Child-Rearing Authoritarianism Scale (CRAS). Be interesting to see how posters here score.

For authoritarians? According to the survey, support for authoritarian views are strongest among Republicans (particularly those who hold favorable views of former President Donald Trump), supporters of Christian nationalism, white evangelical Protestants, and weekly churchgoers. While most Americans reject political violence, those scoring high on authoritarianism scales and Christian nationalist measures are significantly more likely to support it — as are Republicans who hold favorable views of Trump. Why? Clearly they're angry with their current lot. Authoritarianism and political violence are radical responses. Why do you think they find them necessary?

https://www.prri.org/press-release/survey-four-in-ten-americans-are-susceptible-to-authoritarianism-but-most-still-reject-political-violence/ 25% of Americans support it. Why? My guess is that they support authoritarians that they believe will take their side on issues. Also, as demographics change, they believe winning elections for far right politicians becomes very difficult. Thoughts?

what if Kamala discussed the genitalia of your dead mother at a rally?

no. is that what you teach your students?

But it won't be. Here's the entire article. Lots of disgusting stuff about a soldier's funeral as well. https://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=Trump%3a+‘I+Need+the+Kind+of+Generals+That+Hitler+Had’+msn&d=121578662793&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=Y7JYcuk2nv9Hph9IQldHNQVfyKuzLf06

Too much for groceries. We stopped at Wegmans in Charlottesville yesterday. But you get what you pay for. Zweigles white hots were $8. A guilty pleasure. Gas is right at $3 all over the state of Va.

What makes the MAGAs here so confident? https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4947464-harris-leads-trump-new-tracking-survey/

https://www.yahoo.com/news/elon-musk-jokes-church-someone-204856598.html The best you can say is they're open about their desire for her assassination. Why are they so worried about a dumb colored woman?

"I think it's fair game to question anyones credentials here especially if they use those credentials to imply expertise on a topic. Let's specify which credentials we are talking about and have at it. The remainder of your longwinded post is nonsense. I don't need to verify whether she worked at McDonalds. It's not important to me. In fact, it's distracting from really important issues like living wages and I suspect that's trump's goal. Seemingly, it's important to you. So spend your time trying to prove she manufactured this job. It won't make a bit of difference in the election but you'll please all the maga's on the board if you're successful". For clarity, let's number your assertions 1 thru 6. Regarding 1 and 4; appeals to authority can be valid if the veracity of the authority is confirmed. Questioning that veracity is questioning the foundation of the argument made. It's not an attack on the man unless done without cause. There's much cause. #2. ibid. #3. your response was your argument. I'm clearly attacking your argument and not your person. It was long winded. self evident. #5 is a flight of ideas based on the false premises of 1-4 #6. all for living wage for everyone. anyone that works 40 hours a week should be able to afford a roof, food and essentials.

to be continued. 1 pm tee time.