Seems relevant.
“America has come so far. We’re less racist, sexist, homophobic and anti specific religions than we used to be. We have one remaining bigotry: We don’t want to be around anyone who disagrees with us. The crowd’s laughing, but they didn’t laugh loud because they know I’m telling the truth,” 15th September 2016, The Daily Show
This seems like a weird thing to say given that, well, Trump.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Trump's reactionary to the progress Clinton's talking about. Consider that the DNC had a muslim athlete introduce a muslim gold star family whereas Tim Tebow declined an invitation to the RNC.
The thought of Mitch McConnell advising President Trump on a Supreme Court nomination scares the living bejeezus out of me, but I don't think it's an indicator of the national zeitgeist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like a weird thing to say given that, well, Trump.
Why yes, it is, given the opportunities he's opened up to those whose genders, races, and beliefs have been discriminated against. It certainly wasn't the Democrats pointing out how the Democrats were screwing them over.
Trump's reactionary to the progress Clinton's talking about. Consider that the DNC had a muslim athlete introduce a muslim gold star family whereas Tim Tebow declined an invitation to the RNC.
Considering her idea of 'progress' is "off a cliff at full speed while taking bribes to speed along, lie about, and cover it up", I'd say that's a good thing.
Considering they also had the father of a certain shooter there, ignored the Gold Star family their designated candidate lied to while holding the other up as an example of her integrity, and they tend to dislike those who have similar beliefs to Tebow... yeah, you kind of have to wonder what they define as 'progress' on a meta level. Well, it's not that hard, call people who oppose their views 'deplorable' words, then sic the base on them. 'Progress' is when they win, no matter who it hurts.If it's any consolation, I don't think Trump really gives a rat's rear about what Mitch McConnell wants. Mitch is out for his old establishment, a relic of a bygone age. Whoever wins this election will see it torn down around his ears.
This seems like a weird thing to say given that, well, Trump.Seems relevant.
“America has come so far. We’re less racist, sexist, homophobic and anti specific religions than we used to be. We have one remaining bigotry: We don’t want to be around anyone who disagrees with us. The crowd’s laughing, but they didn’t laugh loud because they know I’m telling the truth,” 15th September 2016, The Daily Show
"We don't want to be around anyone who disagrees with us," seems applicable to more than a few posting in the political threads. ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering her idea of 'progress' is "off a cliff at full speed while taking bribes to speed along, lie about, and cover it up", I'd say that's a good thing.
.
This is really going out of your way to make a random insult seem like an actual response to the point.
and they tend to dislike those who have similar beliefs to Tebow.
about 63 percent of democrats are christians so that really only holds if "similar beliefs" isn't christianity but a specific form of christianity that tends to earn that dislike with what they say about members of religious minorities and the LGBT community.
Considering her idea of 'progress' is "off a cliff at full speed while taking bribes to speed along, lie about, and cover it up", I'd say that's a good thing.
And here I was, thinking this forum might actually be completely free of Trump supporters.
Still some progress to be made, I guess.
Considering her idea of 'progress' is "off a cliff at full speed while taking bribes to speed along, lie about, and cover it up", I'd say that's a good thing.
.This is really going out of your way to make a random insult seem like an actual response to the point.
and they tend to dislike those who have similar beliefs to Tebow.about 63 percent of democrats are christians so that really only holds if "similar beliefs" isn't christianity but a specific form of christianity that tends to earn that dislike with what they say about members of religious minorities and the LGBT community.
Isn't it entirely possible that a spade could call itself a diamond? Given that playing cards could speak, of course. And would that really change anything?
Faith and politics alike are inherently difficult to define to everyone's satisfaction, right? In the case of the "63%", we could have a case of "Christians In Name Only", or Christians who prioritize certain moral actions above others in the political sense, or even some of both. Just as there's a broad spectrum of political ideologies (and I am referring to more than the range of Tea-Party-to-Sanders divide), so is there a broad spectrum of "Christian" ideologies.
I don't think you'd be able to firmly establish any "specific form of Christianity" over any others to isolate this Democratic Christian/Christian Democrat demographic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't it entirely possible that a spade could call itself a diamond? Given that playing cards could speak, of course. And would that really change anything?
Really? You're going to try to true scotsman that? And not even come out and say it but do it with a "question".
Faith and politics alike are inherently difficult to define to everyone's satisfaction, right?
Loki's neck.
Just as there's a broad spectrum of political ideologies (and I am referring to more than the range of Tea-Party-to-Sanders divide), so is there a broad spectrum of "Christian" ideologies.
*headscratch*
Me: There are different flavors of christianity. Democrats don't hate all christianity, just that one flavor
You: No no no there are many flavors of christianity.
I don't think you'd be able to firmly establish any "specific form of Christianity" over any others to isolate this Democratic Christian/Christian Democrat demographic.
I'm trying to avoid turning this into the religious discussion thread, but you can and it's called evangelical christianity. While a broad umbrella term itself, a vast swath of it pushes not only a conservative mindset but also attempts (with a scary amount of success) to legislate that mindset through the republican party. They are the bulk of opposition to abortion, evolution, evolution being taught, gay marriage and pro school lead prayer, legislating morality as they see it, and government endorsements of faith like the ten commandments in the courtroom.
Republicans push those issues in order to get votes for the thing they actually care about: funneling more money to the rich.
I am an evangelical Christian, as generally called. And I backed Sanders in the primaries. But I'm not a Democrat. And certainly not a Republican. I may be of a very tiny minority, but I don't fit properly in your description. I simply wanted to encourage a less limiting view of those who believe in God and fair treatment for all before the law.
EDIT: I do apologize for misunderstanding some of the thrust of your post, BNW.
I am an evangelical Christian, as generally called. And I backed Sanders in the primaries. But I'm not a Democrat. And certainly not a Republican. I may be of a very tiny minority, but I don't fit properly in your description. I simply wanted to encourage a less limiting view of those who believe in God and fair treatment for all before the law.
EDIT: I do apologize for misunderstanding some of the thrust of your post, BNW.
You can't ignore a trend in a goup just because it doesn't fit every individual in that group. It's impossible to talk about groups otherwise. When someone is talking about a group inserting "all" behind the groups name when you parse the statement isn't a good idea. What it means is that [compared to other groups this group has a disproportionate tendancy towards X] , which gets REALLY awkward to keep specifying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do we get to call your faith into question? Are you a "Christian in Name Only?"I am an evangelical Christian, as generally called. And I backed Sanders in the primaries. But I'm not a Democrat. And certainly not a Republican. I may be of a very tiny minority, but I don't fit properly in your description. I simply wanted to encourage a less limiting view of those who believe in God and fair treatment for all before the law.
EDIT: I do apologize for misunderstanding some of the thrust of your post, BNW.
Check your PM inbox, please.
I suppose "republicans" should have been "the republican party leadership" push those issues in order to get votes for the thing they actually care about: funneling more money to the rich.
Are you going to write Sanders in for the November election?
Just out of curiosity, why?
Who do you expect to appeal to, and what do you hope to accomplish?Note: I'm not saying it's good or bad, I would just like to know more.
With the support of 2/3 of its board members Largest Police Union Endorses Trump
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Precious Little Voter Needs To Feel Inspired By Candidate
There are several amusing articles on that page, such as the one right below the topmost article. ;)
Considering her idea of 'progress' is "off a cliff at full speed while taking bribes to speed along, lie about, and cover it up", I'd say that's a good thing.And here I was, thinking this forum might actually be completely free of Trump supporters.
Still some progress to be made, I guess.
Because this could be taken in a potentially loaded way, I'm hoping you mean that you hope to convince Arturius Fischer, not chase him off.
Yeah, Garland is a social moderate at best, and pretty friendly to big corps. But Scalia was even friendlier to big biz and a regressive revisionist troll on social issues. So he'd be a small step forward on social issues and the status quo on business. Baby steps.
If the Dems get a simple majority in the Senate (which seems well within reach) and win back several seats in the House (they won't get a majority), then all bets are off on whether she keep Garland or double-down. Clinton knows darn well that Garland won't strike down or curtail Citizen's United.
Polling indicates that even if Clinton wins, she's not going to bring much hope to the downticket results. The Republicans can bank on a midterm Democratic wipe in 2018 to take back the Senate majority and put the squeeze on Clinton to select a candidate that will meet their standards, putting her in a good position to wind up as a standard one-term Democrat.
Precious Little Voter Needs To Feel Inspired By CandidateThere are several amusing articles on that page, such as the one right below the topmost article. ;)
I'm sorry, but no. The two sides are not equal. While democrats aren't free from the occasional idiocy or taking a good idea too far republicans are deliberately divorcing themselves from basic facts, as well as any process that might force them to deal with said facts. Evolution, global warming, trickle down economics not working: is there any widespread democractic movement that not only uses but embraces willfull blindness? (anti vaxers don't count, they're at least as much a right wing problem as a left wing one) Having a slant is one thing, making things up is an entirely different critter.
I'm sorry, but no. The two sides are not equal. While democrats aren't free from the occasional idiocy or taking a good idea too far republicans are deliberately divorcing themselves from basic facts, as well as any process that might force them to deal with said facts. Evolution, global warming, trickle down economics not working: is there any widespread democractic movement that not only uses but embraces willfull blindness? (anti vaxers don't count, they're at least as much a right wing problem as a left wing one) Having a slant is one thing, making things up is an entirely different critter.Precious Little Voter Needs To Feel Inspired By CandidateThere are several amusing articles on that page, such as the one right below the topmost article. ;)
It's an article on the Onion. You don't seriously expect anyone to believe that there aren't blind ideologues in/rooting for both parties? If so, I have a wonderful bridge to nowhere to sell you ...
It's an article on the Onion. You don't seriously expect anyone to believe that there aren't blind ideologues in/rooting for both parties? If so, I have a wonderful bridge to nowhere to sell you ...
Read what i said again. You're doing the exact thing I accused people of doing and saying it doesn't happen.
All I know is this: I voted for Cthulhu in the mid terms. :p
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's an article on the Onion. You don't seriously expect anyone to believe that there aren't blind ideologues in/rooting for both parties? If so, I have a wonderful bridge to nowhere to sell you ...
It sounds like you're making an argument for a false equivalence. Please tell me where the equivalent to the Fox mega media network spin engine exists on the barely existent liberal front, or the nonexistent leftist front in this country?
The DNC are right, Hilary is great, but the voters are wrong. The exact opposite of how elections work.
The voters can be wrong. It happens.
For anyone living in a purple state can you give a rational reason for not voting for clinton?
The DNC are right, Hilary is great, but the voters are wrong. The exact opposite of how elections work.The voters can be wrong. It happens.
For anyone living in a purple state can you give a rational reason for not voting for clinton?
If the way that Clinton is advocating selecting Supreme Court justices is sufficiently bad (at odds with your interpretation of the Constitution or your values) that it overshadows your estimation of the likelihood and severity of Trump's damage to the country, it is rational to vote against her.
Ok, so how about if you dislike Trump more than Clinton? (I'm guessing that's what you're actually after)
If you're confident Clinton will win without you, but you don't want her to have as much of a mandate.
If you believe that both parties are ignoring your needs and you need to show them that you're not a "captured" voter (i.e. giving them some downside for not going for your most important issue).
If you dislike Clinton but think the Democrats will take Congress and want a divided government to minimize the impact of either presidential hopeful.
If you think your vote gives your third party preference legitimacy and the value of that is greater to you than the chances of it flipping the election.
I disagree with these because of my assumptions, but I don't think any of them are inherently irrational (other than perhaps expecting Dems to take Congress in a scenario where Trump wins the White House).
It's the new popular narrative that the voters are wrong. The DNC are right, Hilary is great, but the voters are wrong. The exact opposite of how elections work.
So very, very not the point. The point is that if you feel the need to be personally inspired by your choice in President in order to do the one thing your country asks of you and cast a ballot in an election, you probably aren't particularly deserving of the democracy that was earned for you.
If the voters are wrong why have elections?
I'm sure that you could figure this out yourself, if you spent some time considering it.
The point of elections is to put a bunch of candidates together and the people get to pick the one they think will serve them best.
In theory, that's one of the "points" of elections.
If you can say that they're wrong then something has failed somewhere between when these people decided that they're going to run and when the voter gets into the booth. If you can't sell your candidate or can't prove that your opponent is a failure then that's not a failure of the voter that's a failure of the process.
No, all they're saying is that it's possible for a lot of people to collectively make poor decisions. I hope this isn't something you're trying to argue against. History is chock full of examples.
If you believe that both parties are ignoring your needs and you need to show them that you're not a "captured" voter (i.e. giving them some downside for not going for your most important issue).
This is a common misconception on the part of many third-party (or abstaining) voters - that their failure to cast a ballot for a major party candidate will be interpreted by the world at large in the way they want it interpreted. The reality is that it won't. No consensus could possibly emerge as to why a given number of wholly anonymous individuals chose to throw their votes away, so instead it will be interpreted in dozens of different ways by countless groups with a vested interest in their own interpretation.
The only actual way that a "message" can be linked to a statistic like the number of non-major-party voters is through exit polling (or other similar polling). If you are interested in making your thoughts known by participating in an exit poll, I strongly encourage you to cast a ballot for Clinton, then use the exit poll as an opportunity to voice your message (in other words, vote Clinton, then lie and say you voted third-party because [insert reason here]).
Polling indicates that even if Clinton wins, she's not going to bring much hope to the downticket results. The Republicans can bank on a midterm Democratic wipe in 2018 to take back the Senate majority and put the squeeze on Clinton to select a candidate that will meet their standards, putting her in a good position to wind up as a standard one-term Democrat.Yeah, Garland is a social moderate at best, and pretty friendly to big corps. But Scalia was even friendlier to big biz and a regressive revisionist troll on social issues. So he'd be a small step forward on social issues and the status quo on business. Baby steps.
If the Dems get a simple majority in the Senate (which seems well within reach) and win back several seats in the House (they won't get a majority), then all bets are off on whether she keep Garland or double-down. Clinton knows darn well that Garland won't strike down or curtail Citizen's United.
People predicted early on that Obama would be a one term democrat. If Hillary is elected, it's likely she will be in it for two terms. One, because despite what some people may think I actually believe she will be a competent president. Secondly demographics are increasingly making it difficult for a standard republican to win the office of president. Even with Clinton dropping in the polls she is still the most likely to win by electoral votes. Unless Republicans do a ground up remodel of their party I don't see Republicans reversing that trend
The after-election discussions almost always center on "who voted this time" and "how can we get them to vote for us next time".
Going after non-voters is not usually a winning strategy for the next election. I've seen this at the local level, especially when a 3rd party candidate was running. It's far too hard to motivate non-voters and turn them into not just 'voters' but 'voters who will vote for our candidates'.
So after-election analysis almost always looks at the information about who voted. And since voting records are public, it's extremely easy to get a list, precinct by precinct, of the names of people who actually voted in the election. The number crunching focuses on these self-motivated voters, not the 'get me excited and prove to me you're worthy or I'm not leaving my house' non-voters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The DNC are right, Hilary is great, but the voters are wrong. The exact opposite of how elections work.The voters can be wrong. It happens.
A casual glance at American history books reveals voters have been wrong many many many times. After all voters at various points were against outlawing slavery, women suffrage, social security, desegregation of schools, and most recently gay marriage (amongst other issues of course).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the voters are wrong why have elections?Doctors can be wrong but I'm still going to go to the hospital when I'm sick.
It's less the doctors and more the people on facebook giving you advice
Again, you're looking to put the blame on the electorate.
As one of two parts of the system with an actual brain (as opposed to the pseudo brain of "the system" ) it would be their fault.
Again, you're looking to put the blame on the electorate.
That's because the electorate is responsible for a large share of the hypothetical blame.
If the system allows for a Donald Trump,
The system allows for what the electorate chooses. That's what democracy is.
allows people to think he's a viable candidate,
The system is not responsible for making one candidate look more "viable" than the other.
then how is that on the voter?
The voters are the ones with the agency. The system is not.
I'm not saying both candidates are equal but if the voter thinks they're equal how is that their fault?
If the voter believes they're equal, that voter is very, very poorly-informed. I'm not here to make excuses for them.
People watch the news, listen to radio, some read papers, lots have access to the internet and if they decide to vote Trump then that's their choice.
You've got something of a tautology on your hands, there.
If he's as bad as we all think he is then it shouldn't be a difficult choice to pick someone else.
In an ideal world, it wouldn't be. But we live in the United States of America, and a lot of the people who live here are really not stellar examples of humanity. Unfortunately, at the ballot bot everyone's token racist uncle has as much say as the university chair of economics.
If someone thinks that Trump is a better choice then "Not Trump" then it's more likely a problem with whoever or whatever is educating them on their choices.
The person most responsible for your education is you. There is no eliminating poor sources of information. It's each individual's responsibility to identify and make use of reliable, trustworthy sources of information.
So when people vote overwhelmingly for Putin it's their fault for not being educated is it?
You think maaaaaaybe there might be some factors at play in Russia that aren't at play here?
I'm kind of astonished you would even consider making that analogy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to go out on a limb here, but I think a couple decades of Conservative media beating on Hillary might have something to do with that. Say something enough times and that's what people remember, y'know?