You, silly!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do Voters Share the Blame for Trump?
- Thread starter youknowme
- Start date
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I'm not god though in full disclosure someone did once call me a low down dog! It bit them and then chased them all the way home!
Last edited:
Now you’re shifting the landscape. We were talking about a comment of grabbing pxxxxy, not an actual history of sexually assaulting women. Do you have evidence for this?
Also I am comparing the situation to Bill, but I guess you have your head in the sand on that too.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
I know that you were talking about Bill; however, news flash, Bill was not on the ballot and I am not "shifting the landscape" he still sexually assaulted those women and that does not just magically go away because the election is over. Let's see he had 19 credible allegations of sexual harassment and sexual assault which included non-consensual kissing or groping the very thing that he himself said he did. Are you following that? He said he did the things they accused him of doing, he even bragged about doing them. Now in any normal circumstance that tape would be used as evidence against Trump and he'd likely be in prison.
Really? Where are the criminal actions? Where are the civil lawsuits?
Of course Bill was not on the ballot, but Hillary shames his victims for her own power grab and is culpable. You’re also ignoring the point: Bill actually assaulted a 22 year old intern in the Oval Office. Trump engaged in disgusting locker room talk. Do you not see the difference?
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
LOL. .. "locker room talk" . . . . right. . . . wake up and get real. And I suppose his "locker room talk" just happened to collaborate their allegations by mere magical coincidence. A person would have to be incredibly dense to believe that was just "locker room talk"; it is a confession of a crime is what it is.
Btw, I didn't vote for Bill.
Last edited:
I see you didn’t answer my questions. I think we’re done.
I don't think I've ever convinced an anti-Trumper
that Hillary aided & abetted Bill's sexual predation.
She must emit some kind of chromo-photoprionic
chromo-glutonic energy field which inhibits brains
from processing that info.
Kartari
Active Member
Hi ykm,
Absolutely. He has no business being anywhere near the White House. Both have failed us, voters and the system, each in their own ways.
Luis already touched upon some of the same points I would make in this post as far as prevention.
To add, the 2016 election really demonstrated that Americans clearly need to be better educated in both critical thinking skills and in research skills. I mean, 49% of voters chose a narcissistic oligarch-wannabe, with the temperament of a toddler in a perpetual state of throwing temper tantrums and compulsively lying, to rule the most powerful nation on Earth. A man who has been assaulting our democratic institutions with his gross incompetence, his and his cabinet's plentiful corruption, his belligerent self-image defensiveness, and his sheer greed. And something like ~85% of Republicans still support him, as I recall offhand? Clearly, many of them remain utterly clueless about what they've done, and about what he's done. And a significant number knows exactly what they've done, intentionally supporting the degradation of democratic institutions in the US (research indicates a frighteningly significant drop in the desire for democratic governance in the past two decades, in favor of strongman executive leaders, nationalism, and even military rule). I don't know what to do to help the latter. But the former (the misinformed), we need to better educate our kids when it comes to critical thinking and research skills so that future generations will be better equipped to do better than us.
As for the system's failings, I am in favor of placing tougher requirements on who can run for office. Basically, any moron of a certain age who was born in the US can run for office. So I support enacting a new required testing policy to ensure a minimum standard of competence in candidates. Perhaps all candidates should be required to take and pass the civil service exam, for instance. Perhaps proving basic competency in the structure of American federal governance and federal laws would be a good idea as well. I'm a bit flexible on the specifics of testing, but the point is this: restricting the voting rights of the public is a bad idea, but we can and clearly do need to protect ourselves from the bad decision makers among us. So I say place that burden on the candidates. If you're a plumber, an electrician, a computer technician, etc., you need to prove your basic competence with testing and the attainment of certifications and licensing. So why not do likewise for the most important job in the world?
You also need a lot of money to run for office. But having a lot of money is not an indication of one's presidential competence. on top of this, donations imply favors to special interests, making politicians beholden to their donors rather than the public at large (a feature of oligarchy, a corruption of democracy). I support particularly strict campaign finance reforms to address this. I'd set aside a small public fund for candidates to debate each other. Make it illegal to donate private funds to both government officials and candidates. Period. No more campaigns as we've known them. No "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" games between corporate America and government. No pomp, no circus act. No BS. Just show up to the public-funded debates. Set up an information webpage with the public fund as well to state your agenda and the key issues you'd address and how. Also publicly fund limited mailings, newspaper blurbs, and radio/streamed interviews to say the same things to those without Internet access. And... that's probably about it.
I think it's also important for us to remember that the original Constitution called for the president to be appointed by an electoral college. The general public did not vote for the president at all. What's particularly crucial to know about this is that the Founders had assumed the chosen elite group of electors to be well-reasoning individuals who deliberated on matters carefully and wisely (you can read about their views and expectations on this in the Federalist Papers, for instance). While it was a mark of progress to enable the wider voting public to vote in a more democratic process, we cannot assume the best qualities in the masses - the voting public has clearly failed to live up to the Founders' standards for electors. This takes us back to my earlier point on better educating our kids on critical thinking skills and research skills.
We also need to abolish the electoral college BTW. I'll stop myself now though (this post is long enough). I'll just say that we need to elect presidents by popular vote, but also equally importantly by an astute and well-informed voting public.
Absolutely. He has no business being anywhere near the White House. Both have failed us, voters and the system, each in their own ways.
Luis already touched upon some of the same points I would make in this post as far as prevention.
To add, the 2016 election really demonstrated that Americans clearly need to be better educated in both critical thinking skills and in research skills. I mean, 49% of voters chose a narcissistic oligarch-wannabe, with the temperament of a toddler in a perpetual state of throwing temper tantrums and compulsively lying, to rule the most powerful nation on Earth. A man who has been assaulting our democratic institutions with his gross incompetence, his and his cabinet's plentiful corruption, his belligerent self-image defensiveness, and his sheer greed. And something like ~85% of Republicans still support him, as I recall offhand? Clearly, many of them remain utterly clueless about what they've done, and about what he's done. And a significant number knows exactly what they've done, intentionally supporting the degradation of democratic institutions in the US (research indicates a frighteningly significant drop in the desire for democratic governance in the past two decades, in favor of strongman executive leaders, nationalism, and even military rule). I don't know what to do to help the latter. But the former (the misinformed), we need to better educate our kids when it comes to critical thinking and research skills so that future generations will be better equipped to do better than us.
As for the system's failings, I am in favor of placing tougher requirements on who can run for office. Basically, any moron of a certain age who was born in the US can run for office. So I support enacting a new required testing policy to ensure a minimum standard of competence in candidates. Perhaps all candidates should be required to take and pass the civil service exam, for instance. Perhaps proving basic competency in the structure of American federal governance and federal laws would be a good idea as well. I'm a bit flexible on the specifics of testing, but the point is this: restricting the voting rights of the public is a bad idea, but we can and clearly do need to protect ourselves from the bad decision makers among us. So I say place that burden on the candidates. If you're a plumber, an electrician, a computer technician, etc., you need to prove your basic competence with testing and the attainment of certifications and licensing. So why not do likewise for the most important job in the world?
You also need a lot of money to run for office. But having a lot of money is not an indication of one's presidential competence. on top of this, donations imply favors to special interests, making politicians beholden to their donors rather than the public at large (a feature of oligarchy, a corruption of democracy). I support particularly strict campaign finance reforms to address this. I'd set aside a small public fund for candidates to debate each other. Make it illegal to donate private funds to both government officials and candidates. Period. No more campaigns as we've known them. No "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" games between corporate America and government. No pomp, no circus act. No BS. Just show up to the public-funded debates. Set up an information webpage with the public fund as well to state your agenda and the key issues you'd address and how. Also publicly fund limited mailings, newspaper blurbs, and radio/streamed interviews to say the same things to those without Internet access. And... that's probably about it.
I think it's also important for us to remember that the original Constitution called for the president to be appointed by an electoral college. The general public did not vote for the president at all. What's particularly crucial to know about this is that the Founders had assumed the chosen elite group of electors to be well-reasoning individuals who deliberated on matters carefully and wisely (you can read about their views and expectations on this in the Federalist Papers, for instance). While it was a mark of progress to enable the wider voting public to vote in a more democratic process, we cannot assume the best qualities in the masses - the voting public has clearly failed to live up to the Founders' standards for electors. This takes us back to my earlier point on better educating our kids on critical thinking skills and research skills.
We also need to abolish the electoral college BTW. I'll stop myself now though (this post is long enough). I'll just say that we need to elect presidents by popular vote, but also equally importantly by an astute and well-informed voting public.
youknowme
Whatever you want me to be.
Ya, continue to ignore such problems as women continue to leave the Republicans because of these things. How well do you think the Republicans will do without the support of women?