I support Trump

[Shadow Wolf]

I just don't see this as valid criticism.

It's not a criticism, but an observation. The criticism is that the RNC is not anywhere close to being as representative of the American public as the DNC.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not a criticism, but an observation. The criticism is that the RNC is not anywhere close to being as representative of the American public as the DNC.

If minority racial representation matters more than agenda, then the DNC is the place to be.

I wonder......
If a Pub noticed that the DNC convention was over-represented by black folk with
a particular kind of hair (nappy?), would this observation be treated more harshly?
I suspect "Racist!" would be the charge. Prolly "Misogynist!" too, cuz it's about women's hair.
I don't watch conventions.
I don't want to be corrupted by impressions I might get from them.
And I find them sickening.
All of'm.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

If minority racial representation matters more than agenda, then the DNC is the place to be.

I think it's safe to say it wasn't just a minority racial representation. But, having such minority representation (including religion, sexuality, gender) does make it easier to open to the door to address the grievances of those minorities, unlike the overwhelming Conservative Christian Republican presence, which is trying to slam the door shut on LBGT rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's safe to say it wasn't just a minority racial representation. But, having such minority representation (including religion, sexuality, gender) does make it easier to open to the door to address the grievances of those minorities, unlike the overwhelming Conservative Christian Republican presence, which is trying to slam the door shut on LBGT rights.

IMO both parties are weak on civil liberties.
But there is variation regarding winners & losers.
Example.....
Dems have been stronger on the military draft than Pubs.
And now they both favor registering women too.
Their idea of "progressive" doesn't match mine.
So it's not so simple as saying Dems are good & Pubs are bad.

 

[metis]

Typical liberal, unable to abide an opposing opinion.

Typical conservative using another stereotype.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

IMO both parties are weak on civil liberties.
But there is variation regarding winners & losers.
Example.....
Dems have been stronger on the military draft than Pubs.
And now they both favor registering women too.
Their idea of "progressive" doesn't match mine.
So it's not so simple as saying Dems are good & Pubs are bad.

While that's true, the Dems aren't the ones trying to put religious beliefs above civil rights.

 

[YmirGF]

Typical conservative using another stereotype.

@metis

Pssssssst. If you check the voting, @Akivah voted for the Hildebeest. Jus' sayin'.... (I think he was being sarcastic.)

 

[metis]

@metis

Pssssssst. If you check the voting, @Akivah voted for the Hildebeest. Jus' sayin'.... (I think he was being sarcastic.)

Did by chance you notice my ? But thanks for the heads-up anyway, and I hope you and all reading this have a great weekend.

 

[Revoltingest]

While that's true, the Dems aren't the ones trying to put religious beliefs above civil rights.

The left is also quite religious, & this drives their welfare state expansion with massive proposed tax increases.
Note that the Dems are running 2 Xians.
No heathens in sight....except perhaps for Bernie, who was given the boot by the DNC.

 

[YmirGF]

Did by chance you notice my ? But thanks for the heads-up anyway, and I hope you and all reading this have a great weekend.

FINE! I'll try my best.... another wretched sunny weekend.... ohhhh, the agony... what is a frost giant to do?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The left is also quite religious

So? I stated they aren't the ones trying to place their religious beliefs ahead of the civil rights and liberties of people who are at odds with their religious interpretation. Pence is a fine example of such a person who believes religious rights should be placed above civil rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

So?

The unquoted portion of my post elaborated upon this.

I stated they aren't the ones trying to place their religious beliefs ahead of the civil rights and liberties of people who are at odds with their religious interpretation. Pence is a fine example of such a person who believes religious rights should be placed above civil rights.

I disagree with Pence on this.
But it's a singular issue.
Looking at a whole range, I also disagree with the Dems' agenda of bigger government, higher taxes, constitutional amendment by fiat, military foreign adventurism, etc.
Everyone is driven by their religious/philosophical beliefs.
Tis not so simple as just voting against the fundies.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The unquoted portion of my post elaborated upon this.

Welfare and taxes are not religious issues.

Looking at a whole range, I also disagree with the Dems' agenda of bigger government, higher taxes, constitutional amendment by fiat, military foreign adventurism, etc.

None of those are putting religious beliefs above civil liberties. At best, it can be said that military adventurism is putting private property above the lives and social/political/economic stability of the countries they invade, but as Bush Jr. proved even the Reps support doing so, and given Trump's position of bombing ISIS we can assume the mess started by Bush Jr.'s wars will carry on.

 

[Revoltingest]

Welfare and taxes are not religious issues.

I disagree because of oft heard proclamations that it's "Xian charity".
Xians dominate Democratic politics, so it would be folly to say their
religion is independent of their policies. They're just stealthier about it.

None of those are putting religious beliefs above civil liberties. At best, it can be said that military adventurism is putting private property above the lives and social/political/economic stability of the countries they invade, but as Bush Jr. proved even the Reps support doing so, and given Trump's position of bombing ISIS we can assume the mess started by Bush Jr.'s wars will carry on.

Dems have eroded civil liberties in decisions such as Kelo v City of
New London & the Petty Offense Doctrine (removing right to jury trials).
I see that military foreign adventurism is caused by emotion (anger
over terrorism) & sanctimonious imposition of our values upon others.
It's not about property at all, since we get nothing of tangible value
from our attacks. The religious left is not as tolerant as they claim.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Dems have eroded civil liberties in decisions such as Kelo v City of New London.

Reps have been pushing the same issue with the Keystone Pipeline.

I see that military foreign adventurism is caused by emotion (anger over terrorism) & sanctimonious imposition of our values upon others.

Also, very frequently, for securing American corporate and economic interests. Or if we don't send the military, we make "allies" with some of the worst regimes on the planet. This one is both sides, and something Trump is likely not going to change.

It's not about property at all, since we get nothing of tangible value from our attacks.

We, the people, do not, but those pushing for them do.

The religious left is not as tolerant as they claim.

And, again, we are not seeing the Dems promoting Biblical law as state law. Social/political/economic theories and ideas are not religious dogma

 

[FearGod]

But you're only perspective is of that pertaining America. Iraq was wrong. No argument from me as an American. Some here are trying to fix this through our political process.

Afghanistan was to fight our enemies, the same enemy that planned 9/11. It weakened the Taliban not to mention having other groups over powering them helped. Now, its ISIS which Americans are also helping if not driving them to impunity. Pending if you are a moderate or extremist Muslim, it can suggest that this is good or bad for you personally.

I personally oppose dictatorship and will support politicians that have the same goal. People should be not ruled by a single or a few.

Suggesting that its an endless conflict does not support no action. Results aren't measure in 0 or 100 percent, in black or white. They aren't measured in 1, 2, 5, or 10 years.

If that same notion of wasted time is applied to say, civil rights for minorities, sexes, sexual orientation here in the US, we would not see improvement for all.

So do you support intervening and fighting other country because their president is a dictator?
Will you support fighting North Korea because you hate Kim Jong-un?
Will you support fighting Russia because you hate Putin?

 

[Revoltingest]

Reps have been pushing the same issue with the Keystone Pipeline.

Of course, not all Pubs are consitutional originalists.
But the Dems have been more on the forefront of erosion of property rights.
Hilda strikes me as the greater threat in this area.

Also, very frequently, for securing American corporate and economic interests.

I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence that we war for profit.
And I've asked....multiple times.
So far, all that's been offered is unverified conspiracy theories.
But if crony capitalism is to be decried, then this argument is most powerful against Hilda.

We, the people, do not, but those pushing for them do.

Who?
Evidence?
Voters re-elect presidents who've engaged in these wars, eg, Dubya, Obama.
Voters like war.

And, again, we are not seeing the Dems promoting Biblical law as state law. Social/political/economic theories and ideas are not religious dogma

Whether they cite scripture or not, I disagree with their authoritarianism.
To be more subtle about their religious reasoning doesn't make it better.

 

[suncowiam]

So do you support intervening and fighting other country because their president is a dictator?
Will you support fighting North Korea because you hate Kim Jong-un?
Will you support fighting Russia because you hate Putin?

I don't hate them per se, but I don't agree with their idealism, more particularly with Kim Jong Un than Putin. I support freedom and equality.

Us Americans love suggesting freedom and equality for everyone. But what a lot of Americans really want to say is that they only suggest it for other Americans and not for everyone. What's the deal with that?

Do you support freedom and equality? Equality for females, for other races, for homosexuals, for atheists, for other religioners?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Whether they cite scripture or not, I disagree with their authoritarianism.

We both do, and neither party even comes close to being authoritarian.

I've yet to see anyone provide any evidence that we war for profit.

We went to Iraq to "spread Democracy." Troops stationed there can now find Children of Bodom albums in stores over there easier than I can here. I doubt Nuclear Blast, Spinefarm, or Century Media (the publishes of CoB albums) were pushing for war, but clearly many where anticipating lining their pocket books due to the war. Convenient that Capitalist ventures fit hand-in-hand with the Neo-Conservativism favored by Bush Jr, who also had Blackwater guarding oil rigs in Iraq. And of course we have the "Banana Wars," Nicaragua (and other locations that involved military conflict and American capitalist expansion that made Che Guevara a commonly known name), and about a quarter to half of all wars from the 70s to now have been fought over oil.

 

[FearGod]

I don't hate them per se, but I don't agree with their idealism, more particularly with Kim Jong Un than Putin. I support freedom and equality.

Us Americans love suggesting freedom and equality for everyone. But what a lot of Americans really want to say is that they only suggest it for other Americans and not for everyone. What's the deal with that?

Do you support freedom and equality? Equality for females, for other races, for homosexuals, for atheists, for other religioners?

Homosexuals, freedom of speech, atheists ..... and the politicians love Saudi Arabia, hypocrisy at best

Spoiler