Question for Anti-Trump Democrats

[dianaiad]

I have seen groups of Right Wing Religious Conservatives standing outside of abortion clinics yelling at women, trying to "teach people and talk women out of abortion". It's completely disgusting.

And I have seen people standing outside Hobby Lobby and Chick-fil-A blocking the entrances, yelling obscenities at the shoppers and workers--in one case spitting on them. I think that's disgusting. But I rather imagine you believe that this is the proper exercise of free speech.

If it was inarguable, there wouldn't be any discussion about. Here we are having a discussion regarding your religious opinion. My secular opinion differs.

What, you think that growing bit of cells inside a woman's womb is a chicken? I said "human life." Nobody argues with that; it's human and it's alive. the argument is whether s/he is a human BEING, or a 'person.' Please note that those are assignments of status made by culture, and are the question being argued about. If one could argue that s/he was not human OR alive, that would be different, but nobody does. Not even the most irritating and hidebound of pro-abortionists can argue that it is not 'human' or 'alive.' If it were not both, there would be no need of a discussion at all.

What you need to do is try to inform the Right Wing Religious Conservatives that teaching sex ed in jr high is a good idea. They are the ones who oppose it. They believe in "Just Say No". It wasn't liberals who started:

Virginity pledges (or abstinence pledges or purity pledges) are commitments made by teenagers and young adults to refrain from sexual intercourse until marriage. They are most common in Catholic and Evangelical Christian denominations.[1]

History
The first virginity pledge program was True Love Waits, started in 1993 by the Southern Baptist Convention.

​

Again, you would have to buck the Right Wing Religious Conservatives who, hypocritically, do not want birth control pills and even information given to school-age kids because it "promotes loose morals and encourages sexual relations". Don't you know these things?

Again, you are committing a fallacy of composition here, arguing that because SOME right wing conservatives (specifically, extreme right wing religious evangelists) have certain properties, that ALL have those same properties.

go ahead and claim that if you wish, but if you do, then those on the right side of the political divide can, with equal logic, claim that ALL LIBERALS are atheistic communists and are in reality members of the New World Liberation Front and the Weather Underground, housed in the modern Antifa and gunning for baseball playing congresspeople. Fair is fair, here.

You are entitled to your religiously inspired opinions.

Yes, I am.

You are not entitled to force those opinions on others.

Nor have I. Wait....is that you telling me that my participating in this forum and expressing my opinions is somehow 'forcing my opinions on others?"

If so, well, yeah. You definitely are a typical liberal.

Tell me (afterthought): would you say "you are not entitled to force your opinions on others" to someone who wrote that they supported laws that banned all religions? Because there have been several people on here doing just that. Honestly, I don't remember you chiming in and criticizing them.

 

[ecco]

When one limits one's experiences to one side of an issue

You are like so many religious people who are convinced by your indoctrination that everyone would see things your way if only they opened their eyes and their minds.

You refuse to accept that rational people can look at the many different aspects of religions and walk away atheists. You refuse to accept that rational people can look at what is going on around them and come to different conclusions than you. You have to try to convince yourself that these people have just looked at one side of the coin.

In fact, it is people who are born and raised in strict religious environments like LDS who are incapable of seeing the other side of the coin. Some people do convert later in life and they will all tell you, it is a traumatic event. And I'm just talking about Catholics or Lutherans or Jews. I don't recall anyone converting when raised in strict groups like LDS or evangelical.



Now, please show precisely how I have limited my "experiences to one side of an issue".

I too have had a "lifetime of experience." My impressions are far different from yours. Care to explain that one, if a 'life time of experience' is all that is required?

You were raised to see only one side of coins. I was not raised that way. I have changed positions when I came across compelling reasons.

When I was in my 20's I actually voted for Barry Goldwater. Then I came to realize that Democrats made much more sense than Republicans on important issues.

When I was in my 20's I believed people who worked in union professions were lazy and that unions were bad. I later learned about all the good things that unions did for the people of this Country - not just for union members.

 

[averageJOE]

Are you saying she didn't fairly win enough delegates? If she was "annointed", well, that's just confusing, how does that work?

NO. She didn't fairly win anything in 2016. If your confused is because you didn't pay attention in 2016. She was chosen by the DNC to be the nominee long before ANY other candidate even announced. I really suggest going back and learning about how the DNC rigged the whole thing for her to win. (and ends up losing anyways, to the most beatable gut to ever run. that's how bad she was.)

So what do you think would change with an establishment Democrat in the White House?

 

[ecco]

Are you saying she didn't fairly win enough delegates? If she was "annointed", well, that's just confusing, how does that work?

NO. She didn't fairly win anything in 2016. If your confused is because you didn't pay attention in 2016. She was chosen by the DNC to be the nominee long before ANY other candidate even announced. I really suggest going back and learning about how the DNC rigged the whole thing for her to win. (and ends up losing anyways, to the most beatable gut to ever run. that's how bad she was.)

First, you said she was anointed, I asked how that worked and you did not reply.

You make claims but you expect me to just believe your assertions. If you want to assert that "the DNC rigged the whole thing for her to win", then it is your responsibility to demonstrate how that occurred.

I'm not confused. I see people on this forum regularly who make assertions and then say "you look it up". It's a well-worn tactic of those who make assertions they can't back up.

 

[averageJOE]

First, you said she was anointed, I asked how that worked and you did not reply.

You make claims but you expect me to just believe your assertions. If you want to assert that "the DNC rigged the whole thing for her to win", then it is your responsibility to demonstrate how that occurred.

I'm not confused. I see people on this forum regularly who make assertions and then say "you look it up". It's a well-worn tactic of those who make assertions they can't back up.

Really? Are you honestly saying you are unaware of what occurred through the 2016 primaries? Do you even know what a big part of the Russia-gate theory was even based on?

I could direct you to the information. I'd have to sit here for hours and hours to gather information because there is mountains of it. But I will sum it up in two words: voter suppression.

However, I'm not here to discuss that. My main question still stands. What do you think would actually change by replacing Trump with an establishment Democrat?

 

[ecco]

Really? Are you honestly saying you are unaware of what occurred through the 2016 primaries? Do you even know what a big part of the Russia-gate theory was even based on?

I could direct you to the information. I'd have to sit here for hours and hours to gather information because there is mountains of it. But I will sum it up in two words: voter suppression.

Well, you've gone from anointment to rigging to voter suppression.
I guess I'll just have to repeat...

You make claims but you expect me to just believe your assertions. If you want to assert that "the DNC rigged the whole thing for her to win", then it is your responsibility to demonstrate how that occurred.

I'm not confused. I see people on this forum regularly who make assertions and then say "you look it up". It's a well-worn tactic of those who make assertions they can't back up.
​

Four-year-olds can make baseless assertions.

However, I'm not here to discuss that. My main question still stands. What do you think would actually change by replacing Trump with an establishment Democrat?

Why would I engage in a second topic with you when you won't address the first topic?

 

[averageJOE]

Well, you've gone from anointment to rigging to voter suppression.
I guess I'll just have to repeat...

You make claims but you expect me to just believe your assertions. If you want to assert that "the DNC rigged the whole thing for her to win", then it is your responsibility to demonstrate how that occurred.

I'm not confused. I see people on this forum regularly who make assertions and then say "you look it up". It's a well-worn tactic of those who make assertions they can't back up.
​

Four-year-olds can make baseless assertions.



Why would I engage in a second topic with you when you won't address the first topic?

lol. You know that voter suppression IS rigging correct? That is one way they rigged it. This is not my claim. This happened. There were so many moving parts it was pretty fascinating actually. It wasn't a single thing that they did, a lot when into it. But voter suppression was the gist of if. Were you aware of the mass walk out of the during the Democratic National Convention? The mainstream media never mentioned it. Here, Tulsi Gabbard talks about one of the ways (there were many) the DNC rigged the primaries, by exploiting the campaign finance laws.

 

[ecco]

You make claims but you expect me to just believe your assertions. If you want to assert that "the DNC rigged the whole thing for her to win", then it is your responsibility to demonstrate how that occurred.

I'm not confused. I see people on this forum regularly who make assertions and then say "you look it up". It's a well-worn tactic of those who make assertions they can't back up.

lol. You know that voter suppression IS rigging correct? That is one way they rigged it. This is not my claim. This happened. There were so many moving parts it was pretty fascinating actually. It wasn't a single thing that they did, a lot when into it. But voter suppression was the gist of if. Were you aware of the mass walk out of the during the Democratic National Convention? The mainstream media never mentioned it. Here, Tulsi Gabbard talks about one of the ways (there were many) the DNC rigged the primaries, by exploiting the campaign finance laws.

I comment that all you do is make assertions that you can't back up. So, what do you do? You make more assertions and fail to back them up.

They rigged it.
This happened.
...a lot went into it.
voter suppression was the gist.

Do you expect me to watch a video to try to find those parts that you think support your argument? Did you miss this from an earlier post of mine...

I see people on this forum regularly who make assertions and then say "you look it up".​

 

[ecco]

Were you aware of the mass walk out of the during the Democratic National Convention? The mainstream media never mentioned it.

That comment is less than truthful. If you google "dnc walkout 2016" you get page after page of links to CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT, Wapo etc, etc. Why would you post such an obvious falsehood?

Were you hoping I wouldn't remember the coverage? Did you believe I didn't have a computer with a search engine on it? Maybe you just hoped I wouldn't call you on it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I comment that all you do is make assertions that you can't back up. So, what do you do? You make more assertions and fail to back them up.

They rigged it.
This happened.
...a lot went into it.
voter suppression was the gist.

Do you expect me to watch a video to try to find those parts that you think support your argument? Did you miss this from an earlier post of mine...

I see people on this forum regularly who make assertions and then say "you look it up".​

Part of the rigging was using superdelegates, who could ignore the popular vote.
Ref...
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hillarys-superdelegate-co_b_9206252
Excerpt....
What is this strange world where a Bernie tie is an 8-delegate loss and a Bernie landslide
is a tie?.....
What they learn is that there are 4,763 delegates who pick the Democratic nominee for
president. But roughly 15 percent of them are Superdelegates (712 to be exact) who are
the Democratic elected officials and party bigwigs. Regular delegates are split according
to popular vote, but Superdelegates can vote for anybody they wish.....

Hillary, being the Queen Democratic Bigwig, has amassed quite a collection of these other
bigwigs pledging to vote for her (355 to be exact). With some quick Excel work, Millennials
figure out that Hillary already had 14.9 percent of the votes she needed to get the nomination
before the first caucus was ever tallied in Iowa.

Then they plug in a few more formulas and learn that in New Hampshire, it took convincing
60,631 voters to choose Bernie to match the choice of Gov. Maggie Hassan, Rep. Ann
Kuster, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and three Democratic National Committee cronies for Hillary.

In other words, one vote from these one-percenters for the Wall Street candidate is worth
10,105 votes from the 99-percenters for the Democratic Socialist candidate. Unfortunately,
one-man-one-vote only applies to actual federal elections, not party primary processes.

 

[Woberts]

However, I'm not here to discuss that. My main question still stands. What do you think would actually change by replacing Trump with an establishment Democrat?

Quite a lot. For example, the school system would improve, the wall would disappear, minorities become people again, etc etc

 

[ecco]

Part of the rigging was using superdelegates, who could ignore the popular vote.
Ref...
Hillary's Superdelegate Coup Just Confirms to Millennials: The System Is Rigged | HuffPost
Excerpt....
What is this strange world where a Bernie tie is an 8-delegate loss and a Bernie landslide
is a tie?.....
What they learn is that there are 4,763 delegates who pick the Democratic nominee for
president. But roughly 15 percent of them are Superdelegates (712 to be exact) who are
the Democratic elected officials and party bigwigs. Regular delegates are split according
to popular vote, but Superdelegates can vote for anybody they wish.....

Hillary, being the Queen Democratic Bigwig, has amassed quite a collection of these other
bigwigs pledging to vote for her (355 to be exact). With some quick Excel work, Millennials
figure out that Hillary already had 14.9 percent of the votes she needed to get the nomination
before the first caucus was ever tallied in Iowa.

Then they plug in a few more formulas and learn that in New Hampshire, it took convincing
60,631 voters to choose Bernie to match the choice of Gov. Maggie Hassan, Rep. Ann
Kuster, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, and three Democratic National Committee cronies for Hillary.

In other words, one vote from these one-percenters for the Wall Street candidate is worth
10,105 votes from the 99-percenters for the Democratic Socialist candidate. Unfortunately,
one-man-one-vote only applies to actual federal elections, not party primary processes.

No disrespect to you intended, but I'll await averageJOE 's response.

 

[Revoltingest]

No disrespect to you intended, but I'll await averageJOE 's response.

That was his response.
I just did it for him.