Trump and the Republicans are in league with the Religious Right, which has declared war on atheists and atheism.
How can any atheist support a candidate or a party that opposes church/state separation, wants prayer in public schools, wants special privileges for Christians, wants to legislate Christian morality into law, etc.?
Here is Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court: Gorsuch. How can any atheist want America to turn into a theocracy?
"On Gorsuch, it's evangelicals vs. atheists"
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/01/politics/evangelicals-atheists-gorsuch/index.html
Because being an atheist doesn't mean you aren't a coward.
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2017, 12:09:06 AMHow can any atheist support a candidate or a party that opposes church/state separation, wants prayer in public schools, wants special privileges for Christians, wants to legislate Christian morality into law, etc.?
Beats me. Voting in theocrats seems like a pretty suicidal move, not to mention antithetical to the core ideals our secular Republic.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 02, 2017, 01:02:45 AM
Because being an atheist doesn't mean you aren't a coward.
"Trump may turn us into a fascist theocratic hellhole, but at least he'll make us safe from brown-skinned five-year-olds."
I have certain views regarding a certain kind of corruption in top levels of government. Hillary is part of that corruption. Trump isn't. That's what it is for me.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 02, 2017, 01:43:31 AM
Beats me. Voting in theocrats seems like a pretty suicidal move, not to mention antithetical to the core ideals our secular Republic.
Democrats are self hating, so self defeating. Republicans are hateful ... there is a difference ;-)
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 02, 2017, 02:42:04 AM
I have certain views regarding a certain kind of corruption in top levels of government. Hillary is part of that corruption. Trump isn't. That's what it is for me.
It very much looks like Chaos Capitalism made into national policy, not just economics. The slow moving socialist central committees will be completely out maneuvered.
Quote from: Gilgamesh on February 02, 2017, 02:42:04 AM
I have certain views regarding a certain kind of corruption in top levels of government. Hillary is part of that corruption. Trump isn't. That's what it is for me.
"I hate corruption (see; politics as usual, not corruption), so I will vote in the guy who only installs people who absolutely agrees with him and tells him how right he is rather than the the truth, puts his family into positions of power and then claims he isn't breaking nepotism laws because they aren't specific enough, and is part of the party that now owns all the major branches of the government and thus gets rid of all checks and balances. Oh, and I'll also shoot myself in the foot and castrate myself to save his policies the time of doing that for me."
(http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/ftpuploads/bloguploads/nailed-it-moon.png)
Many voters voted Trump because they felt it would be a better alternative to Hillary. I would assume that some atheists that did this still feel this way. Just because you're an atheist, doesn't mean you're rational.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 02, 2017, 11:00:25 AM
"I hate corruption (see; politics as usual, not corruption), so I will vote in the guy who only installs people who absolutely agrees with him and tells him how right he is rather than the the truth, puts his family into positions of power and then claims he isn't breaking nepotism laws because they aren't specific enough, and is part of the party that now owns all the major branches of the government and thus gets rid of all checks and balances. Oh, and I'll also shoot myself in the foot and castrate myself to save his policies the time of doing that for me."
Also, anyone remotely aware of Trump's nominees is aware that Trump's pledge to "drain the swamp" is a lie. We don't have a less corrupt government. Arguably, we have a more corrupt government now.
Some Trump voters may have have some good intentions on the campaign trail (I'm referring to Trump's pseudopopulism and perceived desire to clean up corruption here), but since the election they've become gigantic suckers.
The elections came down to the old giant douche or turd sandwich. Voters choose who would be the least bad.
It comes down to sticking your hand in a box of scorpions, one box you can see the scorpions, the other you can't. Would you sooner see when the stringers coming, or leave it up to chance you won't get stung.
Also Hindsight.
A box of scorpions vs a box of roaches imo. They're both unpleasant, and obviously neither one is my first choice, but if I had to choose (and I did) I'd choose the one that's far less likely to kill me. Clinton's campaign and Clinton herself had a lot of faults, but I guarantee you her first week would've been nothing like Trump's first week.
Religious freedom is only one value of many values. There are other Republican values than creating a theocracy. For example, gun ownership, redistribution of wealth to the top, cutting funding for education, or suppression of minorities seem to be part of the ideology. An atheist may value some of those more than he worries about a theocracy. Such values are ingrained in the right wing ideology. Many exist more in perception than they do in reality. For example, "the Republican Party is fiscally conservative." But those values, real or perceived, carry weight.
Once again, the definition of atheist is one who doesn't believe in a god. Beyond that, many of us, liberal or conservative, have other values that we cherish more than our atheism. For me, environmental stewardship, national health care (although not specifically Obamacare), the wealthy sharing their proportion of the tax burden, and equal rights, all rank higher than my lack of religious beliefs.
Show me a Republican that demonstrates the he actually values these things, not just in his rhetoric, but in his actions, and I could vote for him.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 02, 2017, 11:34:47 AM
A box of scorpions vs a box of roaches imo. They're both unpleasant, and obviously neither one is my first choice, but if I had to choose (and I did) I'd choose the one that's far less likely to kill me. Clinton's campaign and Clinton herself had a lot of faults, but I guarantee you her first week would've been nothing like Trump's first week.
Maybe so, but time in relation doesn't outweigh how events would play out. For all we know, trumps blowing his load so soon, that the backlash will hit him even sooner. This might just push thing ahead for whatever revolution or counteraction is taken against him. At least it can be said all the fears people had about trump happened quick.
It was like a choice between an overcooked chicken sandwich and a radioactive dog shit sandwich. Hillary wasn't the greatest (another Bill Clinton or Barack Obama), and had she been elected we'd be taking about minimum wage hikes and trade deals. It's be business as usual. But Trump is basically Palpatine, Hitler and the Devil rolled into one, as he promised he would be and as we're seeing now, and he is taking a baseball bat to the Constitutional underpinnings of our democracy and causing chaos both at home around the globe. He seems to be a power-hungry madman who has no idea of how the government works, and is hell-bent on fucking up everything that has been built over the last 230 or so years.
I live overseas, and let me tell you: people outside the US think he's insane and the greatest threat to global stability in decades.
Gay people voted for trump. Many women voted for trump. Not everyone fits into the same box, and they arn't all stupid, they simply have different ideas and were brought up differently
Quote from: Munch on February 02, 2017, 11:50:35 AM
Gay people voted for trump. Many women voted for trump. Not everyone fits into the same box, and they arn't all stupid, they simply have different ideas and were brought up differently
Misguided would perhaps be a more accurate word, though in all honestly, I am sorely tempted to call them stupid.
Mike Pence is famously opposed to gay marriage (his exact stance is shocking to say the least) and much of the Republicans swept to power in Trump's wake are some of the biggest opponents of gay rights out there. But since the Supreme Court already made that call, it doesn't really matter, right? Plus, Trump waved a rainbow flag. Surely he's not going to do anything to hurt the LGBT community.
Well, as it turns out, he has a proposal on the table to weaken anti-discrimination laws protecting gays. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-executive-order-draft-curtail-lgbt-rights/story?id=45209220) Imho, any gay people who worked to put us in this position have made a huge mistake. They're not necessarily morons, but they definitely made a very serious error in judgement.
Quote from: SGOS on February 02, 2017, 11:40:39 AM
Religious freedom is only one value of many values. There are other Republican values than creating a theocracy. For example, gun ownership, redistribution of wealth to the top, cutting funding for education, or suppression of minorities seem to be part of the ideology. An atheist may value some of those more than he worries about a theocracy. Such values are ingrained in the right wing ideology. Many exist more in perception than they do in reality. For example, "the Republican Party is fiscally conservative." But those values, real or perceived, carry weight.
Once again, the definition of atheist is one who doesn't believe in a god. Beyond that, many of us, liberal or conservative, have other values that we cherish more than our atheism. For me, environmental stewardship, national health care (although not specifically Obamacare), the wealthy sharing their proportion of the tax burden, and equal rights, all rank higher than my lack of religious beliefs.
Show me a Republican that demonstrates the he actually values these things, not just in his rhetoric, but in his actions, and I could vote for him.
"the Republican Party is fiscally conservative." ... if only! I am talking about you, George W! Both parties buy votes, but they vary on who they most want to service.
The GOP dislike of atheists is not a newly found hatred:
(http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-no-i-don-t-know-that-atheists-should-be-considered-as-citizens-nor-should-they-be-considered-george-h-w-bush-54-1-0170.jpg)
We can't even be citizens!? How will they come for us, and when?
And to where will they deport us?
The 1st amendment to the Constitution says:
QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
It says nothing about executive orders, so can we assume that those can indeed respect (or dis-respect) an establishment of religion?
QuoteAlso Hindsight.
Yes, let's talk hindsight.
A guy is doing exactly what he said he would do, which is absolutely horrible shit.
Wow, that plot twist though.
QuoteGay people voted for trump. Many women voted for trump. Not everyone fits into the same box, and they arn't all stupid, they simply have different ideas and were brought up differently
Yeah, and when those ideas include bigotry, homophobia, heavy sexism and xenophobia (or you think those things are okay since at least it isn't business like usual), we like to say stupid to save them the embarrassment of calling them what they really are.
QuoteIt comes down to sticking your hand in a box of scorpions, one box you can see the scorpions, the other you can't. Would you sooner see when the stringers coming, or leave it up to chance you won't get stung.
I must have missed that Hillary, "I have a dream... that one day we will ban the Muslims, hate the gays, sexually assault the womens and piss on our allies.", speech.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 02, 2017, 04:53:12 PM
Yes, let's talk hindsight.
A guy is doing exactly what he said he would do, which is absolutely horrible shit.
Wow, that plot twist though.
I've heard the argument during the primaries that he was just pandering to his conservative base and his presidency would be fairly moderate and decent. Exact words: "There's nothing to worry about, trust me".
3 months later and that argument was proven spectacularly wrong.
Yeah, hyuuuuugely, bigly wrong!
George H W was a Cold Warrior ... by atheist he means Communists, and by Communists he means ... dead.
Paint the comparison in such a way you like, but those who say "giant douch or turd sandwich" are far more accurate than those who say "box of roaches or box of scorpions." Face it, Clinton was an awful candidate and is an awful person. The only redeeming value to her was the party label attached to her. Without that party label, there would have been nothing about her to support, or even like.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 04, 2017, 12:26:19 PM
Paint the comparison in such a way you like, but those who say "giant douch or turd sandwich" are far more accurate than those who say "box of roaches or box of scorpions." Face it, Clinton was an awful candidate and is an awful person. The only redeeming value to her was the party label attached to her. Without that party label, there would have been nothing about her to support, or even like.
I mean, the comparison certainly is close... if you don't care about nepotism, rampant sexism in his speech and behaviour, destroying of relationships with our allies, complete and utter cultural ignorance about basically every minority in the country, requiring a foreign PM to explain to him the rules of the Geneva Convention about refugees, insisting that the only "not fake" news is FOX, eroding further and further the separation of church and state and installing a theocratic Vice Prez., threatening to escalate conflicts with several world powers (and send troops into one of our closest allies), wanting the tax payer to build a wall that if anything will cause more illegal immigration problems than solve, wanting to destabilize one of the strongest military-economic unions in the world because they disagree with him, who ran on a campaign of fear, hatred and xenophobia, who made his Chief Strategist the excutive chair of one of the largest alt-right (see; self-confessed xenophobic & nationalistic) publications, who "All Lives Mattered" the fucking Holocaust, who installs yes-men around him rather than people who might have even the slightest inclination of disagreeing with him or not telling him how great he is, who skips his own intelligence meetings, who shows no regard for the LGBT community...
But yeah, no, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are "more or less" the same.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 04, 2017, 02:09:57 PM
I mean, the comparison certainly is close... if you don't care about nepotism, rampant sexism in his speech and behaviour, destroying of relationships with our allies, complete and utter cultural ignorance about basically every minority in the country, requiring a foreign PM to explain to him the rules of the Geneva Convention about refugees, insisting that the only "not fake" news is FOX, eroding further and further the separation of church and state and installing a theocratic Vice Prez., threatening to escalate conflicts with several world powers (and send troops into one of our closest allies), wanting the tax payer to build a wall that if anything will cause more illegal immigration problems than solve, wanting to destabilize one of the strongest military-economic unions in the world because they disagree with him, who ran on a campaign of fear, hatred and xenophobia, who made his Chief Strategist the excutive chair of one of the largest alt-right (see; self-confessed xenophobic & nationalistic) publications, who "All Lives Mattered" the fucking Holocaust, who installs yes-men around him rather than people who might have even the slightest inclination of disagreeing with him or not telling him how great he is, who skips his own intelligence meetings, who shows no regard for the LGBT community...
But yeah, no, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are "more or less" the same.
Good job listing Trump's faults. I won't say a word against any of that. I'll only wonder if you are capable of also analyzing Clinton that way.
Probably not.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 04, 2017, 12:26:19 PMPaint the comparison in such a way you like, but those who say "giant douch or turd sandwich" are far more accurate than those who say "box of roaches or box of scorpions." Face it, Clinton was an awful candidate and is an awful person. The only redeeming value to her was the party label attached to her. Without that party label, there would have been nothing about her to support, or even like.
There was actually a lot of overlap between Sanders' and Clinton's positions. Calling her an awful person doesn't change the fact that she had a better platform than all comers but Sanders or make up for the fact that the libertarians, as always, failed utterly at putting forth either a platform or candidate that the American public could get behind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iZl5LGornI
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 04, 2017, 02:48:14 PM
Good job listing Trump's faults. I won't say a word against any of that. I'll only wonder if you are capable of also analyzing Clinton that way.
Probably not.
I've already talked about how, "meh." I feel about her and why I dislike her, so I don't see any need to. But for all her flaws, she is simply not comparable to trump .
Quote from: Shiranu on February 04, 2017, 03:13:22 PM
I've already talked about how, "meh." I feel about her and why I dislike her, so I don't see any need to. But for all her flaws, she is simply not comparable to trump .
Exactly. Your feelings for Trump are other then "meh". Because of all her flaws, she simply is comparable to Trump.
Quote from: Shiranu on February 04, 2017, 03:13:22 PM
I've already talked about how, "meh." I feel about her and why I dislike her, so I don't see any need to. But for all her flaws, she is simply not comparable to trump .
(http://www.fakingnews.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/black-kettle.jpg)
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 04, 2017, 03:32:49 PMshe simply is comparable to Trump.
Simply saying that over and over again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion) doesn't make it so.
Quote from: Munch on February 04, 2017, 03:43:21 PM
(http://www.fakingnews.firstpost.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/black-kettle.jpg)
That doesn't even make sense. FFS, are you even trying anymore or just throwing out random contradictions for the shits and giggles?
Edit: Wait, are you trying to imply if someone doesn't like Hillary, they cant comment on how they don't like Trump and how he is still worse? That's the only way you can really...stretching... use that phrase. The first sentence, I never asked Jason to explain why he dislikes Trump or expected him to, so that makes no sense.
Shit, I should have just left it at it making no sense because it wasn't applicable... it was less embarrassing than if you meant it...
QuoteBecause of all her flaws, she simply is comparable to Trump.
Well, considering she doesn't fit any of the ones above... no, she really isn't. They are both politicians, so I guess maybe they are both fruit? But it's like comparing apples to durians... yes you could compare them as fruit, and apples are "meh", but at least they don't have the smell of rotting flesh.
Both Hillary and Trump were bad choices. but if someone was going to choose who will be pres. based on who will do the most damage, it should have been obvious who to vote for. Its a low bar to figure out Trump will do more damage than Hillary would have
Shiranu, the irony was lost on you, but i'm feeling in good spirits, so I'll break it down for you. You seemed to have a bug in your posterior, about drawing up the problems with the extreme far leftist protests and riots, saying in another thread that one should also call up the same against lord and master trumpton. Yet when the shoe was on the other foot, it didn't quite work the same for your break of Shillary.
My break of Hillary? I have said since Bernie she was a shifty and shitty candidate, with the democrats having several superior, winnable, candidates. But she is what we got, and thus backing her ( and the good proposals she did have) was just common sense.
Because I don't hate her as much as you, or as much as I do trump, does not constitute giving her a break. I am typing on a phone, so I really don't want to be asked to give you several paragraphs about why I don't like her... but if it would really change your mind, I can when I get home from a party.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 04, 2017, 03:49:24 PM
Simply saying that over and over again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion) doesn't make it so.
Saying she isn't over and over again doesn't make it true either.
I know that because Trump is bad, there's this desire to make Hillary sound like a good person. She's not. They picked the absolute person they could have run as their standard bearer, and cheated a good candidate out of the role in the process. Had it been anyone but Hillary, Trump would have lost. And that is a very bitter pill for Democrats to swallow, because that means Trump is their own fault. They don't want to admit that Trump is their fault. So they have to pretend Hillary isn't a corrupt warmonger who ran on a platform of "I have a vagina" and whose only virtue was that she had a "D" instead of an "R" after her name on the ballot. She really is Dick Cheney in a pantsuit.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 04, 2017, 03:49:24 PM
Simply saying that over and over again (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_assertion) doesn't make it so.
Look, I dislike Hillary as much as the next guy, and the arrogance on display throughout her campaign made it all the sweeter to watch her squirm when she lost the election and had no concession speech ready. But let's be real: Clinton's presidency would have
at worst been "Obama Lite." Certainly not the insanity we've been seeing these past 3 weeks.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 04, 2017, 11:12:08 PMSaying she isn't over and over again doesn't make it true either.
Did you ever take a moment to look at her platform? Cause this "Clinton = Trump" BS isn't tracking there.
* A wall with a shining golden door to keep the "bad hombres" out VS offering immigrants already here a path to citizenship
* Climate change is a Chinese hoax and wants to dismantle Paris Agreement VS Climate change is real and wants to uphold Paris Agreement.
* A tax cut almost entirely for the wealthy VS a tax increase almost entirely on the wealthy.
* Repeal Obamacare VS expand Obamacare.
* Not raising the minimum wage VS raising minimum wage.
* A Scalia clone VS Merrick Garland.
I could go on and on.
I wasn't thrilled with Clinton, especially her bizarre 9/11 Wall Street answer to Sanders' question about what her Wall Street backers are expecting in return for their large campaign contributions when she said it doesn't influence her policy. But compared to Trump, she consistently came across as knowledgeable and fairly rational on the issues. In a lot of ways, she was to the right of Sanders, but then again, so were the vast majority of the Dems. But she was nowhere even remotely close to Trump on the issues.
I was more vocal than most that Hillary wasn't the right pick and got my share of shit because of it. Hell, I'm pretty sure I extensively addressed voting for a candidate on the basis of their sex. I don't remember you posting in that discussion. A lot of people had her as pick numero uno and wouldn't hear of anyone else and now here we are. Of course I'm aware of the litany of mistakes leading up to this - especially those involving Clinton and the DNC.
But this Trumped up Killery Breitbart bullshit doesn't fly with me. And it's so stupid to rely on alternative facts to attack her when she has plenty of real stuff to criticize.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on February 04, 2017, 11:55:02 PMLook, I dislike Hillary as much as the next guy, and the arrogance on display throughout her campaign made it all the sweeter to watch her squirm when she lost the election and had no concession speech ready.
I didn't notice. I was the one squirming. Up til 3 in the morning watching someone with less experience than Sarah Palin and less competence than Dubya take the reins. It was "locker room talk" and debate losses right to the Oval Office. What a shocker that election night was.
QuoteBut let's be real: Clinton's presidency would have at worst been "Obama Lite." Certainly not the insanity we've been seeing these past 3 weeks.
Exactly! This guy gets it.
The 2016 election was between Hillary The Competent and Trump the Crazy. The geographical electoral votes chose Trump. The people chose Hillary (as they did Gore in 2000).
Things are whack and must change. Electoral College must go. It favors small states with large acres. Last I noticed, acres shouldn't be voting.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on February 04, 2017, 11:12:08 PM
Saying she isn't over and over again doesn't make it true either.
I know that because Trump is bad, there's this desire to make Hillary sound like a good person. She's not. They picked the absolute person they could have run as their standard bearer, and cheated a good candidate out of the role in the process. Had it been anyone but Hillary, Trump would have lost. And that is a very bitter pill for Democrats to swallow, because that means Trump is their own fault. They don't want to admit that Trump is their fault. So they have to pretend Hillary isn't a corrupt warmonger who ran on a platform of "I have a vagina" and whose only virtue was that she had a "D" instead of an "R" after her name on the ballot. She really is Dick Cheney in a pantsuit.
I agree that your accusations apply to some, but not all Democrats, and I therefore think you paint with too broad a brush. I would suggest that you qualify "Democrats" as "some Democrats" to avoid the appearance of bias gone out of control.
In fact, Hillary probably lost because a large number of Democrats were turned off by her and lost the necessary motivation to vote, possibly for some of the very reasons you enumerated too. Hillary didn't lose only because of Republicans voting for their Republican label. That she did not receive enough Democratic support was also her failure.
Yes, some Democrats no doubt thought she was a glowing ray of sunshine and integrity, and some of those Democrats might even hang out here. But long before the election, many Democrats here have been extraordinarily clear that Hillary was the lesser of evils in their opinion. In fact, while she had the support of most of the forum, it was quite clear (well to me anyway), that she wasn't inspiring much in the way of a presidential image among many forum members.
Yes, it's probably a bitter pill for Democrats that Hillary was the wrong choice as a nominee, and to some degree that is their fault, but it might be more the fault of the Democratic Party that offered a lack luster list candidates, possibly to ensure Hillary's success. I remember back during the debates before the Democratic primary. The stage offered an abbreviated selection of unknowns of questionable ability and no charisma, with the exception of Hillary and Sanders.
Some Hillary supporters still insist Sanders would have lost to Trump. We will never know. That's too bad, because win or lose, I'd like to know. Perhaps no Democrat could have beat Trump. We will never know. For all the lack of knowledge and qualifications for president that Trump can't provide, he was a dynamic personality for the Republicans. He's a great salesman, and ran a wildly crazy sideshow that sold well to voters. Hillary, may not have provided a sideshow, but she still fell far short of what many voters want to see in a president, and it is clear that a great many Democrats felt that. Well it's clear if you don't make the assumption that all Democrats are dizzy space cadets.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 05:07:53 AM
The 2016 election was between Hillary The Competent and Trump the Crazy. The geographical electoral votes chose Trump. The people chose Hillary (as they did Gore in 2000).
Things are whack and must change. Electoral College must go. It favors small states with large acres. Last I noticed, acres shouldn't be voting.
United States ... not United Empire. And why is Executive Dictatorship OK with ignoring Congress and SCOTUS ... when a Dem does it?
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 09:06:23 AM
United States ... not United Empire. And why is Executive Dictatorship OK with ignoring Congress and SCOTUS ... when a Dem does it?
In another forum, I once speculated that Obama would make a good president because of his strong background in Constitutional Law. One member (I honestly don't know if he was a Democrat or Republican or which way he even leaned) replied, "As President, Constitutional Law won't make any difference, nor should it." This was from an intelligent member too. I'm not saying I agree with "nor should it," in fact I don't, but it seems somewhat apparent that the Constitution often does not apply in presidential politics. Whether it should or should not, may often be a perception biased on party lines. I won't disagree with you there.
Perhaps, a president should be free to float ideological ideas independent of the Constitution, as it effects Congress and could lead to amendments. But that's a scary thought with implications that can affect the future in positive, but also negative ways.
Quote from: SGOS on February 05, 2017, 09:33:09 AM
In another forum, I once speculated that Obama would make a good president because of his strong background in Constitutional Law. One member (I honestly don't know if he was a Democrat or Republican or which way he even leaned) replied, "As President, Constitutional Law won't make any difference, nor should it." This was from an intelligent member too. I'm not saying I agree with "nor should it," in fact I don't, but it seems somewhat apparent that the Constitution often does not apply in presidential politics. Whether it should or should not, may often be a perception biased on party lines. I won't disagree with you there.
Perhaps, a president should be free to float ideological ideas independent of the Constitution, as it effects Congress and could lead to amendments. But that's a scary thought with implications that can affect the future in positive, but also negative ways.
Modern Americans don't understand nuthin! The Congress makes the laws, the Courts interpret them, the President simply carries out what he is told by Congress and the Courts ... to avoid the direct rule by committee thing like the EU has. The President isn't Der Fuhrer. He is an elected civil servant. The President should be the least important part of government ... Congress is the most important, followed by the Courts.
Quote from: SGOS on February 05, 2017, 08:41:07 AM
I agree that your accusations apply to some, but not all Democrats, and I therefore think you paint with too broad a brush. I would suggest that you qualify "Democrats" as "some Democrats" to avoid the appearance of bias gone out of control.
In fact, Hillary probably lost because a large number of Democrats were turned off by her and lost the necessary motivation to vote, possibly for some of the very reasons you enumerated too. Hillary didn't lose only because of Republicans voting for their Republican label. That she did not receive enough Democratic support was also her failure.
In "fact" most voters supported Clinton. And most voters supported Gore in 2000. The will of the majority being routinely ignored makes the majority feel pretty "annoyed" lately. And popular vote being "annoyed" leads to serious upset.
Quote from: Cavebear on February 05, 2017, 10:44:55 AM
In "fact" most voters supported Clinton. And most voters supported Gore in 2000. The will of the majority being routinely ignored makes the majority feel pretty "annoyed" lately. And popular vote being "annoyed" leads to serious upset.
Dictatorship by the self righteous snowflakes solves that. Just kill all the deplorables ;-( Robespierre would be proud of their Leftism. I would terminate all voting, because ape men aren't reliable. But I don't want an ape dictator either. This is why I stopped voting at all for several cycles. Only lice infested candidates to vote for.
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 12:13:45 PM
Dictatorship by the self righteous snowflakes solves that. Just kill all the deplorables ;-( Robespierre would be proud of their Leftism. I would terminate all voting, because ape men aren't reliable. But I don't want an ape dictator either. This is why I stopped voting at all for several cycles. Only lice infested candidates to vote for.
I'm sorry you don't believe in democracy. It is the best of all the bad systems (benevolent enlightened monarchy works best but is not sustainable). Your use of the term "snowflakes" is enlightening, BTW. I AM however, pleased to read that you don't vote.
Oh, but I do vote ... that is to raise the voter IQ by just a smidge. I voted regularly for 20 years, then realized it was pointless (thanks Bill Clinton). I came back briefly for Barak Obama ... but he gave it to me in the shorts also. Haven't voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1984 .. after they got religion ... nada. I did vote last year, for old times sake ... again to prove that one could vote for a third party, if your ballot allows you to. I wouldn't have voted for Obama in 2012, except my state didn't give me more than two choices. I couldn't stand the idea of the Mormon corporate vulture perching in the White House, so I held my nose and voted again for Obama.
Yes, I have read history, just like the Founding Fathers. Washington would have done better to choose a military dictatorship for us (as he nearly did in 1783 when Congress wouldn't demob the Army, or pay them. Then no need for the Washington/Franklin coup of 1787. Ancient democracy was a dynamic POS, but the alternative back then was manly militant gay Spartans. The Roman Republic was Mafiosi all the way down the Tiber. Yes, and did you pay Churchill for that quote?
Quote from: Atheon on February 02, 2017, 11:45:03 AM
It was like a choice between an overcooked chicken sandwich and a radioactive dog shit sandwich. Hillary wasn't the greatest (another Bill Clinton or Barack Obama), ....
I live overseas, and let me tell you: people outside the US think he's insane and the greatest threat to global stability in decades.
You don't speak for everyone outside the US (I live in the UK). A recent poll in the EU indicates that a majority agree with his recent restrictions from some Muslim countries. Probably because most western European countries have 5%+ Muslim population, and we see what effect it has. Even ultra SJW Sweden is turning distinctly Trumpish on immigration.
There is a relentless anti trump narrative on the likes of the BBC though.
Quote from: kivo1889 on February 09, 2017, 06:28:11 AM
You don't speak for everyone outside the US (I live in the UK). A recent poll in the EU indicates that a majority agree with his recent restrictions from some Muslim countries. Probably because most western European countries have 5%+ Muslim population, and we see what effect it has. Even ultra SJW Sweden is turning distinctly Trumpish on immigration.
There is a relentless anti trump narrative on the likes of the BBC though.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-gets-rock-bottom-ratings-in-international-survey/
Evidently a lot of Americans liked what Trump promised. That is why they have voted for him.
Now he is doing it. Suprised?
Quote from: pr126 on February 09, 2017, 08:00:42 AM
Evidently a lot of Americans liked what Trump promised. That is why they have voted for him.
Now he is doing it. Suprised?
Not at all surprised. In fact, I was surprised early on when many Democrats were speculating that Trump was a closet liberal running on the Republican ticket.
Quote from: SGOS on February 09, 2017, 08:50:23 AM
Not at all surprised. In fact, I was surprised early on when many Democrats were speculating that Trump was a closet liberal running on the Republican ticket.
thats just because almost all other republican party leads are usually the same kind of person, saying the same shit, like from a clone factory. Trump was a very different kind of beast, and repubs wanted to keep being republican but saw him as something new, including those who stand on the fence.
Quote from: Munch on February 09, 2017, 09:49:20 AM
thats just because almost all other republican party leads are usually the same kind of person, saying the same shit, like from a clone factory. Trump was a very different kind of beast, and repubs wanted to keep being republican but saw him as something new, including those who stand on the fence.
That certainly seems to be true, but while it's something new, I don't find it inspiring. He seems to wear his thoughts and emotions on his sleeve, but I would prefer a president who is more circumspect than that. Tweeting his ideas, justifications, and emotions that farkle through his brain, as well as some of his bullying on twitter, is how teenagers broadcast the daily minutiae of their lives on facebook. Granted many people find this refreshing when they agree.
Sometimes I consider the possibility that some of Trump's thoughts actually have merit, but I'm not a fan of his thought
PROCESSES. We may arrive at similar conclusions by accident, but I get the impression that he is not all that thoughtful in how he reaches his conclusions. For a president, I want someone to be at least 4 times more thoughtful than I am. Maybe he actually is, but he perfectly fits my definition of a loose cannon swinging about wildly inside the hull of the ship I'm riding on.
Quote from: kivo1889 on February 09, 2017, 06:28:11 AMThere is a relentless anti trump narrative on the likes of the BBC though.
So...accurate reporting? A lot of media outlets are much the same way, to their credit. How else could any sane person report on stuff like Trump calling negative news "fake" news (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/06/equating-bad-polls-with-fake-news-trump-further-inflates-his-surreality-bubble/). It's stupid and Trump and his supporters completely deserve to be called on the carpet for it. If you want "fair and balanced", stick with Fox News, Breitbart, and Alex Jones.
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 09, 2017, 10:42:25 AM
So...accurate reporting? A lot of media outlets are much the same way, to their credit. How else could any sane person report on stuff like Trump calling negative news "fake" news (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/06/equating-bad-polls-with-fake-news-trump-further-inflates-his-surreality-bubble/). It's stupid and Trump and his supporters completely deserve to be called on the carpet for it. If you want "fair and balanced", stick with Fox News, Breitbart, and Alex Jones.
Name calling is for little girls. I like the old Spanish game of two guys, each with a knife in the right hand, and tied at the left hands. Only one guy comes out alive. Now that would be manly politics. And yes, not for ladies, unless you are Xena. Like I pointed out before, as an Independent, I would be happy if both D and R were gone permanently.
Quote from: Baruch on February 09, 2017, 01:09:51 PM
Name calling is for little girls. I like the old Spanish game of two guys, each with a knife in the right hand, and tied at the left hands. Only one guy comes out alive. Now that would be manly politics. And yes, not for ladies, unless you are Xena. Like I pointed out before, as an Independent, I would be happy if both D and R were gone permanently.
Bah, knives tis for the Savages! A true gentleman duels with pistols!
(http://i.imgur.com/cwT5U44.jpg)
They should fear all Americans, not just Trump. What have we been doing to Brown folk since 1945? When Trump goes to Vietnam and kills a million Vietnamese ... then we can compare.
Quote from: fencerider on February 04, 2017, 06:14:30 PM
Both Hillary and Trump were bad choices. but if someone was going to choose who will be pres. based on who will do the most damage, it should have been obvious who to vote for. Its a low bar to figure out Trump will do more damage than Hillary would have
(https://bigpicturereport.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/s_500_img201_imageshack_us_0_32011157.gif)
(http://www.sltrib.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=5k176eG6xHPfX4KnMOhgTc$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYtLdPs0epNZne04ulDN9tVAWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg)
Quote from: Munch on February 09, 2017, 01:24:14 PM
Bah, knives tis for the Savages! A true gentleman duels with pistols!
(http://i.imgur.com/cwT5U44.jpg)
Burr eliminating Hamilton was the first serious protest agains American Capitalism, by decapitating the head of it (metaphorically).
Quote from: Baruch on February 05, 2017, 09:36:50 AM
The President isn't Der Fuhrer. He is an elected civil servant.
The word "servant" never has and never will apply to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
Quote from: Unbeliever on February 10, 2017, 06:32:23 PM
The word "servant" never has and never will apply to the current occupant of the Oval Office.
True ... MLK would fit, but he didn't make it past 1968. Genuine reformers never do.
In my experience the choice between the lesser of 2 evils is more often a choice between truly idiotic and merely competent but uninspiring. People are not very good at distinguishing the difference between horrible and average.
BTW, this atheist had no difficulty deciding to support the competent Clinton over the moronic (and a long string of invectives) Trump. What worries me is an atheist who supported Trump...