How can any atheist support Trump or the Republicans?

Started by Atheon, February 02, 2017, 12:09:06 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Shiranu

#31
Quote from: Munch on February 04, 2017, 03:43:21 PM


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.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

fencerider

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
"Do you believe in god?", is not a proper English sentence. Unless you believe that, "Do you believe in apple?", is a proper English sentence.

Munch

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.
'Political correctness is fascism pretending to be manners' - George Carlin

Shiranu

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.
"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to Him." - Louis Pasteur

Jason Harvestdancer

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 04, 2017, 03:49:24 PM
Simply saying that over and over again 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.
White privilege is being a lifelong racist, then being sent to the White House twice because your running mate is a minority.<br /><br />No Biden, no KKK, no Fascist USA!

Hijiri Byakuren

Quote from: Hydra009 on February 04, 2017, 03:49:24 PM
Simply saying that over and over again 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.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Hydra009

#37
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.

Hydra009

#38
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.

Cavebear

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.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!

SGOS

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.

Baruch

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?
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

SGOS

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.

Baruch

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.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ Å,a’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Cavebear

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.
Atheist born, atheist bred.  And when I die, atheist dead!