Who is your president?

[PsYcHo]

Ahhh, ok. I don't really see how anyone would find you just by knowing what state you live in, but ok.

Can I ask, what site are you considering writing for, and about what controversial subject? Or do you not want to post that on here?

You asked before I could tell you whether or not you could ask, so that point is moot. If you must know, I don't want to post it here, but send me a PM and I'll fill you in. I've already deduced your state, but your clues were easier to follow.

Yeah, but my point was merely that Bush DID bring Christianity into government.

I did mention I disagree with Democrats and Republicans right? They both suck, vote for President Rhino!

1) That's true, Obama did allow it to continue, and most politicians on both sides support it. Bush did start the program, however.
2) Well, isn't all legislation inherently about morality? Murder is illegal because it's immoral. The problem is that republicans don't care about morality when it comes to social issues; they care about religion (specifically Christianity).

1. "He started it!" is not a valid reason for allowing it to continue, especially when the left is supposed to be against it. The fact that he allowed it to continue (IMO) is worse than if he had started it. (I'm against spying on Americans because reasons, but when I do it it's ok because I'm not Bush?)
2. Yes, but morality varies from person to person, even among those in the same "group". All non-psychopaths (and even some of the psychopaths) can agree that murder is wrong (in most cases), but even people in the same group have differing opinions on what is moral.

That's the narrative the republicans have put out, but they actually do a lot of wasteful spending as well. IMO their policies lead to more government spending when you really think about it-
1) War in Iraq- $1.7 trillion, primarily supported by republicans
2) Military spending 2015- almost $600 billion
3) Wall Street bailouts, which were done because of republican under-regulation of Wall Street- at least $700 billion, real cost may be much higher.
4) Climate change- will cost us a lot of money if we don't get out act together
5) War on Drugs 2015- $15 billion

3- I agree 100%
4- I don't deny that climate change is an issue, but people like Al Gore who promote everyone else limiting their carbon footprint, while owning a mansion where the swimming pool alone uses more electricity than an average American household, but justifying it by paying "carbon credits" (IOW, I'm rich, so I can pollute as long as I pay for it, you commoners just keep your heater at 60 degrees in the winter because you can't afford to "buy off" your carbon footprint.), make me throw up in my throat a little bit.
5- Can I agree more than 100%? That's at least a 12000% agreement on my side.
1- Noticed you used "primarily". Didn't one of the Presidential candidates vote for that too?
2- I'll go further into this if you address why we should save the murderer from execution by paying for him to be imprisoned (since spending money on him is the morally superior thing to do) yet disagreeing with how much money is too much for us to spend to avoid another World War.

The center of establishing Christianity as a state religion and not doing that is still going to be terrible.
The center of approving gay conversion therapy and not supporting it is still terrible.
The center of saying gay people should be discriminated against and they should be equal is still terrible.

Do you see where I'm going with this?

I still contend that is not the center of the party, but the farther right side. (And yes, those are all freaking horrible. With his new VP pick, Trump seems to be embracing all of those, which is why I'm voting for the damn rhino. (Write in votes still count)

They would've, because they're against gay people and don't want programs to help them. They'd be against it for the wrong reasons, but yeah, they would be against it and it's a silly waste of money.

You're linking all Republicans together, but my point was even the non-homophobic ones would have been against the waste of taxpayer dollars.

But we're not living in that era anymore. America has no immediate existential threat.

Less than 100 years ago, Germany almost took over all of Europe. Have you seen Germany on a map? They are smaller than some states in America. If not for some key losses, they could have actually won. The only reason we don't live in that era anymore is because we proved as a country we were willing to commit horrible atrocities (nuclear weapons) to protect our country and keep the peace. The axis powers didn't surrender because they came to their senses and realized war is wrong, they did it because we made it very clear we were tired of playing their game. Some radical countries would love to have a nuclear weapon, because their warped ideology actually wants to bring about the "end of days". If you think there is no existential threat to the peaceful world, I suggest you are naive, and don't realize that the "Trumps" of the world are many, and if you fear a Trump presidency, look into Kim Jong Un first, then follow the links. (Bring a puppy, it will be terrifying. )

Haha, I don't like it either. I don't really like the idea of campaigning for Hillary Clinton, but I'm going to hold my nose and do it, just like you should hold your nose and vote for her.

.....dammit.. ...still don't have to like it.

Well, if you support Trump, you're either: a bigot (most likely), ignorant (also very likely in addition to being a bigot), or dogmatically anti-establishment.

I think you are using your personal opinions to rate the groups, not any actual facts. In my reasoning, this list is more accurate if read from end to beginning.

An ad-hominem would be to say an argument is invalid, or to dismiss said argument, because of a quality of the person presenting it. I'm not doing that, I'm just explaining why I think Trump has been successful. I genuinely believe it's because he's appealed to bigotry and taken advantage of ignorance, not because the democratic party needs better policies relative to the republicans.

I'm often lazy and try to rely only on the knowledge I already have, so I will assume you are correct in the definition, and research it more later. (Yeah, really lazy, but when debating with you I try to put forth more effort, because you challenge me in a way I find intellectually stimulating. But still, get off my lawn!!) I will concede that overall, the Democratic party has better policies, but they also have several positions that I object to so fervently that it nullifies their superiority to the Republicans.

That's what all politicians do though, it's not specific to democrats.

[/quote][/quote]

Exactly why I liked the non-politician. Turns out he is a moron, but the fact that he came this far should speak to how the populace views politicians, and I hope it terrifies both Democrats and Republicans, otherwise the next person may be even worse. (Think someone with Trump's views, but smart enough to not mention them until after they are elected. Do some research on the Philippines, and bring that puppy)

[EquALLity]

You asked before I could tell you whether or not you could ask, so that point is moot. If you must know, I don't want to post it here, but send me a PM and I'll fill you in. I've already deduced your state, but your clues were easier to follow.

Done.

I did mention I disagree with Democrats and Republicans right? They both suck, vote for President Rhino!

Haha, yeah, I know. My point is that republicans are far worse than democrats.

1. "He started it!" is not a valid reason for allowing it to continue, especially when the left is supposed to be against it. The fact that he allowed it to continue (IMO) is worse than if he had started it. (I'm against spying on Americans because reasons, but when I do it it's ok because I'm not Bush?)

I'm just saying that it was a conservative who had the idea in the first place. I think that's relevant.

2. Yes, but morality varies from person to person, even among those in the same "group". All non-psychopaths (and even some of the psychopaths) can agree that murder is wrong (in most cases), but even people in the same group have differing opinions on what is moral.

There may be differing opinions, but some things are objectively immoral regardless of what people think. It's wrong to deny gay people equal rights for the purposes of bigotry and discrimination, objectively, regardless of what crazy conservatives believe.

If you don't think the law should be based on morality, what do you think it should be based on?

4- I don't deny that climate change is an issue, but people like Al Gore who promote everyone else limiting their carbon footprint, while owning a mansion where the swimming pool alone uses more electricity than an average American household, but justifying it by paying "carbon credits" (IOW, I'm rich, so I can pollute as long as I pay for it, you commoners just keep your heater at 60 degrees in the winter because you can't afford to "buy off" your carbon footprint.), make me throw up in my throat a little bit.

It's annoying, but not a policy issue. Democrats are still FAR better on climate change- one because they acknowledge it exists, and two because they want to implement helpful policies.

1- Noticed you used "primarily". Didn't one of the Presidential candidates vote for that too?

Yes, but it was the Bush Administration and the people Bush put in power (like Donald Rumsfeld) who pushed strongly for the war. Democrats may have voted for it, but it was the conservatives who made it an issue in the first place.

2- I'll go further into this if you address why we should save the murderer from execution by paying for him to be imprisoned (since spending money on him is the morally superior thing to do) yet disagreeing with how much money is too much for us to spend to avoid another World War.

Because I don't think more military spending is going to avoid a war, I think it's destabilizing the middle east further and may lead to another war.

I still contend that is not the center of the party, but the farther right side. (And yes, those are all freaking horrible. With his new VP pick, Trump seems to be embracing all of those, which is why I'm voting for the damn rhino. (Write in votes still count)

But it is the center of the republican party- it's in the platform. It is the official position of the party.

You're linking all Republicans together, but my point was even the non-homophobic ones would have been against the waste of taxpayer dollars.

Except they're pretty much all against marriage equality. But I guess they would've been against it. Democrats may have been too. I'm not sure how that policy got implemented.

But at least that policy was for a good cause. Republicans waste far more money for ridiculous reasons, IMO.

Less than 100 years ago, Germany almost took over all of Europe. Have you seen Germany on a map? They are smaller than some states in America. If not for some key losses, they could have actually won. The only reason we don't live in that era anymore is because we proved as a country we were willing to commit horrible atrocities (nuclear weapons) to protect our country and keep the peace. The axis powers didn't surrender because they came to their senses and realized war is wrong, they did it because we made it very clear we were tired of playing their game. Some radical countries would love to have a nuclear weapon, because their warped ideology actually wants to bring about the "end of days". If you think there is no existential threat to the peaceful world, I suggest you are naive, and don't realize that the "Trumps" of the world are many, and if you fear a Trump presidency, look into Kim Jong Un first, then follow the links. (Bring a puppy, it will be terrifying. )

1) Actually, no, we didn't have to commit horrible atrocities for Germany to surrender. They surrendered before the United States bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2) Japan did surrender after, but it's not clear if they would've surrendered soon anyway.

I don't think we set a good moral standard for the rest of the world when we nuke cities of hundreds of thousands of people.

I also don't agree with the way this was framed. I don't think that they realized war was wrong and stopped because of that, I think it was because of our military. However, that doesn't mean that more military force today will necessarily prevent wars.
The War in Iraq was more military force, and that was a disaster that completely destabilized the region and led to more harm than there would've been if we didn't invade Iraq.
*To be clear, I'm not saying we shouldn't ever use military force. But right now, with no immediate threat the the United States, I don't see why we are spending so much on the military.

Kim Jong Un is a terrible, disgusting person, and what's happening to people in North Korea is horrible. But he's not an immediate existential threat.

.....dammit.. ...still don't have to like it.

I don't like it either, but you have a moral obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils, which is Clinton.

I think you are using your personal opinions to rate the groups, not any actual facts. In my reasoning, this list is more accurate if read from end to beginning.

And you say I'm naive.
You apparently have a lot more faith in America than I do.

It's hard for me to imagine that a significant number of people who aren't bigots would vote for someone who refused to condemn the support of the KKK until he got pushed and pushed into it.

I'm often lazy and try to rely only on the knowledge I already have, so I will assume you are correct in the definition, and research it more later. (Yeah, really lazy, but when debating with you I try to put forth more effort, because you challenge me in a way I find intellectually stimulating. But still, get off my lawn!!)

Glad to hear it.

I will concede that overall, the Democratic party has better policies, but they also have several positions that I object to so fervently that it nullifies their superiority to the Republicans.

So you think the democratic party has more good policies, but that in weight of goodness, they are equal?

If so, why?

Exactly why I liked the non-politician. Turns out he is a moron, but the fact that he came this far should speak to how the populace views politicians, and I hope it terrifies both Democrats and Republicans, otherwise the next person may be even worse. (Think someone with Trump's views, but smart enough to not mention them until after they are elected. Do some research on the Philippines, and bring that puppy)

I agree, I hope it makes them re-think things.

And yeah, I saw what happened in the Philippines.

[knot]

I'd vote Trump if I lived in the US, primarily because I have zero confidence in the established political class.

[Cirion Spellbinder]

I have zero confidence in the established political class.

Why?

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

I'd vote Trump if I lived in the US, primarily because I have zero confidence in the established political class.

Trump is one of them! He was funding Hillary Clinton! Jill Stein is the only real Anti-Establishment candidate!

[knot]

I have zero confidence in the established political class.

Why?

They're too dedicated to this neo-liberal political vision of creating a global society with free movement of people. In the future this might work out well, but at the moment I consider the vision to be extremely dangerous given how many people on the Earth are still unenlightened and deeply tribalistic. Just look at what's been happening in France over the last year. According to their chief of security, they can barely uphold the rule of law at this point, and the country is on the brink of a civil war. This disaster has been completely predictable and avoidable, but for whatever reason the political class has just continued down the same path. I think it's healthy for politcs to have outsiders like Trump come in and give the establishment a reality check, but I can see that he might be too stupid and unqualified to be the person to do that.