Who did you vote for?

[EquALLity]

Platform = official positions of party.

It's objective reality that the republican party is more crazy than the dem party, because the official positions of the repubs (platform) are far more ridiculous. There's nothing biased about that.

[brimstoneSalad]

Platform = official positions of party.

It's objective reality that the republican party is more crazy than the dem party, because the official positions of the repubs (platform) are far more ridiculous. There's nothing biased about that.

Can you cite them?
https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/d ... 872234.pdf

Some are easy to find, but it's pretty long. If you can give quotes for each one, we can find it based on context (or page and paragraph number).

Some of this is pretty ambiguous:

The internet must not become a safe haven for
predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects,
especially on children, has become a public health
crisis that is destroying the lives of millions. We encourage
states to continue to fight this public menace
and pledge our commitment to children’s safety
and well-being. We applaud the social networking
sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We
urge energetic prosecution of child pornography,
which is closely linked to human trafficking.

Are they talking about child porn?
Anyway, even if they aren't, that's a pretty trivial issue. Very silly, yes, but trivial because it won't negatively affect many people.

The number of people affected and the harm done is more important than any arbitrary silliness metric.

Also, official party platforms don't necessarily mean that much since politicians deviate so much (the party as a whole, in terms of the sum of or average opinion, may itself be different). What percentage of politicians in the party actually stick to which platforms? That's where it means something.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Hey guys, this is Dizzy, I am writing from Z's account as I can't get into mine. He isn't a troll, he just usually goes on this forum when he is high.

[Red]

Hey guys, this is Dizzy, I am writing from Z's account as I can't get into mine. He isn't a troll, he just usually goes on this forum when he is high.

Whatever it is, pass that shot my way. Puff puff pass.
No but seriously, his posts seem to get gradually stupider, so maybe that explains a lot. But hey, it's harmless enough. Didn't you say Engrish isn't his first language.

[Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz]

Hey guys, this is Dizzy, I am writing from Z's account as I can't get into mine. He isn't a troll, he just usually goes on this forum when he is high.

Whatever it is, pass that shot my way. Puff puff pass.
No but seriously, his posts seem to get gradually stupider, so maybe that explains a lot. But hey, it's harmless enough. Didn't you say Engrish isn't his first language.

He's getting very good at English. I still help him with his posts, but nowadays, it's only a few grammatical errors at most.

- Dizzy

[EquALLity]

The internet must not become a safe haven for
predators. Pornography, with its harmful effects,
especially on children, has become a public health
crisis that is destroying the lives of millions. We encourage
states to continue to fight this public menace
and pledge our commitment to children’s safety
and well-being. We applaud the social networking
sites that bar sex offenders from participation. We
urge energetic prosecution of child pornography,
which is closely linked to human trafficking.

Well, no, they aren't talking about child porn. At the end, they mention child porn, but in the beginning they're talking about porn (regular). Or else why would they say it costs millions of lives every year? And why would they say it's especially harmful to children? That necessitates the implication that it's harmful to adults as well, and how does child porn harm adults?
They're talking about porn, and then they connect it to child porn, probably as a way to imply regular porn is bad in the way that child porn is, which is absolutely ridiculous.

Citations for platforms:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/republican-convention-issues.html?_r=0
1) Theocracy: The platform demands that lawmakers use religion as a guide when legislating, stipulating “that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights.”
2) Bible: It also encourages the teaching of the Bible in public schools because, the amendment said, a good understanding of its contents is “indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry.”
3) Conversion therapy and gay adoption/parenting: Additional provisions included those that promoted state laws to limit which restrooms transgender people could use, nodded to “conversion therapy” for gays by saying that parents should be free to make medical decisions about their children without interference and stated that “natural marriage” between a man and a woman is most likely to result in offspring who do not become drug-addicted or otherwise damaged.

Oh, it also calls coal a clean energy source and is against women engaging in combat in the military! How lovely.
Not to mention this, which is actually the most disgusting thing of all. What the fuck?

An amendment to specifically recognize that gay people are targets of the Islamic State caused a stir among more conservative delegates who said they felt there was no need to single out any one group. As the delegate who offered the amendment, Giovanni Cicione of Rhode Island, argued his case — by saying he believed it was an “innocuous and important” way to tell gay people the Republican Party does not exclude them — another delegate moved to shut off the debate.

Jim Bopp, a delegate from Indiana, said the Republican Party had always rejected “identity politics.” Arguing against the measure, he said, “Obviously, there’s an agenda here.”

The amendment was defeated, as were others in a similar vein.

The number of people affected and the harm done is more important than any arbitrary silliness metric.

It's not just rhetoric. They're talking about policies. And rhetoric does matter, because it impacts the views of the people.

Also, official party platforms don't necessarily mean that much since politicians deviate so much (the party as a whole, in terms of the sum of or average opinion, may itself be different). What percentage of politicians in the party actually stick to which platforms? That's where it means something.

The platforms are decided by the party, so they're going to generally line up with the views of the party.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's not just rhetoric. They're talking about policies. And rhetoric does matter, because it impacts the views of the people.

Not necessarily very much if virtually nobody reads it or follows it.
There is a danger there -- like the text of the Bible for moderate Christians who ignore it -- but it's pretty muted in the grand scheme of things.

The platforms are decided by the party, so they're going to generally line up with the views of the party.

I would need to see some hard numbers on this.