US Presidential Election 2016 Discussion - Politics & Religion

Muslim-Bigfoot

Gender: Male
Age: 33
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Precedent wrote:

Anti Separation of Church & State

What do you exactly mean by "Anti Separation of Church & State? Because a common meaning is that the religious institution can meddle with different branches of government, one being the legislative branch. Now what this implies is that one can base laws on religion. Now if laws are derived from Christian texts that means those in the minority who don't believe in those religious texts will be discriminated against. Sure their views might not have the vote needed to be represented (imaginary scenario everyone) but what you're doing is make them abide by your religion (which is in line with Christianity btw, it being a proselytizing religion, historical instances of which can be found in Latin America and Africa). This is called tyranny of the majority or ochlocrasy. Now you and your party comrades bear the name of Republican (very unfortunately I might add); do you know what that means? It literally means "a democracy that doesn't allow ochlocrasy by recognizing inalienable rights". So what you're saying here is that you're republican and at the same time "anti-republican" which is not weird at all for the superior mind of the religious folk for sure but allow my humble brain to get crushed trying to imagine it.
_________________
"I feel like for the last two years there’s been sort of a sonic evolution happening and I’ve been experimenting more and more."

Revolution909

Age: 29
Location: Galway, Ireland's 4th City

Precedent wrote:

Pro wealth disparity

Financial inequality has huge negative side-effects to society. Crime, life expectancy, social mobility (the American Dream) and social cohesion (a peaceful, content populace vs. a splintered, divided, quarrelsome nation - sound familiar?) are merely a selection of the metrics that are adversely affected by a large wealth disparity. How is this good?

I can see the argument that society needs some degree of income inequality in order to account for things like productivity (a "lazy" worker shouldn't be paid as much as a diligent worker) or level of educational attainment (a hospital porter shouldn't be at the same pay grade as a neurosurgeon, for example, because the neurosurgeon had to undergo lengthy, rigorous and demanding training and personal sacrifice to practice in such a high-stakes environment). In other words, a meritocracy. But a meritocracy with civic responsibility, so that the person with the most "menial" (for want of a better word) job still has enough food to eat, a place to stay and a passable quality of life etc. AND the opportunity to progress if they can/want to.
Reward good behavior and hard work, but not to the extent that you're making life impossible for those starting off from a less well-off entry point into life/ the workforce.

Precedent wrote:

Haha I'm moving out of the Country for College anyways! It's just a matter of when Wink

You're quite fortunate to have the means to go abroad to further your education. Perhaps give going to university in Europe some thought - it might give you a new perspective on things like this and some of the other views you mentioned in previous posts.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums

Top 100 Music Albums of the 2010s

babyBlueSedan
Used to be sort of blind, now can sort of see

Gender: Male

Sorry for being that guy but can we say Anti-Universal Healthcare or something? I don't think Republicans have an issue with the existence of hospitals and clinics, they just don't want poor families going to them. Sorry but that's a pet peeve Laughing

My biggest fear is that Clinton will get the Democrat nomination, causing lots of liberal-leaning voters to not vote or to vote for some third-party candidate. Is this a fear I should have? I've had several people tell me they'd never vote for Clinton but surely she'd be worth a vote just as a vote against the Republicans? Someone please tell me this won't happen so I can stop worrying.

Also gooooo Sandersss
_________________
And it's hard to be a human being. And it's harder as anything else.

Revolution909

Age: 29
Location: Galway, Ireland's 4th City

babyBlueSedan wrote:

Sorry for being that guy but can we say Anti-Universal Healthcare or something? I don't think Republicans have an issue with the existence of hospitals and clinics, they just don't want poor families going to them. Sorry but that's a pet peeve Laughing

My biggest fear is that Clinton will get the Democrat nomination, causing lots of liberal-leaning voters to not vote or to vote for some third-party candidate. Is this a fear I should have? I've had several people tell me they'd never vote for Clinton but surely she'd be worth a vote just as a vote against the Republicans? Someone please tell me this won't happen so I can stop worrying.

Also gooooo Sandersss

She is very much worth a vote to stop Republicans. I would tentatively stop worrying for a number of reasons:

(a) Clinton being a woman will cause a groundswell of support for her candidacy when/if it's her versus an Republican. A lot of "I want to be a part of history" will play a role.

(b) I would hope that those to the left of Hillary would have the wherewithal to realize that a vote for Hillary is somewhat better than a vote for the GOP. Even if that means not voting for a third party candidate in order to block a GOPer getting into the White House. If they're not, they need calling out as November 2016 approaches. That's where people like us come in!*

(c) Some well placed celebrity endorsements and some crucial endorsements from Bill, Elizabeth Warren, Obama and the Democratic nominees she'll have beaten (i.e. Sanders) will hopefully go a long way.

*UNLESS a more liberal third party candidate was polling so well as to suggest that they have a very substantial chance in attaining a plurality/majority of the electoral college, which is admittedly soooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unlikely.
_________________
Top 100 Greatest Music Albums

Top 100 Music Albums of the 2010s

SuedeSwede
Ognoo

Gender: Female
Age: 26
Location: On a cloud

BEA strives to be a warm and accepting community, yet here we are making presumptions about someone who has literally said they are conservative.
_________________

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

babyBlueSedan wrote:

Sorry for being that guy but can we say Anti-Universal Healthcare or something? I don't think Republicans have an issue with the existence of hospitals and clinics, they just don't want poor families going to them. Sorry but that's a pet peeve Laughing

Yeah, that's my fault. poorly worded. But yeah, how on earth could someone be against everyone having health care. Seems like that'd be a given, especially from self-proclaimed Christians.
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

babyBlueSedan
Used to be sort of blind, now can sort of see

Gender: Male

Revolution909 wrote:

I would hope that those to the left of Hillary would have the wherewithal to realize that a vote for Hillary is somewhat better than a vote for the GOP. Even if that means not voting for a third party candidate in order to block a GOPer getting into the White House.

My main concern is people just being too apathetic to vote, but I agree with your other points. Hopefully the general blandness of the GOP candidates makes up for any ill-will towards Hillary.

meccalecca wrote:

Yeah, that's my fault. poorly worded. But yeah, how on earth could someone be against everyone having health care. Seems like that'd be a given, especially from self-proclaimed Christians.

It really does boggle my mind. I think some people have just been fortunate enough to not realize how many uninsured people there are, but the lack of empathy is still concerning.
_________________
And it's hard to be a human being. And it's harder as anything else.

bongritsu
电子人 ( ｃｙｂｏｒｇ)

Location: bog

The funniest part of the debate was Cruz saying reagan got the Iran hostages released because of strength of personality and not because he promised to sell them weapons.

Carson, Trump, paul and kasich (in that order) were all winners in this one IMO. the others looked like cuckolds, slimy or disingenuous.
_________________
Alt Right meme game on point

I FEEL DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AS A PERSON OF JUDGEMENT.

meccalecca
Voice of Reason

Gender: Male
Location: The Land of Enchantment

bongritsu wrote:

The funniest part of the debate was Cruz saying reagan got the Iran hostages released because of strength of personality and not because he promised to sell them weapons.

Carson, Trump, paul and kasich (in that order) were all winners in this one IMO. the others looked like cuckolds, slimy or disingenuous.

Trump didn't look slimy?

The idea that anyone would reference Reagan positively in regards to Iran is just completely ridiculous and insulting
_________________
http://jonnyleather.com

bongritsu
电子人 ( ｃｙｂｏｒｇ)

Location: bog

meccalecca wrote:

Trump didn't look slimy?

Nope. Onyl thing that bordered slimyness was his weak ass prolife answer. Which was pretty upsetting.

Quote:

The idea that anyone would reference Reagan positively in regards to Iran is just completely ridiculous and insulting

Id say just ignorant.

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

(which is in line with Christianity btw, it being a proselytizing religion, historical instances of which can be found in Latin America and Africa).

Right, because the prot/evangelical favored state Christianity will be anything like the catholic state Christianity seen in those.

lmao.

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

which is not weird at all for the superior mind of the religious folk for sure but allow my humble brain to get crushed trying to imagine it.

considering how hard you misread the religious elite of america, it just might do that. Try calming down.

You are reading to much into this. Prots dont defend their religious rights, meaning they wont force it on others. They have bent on pretty much every issue.
_________________
Alt Right meme game on point

I FEEL DISCRIMINATED AGAINST AS A PERSON OF JUDGEMENT.