quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire
there is i and no-ele so i will feast
correct I all above me

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka
*

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greta75
When I was a kid, I naturally wanted total freedom of speech, full freedom of press, and I don't think those things should suffer consequences. I thought our government, my own government in my own country, was way too crazy and restricting.
But as I grew up, I think the changing point was when initially, I wanted to pursue a career in journalism, and took a year's course on it.
There was a class that shows about how irresponsible journalism could influence the masses in a negative way. And have resulted in death of innocent people, and people getting physically hurt, as it riled up people to violence.
It completely change my entire view on what I wanted for full freedom of speech.
What I learnt is, in Utopia. Everybody is a mature adult who can exchange and have differences of view, differing beliefs, without ever going into physical conflict.
But in the real world. There are alot of non-mature adults operating in it, who are the black sheeps that can really cause some serious damage over words that are said.
So I completely understood our government point of view after that. They want a perfect orderly, law abiding society, where everything goes smoothly everyday, with no hiccups or major crime or protests or riots to disrupt people's day to day life.
This is also important as we have no natural resources AT ALL. Our economy is 100% reliant on companies wanting to be based here as a first choice due to the stability and security and predictability of an environment that we can offer.
It makes me really appreciate my government alot more and I really see their style of governance. It is based on pure pragmatism. And not against human rights. They simply want to do what is best for this country to continue to be successful. What works for us may not work for a country filled with natural resources for example.
As for which American party I support. I grew up thinking dems are the better party who represents more freedom, more kindness.
But after their support of an extremely terrible religion that does not represent what dems are suppose to represent.
I just started feeling more kindred spirits with republicans who seem to be the party who is not under estimating the goals of Islam as a religion and what they are trying to achieve in this world.
Dems keeps laughing it off as xenophobia, racism or paranoia, whatever. They are no longer sane or doing what is best for maintaining as much freedom for their people as possible. To support the very religion which is the anti-thesis of freedom.
I also grew up viewing Islam as a peaceful cultist religion, because of all their religious dress code, rules, fasting, all that stuffs. And also because I spent a good part of my life in a Muslim's family home. As my parents got an agreement with them to pick me up for school, and pick me back from school and hang out at their place until my parents can pick me home. But looking back as an adult on how they treated their daughter, my best friend then. And just little things came back to me.
One thing is, my own parents were physically abusive too, so even though my best friend was also being physically punished, but ALL her punishments were about breaking Islamic rules. My punishment has nothing to do with religion. But simply having a mother who hates my existence and lives to torment me.
So at that point of time, I didn't associate her abuse with Islam teachings. But looking back, I see it really clearly now that it was all Islam motivated. I felt her parents loved her. She was an only child. But they were just also, simply following their religion and trying to keep their daughter from straying from the religious regiments, as with religious people.
The hardest thing my friend had was being forced to wear the horrible hijab all the time. She never understood why she has to hide her body. She always leave in a hijab and then change into short skirts and normal clothes in my home, and we go out. And then change back into hijab to go home. Or she'll be punished for not wearing it outside.

Things like these. I felt was horrible. She also got punished for drinking from my cup. Sharing utensils or crockery that has touched swine is against Islam. I am chinese, I eat pork as my stable, we use pork lard for everything! Even our sweet traditional desserts, we put pork lard in it! So everything that I touch is polluted. And even if washed with detergent before allowing her to use it is not good enough. It needs special holy sand and water to rinse it of the "unholiness of swine" in it apparently.
So in the end, I had disposable cups just for her. She can't eat food in our home that's for sure. As our kitchen has pork in it.
My point is, I think at core, I still believe in total freedom. For my government, they have a good excuse not to practice it. It's about greater good.
But what is Islam's excuse? And what is dems excuse for supporting a religion that is against freedom.
I remembered some articles were even saying Trump aggressive stances towards Muslims, will hurt the relationship with the middle east. And US wants their oil and their "help" to fight ISIS. We all know the very people funding ISIS are the middle eastern government. Well...., there lies the problem. Basically, bending over to the world's most evil country, like Saudi Arabia, over oil. And playing surface games. They pretending to be horrified over ISIS, while they are the ones empowering ISIS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SunDominant
Gay marriage.
About ten years ago I was blessed to form a most unlikely friendship with the loudest, bitchiest, most opinionated gay man I had ever come across. He passed away a few years ago; a great loss to me. Frequent dialogue between us convinced me that if since government has inserted itself into our private live by taking over the institution of marriage, it must be equally available to all. It would, of course, be preferable that the state was not involved in any form when it comes to matrimony.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As for the EC, we know now that the rhetoric of a demagogue...works and that it has occurred twice in 16 years for the repubs, that they depend upon it, means if it happens again...it must go.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


It seems to me that the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do ... keep major cities in two states from deciding a presidential election for the whole country. Kudos to the Founders.



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
As for the EC, we know now that the rhetoric of a demagogue...works and that it has occurred twice in 16 years for the repubs, that they depend upon it, means if it happens again...it must go.

Try and imagine how boring that word is, especially to people who don't regard it as an argument.

Honestly, demagogue is the new sustainable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Demagogue: a person, especially an orator or political leader, (or one who seeks political power) who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
Hardly boring, the real meaning of which sets up great disappointment for the demagogue's base of those whose appeal he's attained.
The demagogue rarely does and in our present case, will not come through on his rhetoric. He will succumb to the very powers he pledged to disturb.
Look at his proposed sec. of state. A man ripe with a direct conflict in dealing with Russia and who has no diplomatic or political experience...at all.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers
Demagogue: a person, especially an orator or political leader, (or one who seeks political power) who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.
Hardly boring, the real meaning of which sets up great disappointment for the demagogue's base of those whose appeal he's attained.
The demagogue rarely does and in our present case, will not come through on his rhetoric. He will succumb to the very powers he pledged to disturb.
Look at his proposed sec. of state. A man ripe with a direct conflict in dealing with Russia and who has no diplomatic or political experience...at all.

Well, it looks to me like much of the definition you forwarded depends upon god-like mastery of reading people (emotions and passions) and full telepathy (prejudices), neither of which we have access to.

I have no desire to lionize Donald Trump, but it seems to me that an argument against his ideas, policies, appointments or statements should be tough enough to stand on their own without being bolstered by boring buzzwords like racist, sexist, misogynist, islamophobe or demagogue.

Don't even try to put bullhorns on that bear; hardly anyone's buying, and the folks that are, well they don't have any money.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


It seems to me that the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do ... keep major cities in two states from deciding a presidential election for the whole country. Kudos to the Founders.



Michael

The question becomes why ? Why is it the function of the EC to keep a handful of large cities from electing the pres. ? And why does majority rule suffer from geography ?

Even with the EC, isn't it something like 17 states could elect a pres. ? And isn't that directly due to having a few large cities within them and obviously not near even a majority of the states.

As it is, it looks like the majority of our individual votes will be 63 million+ to 61 million+, close but...not a majority.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrRodgers

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


It seems to me that the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do ... keep major cities in two states from deciding a presidential election for the whole country. Kudos to the Founders.



Michael

The question becomes why ? Why is it the function of the EC to keep a handful of large cities from electing the pres. ? And why does majority rule suffer from geography ?

Even with the EC, isn't it something like 17 states could elect a pres. ? And isn't that directly due to having a few large cities within them and obviously not near even a majority of the states.

As it is, it looks like the majority of our individual votes will be 63 million+ to 61 million+, close but...not a majority.

its an absurd question and the short answer is, as Michael alluded to, all the country is not los angeles and new York city, which two places actually account for the popular vote differential.

your argument about other populated cities notwithstanding, the electoral college method is designed to be representative of the entire country, not concentrated dots on the map.

as to your argument about other populated cities, should we ever get to the point where the results in a large handful of states are swayed one particular way because of the presence of a large city (like frequently occurs in Minnesota), something desirable will have been lost.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
It seems to me that the EC did exactly what it was supposed to do ... keep major cities in two states from deciding a
presidential election for the whole country. Kudos to the Founders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ManOeuvre
What political issue have you done an about face on?

quote:

We've all seen the slightly rightward shuffle that happens when people first start earning some decent coin, and heard the adage that a right-minded youth has no heart while a left-minded professional has no brain.