True, but these people are 50 meter (easy) targets for Republicans.

What about someone like Tammy Duckworth or a red state senator?

 

I think you'd find that they will find a way to tear that person down too.  Just my opinion.

 

yeah. This country is too conservative for my tastes. I like the idea of religious freedom, I dont like the idea that people want to, or feel they have the right to, project their religious beliefs onto others. People shouldnt have to make decisions based on other people's religious values.Basing law on religious beliefs shouldnt be a thing.

If you dont believe in homosexuality based on relgion, by all means dont engage in homosexual activity. Doesnt mean, because your religion has issues with homosexuality, that other people shouldnt be allowed to be homosexual. That extends to same sex marriages. Your relgion doesnt condone it? Fine, dont marry someone of the same sex. That doesnt mean you should tell other people who have different beliefs that they have to follow your religious rules.

 

While I agree, we're not really alone in that.  In fact, how many countries are there that don't have something like this happening on a broad level?

 

Those are some deep roots to shake off.

While I agree, we're not really alone in that. In fact, how many countries are there that don't have something like this happening on a broad level?

 

Those are some deep roots to shake off.

I understand that plenty of other countries have similar issues. I wish for our country to do/be better.

Well, at least Trumps poll numbers keep falling.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/02/17/president-trumps-approval-rating-is-at-barack-obamas-all-time-low/?utm_term=.98cd0bc2f746

 

 

He's gone off to his golf resort in Florida again, and we're paying for it.

 

I was raised to be polite, and this is a decorous forum. So I won't say what I'm thinking.

It is a working vacation -- he is going to have a big rally tomorrow.  There is nothing more reassuring than having a leader who feels the need to hold big rallies after election - no red flags at all (although technically he has already filed for 2020 and is collecting money for re-election).

 

It is a working vacation -- he is going to have a big rally tomorrow.  There is nothing more reassuring than having a leader who feels the need to hold big rallies after election - no red flags at all (although technically he has already filed for 2020 and is collecting money for re-election).

 

I fail to see the problem. Just lots of people cheering and waiving.

 

I fail to see the problem. Just lots of people cheering and waiving.

 

That's when we were great right? See, told you he'd deliver on his promises.

Edited February 17, 20179 yr by Badsmerf

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/832708293516632065

 

Get him out of office NOW!

To add more insult to injury: top Carson aid fired from HUD for writing critical article of Trump during primaries.   

 

They are going to do a McCarthy like witch hunt of the agencies.

Take that, David Byrne! This is what happens when we stop making sense.

 

I understand that plenty of other countries have similar issues. I wish for our country to do/be better.

 

I agree, I just hear that sort of thing thrown around and it doesn't always make a lot of sense to me relative to the rest of the world.

The Trump soup needs to simmer some more.

 

Maybe the people who where opposed to him from the start and the people with their heads on straight who did not vote, voted Independent, or threw a grenade at the system can smell the aroma now.

 

Let's give it a little more time to let the others smell the soup, it will happen. Stupid can run very deep as we all have witnessed the last 1.5 years or longer, I think for a good number of them, what is happening will be the smelling salts.

 

The smell of this concoction is so offensive it can wake the dead. The push back, I surmise, will come on with a fury. It just needs to be executed right and the people need to put a muzzle on their political representatives' mouths and force them to speak for their constituents and then you hit the streets.

 

It's not about violence, it is about numbers, it is about what is right. A tremendous amount of law enforcement and military personal agree about this disaster. This movement will not be like the late 1960's.

 

I agree, I just hear that sort of thing thrown around and it doesn't always make a lot of sense to me relative to the rest of the world.

I don't want to interfere in the conversation Levi, but I think Jimmer knows that, and just thinks that the right thing is to have a secular based USA.

 

Everyone can believe in their faith, but keep it to your communities. It would be foolish for any religious person to believe that if you enact certain type of laws, that you will stop the LGBT, abortion seekers, Atheists, promiscuity, etc. from doing what they want to do. It will go underground and will be more dangerous for everyone.

 

But to your point - Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan, Yemen, and yes... The Vatican have theocratic governments - most of them are severe human rights violators. Many more are leaning that way and it is not a good thing... it's a horrible thing. Obviously, we share similar viewpoints on the problems in most of those aforementioned countries.

 

This is the U.S.A., this should be a place where we have freedom of, but more importantly freedom from religion. Although that last part is not in the constitution. It's common sense.

According to the nutjob, the media is the enemy of the American People.

Hey, how about Shepard Smith on Fox News letting him have it?  That's kind of unexpected.

 

This is the U.S.A., this should be a place where we have freedom of, but more importantly freedom from religion. Although that last part is not in the constitution. It's common sense.

 

I don't disagree with any of that, but I wonder how much people really understand about other western nations.  We see some left-leaning policies and, I think wrongly, assume that socially they are similarly positioned.  That isn't really true.  Or, at least, there is a wide variance on issues.

 

Religion is still a prominent part of the lives of most people, so I think expecting a complete separation from politics is a bit unfair.  On the plus side, we're trending towards it being a less prominent institution, so that may take some teeth out of these things over time.

Edited February 18, 20179 yr by TheLeviathan

I don't disagree with any of that, but I wonder how much people really understand about other western nations. We see some left-leaning policies and, I think wrongly, assume that socially they are similarly positioned. That isn't really true. Or, at least, there is a wide variance on issues.

 

Religion is still a prominent part of the lives of most people, so I think expecting a complete separation from politics is a bit unfair. On the plus side, we're trending towards it being a less prominent institution, so that may take some teeth out of these things over time.

i have spent a considerable amount of time in Europe and been exposed to culture there.

 

And expecting that there should be a complete separation of church from politics doesnt mean i think it will ever actually happen.

Edited February 18, 20179 yr by jimmer

 

i have spent a considerable amount of time in Europe. And expecting a complete separation of church from politics doesnt mean i think it will ever actually happen.

 

Well, sure, but many of the things people believe in politics stem from what they believe morally, which leads directly to religion.  And separation of church and state has very little to do with what your average citizen wants from an ethical/legal/policy point of view.

 

And is what you're asking for really fair?  I get how we want everyone to just believe their own thing and not impose that on others, but at the end of the day....how is anyone different on this?  Don't we all want to impose/push our beliefs/values to some degree?  To push our values forward?  The only difference, to me, seems to be the source of those values, not so much the actions themselves.

 

 

If your morality (or religion) empowers you to disregard other people or impose your beliefs on other people, the government (i.e. everyone else) has legitimate justification to undercut their capacity do so.  Too long we've shied from shaming Christian Americans in how self-serving their belief-system is.  (I could go on and on and on.)

 

If your morality (or religion) empowers you to disregard other people or impose your beliefs on other people, the government (i.e. everyone else) has legitimate justification to undercut their capacity do so.  Too long we've shied from shaming Christian Americans in how self-serving their belief-system is.  (I could go on and on and on.)

 

Aren't you, by voting Democrat, also attempting to disregard the values of Republicans?  Or hoping to impose your viewpoint on the country and, thus, on them?    Isn't every vote or political action we support a self-serving one at some level?  I could go on and on.

 

You disagree with what they want to achieve, but I would suggest that your motivations (and mine and pretty much everyone else) is really not all that different.

Edited February 18, 20179 yr by TheLeviathan

Hey, how about Shepard Smith on Fox News letting him have it? That's kind of unexpected.

Shep has been one of the more tolerable Fox anchors for a long time.

 

Like Megyn Kelly, I suspect he'll leave at some point because why even work at that place?

 

Shep has been one of the more tolerable Fox anchors for a long time.

Like Megyn Kelly, I suspect he'll leave at some point because why even work at that place?

 

If the outrage at him keeps up he may not have any other choice but to leave.....

 

Aren't you, by voting Democrat, also attempting to disregard the values of Republicans?  Or hoping to impose your viewpoint on the country and, thus, on them?    Isn't every vote or political action we support a self-serving one at some level?  I could go on and on.

 

You disagree with what they want to achieve, but I would suggest that your motivations (and mine and pretty much everyone else) is really not all that different.

Ugh.  There's a difference between democracy and religion.  One functions within rule of the majority, the other functions in spite of it.

 

Also, I can vote against a party, and still choose to govern with the other side in mind and respect those same people (that doesn't mean let them impose their beliefs). 

Edited February 18, 20179 yr by PseudoSABR

 

Ugh.  There's a difference between democracy and religion.  One functions within rule of the majority, the other functions in spite of it.

 

Also, I can vote against a party, and still choose to govern with the other side in mind and respect those same people (that doesn't mean let them impose their beliefs). 

 

Religious people vote and act within the democracy to impose their beliefs just as you do.  You (and me and everyone else) wish to impose all sorts of values on the country, be it abortion rights or same sex marriage or whatever.  The only difference is where we derive our values.

 

The key isn't to get religious people to stop imposing their values but to help change their values.  Best way to do that is with discussion and the exchange of ideas.  Not telling people they "can't" or "shouldn't" impose their values.  We all do that.  Lecturing them on that is just engaging in hypocrisy.  

 

Best part is we have hundreds of years of evidence that changing their ideas can and does work, even if it's hard and slow.  

Aren't you, by voting Democrat, also attempting to disregard the values of Republicans?  Or hoping to impose your viewpoint on the country and, thus, on them?    Isn't every vote or political action we support a self-serving one at some level?  I could go on and on.

 

You disagree with what they want to achieve, but I would suggest that your motivations (and mine and pretty much everyone else) is really not all that different.

Did you really just equate religion to a political party?

At least Jason Chaffetz has his priorities in place.  He is asking Sessions to reopen the Hilary e-mail investigation.  That is by far the most pressing thing that needs to be investigated at this time.  With people like him in positions of responsibility the ship will remain on the right course...

Religious people vote and act within the democracy to impose their beliefs just as you do. You (and me and everyone else) wish to impose all sorts of values on the country, be it abortion rights or same sex marriage or whatever. The only difference is where we derive our values.

 

The key isn't to get religious people to stop imposing their values but to help change their values. Best way to do that is with discussion and the exchange of ideas. Not telling people they "can't" or "shouldn't" impose their values. We all do that. Lecturing them on that is just engaging in hypocrisy.

 

Best part is we have hundreds of years of evidence that changing their ideas can and does work, even if it's hard and slow.

 

Who is imposing abortion on anyone? Or same sex marriage? Are those laws forcing anyone to have an abortion or marry a same sex partner? Seriously? Having those laws is not imposing a belief on anyone. They are protecting people from having beliefs imposed on them. Forcing women to live through an unwanted and/or dangerous pregnancy and give birth is imposing a belief. It's also removing her right and ability (because most feel she hasn't the ability) to make her own moral and educated decision. How is giving her that choice imposing anything on anyone else? Other than they don't like it or agree with it, it is NOT imoosing anything on anyone else. Same with same sex marriage. How is allowing a group of people the same equality imposing anything on anyone else? By that same token, and in that same logic, I suppose abolishing slavery was also an imposition, too.

 

Who is imposing abortion on anyone? Or same sex marriage? Are those laws forcing anyone to have an abortion or marry a same sex partner? Seriously? Having those laws is not imposing a belief on anyone. They are protecting people from having beliefs imposed on them. Forcing women to live through an unwanted and/or dangerous pregnancy and give birth is imposing a belief. It's also removing her right and ability (because most feel she hasn't the ability) to make her own moral and educated decision. How is giving her that choice imposing anything on anyone else? Other than they don't like it or agree with it, it is NOT imoosing anything on anyone else. Same with same sex marriage. How is allowing a group of people the same equality imposing anything on anyone else? By that same token, and in that same logic, I suppose abolishing slavery was also an imposition, too.

 

Well, yes, abolishing slavery was an imposition.  We forced the south to give up slavery.  That's what an imposition is.  But impositions can be a good thing!  And we all want to impose our values more generally.  

 

There are a host of issues I'm sure you support that would directly alter the lives of other people but you seek to impose them anyway because you feel the greater good is served for it.  Campaign financing, income equality, criminal justice reforms, reducing gun proliferation, etc.  All of these things would force differences on others that disagree with you, but you seek to impose them anyway.  

 

All of us do.

 

Edited February 18, 20179 yr by TheLeviathan

 

At least Jason Chaffetz has his priorities in place.  He is asking Sessions to reopen the Hilary e-mail investigation.  That is by far the most pressing thing that needs to be investigated at this time.  With people like him in positions of responsibility the ship will remain on the right course...

 

Maybe that town hall had an effect?  That would be encouraging.