American Election Discussion

grey_til_I_dye

simonc

Not sure what you mean by 'Here we go again'.

I challenged your claim that anyone who disagreed with you was 'anti-life' and you have done nothing to answer that.

You don't have to, if you don't want to, but don't refer to my post AND ignore it - that doesn't make sense.

grey_til_I_dye

A determination to force your religious views on the surrounding population - isn't that what ISIS is about?

MrsGrey

They've made a start by reintroducing the 'gag rule'.

TheMadcapLaughs

I think Simonc is probably hoping that they base their judgements on "Christian values" ??

alderz

As grey says though, that is exactly what people are angry at ISIS for.

grey_til_I_dye

I have no issue with people being guided by their conscience when it comes to personal decisions.

However, I don't think it should be relevant when considering a point of law.

I was marginally comforted by what Gorsuch said in accepting the nomination:

"It is the role of judges to apply, not alter, the work of the people's representatives. A judge who likes every outcome he reaches is very likely a bad judge, stretching for results he prefers rather than those the law demands."

Moojor

So lets make America great again...by ignoring the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

So high values Trump puts in American history and upholding those values. In fact ANYONE believing that laws should be put in place because of their own personal religious views are in fact anti-American, because you want to go against the foundation on which your country was built.

So year, the pro-life, christian view, which wants to impose it's view on the population...no very american in anyway shape or form.

alderz

Mooj ;ok

The constitution only ever seems to be an issue when someone wants to control gun laws.

TheMadcapLaughs

alderz said:

As grey says though, that is exactly what people are angry at ISIS for.

I don`t think basing your decisions on Christian principles can be compared with the objectives and aims of isis. I think it fair and logical that in a predominantly Christian country the electorate may tend to favour candidates with similar beliefs and appoint officials accordingly. I`m not saying I agree with it but I don`t see it as unreasonable.

I personally don`t have any time for any religious beliefs/doctrines (although I have an interest in the ideas of the anabaptists and quakers) and believe that in the wrong hands any religious doctrine can be used to coerce and terrorise people (as has been proved time and again through recent history).

America has a totally different outlook with regards to the individual and the rights accorded to the individual than we have in Europe (although Thatcher did her best to convince us that greed is good) and I think it is hard to judge the reasoning and motivation of what drives Americans from an English/European perspective. Even down to what me may consider "obviously wrong" and "just not cricket".

TheMadcapLaughs

Moojor, I think I mentioned earlier that America began to abandon the principles of the constitution even before the ink was dry. Trump isn`t the first and won`t be the last president to abandon the constitution and be "un-American". And as with all man made law, it is, and will always be, open to interpretation.

As I`ve said before, Trump is a particularly unpleasant man, but I feel that people are getting a little hysterical in their condemnation. Trump has put a temporary ban on people coming into America from particular countries. Obama dropped more bombs on the middle east than any other president. Where were the protesters with witty placards then? Again, I`m not defending Trump, but I think a lot of condemnation and rhetoric stems from him not being "cool".

The knives are out for Trump, and I personally don`t think anything he does or achieves will be recognised or acknowledged because of the rabid hatred people have for him.

Religion and politics (politicians) are the twin evils that seem to divide us (normal people) but apparently we can`t live without either. Or so we are told. Strange World.

grey_til_I_dye

Madcap

My point was 'forcing others'.

I'd like any politician to be a moral, reasonable, reflective person, and Christians can certainly be that.

If an individual Christian wants to have qualms about abortions fair play to them.

To say America is 'predominantly Christian' isn't really enough, since different groups have such widely differing opinions of what being Christian entails.

I define myself as a Christian (and as a normal person, by the way), but my faith has nothing whatsoever to do with the briimstone and hellfire preachers typical of the southern US, and their emphasis on Old Testament texts.

Nothing I have seen Trump do or say strikes me as particularly 'Christian', and in many instances quite the opposite.

If a Christian becomes president, and says 'I am going to create laws which force people to conform to my view of morality/ethics', I think that is tyranny.

As to dismissing people's objections to Trump as stemming from him not being 'cool' - seriously? You think that's what people have a problem with?

If Trump ends up being the President who helps to heal US society, reduce crime and poverty, and increase real living standards for the poorest Americans, I'll be cheering him from the rafters, but I'm not going to practice rafter climbing just yet.

chicagohammer

There will a bunch of us up there eating humble pie, but I am not thinking about getting my baking pans out just yet

simonc

Alderz - I don't consider Trumps policies Sexist or Racist, it may be said but it doesn't make it so.

Grey - I did not say "anyone who disagreed with you (me) was 'anti-life' " I was simply referring to Clinton.

"President who helps to heal US society, reduce crime and poverty, and increase real living standards for the poorest Americans"

To heal society may be a stretch, he has already reached out to many sectors but unfortunately those that responded were ridiculed - I would however be disappointed if he does not surprise you on the others

alderz

simonc said:

Alderz - I don't consider Trumps policies Sexist or Racist, it may be said but it doesn't make it so.

So you don't think that the wall is demonising hispanics? Or they his calling for a ban on muslims during his campaign (he can call it a travel ban now if he likes) is demonising Islam? Or his comments about women over the years aren't misogynistic or sexist? Or his choice of Steve Bannon isn't encouraging fascism?

simonc

Alderz - To answer each and all - No I don't,
Is there nothing in your past that you would not find embarrassing now & have your views not changed over the years?

MrsGrey

It was a few months ago.
And it has been consistent for years before that.
And he's still doing it.
And he's never renounced those views.
And never apologised for them.
And all that time he was an adult.

Don't try to portray it as a few foolish things he said as a teenager, and ha now grown out of.

Well. Do, if you like.


But you'll convince no-one, because it's not true.

You are trying to justify the unjustifiable, imo.

alderz

Simon

I regret things I did when I was younger, yes. But you're talking about the last six months as a world leader. It's not the same thing.

Also, none of the things I regret involve derogatory comments about people because of the colour of their skin, their religion, their disabilities, their gender, their nationality. And that's because I have never done those things because they are totally abhorrent to me.

alderz

And how you can't see that calling for ban on Muslims is anti-Islamic is completely baffling.

PrestonHammer

But 88% of all Muslims can still come to America.

NEoldiron

Is there are any correlation between Brexiteers on this forum and Trump supporters or at least people who think it's ok what he's done so far?

simonc

Alrerz, Mrs G the same people who were so offended by Trump, then paraded around Washington with Vaginas on there heads offending the Transexuals - http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/01/24/trans-community-womens-march-protesters-focus-on-female-genitalia-was-oppressive/
And Trump is sexist please..

PrestonHammer

I don't support Trump in any way. The thing is not enough people liked Clinton and Trump got in by default. If the Democrats had put up a better candidate who campaigned on the issues instead of pointing out Trumps faults, that candidate would have won.

alderz

That's besides the point now though, Preston. Now it's about the fact that he is in power, and we should be focussing on what he is doing now, not that Hilary was also bad.

And the point isn't that some Muslims can travel. You don't think it's causing rising tensions? You don't think it's got the potential for creating a dangerous climate?

Simon

Why is it that you only respond with things other people have done instead of addressing any of trumps behaviours? Someone else has done something offensive? Of course they have. That doesn't make his policies ok, or not offensive.

MrsGrey

You really haven't got a clue, have you?

There was a march. It was about one thing.

Some other people felt like they didn't want to join in.

That doesn't means the march was discriminating against the 2nd group.



Here's an example that might make it easier for you to grasp.

Tony Drump says, vegetarians are twonks. And says he likes to stamp on vegetarian sausages.

Vegetarians organise a protest march to say vegetarians aren't twonks and Drump is prejudiced against vegetarians. And they dress up as vegetarian sausages.

Some vegans say they didn't want to join in, because the march is focused on vegetarianism, and they would prefer to dress up as lettuces.

Now, if you can in all logic suggest that the vegans are being discriminated against by the protest march ... well, words fail me.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

NEoldiron said:

Is there are any correlation between Brexiteers on this forum and Trump supporters or at least people who think it's ok what he's done so far?

I don't believe so NE, although comparisons are being drawn and certain sections of the media are trying to make the link, it is very tenuous IMO. I agree there are common themes, but the way they are viewed and the actions of the countries and their administration are very different, as is the attitude of the majority those who voted leave as opposed to the American voters who vote for Trump.

I know what you are pointing at, but your opinion of what type of person voted leave (and their attributes, or lack of) have, in my experience always been very wide of the mark, yes there are some that may actually fit in with how you view them, but many more don't.

I am assuming you have the same view about those who voted for Trump.

AdMeus_CaputFilius

alderz said:

Adme

I agree with you on so much of that. But, to me at least, it is clear that this is a different administration than what we (or rather, I) have seen before.

Also, I can't quite wrap my head around the idea that because it's happened before in some manner or other we shouldn't be angry about it now. It's like the whole "Hilary was worse" argument. The past is the past, and hypotheticals don't matter now. The fact is the (arguably) most powerful nation in the world is being run by someone with a neoNazi whispering in his ear.

Alderz, I am not saying that because it has happened before it is ok to do it again or that people should not be angry about it, I agree that the past is the past and that is where it should be left. That is not to say we cannot learn for the mistakes and try to stop them being repeated, unfortunately this seems to be a difficult concept for humans to accept because people who want power will use whatever means they can to get it.

simonc

alderz - Trump if kicked, kicks back, it has obviously worked very well for him in business & having a foreign policy built on strength not weakness would for me be a positive.
Would i have said some of the things he has - no, but other than the obvious grabbing comment from several years ago I don't get the outrage. What he has said & done has been in response to one unreasonable attack or another.
As you rightly point out he is the President now so would it not be reasonable to allow him to perform the job he was elected to do?

alderz

So, are you saying that him being elected means he can do whatever he likes and people should let him get on with it? Because that seems like a terrible idea. Are people not allowed to be opposed to him?

And to argue that it's ok because people have antagonised him strikes me as dangerous. That someone would respond offensively if other people wind him up makes me think they might not be the best person to deal with the more abrasive foreign leaders.

Remember when Trump spent years unreasonably attacking Obama for anything that came into his head? Remember when Obama lashed it and mocked him? No? Well that's funny isn't it.

PrestonHammer

The man has a very thin skin, too thin to be any good as a world leader. He can't take any form of criticism and just lashes out via twitter.

chicagohammer

On a lighter note

One of my favorite signs spotted at the March after the inauguration. It was a picture of Trump with the slogan

"You're so vain, I bet you think this march is about you"

Well it made me laugh

;biggrin