If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Aug 9, 2016, 02:48 PM
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Some may be, but the vast majority are not. Please don't confuse the majority of republicans with the fringe idiots or corrupt politicians (there's plenty of those on the left, too).
The majority of republicans chose Trump. Mic drop.
As for the religious views - those are enshrined in the 1A. You don't have to agree with the message in order to support one's ability to have it. The ends never justify the means.
There's a difference between respecting freedom of religion and trying to codify religious values into law. You also didn't address the racist and sexist views on which America was built.
The majority of republicans chose Trump. Mic drop.
I certainly get your point , but technically it was a plurality of republicans who chose Trump. Most republicans opposed him ... but he had more votes than any other candidate. Had anti-Trump GOP primary voters coalesced around a single candidate Trump wouldn't have the nomination. But it's hard to feel sorry for the GOP. The Establishment Republican types made this bed with decades worth of dog-whistle politics. So now they have to lie in it.
The majority of republicans chose Trump. Mic drop.
Might want to pick it back up - ya'll "chose" Hillary, with an actual majority.
There's a difference between respecting freedom of religion and trying to codify religious values into law. You also didn't address the racist and sexist views on which America was built.
Views the entire world held during the time period. I agree there's a difference - just because I support freedom of religion and the equality written into the constitution doesn't mean I support every law cranked out by the party I ascribe or every method of achieving that freedom, historically or otherwise. You should know that already because presumably, you'd feel the same way about your party....so :shrug:
I suppose there's a certain irony here. People say democrats screwed up and any other candidate would win in a cake walk. But the flip side is Hillary's toxicity is causing people who would rationally abandon or disavow such an unqualified or dangerous candidate to cling to him.
Essentially if the election is a shit sandwich versus a giant douche infected with chlamydia, we have Republicans choosing chlamydia because they don't like the brand of shit sandwich.
Which is hardly equivalent, and you and I both know that.
Certainly not. One has a track record of corruption, dereliction of office, and crony capitalism. The other is eccentric to a fault and says things that are very unpopular with those that oppose him, demonstrating a certain lack of fitness to hold the office for which he seeks.. Pick your poison, but this is by no means a reason to mic drop. That's like Mussolini dropping the mic because he's not Hitler.
I don't have a party. I abhor both sides equally.
On this we agree. At least, the politicians of each side (which constitute the ruling class).
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Aug 9, 2016, 05:34 PM
Originally Posted by Snow-i
The other is eccentric to a fault and says things that are very unpopular with those that oppose him, demonstrating a certain lack of fitness to hold the office for which he seeks.
That's not an accurate summary of Trump and you know it.
It's amazing how many of Hillary's enemies just suddenly die, yet no one in the MSM establishment dares to even question it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Snow-i, you live in a swing state, who are you planning on voting for?
TBH, I'm thinking I'll go 3rd party. I understand the implications of it, but I refuse to vote for corruption, and I refuse to vote for a reality TV star. This election really is the bottom of the barrel.
I really wish there was an option on the ballet for "none of the above" - that if enough people voted for would trigger a new primary or at least deny either candidate the electoral votes for that state.
I also have been playing around with the idea of a "negative vote" where you wouldn't vote for someone, but against them (thus reducing their tally). You'd only get one vote (either for or against someone) - this way the person with the most positive absolute differential would take that states electoral college votes, allowing a glimmer of hope for 3rd party candidates. It would ensure that candidates aren't being elected simply because voters hate the other guy (or gal) more. Then maybe we would see campaigns that seek to address the issues, instead of just villifying the other side.
Is there a reason you consistently post very weak criticisms of Trump?
At least for me, I don't believe that to be a weak criticism. "Reality" TV is the lowest of the low in my opinion. I take Trump about as seriously as I would Honey-boo-boo or Teen Mom 14 - it's the same kind of intellectually devoid "entertainment" that really encourages the stupid in both the actors and the viewers. There's nothing real about it, and the masses eat that shit up because they're too stupid to realize it's all manufactured anyways. It's the modern equivalent of the WWE only it advertises itself somehow as having a basis in reality.
His campaign, IMO, is based around the Reality TV mantra - it's designed to evoke a base emotional response from viewers to get them more engaged. I don't believe he's that spontaneous - or at least, his spontaneousness (yeah I made up a word) is calculated to succeed based on the same things that made his actual reality TV show succeed - creating drama to engage an audience then exploiting the shit out of the ignorance of that audience. Unfortunately, it's as effective of a tactic as any other, including HRC's repeated use of bold face lies to paint a narrative that vastly differs from the reality of the situation. They're both full of shit - the only difference is HRC uses traditional political campaign tactics where Trump is using something close to what worked for his TV ratings.
Strong enough for you?
(
Last edited by Snow-i; Aug 10, 2016 at 01:41 PM.
Reason: clarity/syntax)
You seem to have more of a problem with the audience than with Trump, who probably did it because it would be a hoot.
Without the audience, we wouldn't have HRC or Trump shitting up the 2016 election. They're only powerful because we make them so, as much as they would have you believe otherwise. Neither one is fit to work an entry level position in government, much less the office of the POTUS.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Aug 10, 2016, 02:17 PM
Originally Posted by Snow-i
At least for me, I don't believe that to be a weak criticism. "Reality" TV is the lowest of the low in my opinion. I take Trump about as seriously as I would Honey-boo-boo or Teen Mom 14 - it's the same kind of intellectually devoid "entertainment" that really encourages the stupid in both the actors and the viewers. There's nothing real about it, and the masses eat that shit up because they're too stupid to realize it's all manufactured anyways. It's the modern equivalent of the WWE only it advertises itself somehow as having a basis in reality.
His campaign, IMO, is based around the Reality TV mantra - it's designed to evoke a base emotional response from viewers to get them more engaged. I don't believe he's that spontaneous - or at least, his spontaneousness (yeah I made up a word) is calculated to succeed based on the same things that made his actual reality TV show succeed - creating drama to engage an audience then exploiting the shit out of the ignorance of that audience.
Holy shit, I'm agreeing with BadKosh. Your criticism of Trump is weak because it's not a criticism of Trump, but of the general public eating up his bullshit.
Unfortunately, it's as effective of a tactic as any other, including HRC's repeated use of bold face lies to paint a narrative that vastly differs from the reality of the situation.
Sorry, not buying it. You can't complain about one candidate telling "bold face lies" while pretending that the other candidate is not guilty of not only more lies, but more egregious and blatant lies.
Why would the leaders of two hedge-fund and two private-equity firms, two bank founders, and two real-estate CEOs donate and raise millions for Trump without the expectation of some kind of return on investment? Oh look, now they're on the economic advisory council. Tell you what, if I know one thing about billionaire hedge fund managers, it's that they have the interest of the average American at heart.
You want to see corruption? Make sure Trump gets into office.
Holy shit, I'm agreeing with BadKosh. Your criticism of Trump is weak because it's not a criticism of Trump, but of the general public eating up his bullshit.
Whatever dude. If my criticism of Trump doesn't do it for you, there's plenty of material on the internet for you to masturbate to instead. It is indeed a strong criticism of Trump, considering I'm not only calling out his bullshit in the first place but the predictable effect it has on the public, and why I believe that to be so repugnant. If you disagree with my rationale, so be it. What are you trying to get at, anyway? That I don't hate him enough or for the same reasons you do?
Source please. There's not one on the graph itself, nor a reference to how it was derived or what data was used. I can make graphs in excel too.
Sorry, not buying it. You can't complain about one candidate telling "bold face lies" while pretending that the other candidate is not guilty of not only more lies, but more egregious and blatant lies.
I never said anything about Trumps honesty, or have "pretended" to do anything - do not put words in my mouth nor accuse me of views that I have not expressed. You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you. Not to mention, your graph is meaningless without a citation so not only is your statement a straw man argument, but one based on...well we're not really sure since there's no citation.
Why would the leaders of two hedge-fund and two private-equity firms, two bank founders, and two real-estate CEOs donate and raise millions for Trump without the expectation of some kind of return on investment? Oh look, now they're on the economic advisory council. Tell you what, if I know one thing about billionaire hedge fund managers, it's that they have the interest of the average American at heart.
You want to see corruption? Make sure Trump gets into office.
As opposed to Hillary's financiers? You think billionaire executives are any better? You wanna run through that list?
I don't understand why you're trying to make me more anti-Trump. I told you I don't support him, and I'll be damned if I vote for a snake to save myself from the wolves. What's more alarming to me is because of your hatred for Trump, you are blind to the corruption you'll be voting for because "it's not as bad", and (assumedly from your statement) will actively support corruption as some kind of self-righteous means to prevent even more of it.
I tell ya what, if you're so devoted to your principles - enough to admonish me for not hating Trump enough - why wouldn't you be voting for a decent candidate that supports your distaste for corruption? Or have you fallen the victim to the horribly false yet widely embraced "common knowledge" that a 3rd party could never win. Of course it won't, not with that kind of groupthink and you selling your vote out. It will only take one election with a significant share going to a 3rd party for them to be considered (and therefore votable) in the next cycle. We've the internet now, so even though the elites might still be able to control the message through MSM, they can no longer drown us out from talking to each other. That gives me hope, but we have to shake the idea that the election is some binary choice between a pile of shit and a pile of vomit (I'll let you figure out which is which).
I find this whole election cycle repugnant and so full of ignorance, I wonder whether we even deserve what we have, and what our mature ruling class will so gladly take from us if they could juuuuusstt keep us happy enough to stick with their bullshit. So, so many people will zealously defend "their" candidate because they've fallen victim to the idea that the other party is so, so, so bad, they should vote with "their party" to prevent some kind of partisan apocalypse. IMO, it's ****ing stupid. And here I am getting admonished by someone who's criticizing me for not hating my own party's nominee enough. Pot? Is that you? You calling me black?
So you can go ahead and accuse me of placing my hatred in the wrong place, but you should know it burns as strongly as yours - I hope you can work out where now. I don't hate you, but come on man you're being partisan to a fault here. I've held for a couple years now that our true enemy during the election cycle is the ruling class. Trump, Clinton, doesn't matter. When do we wake up? We can send a message - it might not be this election cycle but if enough of a percentage goes to a 3rd party, it's only 4 years until we'll all know there's a chance to break the cycle and we can make even more gains. The idea that we'll have to vote for HRC OR Trump will be ignored, and we might actually have a chance here. So 3rd party it is for me. I'll actually be voting FOR something, not against. You do you.
(
Last edited by Snow-i; Aug 10, 2016 at 09:28 PM.
)
Well Laminar, Trump is indeed dishonest as well. I'll guess I'll have to.... still not vote for him? A reality TV star says things that aren't true. Pigs must be flying.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Snow-i: what do you think Trump's support says about the Republican party as a whole?
The same thing as Hillary's support from the Democrats: that you're so worried with not electing the wrong person that you stopped giving a shit about electing the right person.
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status:
Offline
Aug 11, 2016, 11:58 AM
Originally Posted by Snow-i
Whatever dude. If my criticism of Trump doesn't do it for you, there's plenty of material on the internet for you to masturbate to instead.
I'm not looking for criticisms of him. I'm calling out your weak ones.
It is indeed a strong criticism of Trump, considering I'm not only calling out his bullshit in the first place but the predictable effect it has on the public, and why I believe that to be so repugnant. If you disagree with my rationale, so be it. What are you trying to get at, anyway? That I don't hate him enough or for the same reasons you do?
You're criticizing his campaign tactics, which is weak. Talk about his corruption, his inability to govern effectively, and on and on. There are lots of valid things to say about him that hit harder than, "He's a reality star."
I never said anything about Trumps honesty, or have "pretended" to do anything - do not put words in my mouth nor accuse me of views that I have not expressed. You asked for my opinion and I gave it to you.
I appreciate someone who can take a fair and balanced view of a situation. Your assertion was that Hillary has "a track record of corruption, dereliction of office, and crony capitalism", and then the worst thing you say about Trump is that you don't like his campaign tactics. This is not a fair and balanced view. I'm not saying that just because you don't agree with me, I'm saying that because it's obvious.
Unfortunately, you've already decided I'm a Hillary supporter and you're responding to me as if I'd defend her. Heck, you even said "your party" to me as if I identify as a Democrat. It's less and less worthwhile having a conversation with you because you're not responding to what I'm saying, you're responding to what you think I think.
Originally Posted by Snow-i
As opposed to Hillary's financiers? You think billionaire executives are any better? You wanna run through that list?
I was giving an example of a valid criticism against Trump, saying nothing of Hillary. Again, you're getting defensive against a position I don't hold.
I don't understand why you're trying to make me more anti-Trump.
There's a lack of reasonable conservatives around here. I'm trying to figure out where you are.
I told you I don't support him, and I'll be damned if I vote for a snake to save myself from the wolves.
Who's to decide who's a snake and who's a wolf?
What's more alarming to me is because of your hatred for Trump, you are blind to the corruption you'll be voting for because "it's not as bad", and (assumedly from your statement) will actively support corruption as some kind of self-righteous means to prevent even more of it.
Yet again, you're arguing against a position I don't hold. Let's not forget this post made just a few days ago where I specifically mentioned her corruption. You telling me that I'm blind to it is bad form.
I tell ya what, if you're so devoted to your principles - enough to admonish me for not hating Trump enough - why wouldn't you be voting for a decent candidate that supports your distaste for corruption? Or have you fallen the victim to the horribly false yet widely embraced "common knowledge" that a 3rd party could never win.
Didn't you just say that you "understand the implications" of voting 3rd party? AKA you're throwing your vote away?
And here I am getting admonished by someone who's criticizing me for not hating my own party's nominee enough. Pot? Is that you? You calling me black?
Certainly not me - not only do I not have a party, but I also haven't defended either candidate.
So you can go ahead and accuse me of placing my hatred in the wrong place, but you should know it burns as strongly as yours - I hope you can work out where now. I don't hate you, but come on man you're being partisan to a fault here.
No, the false image you've painted in your own mind about me is partisan to a fault. Go back and look at what I've said. It was a fair and balanced view of both candidates. I complained that you took a weak position against Trump (aka partisan).
We can send a message - it might not be this election cycle but if enough of a percentage goes to a 3rd party, it's only 4 years until we'll all know there's a chance to break the cycle and we can make even more gains.
This is all baseless speculation on your part, and would require conceding elections to a less favorable candidate multiple times over several election cycles. You think the general population has the foresight and coordiation to plan for 12 or 16 years in the future?
I'm not looking for criticisms of him. I'm calling out your weak ones.
To what end? I still don't understand what you're getting at here. I'm not supporting Trump, I've already make that crystal clear.
You're criticizing his campaign tactics, which is weak. Talk about his corruption, his inability to govern effectively, and on and on. There are lots of valid things to say about him that hit harder than, "He's a reality star."
And I'm quite certain I can rely on you to say them - why it's so important that you get me to say them is beyond me, especially given the fact that I'm not supporting Trump abundantly clear.
I appreciate someone who can take a fair and balanced view of a situation. Your assertion was that Hillary has "a track record of corruption, dereliction of office, and crony capitalism", and then the worst thing you say about Trump is that you don't like his campaign tactics. This is not a fair and balanced view. I'm not saying that just because you don't agree with me, I'm saying that because it's obvious.
Did you check the thread title of this thread? We've already got another one just for what you're talking about where you can go apeshit on some really strong Trump criticisms. By all means, please do so, and I will be happy to add my opinion to the mix.
Unfortunately, you've already decided I'm a Hillary supporter and you're responding to me as if I'd defend her. Heck, you even said "your party" to me as if I identify as a Democrat. It's less and less worthwhile having a conversation with you because you're not responding to what I'm saying, you're responding to what you think I think.
I can only infer from your statements. You asked me my opinion, I gave it to you. This wasn't good enough for you, so I expanded on it. If I used a faulty assumption, I will gladly set the record straight that my words, though still a reflection of how I feel on the issue, don't apply to you. If you're not defending/support Hillary, just what the hell are you criticizing my view on Trump for? Afterall, you stated that NOT voting for either one is "throwing my vote away". Am I to assume that you'll be doing the same?
Do you intend to vote for Hillary? If not, who do you intend to vote for?
I was giving an example of a valid criticism against Trump, saying nothing of Hillary. Again, you're getting defensive against a position I don't hold.
Then you're in the wrong thread. This one is "the case against Hillary" so please don't be offended when my posts reflect that topic. Given your statements on what it means not to vote for either one, and your willingness to admonish those who hate Trump, but not enough to your liking, just where do you stand here?
There's a lack of reasonable conservatives around here. I'm trying to figure out where you are.
I am a conservative - whether or not you believe I am reasonable, well that's up to you.
Who's to decide who's a snake and who's a wolf?
Whatever you want to call them - my definitions are based on my opinion of both. I wasn't really trying to paint either as anything but bad options.
Yet again, you're arguing against a position I don't hold. Let's not forget this post made just a few days ago where I specifically mentioned her corruption. You telling me that I'm blind to it is bad form.
You accused me of "pretending" that Hillary was all corrupt while Trump wasn't. You can quote your previous statements here, but don't pretend that your admonishment of my criticism didn't imply your favor for HRC's track record. If this is not your view, please speak up with clarity as to why you're criticizing my criticisms. I read it the way I read it, if I got the meaning wrong please enlighten me with just what you're trying to say. This thread is all about why HRC would not be a good president, and when you go blasting me for not hating Trump enough, in a thread all about why HRC sucks, then saying nothing about the topic of the thread strongly implies your position. Again, I'll ask point blank. Who are you voting for?
Didn't you just say that you "understand the implications" of voting 3rd party? AKA you're throwing your vote away?
Where voting for either of 2 candidates that I detest is "making it count?"
I absolutely do understand the implications, and yet I still don't feel like I'm throwing my vote away. Please reread my last post if you have any questions as to why I feel that way.
Certainly not me - not only do I not have a party, but I also haven't defended either candidate.
You defended Hillary implicitly by posting that truth-o-meter graph, in the thread where we're supposed to be talking about Hillary. What is your motive to do so? What point are you trying to lead me to? Or are you being critical just for the hell of it, without really having a coherent point you'd like to make about the OT?
I'm all for criticism of my points, but you have to make a few of your own if you're going to do so.
No, the false image you've painted in your own mind about me is partisan to a fault. Go back and look at what I've said. It was a fair and balanced view of both candidates. I complained that you took a weak position against Trump (aka partisan).
I'm still not sure what you're looking for. You asked for my opinion, I gave it to you, and somehow it wasn't enough despite the fact that I unequivocally stated I do not support Trump, won't be voting for him, and gave you a reason why. I'm trying to figure out a reason you would complain at all about my position on Trump, if not to push me towards Hillary (who in your argument, isn't as bad on issues like honestly and truthfulness).
I don't understand how making the case for voting 3rd party is partisan towards Trump. Could you please explain just how that works in your mind?
This is all baseless speculation on your part, and would require conceding elections to a less favorable candidate multiple times over several election cycles. You think the general population has the foresight and coordiation to plan for 12 or 16 years in the future?
We certainly have a better chance going down that road than choosing between Hillary and Trump (or like candidates) every four years. We're already conceding elections to highly unfavorable candidates - how do you suggest we fix that other than not voting for those candidates?
We don't need coordination - we need momentum.
3rd party is, according to you, "aka throwing your vote away". So who are you voting for? I would assume Hillary, and given your admonishment of for not being hard enough on Trump in the "Case Against Hillary" thread, I don't believe the assumption that you're voting for Hillary is at all unreasonable. Again, if I am wrong, please feel free to explain yourself, and what exactly you're trying to get at here.
If you aren't voting for Hillary, it really seems like your taking issue with my "weak" criticisms just for the hell of it, without a coherent point for which to rebut mine with. Your "calling me out" for being partisan, when I've explicitly spoken against Trump. Why do you have a problem with the degree to which I speak badly about Trump in the "Case against Hillary" thread - while you're "not supporting Hillary" - all while stating that not voting for either is throwing away your vote. If you're not voting Hillary, not voting Trump, and not voting 3rd party, are you just not voting? If you're not voting, where do you get off criticizing my rationale for voting?
You're either voting for Hillary, contradicting yourself on voting 3rd party, or not voting at all (in which case you have no grounds to criticize me for my views of the candidates). So which is it? I assumed you were voting for Hillary as the other two options would make you a hypocrite (and I think more highly of you than that). Please, let's here where you stand on the issue so that your criticisms of me are more than you just empty trolling for the hell of it.
(
Last edited by Snow-i; Aug 11, 2016 at 05:32 PM.
)
I think we should start calling Chongo "moth", fluffy nonsense his "flame", and MacNN his... Ummm.. moth nest?
Chongo, I wish you would just be honest and confess that you are invested in Trump winning.
Because he despises Hillary means he's in the tank for Trump? He very well could be backing Johnson, like an ever-increasing number of Americans.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
You think anyone here is going to change their vote based on another member's comments? We're just here to vent and shit post.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
If he was, why wouldn't he be encouraging us to vote for Johnson?
It makes no logical sense to just encourage us to not vote for somebody, because somebody has to win.
It makes tons of logical sense. It's how attack ads work. A vote subtracted from one candidate is one less vote their opponent needs just to keep pace.
Laminar correct me if I'm wrong here, but the gist I'm getting is snow-I is right for the wrong reason. By dismissing the opponent the reality tv star, he glosses over the real problem which is the opponent the candidate. I agree that I too would be unlikely to elect a reality tv star, however I don't think the title precludes someone from being qualified.
Laminar correct me if I'm wrong here, but the gist I'm getting is snow-I is right for the wrong reason. By dismissing the opponent the reality tv star, he glosses over the real problem which is the opponent the candidate.
This is where I take issue. If you're voting for Hillary just because you hate Trump more, you are not only throwing your vote away but you're actively supporting corruption, crony capitalism, and "the establishment" you all claim to be such a vile burden on our nation using a logical fallacy. It's at the very least hypocritical & IMO, a supreme measure of the idiocy & ignorance I outlined above.
In our election system, you cannot vote against anything. You can only vote for things, no matter how much the established elitists want you to believe otherwise.
We need to get away from this bullshit that these candidates are feeding you that they are the only choices. It's almost as if you've lost the ability to think for yourself, as this "common knowledge" only exists to the degree of it's beholder's gullibility. As I said in my previous post, we do not need coordination - we need momentum. We still have Congress to keep either Hillary or Trump in check for the next four years - this election is already lost so why not use it to identify and vote for a candidate that is actually worthy of that vote, hoping to set the stage for elections to come? Will it be easy? Absolutely not, but I would rather see this nation burn than to submit to the foul & vile "leadership" these elitists have duped us into supporting.
I agree that I too would be unlikely to elect a reality tv star, however I don't think the title precludes someone from being qualified.
I respectfully disagree here. Is this really the best we have to offer?
(
Last edited by Snow-i; Aug 12, 2016 at 01:58 PM.
)
I think we should start calling Chongo "moth", fluffy nonsense his "flame", and MacNN his... Ummm.. moth nest?
Chongo, I wish you would just be honest and confess that you are invested in Trump winning.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
Because he despises Hillary means he's in the tank for Trump? He very well could be backing Johnson, like an ever-increasing number of Americans.
Originally Posted by besson3c
If he was, why wouldn't he be encouraging us to vote for Johnson?
It makes no logical sense to just encourage us to not vote for somebody, because somebody has to win.
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants
You think anyone here is going to change their vote based on another member's comments? We're just here to vent and shit post.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar
It makes tons of logical sense. It's how attack ads work. A vote subtracted from one candidate is one less vote their opponent needs just to keep pace.
OK folks, I'm going to make bess's day. Since bess is so adamant I vote for Trump I've decided I'm going to.
Thank you for coming clean Chongo. I've told you guys why I will vote for Hillary. You should know this, because you should be clinging to my every word.
I don't think being a reality TV star necessarily precludes someone from being qualified to lead a country. Indeed being a President or Prime Minister has always required a certain balance between profile and politics.
Kerry, McCain and Romney suffered in this regard, Obama did very well to overcome it quite effortlessly.
Sometimes just being known is enough, sometime the celebrity aspect of your profile comes down to likability and likability is forged in context. Thanks to The Apprentice, people like Trump as an entertaining character when he fires people. They associate him with business acumen because thats how the show sells him, he himself has long promoted his name and property portfolio at the same time which gives an impression of business success as does all the flashy, showy crap that showcases his outrageously bad taste. Its a wonder he doesn't wear Mr. T levels of bling. Though it would likely be gold plated rubbish instead of the real thing.
So as the tough, authoritative, decisive business expert who takes names and kicks ass (as much as one can in the context of that show), people like him and thats the takeaway image they get. If not for that show he would be an ugly, mean, multiple-bankrupt, spoiled trust fund brat with no taste who occasionally got on the news for being rich and/or tacky and his profile would be a whole different prospect.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Interesting page. Its been made so as not to look like it, but really American politics for Catholics has been completely reduced to a single issue hasn't it?
That "non-partisan" page has Human Life, Planned Parenthood, Judges, Medical Research, Obamacare and Sex Ed listed as separate issues but they are all about abortion and contraception.
Talking about religious freedom is a joke, because banning abortion, inhibiting contraceptive access (Thats PP and foreign aid), marriage equality and their issue with the Iran deal (which really drags the non-partisan claim into question IMHO) are all examples of Catholics wanting to vote to inhibit the religious freedom of others.
I notice the page goes against the Pope on climate change. Naughty naughty.
I could understand how a Catholic party would lobby to ban abortion, but I don't understand why a Catholic citizen would feel obliged to. If you have the choice, you can still choose to do the Catholic thing. Out of interest, where do you stand on gun control/ownership?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
Interesting page. Its been made so as not to look like it, but really American politics for Catholics has been completely reduced to a single issue hasn't it?
That "non-partisan" page has Human Life, Planned Parenthood, Judges, Medical Research, Obamacare and Sex Ed listed as separate issues but they are all about abortion and contraception.
Talking about religious freedom is a joke, because banning abortion, inhibiting contraceptive access (Thats PP and foreign aid), marriage equality and their issue with the Iran deal (which really drags the non-partisan claim into question IMHO) are all examples of Catholics wanting to vote to inhibit the religious freedom of others.
I notice the page goes against the Pope on climate change. Naughty naughty.
I could understand how a Catholic party would lobby to ban abortion, but I don't understand why a Catholic citizen would feel obliged to. If you have the choice, you can still choose to do the Catholic thing. Out of interest, where do you stand on gun control/ownership?
The statements on the page are quotes from each party's platform.
He very well could be backing Johnson, like an ever-increasing number of Americans.
Top