|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 03 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 10:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 10:35 zlefin wrote:On June 03 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:On June 03 2017 08:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 07:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On June 03 2017 07:44 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
The fact that christians voted for a guy that literally pretends to be religious and is pretty much the culmination of sins is still very funny to me. It's better to have someone apathetic to religious freedom than an ideology and cause that pursues limiting it under such banners as "war on women" or "license to discriminate." I'd rather have someone clueless on the subject (and distrustful of intellectual opinion) than oppositely-aligned people (and Hillary Clinton was just that. I disagree; religious freedoms, like all freedoms, at times opposes other freedoms, and they must all be balanced. and religious freedom is still very plentifully free under the Democrats; not like actual true restrictions on religious freedom that have existed in the world. and someone distrustful of intellectual opinion will not be able to make proper judgments in these matters given how complicated the questions of ethics are. Haha and your perspective to call it "plentifully free" is based on what exactly? I'm actually pretty happy for the reminder; the country dodged a bullet on that Hillary. Ivanka & Co are still advising against it (as seen in softening of religious freedom EO) so there's still a danger. But nothing compared to the Democratic Party nominee with all her campaigns Catholic bigotry and diatribes on how religion had to change. Probably unnoticed by you, to be honest. based on the reality of religious oppression throughout history, and the vastly overblown claims of religious oppression the republicans have put forth. The notion that religious freedom is actually under threat is unfounded; you'd need to provide an actual foundation to establish that claim. Especially given that the first amendment would and still does entirely apply, and is backed by the democrats; their interpretation of it may be a bit different from yours, but it's well within the boundaries of reasonable interpretations, and really isn't all that different. catholic bigotry is certainly not so good; neither was the sizeable amounts of bigotry coming from the trump campaign. it's not a position to claim superiority on given what trump stood for. dodging a bullet only to get hit by a cannon isn't an improvement. No cannon here, Trump's objectively better on religious freedoms. Thank God Hillary didn't drag it over the finish line. Also, I'd like to point out that when I linked an article entitled "Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty," I did actually expect responders to read it if they thought all claims are unfounded. I want to believe you have something other than belief that the Democrats aren't that bad, but I still haven't seen anything other than your personal judgement and partisan choice at play here. oh, it's a cannon; that's a fact. not on religoius freedoms, but in general; it's only your partisanship that prevents you from admitting that. apologies, I didn't notice the article in your text; not sure how I missed it. oh, you didn't mark ti clearly as a link; so it doesn't appear as an independent link, but only a tiny couple of words in slight blue. I'll finish reading it; but the opening marks it pretty clearly as a trash opinion piece with no real merit from the perspective of ethical philosophy. it's also clearly about opinions; not about actual oppression, but about discussion/dialogue/trying to change teachings. that's not oppression, that's discussion. so no, you just used citation that does not establish your thesis of oppression in the slightest. you were simply wrong. that's not a threat ot religious liberty, it's simply trying to change religions for the better through discussion and action of an entirely legal and proper nature. and it furthermore relies on a very limited selection of quotes to reach that conclusion; rather than some proper broad analysis. citing a single, and that idiotic, opinion piece, doesn't do much to establish your position. it also heavily uses quotes that aren't even from clinton; but private backroom discussions by aides. show me something about ACTUAL religious oppression or violating the first amendment; not mere talk about encouraging religions to reform that doesn't even use the power of government for that. it's like you haven't seen what ACTUAL oppression looks like if you call that oppression. especially since Trump said similar (and in fact probably worse) things about Islam, another religion. where's your religious freedom there when it comes to Islam?
You write trash opinion pieces, you call what other people write trash opinion pieces. Yeah I'm done for now.
|
On June 03 2017 11:25 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 10:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 10:35 zlefin wrote:On June 03 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:On June 03 2017 08:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 07:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:The fact that christians voted for a guy that literally pretends to be religious and is pretty much the culmination of sins is still very funny to me. It's better to have someone apathetic to religious freedom than an ideology and cause that pursues limiting it under such banners as "war on women" or "license to discriminate." I'd rather have someone clueless on the subject (and distrustful of intellectual opinion) than oppositely-aligned people (and Hillary Clinton was just that. I disagree; religious freedoms, like all freedoms, at times opposes other freedoms, and they must all be balanced. and religious freedom is still very plentifully free under the Democrats; not like actual true restrictions on religious freedom that have existed in the world. and someone distrustful of intellectual opinion will not be able to make proper judgments in these matters given how complicated the questions of ethics are. Haha and your perspective to call it "plentifully free" is based on what exactly? I'm actually pretty happy for the reminder; the country dodged a bullet on that Hillary. Ivanka & Co are still advising against it (as seen in softening of religious freedom EO) so there's still a danger. But nothing compared to the Democratic Party nominee with all her campaigns Catholic bigotry and diatribes on how religion had to change. Probably unnoticed by you, to be honest. based on the reality of religious oppression throughout history, and the vastly overblown claims of religious oppression the republicans have put forth. The notion that religious freedom is actually under threat is unfounded; you'd need to provide an actual foundation to establish that claim. Especially given that the first amendment would and still does entirely apply, and is backed by the democrats; their interpretation of it may be a bit different from yours, but it's well within the boundaries of reasonable interpretations, and really isn't all that different. catholic bigotry is certainly not so good; neither was the sizeable amounts of bigotry coming from the trump campaign. it's not a position to claim superiority on given what trump stood for. dodging a bullet only to get hit by a cannon isn't an improvement. No cannon here, Trump's objectively better on religious freedoms. Thank God Hillary didn't drag it over the finish line. Also, I'd like to point out that when I linked an article entitled "Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty," I did actually expect responders to read it if they thought all claims are unfounded. I want to believe you have something other than belief that the Democrats aren't that bad, but I still haven't seen anything other than your personal judgement and partisan choice at play here. You believe Hillary's campaign possessed "Catholic bigotry" but any any claims of bigotry against Trump are just regressive leftism? And you're talking about someone else's personal judgment and partisan choice. Things aren't squaring up here.
I've made those claims where and how?
|
On June 03 2017 11:35 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 10:57 zlefin wrote:On June 03 2017 10:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 10:35 zlefin wrote:On June 03 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:On June 03 2017 08:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 07:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:The fact that christians voted for a guy that literally pretends to be religious and is pretty much the culmination of sins is still very funny to me. It's better to have someone apathetic to religious freedom than an ideology and cause that pursues limiting it under such banners as "war on women" or "license to discriminate." I'd rather have someone clueless on the subject (and distrustful of intellectual opinion) than oppositely-aligned people (and Hillary Clinton was just that. I disagree; religious freedoms, like all freedoms, at times opposes other freedoms, and they must all be balanced. and religious freedom is still very plentifully free under the Democrats; not like actual true restrictions on religious freedom that have existed in the world. and someone distrustful of intellectual opinion will not be able to make proper judgments in these matters given how complicated the questions of ethics are. Haha and your perspective to call it "plentifully free" is based on what exactly? I'm actually pretty happy for the reminder; the country dodged a bullet on that Hillary. Ivanka & Co are still advising against it (as seen in softening of religious freedom EO) so there's still a danger. But nothing compared to the Democratic Party nominee with all her campaigns Catholic bigotry and diatribes on how religion had to change. Probably unnoticed by you, to be honest. based on the reality of religious oppression throughout history, and the vastly overblown claims of religious oppression the republicans have put forth. The notion that religious freedom is actually under threat is unfounded; you'd need to provide an actual foundation to establish that claim. Especially given that the first amendment would and still does entirely apply, and is backed by the democrats; their interpretation of it may be a bit different from yours, but it's well within the boundaries of reasonable interpretations, and really isn't all that different. catholic bigotry is certainly not so good; neither was the sizeable amounts of bigotry coming from the trump campaign. it's not a position to claim superiority on given what trump stood for. dodging a bullet only to get hit by a cannon isn't an improvement. No cannon here, Trump's objectively better on religious freedoms. Thank God Hillary didn't drag it over the finish line. Also, I'd like to point out that when I linked an article entitled "Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty," I did actually expect responders to read it if they thought all claims are unfounded. I want to believe you have something other than belief that the Democrats aren't that bad, but I still haven't seen anything other than your personal judgement and partisan choice at play here. oh, it's a cannon; that's a fact. not on religoius freedoms, but in general; it's only your partisanship that prevents you from admitting that. apologies, I didn't notice the article in your text; not sure how I missed it. oh, you didn't mark ti clearly as a link; so it doesn't appear as an independent link, but only a tiny couple of words in slight blue. I'll finish reading it; but the opening marks it pretty clearly as a trash opinion piece with no real merit from the perspective of ethical philosophy. it's also clearly about opinions; not about actual oppression, but about discussion/dialogue/trying to change teachings. that's not oppression, that's discussion. so no, you just used citation that does not establish your thesis of oppression in the slightest. you were simply wrong. that's not a threat ot religious liberty, it's simply trying to change religions for the better through discussion and action of an entirely legal and proper nature. and it furthermore relies on a very limited selection of quotes to reach that conclusion; rather than some proper broad analysis. citing a single, and that idiotic, opinion piece, doesn't do much to establish your position. it also heavily uses quotes that aren't even from clinton; but private backroom discussions by aides. show me something about ACTUAL religious oppression or violating the first amendment; not mere talk about encouraging religions to reform that doesn't even use the power of government for that. it's like you haven't seen what ACTUAL oppression looks like if you call that oppression. especially since Trump said similar (and in fact probably worse) things about Islam, another religion. where's your religious freedom there when it comes to Islam? You write trash opinion pieces, you call what other people write trash opinion pieces. Yeah I'm done for now.
you lose the argument then. I had several valid counterpoints, you ignored them all. this demonstrates you're unable to argue in good faith; you bring an unsound argument, waste people's time on an obvious trash article that doesn't remotely demonstrate your thesis, an article who's points are eviscerated, and when called out on it you flee, and ignore all the valid counterpoints. then you'll come back later with similar points as if you'd proven them, when they were refuted.
|
|
|
On June 03 2017 11:36 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 11:25 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 10:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 10:35 zlefin wrote:On June 03 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 09:44 zlefin wrote:On June 03 2017 08:51 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 07:53 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:The fact that christians voted for a guy that literally pretends to be religious and is pretty much the culmination of sins is still very funny to me. It's better to have someone apathetic to religious freedom than an ideology and cause that pursues limiting it under such banners as "war on women" or "license to discriminate." I'd rather have someone clueless on the subject (and distrustful of intellectual opinion) than oppositely-aligned people (and Hillary Clinton was just that. I disagree; religious freedoms, like all freedoms, at times opposes other freedoms, and they must all be balanced. and religious freedom is still very plentifully free under the Democrats; not like actual true restrictions on religious freedom that have existed in the world. and someone distrustful of intellectual opinion will not be able to make proper judgments in these matters given how complicated the questions of ethics are. Haha and your perspective to call it "plentifully free" is based on what exactly? I'm actually pretty happy for the reminder; the country dodged a bullet on that Hillary. Ivanka & Co are still advising against it (as seen in softening of religious freedom EO) so there's still a danger. But nothing compared to the Democratic Party nominee with all her campaigns Catholic bigotry and diatribes on how religion had to change. Probably unnoticed by you, to be honest. based on the reality of religious oppression throughout history, and the vastly overblown claims of religious oppression the republicans have put forth. The notion that religious freedom is actually under threat is unfounded; you'd need to provide an actual foundation to establish that claim. Especially given that the first amendment would and still does entirely apply, and is backed by the democrats; their interpretation of it may be a bit different from yours, but it's well within the boundaries of reasonable interpretations, and really isn't all that different. catholic bigotry is certainly not so good; neither was the sizeable amounts of bigotry coming from the trump campaign. it's not a position to claim superiority on given what trump stood for. dodging a bullet only to get hit by a cannon isn't an improvement. No cannon here, Trump's objectively better on religious freedoms. Thank God Hillary didn't drag it over the finish line. Also, I'd like to point out that when I linked an article entitled "Hillary Clinton is a threat to religious liberty," I did actually expect responders to read it if they thought all claims are unfounded. I want to believe you have something other than belief that the Democrats aren't that bad, but I still haven't seen anything other than your personal judgement and partisan choice at play here. You believe Hillary's campaign possessed "Catholic bigotry" but any any claims of bigotry against Trump are just regressive leftism? And you're talking about someone else's personal judgment and partisan choice. Things aren't squaring up here. I've made those claims where and how?
That (Catholic bigotry) is a key component of the article you linked about Clinton discussed for multiple paragraphs (I would argue it's one of the main thrusts of the article, in fact).
Unless you're contesting that you dismiss claims of Trump racism/discrimination as regressive left and foolish, I guess? But I think you're pretty consistent on that.
|
|
|
I mean, they do specify "if" he is there. Is this unethical or something?
|
He does own the golf club, so it certainly seems as if hes using the presidency for marketing. The optics on it are shitty at the very least.
|
On June 04 2017 03:00 Zambrah wrote:
He does own the golf club, so it certainly seems as if hes using the presidency for marketing. The optics on it are shitty at the very least.
Trump had insane star value even before being president. It would still be a good selling point even if he lost the presidency. Sure, he's a hell of a lot more valuable now. But the marketing value of mentioning him as a potential guest would remain even if he lost.
|
One wonders why they didn't make it black in support of the coal jobs coming back to America (Trump's stated reasoning).
|
United States42016 Posts
In my down time at work I'm currently doing a second job grading the Social Studies papers for kids in Kentucky and it really helped me see how heavily a lot of communities there depend upon coal. It's nobody's fault that coal is dead but I can absolutely see why they would be terrified and desperate at the death of coal. It'll be like the north of England all over again. Kids can't even say coal without adding "coal keeps the lights on", coal industry marketing slogans are as big a part of their culture as "in God we trust".
They're on the wrong side of inevitable progress but they've not got so much else. Coal ranked above hunting, fishing, tobacco, trucks, and KFC as something that would define their society. Something needs to be done to help Appalachia and the Republicans sure as hell aren't going to do it.
|
On June 04 2017 03:27 KwarK wrote:
In my down time at work I'm currently doing a second job grading the Social Studies papers for kids in Kentucky and it really helped me see how heavily a lot of communities there depend upon coal. It's nobody's fault that coal is dead but I can absolutely see why they would be terrified and desperate at the death of coal. It'll be like the north of England all over again. Kids can't even say coal without adding "coal keeps the lights on", coal industry marketing slogans are as big a part of their culture as "in God we trust".
They're on the wrong side of inevitable progress but they've not got so much else. Coal ranked above hunting, fishing, tobacco, trucks, and KFC as something that would define their society. Something needs to be done to help Appalachia and the Republicans sure as hell aren't going to do it.
Considering they want to de-fund the Appalachian Regional Commission it seems you are right in them not wanting to help.
|
|
|
United States42016 Posts
It just gives it a bit more depth than "dumb rednecks getting tricked". They're legitimately scared of the future and they absolutely should be. It turns the extent of their betrayal by the Republicans into more of a tragedy than a comedy.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I dunno why anyone even thought that they were "dumb rednecks being tricked." Anyone who knows how a one-industry small town works should not be surprised.
Also, semi-shitpost, but I laughed at this skit.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
United States42016 Posts
On June 04 2017 03:40 LegalLord wrote:
I dunno why anyone even thought that they were "dumb rednecks being tricked." Anyone who knows how a one-industry small town works should not be surprised.
I take the view that anyone in America's working class who legitimately believes the Republican party means to do anything to help them, despite both the history of the Republican party and their stated policies, is pretty much an idiot. The Republicans are pretty much defined by class warfare at the moment, they've been cutting taxes on the rich, raising taxes on the poor, trying to privatize social security, trying to take away healthcare and sending the poor to die in a desert for thirty years. Nobody doesn't know what the Republicans do by now. But throw in enough fear and smart people do stupid things.
|
In the case of the coal counties in KY it wasn't that long ago at all that they used to be extremely heavily democratic. LBJ's war against poverty really made appalachia a democratic stronghold. The issue is that those benefits kept getting rolled back, the democrats didn't put up much of a fight (the welfare reform bill was Clinton's...) about it and then the only jobs in the region were coal and it seemed like the democrats were trying to get rid of the only jobs in the region. KY was one of like... 3 states that Clinton lost among millenials, and it's largely due to her asinine strategy of telling people in a WV town hall that coal was dead and they needed retrained. True, but pants on head idiotic in how she presented it. That's not even addressing that retraining is far more difficult than they made it sound.
So it's not so much that they trusted republicans as were very easy to persuade that the democratic party had flat out forgotten about them for the past 30 years.
|
United States42016 Posts
Are we ignoring the Southern Strategy now?
|
On June 04 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
Are we ignoring the Southern Strategy now?
KY was democratic until 2000
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 04 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:
Are we ignoring the Southern Strategy now?
Good point. If we want to be sufficiently reductive we can simply dismiss all people who don't vote Democrat as irredeemable, deplorable racists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
