|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 11, 2019 3:00:27 GMT
Last 3 years no foreign intervention by America, economy doing fairly well and business and consumer confidence levels very high at different times in the last 3 years. What percentage of people do you believe will have legit reasons to vote for the Republicans in 2020? No foreign intervention? Last time I checked we bombed a Syrian airbase, backing Saudi Arabia in the Yemen War, sending drone strikes, and still stuck in the Afghanistan War. There's too many money grubbing military contractors for us not to be involved in some sort of global conflict. This reminds me of when Bob Dole predicted that Bill Clinton would be reelected because he had two things going for him; a strong economy and a world at peace. Okay, so it was Alan Greenspan's strong economy and Koffi Annan's world peace, but it doesn't matter, because Clinton was the one presiding over it. That's what presidents do. They preside.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 11, 2019 3:13:01 GMT
No foreign intervention? Last time I checked we bombed a Syrian airbase, backing Saudi Arabia in the Yemen War, sending drone strikes, and still stuck in the Afghanistan War. That's not your typical foreign intervention that America is famous for. Remaining stuck in Afghanistan is not the result of 3 years of the present government.
And you didn't answer my question. What percentage of people do you think will have legit reasons to vote for Republicans. You can of course answer that zero % people may have legit reasons to vote for the Republicans. The present odds are 1.61 for Democratic party and 2.37 for the Republicans. That means Democrats have a slight edge but not much. I am just trying to understand the mentality of Democratic party supporters and how they view politics.
"That's not your typical foreign intervention that America is famous for"
Well I dunno what to tell you, that is still foreign intervention. Maybe it's not as bad as the disaster that is the Iraq War, but that is pretty much standard neocon military globalism that GOP is constantly trying push (not that the Dems are much better)
"What percentage of people do you think will have legit reasons to vote for Republicans."
Well obviously I don't think there's any legit reason for voting Republican (again I don't think the Dems are much better though)
"I am just trying to understand the mentality of Democratic party supporters and how they view politics."
Many, including myself don't see it as some amazing party, but vote anyways because it's the lesser of two evils (that is unfortunately the nature of American politics). However the Democratic Party is actually becoming more and more torn between two different factions, with one supporting more centrist corporate warhawks (Clinton, Biden, Corey Booker, Kamala Harris) and a more progressive, noninterventionalist and even socialist faction (Sanders, AOC, Tulsi Gabbard)
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Mar 11, 2019 3:15:47 GMT
No foreign intervention? Last time I checked we bombed a Syrian airbase, backing Saudi Arabia in the Yemen War, sending drone strikes, and still stuck in the Afghanistan War. There's too many money grubbing military contractors for us not to be involved in some sort of global conflict. This reminds me of when Bob Dole predicted that Bill Clinton would be reelected because he had two things going for him; a strong economy and a world at peace. Okay, so it was Alan Greenspan's strong economy and Koffi Annan's world peace, but it doesn't matter, because Clinton was the one presiding over it. That's what presidents do. They preside. British PM had declared a while back that the US and the UK will never again "invade sovereign foreign countries “in an attempt to make the world in their own image,” . She had also shown commitment to diverge from the liberal intervention policy of Tony Blair - Obama style that had wrecked havoc in the middle east and North Africa. Trump's behaviour has so far been of avoiding both liberal and Bush type interventions (original Republican style). From what I remember he had criticised republican interventions of past (albeit because of the fact that his new style has a good effect on his chances).
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 11, 2019 3:22:56 GMT
No foreign intervention? Last time I checked we bombed a Syrian airbase, backing Saudi Arabia in the Yemen War, sending drone strikes, and still stuck in the Afghanistan War. There's too many money grubbing military contractors for us not to be involved in some sort of global conflict. This reminds me of when Bob Dole predicted that Bill Clinton would be reelected because he had two things going for him; a strong economy and a world at peace. Okay, so it was Alan Greenspan's strong economy and Koffi Annan's world peace, but it doesn't matter, because Clinton was the one presiding over it. That's what presidents do. They preside. Did you know Dick Cheney was originally against toppling Husein? Rather crazy to think that, but that was before Halliburton got their hooks into him:
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Mar 11, 2019 3:24:28 GMT
That's not your typical foreign intervention that America is famous for. Remaining stuck in Afghanistan is not the result of 3 years of the present government.
And you didn't answer my question. What percentage of people do you think will have legit reasons to vote for Republicans. You can of course answer that zero % people may have legit reasons to vote for the Republicans. The present odds are 1.61 for Democratic party and 2.37 for the Republicans. That means Democrats have a slight edge but not much. I am just trying to understand the mentality of Democratic party supporters and how they view politics.
"What percentage of people do you think will have legit reasons to vote for Republicans." Well obviously I don't think there's any legit reason for voting Republican (again I don't think the Dems are much better though) Okay, cool. I have never voted in my life because I do not support any corrupt party. That said I have no problems if others believe that voting for the lesser evil is an ideal policy. It certainly is a justified reasoning. That said, I personally believe that voters vote according to their most important concerns. Not everyone thinks what is the overall best and the most ideal. I will not be surprised if many vote for the Republicans because certain sectors of the economy did much better in the last 4 years as compared to before. Some people may feel they are better off under the Republicans. Different people will have a different take on the American economy but the general consensus of neutral observers is that the economy has not been doing too bad and consumer and business confidence have been pretty high.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Mar 11, 2019 3:29:56 GMT
gameboy So you present an interesting case. You are a Californian, a gay and an atheist albeit not very liberal as is the fashion today. So what is your take on Trump's performance as compared to say if Hillary had been? On a scale of 1-10 how good is Trump and how good you imagine Hillary would have been on the same scale?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 11, 2019 3:47:57 GMT
This reminds me of when Bob Dole predicted that Bill Clinton would be reelected because he had two things going for him; a strong economy and a world at peace. Okay, so it was Alan Greenspan's strong economy and Koffi Annan's world peace, but it doesn't matter, because Clinton was the one presiding over it. That's what presidents do. They preside. British PM had declared a while back that the US and the UK will never again "invade sovereign foreign countries “in an attempt to make the world in their own image,” . She had also shown commitment to diverge from the liberal intervention policy of Tony Blair - Obama style that had wrecked havoc in the middle east and North Africa. Trump's behaviour has so far been of avoiding both liberal and Bush type interventions (original Republican style). From what I remember he had criticised republican interventions of past (albeit because of the fact that his new style has a good effect on his chances). She said that? And you believed it? 
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 11, 2019 3:49:49 GMT
This reminds me of when Bob Dole predicted that Bill Clinton would be reelected because he had two things going for him; a strong economy and a world at peace. Okay, so it was Alan Greenspan's strong economy and Koffi Annan's world peace, but it doesn't matter, because Clinton was the one presiding over it. That's what presidents do. They preside. Did you know Dick Cheney was originally against toppling Husein? Rather crazy to think that, but that was before Halliburton got their hooks into him:
No, I didn't know that. Learning new things all the time on this board. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Mar 11, 2019 4:00:03 GMT
British PM had declared a while back that the US and the UK will never again "invade sovereign foreign countries “in an attempt to make the world in their own image,” . She had also shown commitment to diverge from the liberal intervention policy of Tony Blair - Obama style that had wrecked havoc in the middle east and North Africa. Trump's behaviour has so far been of avoiding both liberal and Bush type interventions (original Republican style). From what I remember he had criticised republican interventions of past (albeit because of the fact that his new style has a good effect on his chances). She said that? And you believed it? I am merely objectively reporting a factual statement by the British PM. No, I do not believe in politicians. You should have known it by now given my deep resentment for politicians. But that remains the stated stance of the British PM and will be proven false only when Britain does another active military intervention.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 11, 2019 4:22:28 GMT
She said that? And you believed it? I am merely objectively reporting a factual statement by the British PM. No, I do not believe in politicians. You should have known it by now given my deep resentment for politicians. But that remains the stated stance of the British PM and will be proven false only when Britain does another active military intervention. Yes, I know, Aj. I was just messin' with ya.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Mar 11, 2019 6:25:55 GMT
gameboy So you present an interesting case. You are a Californian, a gay and an atheist albeit not very liberal as is the fashion today. So what is your take on Trump's performance as compared to say if Hillary had been? On a scale of 1-10 how good is Trump and how good you imagine Hillary would have been on the same scale? As for the theme of this thread, Trump has never been a supporter of the religious right. He was not supported by them in the Republican primaries. So his 'all a sudden' positions on appointing anti-abortion court justices is cynical at best. Trump is a worldly man with liberal social values. I tend to support Trump on foreign policy. For one he got North Korea to the negotiating table. He also campaigned against Bush's Neo-Con wars in the Middle East. Whether he holds true to that down the line remains in question. But he wasn't part of the Republican Party's Neo-Con gang. On domestic issue, for any American who makes less than a 100k per year, the general rule of thumb is that Democratic economic policies make it easier on the working middle class. So though I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton and her corporatist globalist economic policies, domestically it is in my interest to have a Democrat in Washington. I voted Green Party in the last election. So on a 1-10 scale I wouldn't give high ratings to either Trump or Clinton. Thanks for your post. I do not know about Trump's personal political leanings (whether he is a liberal or conservative) but I do believe we have seen a better America in the last 3 years in terms of the fact that they have not made Iraq or Libya type interventions, which they might actually could have under Hillary as she was a very vocal supporter of American intervention and saw it as "necessity". I don't know or care for who wins the next elections although I am extremely annoyed by the number of times the idiot Trump gets mentioned even in non-political discussions. I don't like Trump or his personality. I wish they chose someone like Sanders. But the whinny liberals usually bring him more often in non-Trump related discussions than the conservatives ( at least that has been my experience) so I don't know which group annoys me more. I certainly know that both sides have lots of immature people who see issues in black and white.
|
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 11, 2019 9:32:03 GMT
God's hand intervened, per Graham...he claims God performed a miracle...
This site...
lists the many things Trump has done that the religious right likes.
Consider the imperfect King David
He had sex with another man's wife...Bethsheba and got her pregnant, so David did this...
Two Samuel 11
And King David is considered a very important leader...in fact it's quite important to the story of Jesus that he be descended FROM King David.
The evangelicals Christians have no problem "using" a leader...they believe God uses faulty humans. They would have no problem, for example, imagining Trump serving God's purpose while at the same time believing that if he hasn't repented for his sins and accepted Christ as his savior, that he wiould still be doomed on judgment day.
I do have to hand it to them...they've got him figured out. Lavish him with praise, gush and go on about how great he is and Trump will do anything for them. IF it was the other way...if the right had rejected him and moderates or even the left had gushed, he'd be appointing liberal judges and giving the right the finger right now.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2019 11:01:13 GMT
gameboy So you present an interesting case. You are a Californian, a gay and an atheist albeit not very liberal as is the fashion today. So what is your take on Trump's performance as compared to say if Hillary had been? On a scale of 1-10 how good is Trump and how good you imagine Hillary would have been on the same scale? As for the theme of this thread, Trump has never been a supporter of the religious right. He was not supported by them in the Republican primaries. So his 'all a sudden' positions on appointing anti-abortion court justices is cynical at best. Trump is a worldly man with liberal social values. I tend to support Trump on foreign policy. For one he got North Korea to the negotiating table. He also campaigned against Bush's Neo-Con wars in the Middle East. Whether he holds true to that down the line remains in question. But he wasn't part of the Republican Party's Neo-Con gang. On domestic issue, for any American who makes less than a 100k per year, the general rule of thumb is that Democratic economic policies make it easier on the working middle class. So though I am not a fan of Hillary Clinton and her corporatist globalist economic policies, domestically it is in my interest to have a Democrat in Washington. I voted Green Party in the last election. So on a 1-10 scale I wouldn't give high ratings to either Trump or Clinton. While Trump is certainly not a religious man himself, the religious right most definitely supported him throughout most of his run. Regarding Korea, getting someone to the negotiating table means nothing if they don;t want to negotiate and he dumpster fired the Iranian negotiating table for no reason whatsoever which had better chance at success. He's an idiot.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Mar 11, 2019 14:51:58 GMT
No matter how godless or immoral, all a Republican politician has to do is blow his "abortion" whistle and the religious fundamentalists eagerly fall in line as guilelessly as puppies.
|
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Mar 11, 2019 16:21:25 GMT
God's hand intervened, per Graham...he claims God performed a miracle...
This site...
lists the many things Trump has done that the religious right likes.
Consider the imperfect King David
He had sex with another man's wife...Bethsheba and got her pregnant, so David did this...
Two Samuel 11
And King David is considered a very important leader...in fact it's quite important to the story of Jesus that he be descended FROM King David.
The evangelicals Christians have no problem "using" a leader...they believe God uses faulty humans. They would have no problem, for example, imagining Trump serving God's purpose while at the same time believing that if he hasn't repented for his sins and accepted Christ as his savior, that he would still be doomed on judgment day.
I do have to hand it to them...they've got him figured out. Lavish him with praise, gush and go on about how great he is and Trump will do anything for them. IF it was the other way...if the right had rejected him and moderates or even the left had gushed, he'd be appointing liberal judges and giving the right the finger right now.
Well, there it is! Now I get it!
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 11, 2019 18:23:27 GMT
God's hand intervened, per Graham...he claims God performed a miracle...
This site...
lists the many things Trump has done that the religious right likes.
Consider the imperfect King David
He had sex with another man's wife...Bethsheba and got her pregnant, so David did this...
Two Samuel 11
And King David is considered a very important leader...in fact it's quite important to the story of Jesus that he be descended FROM King David.
The evangelicals Christians have no problem "using" a leader...they believe God uses faulty humans. They would have no problem, for example, imagining Trump serving God's purpose while at the same time believing that if he hasn't repented for his sins and accepted Christ as his savior, that he wiould still be doomed on judgment day.
I do have to hand it to them...they've got him figured out. Lavish him with praise, gush and go on about how great he is and Trump will do anything for them. IF it was the other way...if the right had rejected him and moderates or even the left had gushed, he'd be appointing liberal judges and giving the right the finger right now.
There are these rare occasions when you are on the right track and make a point. The only thing you have wrong is the obvious mistake. It isn't evangelical Christians who use leaders like Trump. It's the leaders who use and abuse the more ovine Evangelicals. It's not true Christian evangelists going into politics that do this. It's politicians pretending to be evangelists and going into pulpits, using OT leaders. These "wolves in sheep clothing" do just as you say. They tell of David's evil deeds, but they don't say how Nathan confronted David and chastised him and declared it an evil deed. David then "repented". That doesn't mean what most people think it does. Biblical repentance, is a word that actually resembles "relent" more than "repent". Most leaders and false prophets today will shed crocodile tears and say they repent, and think that makes it okay. Clearly, Trump and McConnell and the others do not "relent". They do not "repent". This is obvious to real Christian evangelicals. It's only the lying wolves who say otherwise. But the idiots in charge of the Democrat party do everything they can to divide the people and scare half of them away. The Democrats should win every election by a landslide, but their self righteousness proves they like being pawns for the Republicans.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Mar 11, 2019 18:56:55 GMT
While Trump is certainly not a religious man himself, the religious right most definitely supported him throughout most of his run. Regarding Korea, getting someone to the negotiating table means nothing if they don;t want to negotiate and he dumpster fired the Iranian negotiating table for no reason whatsoever which had better chance at success. He's an idiot. The religious right supported Huckabee primarily and a few others. Trump did some fancy footwork to make himself more attractive to them towards the end of the primaries. But Trump is no holy roller. You forget that media was creating hysteria with claims that North Korea was ready to nuke California. The negotiations ameliorated that fear. There is little to no chance now that Pyongyang would even consider a nuclear strike. You must credit Trump for getting that threat off the table. very early on Huckabee became an also ran. Trump was consistently favored after Iowa. Regarding N Korea this is an issue of perception vs reality. Trump is the one who escalated tensions with Korea in the first place but there was never a time the USA was in danger. At best an argument could be made that relations are thawing between the two Korea’s but even that doesn’t change the fact that Trump is praising one of the worst dictators with little to show for it beyond revealing his own weaknesses.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Mar 12, 2019 6:34:10 GMT
Sure, Trump has had some moral transgressions that do not look good and do oppose Christian teachings etc but at the end of the day which political party is most opposed to Jesus Christ? ; hint, it's not Trump's side.
that pretty much sums up why Christians, or at least those who take Christianity a bit more seriously, tend to back republican/conservative candidates in general especially given the left is going further left lately which is not good for society as the left is all about chaos nowadays (they are headed towards communism and that just brings destruction to society) but that tends to happen when one reject's God (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) as once you remove God from things, chaos/disorder tends to take over as people tend to follow their passions, which are disordered after the fall of Adam/Eve, instead of following God's moral order.
p.s. like I have said before... one basic test of whether one political party will be generally backwards in moral issues is the abortion issue and God opposes abortion as it's murder. but the left tries to sugar coat a immoral/evil act by labeling it 'pro-choice' instead of what it really is which is a basic life issue (the left puts a persons "choice" higher than a persons right-to-life when it should be the other way around). once life becomes disposable at it's most innocent stage (i.e. in a mothers womb), like it is for some on the left, it's just going to be that much easier for those types of people to cross other moral lines that should not be crossed and that's what's happening on the left as they generally don't have God as their moral guide and once you put Him aside, chaos takes over and that's pretty much what's happening with the left, especially lately. that's why I think Trump will win in 2020 as even if someone is not a big fan of him, they will be forced to vote for him just to keep the far left out of power who are against the common person etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Mar 12, 2019 6:50:26 GMT
Sure, Trump has had some moral transgressions that do not look good and do oppose Christian teachings etc but at the end of the day which political party is most opposed to Jesus Christ? ; hint, it's not Trump's side. that pretty much sums up why Christians, or at least those who take Christianity a bit more seriously, tend to back republican/conservative candidates in general especially given the left is going further left lately which is not good for society as the left is all about chaos nowadays (they are headed towards communism and that just brings destruction to society) but that tends to happen when one reject's God (i.e. The Holy Trinity (Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit)) as once you remove God from things, chaos/disorder tends to take over as people tend to follow their passions, which are disordered after the fall of Adam/Eve, instead of following God's moral order. p.s. like I have said before... one basic test of whether one political party will be generally backwards in moral issues is the abortion issue and God opposes abortion as it's murder. but the left tries to sugar coat a immoral/evil act by labeling it 'pro-choice' instead of what it really is which is a basic life issue (the left puts a persons "choice" higher than a persons right-to-life when it should be the other way around). once life becomes disposable at it's most innocent stage (i.e. in a mothers womb), like it is for some on the left, it's just going to be that much easier for those types of people to cross other moral lines that should not be crossed and that's what's happening on the left as they generally don't have God as their moral guide and once you put Him aside, chaos takes over and that's pretty much what's happening with the left, especially lately. that's why I think Trump will win in 2020 as even if someone is not a big fan of him, they will be forced to vote for him just to keep the far left out of power who are against the common person etc. That's the crucial point. The abortion issue. That's where the leading Democrats really cut the throats of their own party. It's the self righteous attitude of abortion, just as you say, where they label it "pro choice" that really only fools the most feeble of minds and the most naïve. It's this insane arrogance that they have to know helps the opposition, yet they are totally possessed, totally out of control. If they would just be "moderate" on the abortion issue, they would still gain the support of the pro abortionists against the Republicans, so their arrogant desire to alienate people who aren't sheep cannot be seen as any "strategy". They're really possessed and out of control. They're the best friends Trump has. I'm hoping Bernie shows a bit of moderation on this issue, as he's the best chance and best hope we have. His "issues approach" is the way to combat Trump, whereas the others lose on their "emotional" outbursts if they face up against Trump.
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Mar 12, 2019 8:13:46 GMT
drystyxI like when the left tries to attack Trump with name calling and claiming he's racist and the like instead of talking about issues as it just makes it that much easier for Trump to win in 2020. hell, it's about all the left has nowadays is name calling etc as they don't really have much in their favor for the common citizen which is why many of them tend to turn to the name calling and silencing others with opposing views (say by calling someone racist, which is one of their default moves, to try to shutdown the conversation like they often do) and violence etc because they are afraid of conversation since those with opposing views are generally better than their BS. but given the presidential candidates on the left currently (it seems Biden or Sanders are the front runners)... I suspect Bernie will do better against Trump in 2020 (assuming he ends up being the candidate) than Hillary did in 2016 as the left thought they had it made by using that superdelagates BS to force a candidate of their choosing (Crooked Hillary) into the helm even though, from what I have heard, Bernie was generally more liked by the common democrat voter back in 2016. so if that's roughly true, their arrogance potentially handed Trump the election in 2016 (I still think Trump would have won, but Bernie almost surely would have been more of a challenge to Trump than Crooked Hillary was). p.s. but once someone looks more into that abortion issue you can see it's pretty barbaric and that surely cannot be good in the slightest. basically abortion is one human ending another humans life, which in this case is a innocent baby, and that cannot possibly be a good thing. it's murder when you bottom line it. that's a clear cut good vs evil issue. it's amazing how blind some people are to that issue even though I am sure some of them are just evil and know what they are doing like some of those who are tied planned parenthood who are all about the $ regardless of any moral issues as some of those people got a big surprise coming when they pass from this life into the next (i.e. hell) if they don't repent and change their ways.
|
|
