US Politics XIV: Vote for Pedro - Page 16 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-09-2019, 07:16 AM   #301
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 11:13 AM
I know it’s easy to say it’s what we deserve but is it really? Doesn’t that come from a place of privilege? Do brown people, women, and any other minority that are seeing their rights, their organs, and their children stripped away deserve this ?

My real fear is what comes next? It’s not like the 37% of the country will just switch gears and trust facts and truth because of the opposite in Trump/GOP

Is there anyone who could unite this country or is it a lost cause ?
__________________

BEAL is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:40 AM   #302
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,233
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
I know it’s easy to say it’s what we deserve but is it really? Doesn’t that come from a place of privilege? Do brown people, women, and any other minority that are seeing their rights, their organs, and their children stripped away deserve this ?

My real fear is what comes next? It’s not like the 37% of the country will just switch gears and trust facts and truth because of the opposite in Trump/GOP

Is there anyone who could unite this country or is it a lost cause ?
It absolutely comes from a place of privilege on both sides.
You have the predominantly white racist leaning, fox news binging, truth denying 37% on the right.
And you have the predominantly white, younger, far left progressive side that view the more centrist views of the Democratic party as just as bad or worse than the republicans. (FYI, that is absolute nonsense) Probably more around the 20% range.

Both of those sides refuse sensible change and in the current atmosphere with Russian and Saudi bots filling their feeds with complete bullshit propaganda to boost their narrative, it seems unlikely we see much movement there.

One interesting statistic that was shown last night by Steve Kornacki, was the shift in support of Trump by that mind-bending voting block that voted for Obama and then voted for Trump. Their support for Trump has dropped from 85% to 66% over the last 2-3 years.

It shows that the fight is not at the margins and the farther wings of the right and the left, but the large and growing "independent" voting block in the middle. Add to that the malleable "lean" voters. Those college educated middle of the road voters that could be persuaded to vote either way depending on the year and the candidate and THAT is where progress is made.

I know some here in this forum and many thousands more outside of it reject any form of "incremental change". But as I've said before, that is how our whole system was created and for good reason! The left doesn't want the right coming in and making no holds barred changes across the map, and vice versa. That's why we have divided government and checks and balances.

For Example. As much as medicare for all is the ideal end product for healthcare. There may need to be smaller steps before it to get to that end product. DaveC used gay marriage as an argument against incremental change (and i get where he's coming from), but to me, it really was an argument FOR it. The fight for equality in the LGBT community started in earnest in the 60's, and it was not an easy road, but in the end, marriage equality became a reality.

It may take years, it will be a hard fight. But to me, its better to have someone on the Dem side get into office to start down that road.
When one voting block only wants absolute and instant change and reject those that don't offer that, what ends up happening is the exact opposite of what they really want. It backfires and actually leads to any progress being reversed.
Lots of "progressives" sat out 2016 or voted third party and we got Trump. So now we have the Judicial branch decimated for decades, any health care progress rolled back, environmental progress rolled back, women's choice rolled back, education reform and progress rolled back, the list goes on.

I challenge self-proclaimed "progressives" to stop and realize that people that want to support candidates that are more centrist, don't actually want the end product to be a centrist, half-measure law. But we see it as the necessary steps to take to get to the more progressive law in the end.

Is there anyone that can bring the country together at this point? I really don't know. Something crazy would have to take place. I really don't think it is so much at the presidential level. I think that could actually happen. A VERY moderate Republican, or Democrat could get into office. Probably pull a bit of the country together. But what you see at the Congress and Senate level is SO... sick. That i just don't know. Listening to Republican Senators defend almost 200 contacts with RUSSIANS, and secret back channel communications with them, and seeing nothing wrong at all with a "president" obstructing and lying at every turn, it just turned my stomach. And makes me think that there may be no path to getting back to where we used to be, where house members on both sides would do the right thing no matter what party they belonged too. That is gone.
__________________

womanfish is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:41 AM   #303
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
RockNRollDawgie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 3,544
Local Time: 06:13 AM
I'm afraid Trump's cult MAGA hat followers are a lost cause. They'll worship him no matter what, it seems. I like to be optimistic that somehow the U.S will survive this Trump/GOP madness. Might take some time though.
RockNRollDawgie is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:53 AM   #304
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by RockNRollDawgie View Post
I'm afraid Trump's cult MAGA hat followers are a lost cause. They'll worship him no matter what, it seems. I like to be optimistic that somehow the U.S will survive this Trump/GOP madness. Might take some time though.
We know that his base is a lost cause and we knew it back when Dick Cheney's approval ranking tanked to approximately 20% but did not budge below that. That's the absolute bottom for them. The reason he's higher at 37% is that the country is even more divided among tribal lines so some people who weren't so partisan as to still support Cheney have become hardened enough to support Trump. Then you have a group of voters who typically have not voted but got energized by a reality TV star who said funny things (to them) in rallies. Then you have a segment of wealthy Republicans who know that he is disgusting and would not socialize with him BUT his economic policies work for them and the tax cuts do too. Finally you have the evangelicals who just care about judges and if we're honest, he's done a great job there. That's it.

So in that sense I don't think that Irvine was right in his post - the suggestion that Trump's base is somehow monolithic compared to the Democratic base is really not true. The evangelicals don't have anything in common with the Koch group for example. BUT they are much better at putting aside their differences and each voting for their own priority while not caring one way or another what else he does when he is in office. The Democrats seem unable to do this. For example, you can have Kamala Harris be for medicare but she didn't let trans women serve their sentences in women's prisons so she's a monster. You can have Bernie Sanders support all kinds of progressive measures but he supports drones and invading Afghanistan and that won't fly with certain groups. Dems seem to insist that the ENTIRETY of a candidate's platform serves their purposes 100% of the time or they'll shit all over them. And that's ok to an extent in a primary, this is the time to vet and choose. But there has to be an understanding of why the GOP has been more successful electorally for a while now.
anitram is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:06 AM   #305
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,205
Local Time: 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post



So in that sense I don't think that Irvine was right in his post - the suggestion that Trump's base is somehow monolithic compared to the Democratic base is really not true. The evangelicals don't have anything in common with the Koch group for example. BUT they are much better at putting aside their differences and each voting for their own priority while not caring one way or another what else he does when he is in office. The Democrats seem unable to do this. For example, you can have Kamala Harris be for medicare but she didn't let trans women serve their sentences in women's prisons so she's a monster. You can have Bernie Sanders support all kinds of progressive measures but he supports drones and invading Afghanistan and that won't fly with certain groups. Dems seem to insist that the ENTIRETY of a candidate's platform serves their purposes 100% of the time or they'll shit all over them. And that's ok to an extent in a primary, this is the time to vet and choose. But there has to be an understanding of why the GOP has been more successful electorally for a while now.
Bingo
Headache in a Suitcase is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:22 AM   #306
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,473
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
So in that sense I don't think that Irvine was right in his post - the suggestion that Trump's base is somehow monolithic compared to the Democratic base is really not true. The evangelicals don't have anything in common with the Koch group for example. BUT they are much better at putting aside their differences and each voting for their own priority while not caring one way or another what else he does when he is in office. The Democrats seem unable to do this. For example, you can have Kamala Harris be for medicare but she didn't let trans women serve their sentences in women's prisons so she's a monster. You can have Bernie Sanders support all kinds of progressive measures but he supports drones and invading Afghanistan and that won't fly with certain groups. Dems seem to insist that the ENTIRETY of a candidate's platform serves their purposes 100% of the time or they'll shit all over them. And that's ok to an extent in a primary, this is the time to vet and choose. But there has to be an understanding of why the GOP has been more successful electorally for a while now.


i absolutely agree with the second part, but let me clarify the first -- the evangelical "base" of the GOP, which has existed since the double-whammy of desegregation and Rove v Wade, is fairly monolithic as a group, and comprises a large percentage of the electorate especially in a Republican primary, but also in the general. the Democrats do not have an equivalent group with their numbers. the "genius" of Rove was to see in W Bush someone who could speak evangelical while retaining credibility with the Chamber of Commerce crowd due to his blue blood family name. (and even still, he lost the popular vote in 2000 and squeaked out a victory in 2004).

the good news is that they are shrinking, and younger white evangelicals aren't as conservative as their parents and grandparents. many are leaving. and many older ones are dying.

black women may turn out and vote Democrat with comparable reliability as your average white evangelical (which i realize is too broad a term, but for our purposes, we know what we mean here), but they don't exist in comparable numbers -- white evangelicals are something like 26% of the voting population (African-Americans as a whole are 13% of the US population). they are critical, however, in certain urban centers in certain states (Philadelphia, Detroit, Madison) so strong appeal to African-American voters is pretty much mandatory for the Democrats to win.

finally, i do wish we'd understand that if you don't win purple districts, you don't win. and then you get nothing. a +40 district in the Bay Area means nothing. as noted earlier, the system we have is designed to be incremental, and the president is not a king. look at how little Trump accomplished (beyond judges and a tax cut) from 2017-19 with total control of the government. that's in part due to his utter incompetence (although McConnell is nothing if not good at his evil job). to expect that Obama would have turned the US into Denmark over the course of 2 years is just nonsense.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:28 AM   #307
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,473
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
You can have Bernie Sanders support all kinds of progressive measures but he supports drones and invading Afghanistan and that won't fly with certain groups.

don't forget -- Mayor Pete had the nerve to actually serve in Afghanistan, so this makes him a racist shit.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:38 AM   #308
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,460
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
don't forget -- Mayor Pete had the nerve to actually serve in Afghanistan, so this makes him a racist shit.


Mayor Pete tried to defend “religious freedom” regarding not vaccinating your kids or some shit. Or maybe that part wasn’t religious freedom, but seems to think any rhetoric other than “you need to vaccinate your children” is acceptable.

I loathe the notion of “the religious left” and want nothing to do with any candidate whose platforms are not rooted in logic and science.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:39 AM   #309
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,233
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Thank you Headache for highlighting anitram's post. It really is spot on, on the difference we see in the party support.

And Irvine says it so well. Whatever platforms and plans are being presented by presidential nominees, means very little except for where that one single person stands.
Most likely a more progressive nominee like Sanders or Warren - If elected, would get about the same results as a more centrist candidate when all is said and done. I would argue the more centrist candidate may actually make more progress. They may be able to peel away enough moderate votes to pass something in the right direction, where more absolute measures may be struck down completely.

I like Warren. But I feel like the sticking point with me right now is that her plans for say... education leave me a bit uneasy. Right now, she is proposing forgiving all student debt, and making all public colleges free. Great, i love it. I still have substantial student debt and have a daughter that I would love to send to college for free.

But why can't we have a plan somewhere in the more feasible category. Maybe forgive a portion of student debt, and let both Federal and Private student loans be shifted to a 0% interest federal loan?
Then instead of totally free public colleges, cap the amount that is paid by anyone at a sliding scale (dependent on financial means) anywhere from 1000 to 4000 a year.

I think ideas like that are more palatable and attractive to everyone who is in the legislative branch to get passed. Now the argument may be to start at Warren's idea and negotiate to a more middle ground stance like I proposed. And that is totally valid, and may be her thought process. But I think we have to start to look at real, valid, passable change, and not just aspirational change. That is where we will start to bring sides together.
womanfish is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:41 AM   #310
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
black women may turn out and vote Democrat with comparable reliability as your average white evangelical (which i realize is too broad a term, but for our purposes, we know what we mean here), but they don't exist in comparable numbers -- white evangelicals are something like 26% of the voting population (African-Americans as a whole are 13% of the US population). they are critical, however, in certain urban centers in certain states (Philadelphia, Detroit, Madison) so strong appeal to African-American voters is pretty much mandatory for the Democrats to win.
Way WAY higher % and a more reliable group. Nobody comes close to black women in terms of reliability. But you're right, they are not as numerous and a lot of them are in southern states where they are just wildly outnumbered by white voters. You can see the power that this voting group has, for example, in the election in Alabama when Roy Moore lost. That was on the backs of AA voters, mostly women but also men. The issue is that a lot of the men are ineligible.
anitram is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:47 AM   #311
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,233
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Mayor Pete tried to defend “religious freedom” regarding not vaccinating your kids or some shit. Or maybe that part wasn’t religious freedom, but seems to think any rhetoric other than “you need to vaccinate your children” is acceptable.

I loathe the notion of “the religious left” and want nothing to do with any candidate whose platforms are not rooted in logic and science.
Yes. This bothers me greatly. I like Mayor Pete and his down to earth genuine qualities. But am really turned off by the idea that someone who is gay and has had to fight that fight with religious hate and bigotry would still be so entrenched in religion. Tell me rational of how there was literally a talking snake, and an evil poison apple, a talking burning bush, and how Jonah spent 3 days inside a whale, and how 9 million (times 2) species got on a big wooden boat is somehow real or believable and then not just discard the bible as a fun little historical text, filled with stories that was used in large part as a way to control the people of the time.

I mean, he's a smart guy. Why he would still devote himself to such nonsense is really off-putting.
womanfish is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:51 AM   #312
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Mayor Pete walked that back right away but the fact he even thought it really, really bothers me.

One of my children was born a preemie. You couldn't tell now, she's a spitfire and really big and healthy. But her immune system has never been great and she has been sick quite often in her 15 months on the planet. That's resulted in some delayed vaccines (you can't receive a live vaccine while you are sick) which has left me in a state of paranoia due to the measles outbreak. There were local cases. I hold the parents who are ant-vaxxers it utter contempt and any politicians who support them, the same. It's life and death we're talking about, not just an abstract political issue.
anitram is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 11:59 AM   #313
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,460
Local Time: 07:13 AM
If your house is on fire and it might burn down your neighbor’s house, public services are going to extinguish the fire. You can’t tell them “it is my property, let it burn please, I don’t care what happens to their home.”

Vaccines should be no different.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:07 PM   #314
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,473
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by womanfish View Post
But am really turned off by the idea that someone who is gay and has had to fight that fight with religious hate and bigotry would still be so entrenched in religion. Tell me rational of how there was literally a talking snake, and an evil poison apple, a talking burning bush, and how Jonah spent 3 days inside a whale, and how 9 million (times 2) species got on a big wooden boat is somehow real or believable and then not just discard the bible as a fun little historical text, filled with stories that was used in large part as a way to control the people of the time.

I mean, he's a smart guy. Why he would still devote himself to such nonsense is really off-putting.


i'm not religious, but i totally disagree with you here.

religion is very important to lots of people, and i doubt that Pete believes in biblical literalism as outlined above. but what's wonderful is that religion is yet another language he speaks fluidly, and this is not only helpful with some voters, but it's overall helpful to the culture.

i'm reminded of this lovely op-ed from a couple weeks ago:

Quote:
Churches will continue hemorrhaging members and money at an alarming rate until we muster the courage to face the truth: We got it wrong on gays and lesbians. This shouldn’t alarm or surprise us. We have learned some things that the ancients — including Moses and Paul — simply did not know. Not even Jesus, who was fully human and therefore limited to what first century humans knew, could know about cancer, schizophrenia, atomic energy and a million other things the centuries have taught us.

It’s difficult to watch good people (and the churches are full of them) buy into the sincere but misguided notion that being a faithful Christian means accepting everything the Bible teaches. We don’t impose the death penalty on adulterers, Sabbath breakers and rebellious children. Nor do we chase women from God’s house because they are menstruating or exclude men because of their physical handicaps.

Yet all of this, and more, is commanded by the Bible. The time has come for Christians to take a deep breath and ask themselves, “What does loving my neighbor — and my enemy — as myself look like?” And then proceed accordingly.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...mn/3559756002/
i'd point to the LGBT rights movement as a near-perfect example of how patience and persistence does change hearts and minds. if we are to move towards a more inclusive religious culture that values reason and experience and inclusion, which will in turn create a healthier culture for everyone, we need credible voices like Mayor Pete speaking to people who's minds can be changed.

for certain reasons, i've become mildly more interested in religion lately. more intellectually than emotionally. i was aghast at how the church treated gay people in general up until a few years ago, and have at least a dozen friends who were subjected to some kind of conversion therapy -- not electric shocks or anything, but heavy counseling and lots of fear and bible verses. but as religion self-corrects, as it admits error, as it becomes more human and acknowledges it's flaws and rejects literalism, it could potentially draw a person such as myself.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:27 PM   #315
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,460
Local Time: 07:13 AM
Nah fuck that shit. Totally disagree. To me it has something to do with being gay, but more to do with being someone of science.

Just as I don’t want someone in leadership promoting pseudoscience or false information, I do not want them promoting religion. We are not “one nation under god” and that shit is imbecilic and dated.

I have no tolerance for church in state. I really don’t care what individuals do in their privacy. I do not mind if they band together and publicly are a force for good, or heck even a negative thing preaching against me. That’s their right and their freedom to do so. And I don’t care if they don’t accept me, either.

Just because someone is religious does not mean they’re stupid or a bad person. Just because they don’t accept me does not mean these things either.

You don’t have to convince people or change minds. You need to change culture, and it takes time. The leader is the one who sets the tone. I don’t want biblical shit in my politics because it’s not good for science and it’s not good for eradicating the “biblical exception” for bigotry or pseudoscience. Let that shit die out. Don’t allow someone to keep it going.
LuckyNumber7 is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:28 PM   #316
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Mayor Pete tried to defend “religious freedom” regarding not vaccinating your kids or some shit. Or maybe that part wasn’t religious freedom, but seems to think any rhetoric other than “you need to vaccinate your children” is acceptable.

I loathe the notion of “the religious left” and want nothing to do with any candidate whose platforms are not rooted in logic and science.


I was on the mayor Pete train until he started talking about the religious left. While i understood his overall point, we don’t need more religious talk in our politics.

Just be good for goodness sake!!

I want Warren to come out of the primary, but would be content with Harris.

Warren has been killing it in regards to policy and calling out the threat that is Trump
BEAL is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:50 PM   #317
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,233
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i'm not religious, but i totally disagree with you here.

religion is very important to lots of people, and i doubt that Pete believes in biblical literalism as outlined above. but what's wonderful is that religion is yet another language he speaks fluidly, and this is not only helpful with some voters, but it's overall helpful to the culture.

i'm reminded of this lovely op-ed from a couple weeks ago:



i'd point to the LGBT rights movement as a near-perfect example of how patience and persistence does change hearts and minds. if we are to move towards a more inclusive religious culture that values reason and experience and inclusion, which will in turn create a healthier culture for everyone, we need credible voices like Mayor Pete speaking to people who's minds can be changed.

for certain reasons, i've become mildly more interested in religion lately. more intellectually than emotionally. i was aghast at how the church treated gay people in general up until a few years ago, and have at least a dozen friends who were subjected to some kind of conversion therapy -- not electric shocks or anything, but heavy counseling and lots of fear and bible verses. but as religion self-corrects, as it admits error, as it becomes more human and acknowledges it's flaws and rejects literalism, it could potentially draw a person such as myself.
But is it really helpful to the culture? I would say absolutely not. Pete is Episcopalian, which is about the most liberal and open of all denominations. But lets be real. From the biggest churches like Jerry Falwell Jr.s, to the small southern baptist churches to the the behemoth of the Catholic church. They run the spectrum of racist, sexist, homophobic, to child molestation and rape, while all the while trying to project an image of love and acceptance.

I grew up very religious. My father was a minister. We pretty much were taught that we were right in our small niche of beliefs and everyone else was doomed unless they repent. The more I knew and studied (yes, even went to a Bible college) the more ridiculous it all became.

Would you study a science textbook that taught things that were included from the bible? I don't think so. So why even breach the door of a church? I think people are strong enough mentally and emotionally to know that they should treat each other kindly and with respect. If you need the threat of hell fire to get you there... well, then you have some bigger issues to resolve.

I guess what I'm asking big picture is this - Why would Pete, who we know is brilliant, believe anything about a book that we know if full of ridiculous and implausible stories, that does state that along with a man laying with another man, or eating shellfish, or pork or not keeping the Sabbath day holy, will end in your damnation? Does he really need a place to go to, to tell him to treat others well and be a good person? Even though most churches say that, but then don't practice it?
We see the support of Trump (maybe one of the worst humans to breath air) by these groups. We see mega-church leaders like Falwell Jr. support Trump because he had Cohen help him cover up terrible photos of himself that he was being blackmailed for...
Why even go there? Be yourself, be a good person, volunteer, help those in need, support politicians that support that purpose. Religion has done much more harm than good in our history. And as much as one opinion piece says that it is changing, it rings totally hollow in every piece of evidence i see.
womanfish is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:53 PM   #318
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Nah fuck that shit. Totally disagree. To me it has something to do with being gay, but more to do with being someone of science.

Just as I don’t want someone in leadership promoting pseudoscience or false information, I do not want them promoting religion. We are not “one nation under god” and that shit is imbecilic and dated.

I have no tolerance for church in state. I really don’t care what individuals do in their privacy. I do not mind if they band together and publicly are a force for good, or heck even a negative thing preaching against me. That’s their right and their freedom to do so. And I don’t care if they don’t accept me, either.

Just because someone is religious does not mean they’re stupid or a bad person. Just because they don’t accept me does not mean these things either.

You don’t have to convince people or change minds. You need to change culture, and it takes time. The leader is the one who sets the tone. I don’t want biblical shit in my politics because it’s not good for science and it’s not good for eradicating the “biblical exception” for bigotry or pseudoscience. Let that shit die out. Don’t allow someone to keep it going.


The sooner we drop the “thoughts and prayers” inaction towards issues that need action the better.

We do nothing because we place our beliefs higher than science and truth.

I’m not saying you can’t believe in a higher power, cause if it does bring you something worthwhile to your life and doesn’t cause harm....continue on.

We need another renaissance movement. Spirituality doesn’t have to mean godly, it could mean that we continue on a path of understanding and knowledge that can better the lives of all.

I think to learn more about the universe and all its mysteries is a very spiritual thing. To know that we are all connected by star dust, and events that occurred so long ago is very poetic

But naturally we want to feel there’s something more. Our egos want there to be that personalized universe that cares.

I do hope before i pass away that we see less and less of superstition and more compassion in our daily lives
BEAL is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:59 PM   #319
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,473
Local Time: 07:13 AM
i find it funny that a "religious bigot" such as myself is defending religion. but here i go.

of course i believe in clear separation of church and state. i think Washington prayer breakfasts are silly, and i think "thoughts and prayers" after shootings is basically evil.

but religion is still there. it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

i'm speaking culturally. a president is the head of state as well as the head of the executive branch of government. many people in the US are religious, and that is not going to change. and mocking them for being religious isn't going to get us anywhere. many people derive structure, purpose, and meaning from religion, and whether they should or not really isn't anyone's business. Bono is likely one such person.

a president -- or even just a candidate -- who can speak in those terms to those people and deliver a message of tolerance and openness and acceptance is a good thing. period.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:04 PM   #320
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
womanfish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: moons of Zooropa
Posts: 7,233
Local Time: 11:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i find it funny that a "religious bigot" such as myself is defending religion. but here i go.

of course i believe in clear separation of church and state. i think Washington prayer breakfasts are silly, and i think "thoughts and prayers" after shootings is basically evil.

but religion is still there. it's not going anywhere anytime soon.

i'm speaking culturally. a president is the head of state as well as the head of the executive branch of government. many people in the US are religious, and that is not going to change. and mocking them for being religious isn't going to get us anywhere. many people derive structure, purpose, and meaning from religion, and whether they should or not really isn't anyone's business. Bono is likely one such person.

a president -- or even just a candidate -- who can speak in those terms to those people and deliver a message of tolerance and openness and acceptance is a good thing. period.
I don't disagree. Pete's views are sort of a double edge sword for me. I don't like that he is involved in it, but i also do appreciate the fact that he can speak to those "believers" in a new and more accepting way.
I will take that any day over a Pence type asshole who is so anti-Christian in every imaginable way. Unfortunately the Pence prototype is more what I see out there in the world. So maybe Pete can pierce that and draw in some moderate thoughtful Christians who see a better way.
__________________

womanfish is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×