Democrats are throwing away some bedrock principles that have guided us for over 50 years, such as a person shouldn’t be discriminated on the basis of sex, race, sexual orientation or religion.
Democrats huh? A little too soon, I’d just wait until the end of the RNC to assume this kind of comment won’t backfire. Remember, these people represent Trumpism, and they want to take away women’s rights to vote, and think there’s a jewish conspiracy afoot. You know, normal stuff.
Again, these are not random crazy people, they are scheduled to represent the Republican Party at their convention.
Mendoza, an “angel mom,” is scheduled to speak Tuesday about her son’s 2014 death at the hands of a drunk driver who was in the country illegally. Her tweet on Tuesday linked to a lengthy thread from a QAnon conspiracy theorist that laid out a fevered, anti-Semitic view of the world. In its telling, the Rothschilds—a famous Jewish banking family from Germany—created a plot to terrorize non-Jewish “goyim,” with purported details of their scheme that included plans to “make the goyim destroy each other” and “rob the goyim of their landed properties.”
Yes, you haven’t thought the current Democrat policy shift through all the way.
let me kick you off, did you agree with Biden when he made his 2 top criteria for his VP pick being 1 a woman and 2 being black? Explain your rationale if “yes”. Then we can carry on.
Yes, because winning at politics, and actual policy, are two completely different things.
Like how Hillary is a horrible candidate as a politician running, but would have been a competent president.
But anyway, I’ll tell you why the Republican party has invited sexist, anti-semites to the RNC to speak and espouse their views. Because they’re so desperate, they invited crazy people.
Anti-semite lady seems to have been booted now.
That’s actually a kind explantion by me though, I think they know what these people really are, and are just waiting for them to be ‘caught’ before they’re forced to boot them from the RNC.
I think you mean Democrats’ rejection of Richard Spencer. We get it, Kanye West isn’t a Trumpist either, even though Trump’s lawyer dropped off his stuff for him. Desperate times and all.
Why does Biden picking Harris help him politically? Uh, cause she’s female and minority, and those parts of society want better representation in public office?
I think maybe you’re thinking he only picked her because of these qualities, like she’s unqualified or something. That kind of narrative is always cute but believe it or not, there are many competent people out there who can also appeal to voters in a way that helps you win.
It’s like when McCain chose Palin, except her competency was much more debatable, the hindsight regret about her proved that out. That’s when it’s bad, when you pick someone solely on demographic appeal.
That’s correct. I am not creating a trap for you, no need to imagine why I am asking. Yours is the correct answer.
So would it follow that companies, organizations, political parties and so on should look at their own make up and do something about their make up, perhaps better represent the LGBT community, perhaps look around and say “hey we have way too many men, we need some more women” or perhaps decide they need to be more diverse ethnically.
Would that make sense to you? Would you agree that seems to be the policy Democrats are pursuing?
Assuming they’re qualified for positions, having more diversity, and the various perspectives you gain from it, can be viewed as straight up smart business.
Having different perspectives means you have more ability to understand your target audience, whether it be financial or political. Therefore being diverse increases your chances of success, whatever the goal is.
Back to Spencer…
This whole thing makes me laugh, the exercise in trying to convince people Biden is the racist, not Trump, or Biden is the creep, not Trump.
This is like a kid who has a 20 page essay due in morning class, and it’s 5am and they have 5 pages done, and it turns out it didn’t write itself. Now the strategy has turned to trying to convince the teacher they told the whole class a different due date.
I think what happened is Trump has realized in the 9th inning, that guess what, America did not side with him, the people who like him are much fewer in numbers than his hubris imagined. So now we see the desperation trying to paint his opponent as bad on things he is notoriously bad on.
Because he needs a lot more votes. The problem with this level if desperation is, it makes him transparent, and probably brings in even more votes for the other guy.
Yes, I understand the argument. But it most countries and in most States in the US there is a law that you can’t discriminate on the basis of race, sex, sexual orientation or religion.
How do you achieve your equality of outcome result without violating the law?
Here we get back to Richard Spencer, he has been told his entire life it is morally indefensible to discriminate by sex, race, sexual orientation and religion. That has been a bedrock principle of civilized society.
Then along come the Democrats and say you CAN in fact discriminate on just that basis. Richard Spencer is not discriminating on a basis you agree with, but the Democrats will have destroyed the moral foundation that makes his type so repugnant to the vast majority.
I don’t want to get into the definitions of “conservatives”, but let’s just say your thinking seems very strange to me.
The left wants to restrict freedoms in almost every sphere of life in the United States, while the right is trying to conserve them.
The left wants to infringe on freedom of religion by restricting their ability to freely practice what they believe, freely assemble, and even floats the idea of taxing religious institutions differently based on their beliefs.
The left wants to infringe on the freedom of speech by criminalizing some speech they find offensive or with which they disagree.
The left wants to infringe on the freedom of assembly of most Americans.
The left wants to infringe on the right to due process in our schools and other government institutions.
The left wants to introduce racism, sexism, and other forms of discrimination into institutions by judging people not by their individual merit, but based on their immutable characteristics.
I don’t want to get into an abortion debate as they are fruitless, but I understand the argument that the right is trying to infringe on a woman’s right to choose to end a pregnancy. Hopefully you can understand the argument that 97% of all biologists agree that life begins at conception. Because the science is settled on this fact, the left wants to infringe on the right of unborn babies to merely live.
The idea that you would disagree with “conservatives” because you “like freedom” must mean either a fundamental misunderstanding of those terms or of the reality of America today.
We can understand. I understand. I just don’t agree on certain definitions of freedom.
I’d love to continue this with you further in a new topic a bit later when I am off work. I think you make some good points but I want to address them when I have a chance with time.
Yep. For example, California will vote this November to amend the state constitution so that language prohibiting discrimination based on race would be repealed.
I don’t think Spencer’s endorsement of Biden is any surprise at all.
The measure would repeal Section 31 of Article I of the California Constitution. The following text would be repealed:
The State shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
I also don’t understand why you equate Liking freedom and being a conservative in the US as mutually exclusive. Not to mention a significant amount of libertarian conservatives.
If you want to understand why conservatives believe the left is going the opposite Way of freedom, look at Chop/Chaz. That was a mini trial run of how it looks. They basically are the very thing they hate with strict borders, stealing land, beating up people they disagree with, etc. and It fell apart. This is the rising authoritarian left that the moderate have tolerated and pretended isn’t an issue.
Sorry about that! I guess I wasn’t clear in my post. I didn’t intend to suggest that Freedom and being a conservative was mutually exclusive. I was merely replying to two separate things that were said to me.
That one, it was implied that we in Canada are a repressed dystopia. We are not and we are happily free. And I’m still not clear on whatever this alleged pronoun problem is.
And two, that Canadians largely disagree with US conservatives. That seems to be the case largely. Trump doesn’t particularly appear to be all that popular in Canada. I can’t imagine why he would be popular, he just imposed steel tariffs on us again for no reason.
I didn’t intend that they be conflated together and It’s my fault that the post was understood that way. Thanks!
But that’s not how it works. If you truly understood what it means to be American, you would know that the US is the beacon of democracy in a world that contains less-than-savoury characters and has been primarily responsible for spreading and entrenching that democracy. The formation of the US, with all its growing pains has been the kick in the teeth the world needed to get its shit together and start off a now-200-year-strong revolution of freedom and democracy and a new rules-based-order that is fairer than ever before that a good chunk of the world has adopted, though not always smoothly. It has not been without mistakes and growing pains and we’re still learning to be better brothers and sisters to each other…even when it feels like we’re not making much progress.
If you truly fear opinions from your perceived out-groups inspiring those in your in-group to change their minds. It is possible that your arguments likely do not hold much water to begin with. If they did, I’d happily drop my arguments in favour of yours. My opinions are not part of my identity and I strive to change and amend my opinions, beliefs and values over time based on new facts and information. Your advocacy of Communist-style information-suppression and infliction of irreversible physical violence for having an opinion in a country whose number one article in the bill of rights is advocacy of Freedom of Speech suggests to me that you have no idea what America’s values actually are. These opinions, to me are shocking and appalling and do not reflect the values the founding fathers wanted in America. I love the US and agree with many of the things it stands for, but the values you have espoused today, would have a better home in countries like Saudi Arabia, North Korea and China; but definitely not the US. To advocate suppression of information sharing through arbitrary factors like what passport people have is not only bigotry, but, leaves an impression of scepticism on the minds of members you are trying to convince. Your words have often suggested that you are placing great effort in attempting to convince people that your opinion is correct, especially during an election year and where there are stakes involved. There is nothing wrong with that. I agree with that. But if you are expressing that you are not quite open minded and willing to treat other people as the equal adults they are; be them American or not, then the people whom you are trying to convince are not likely going to believe that they will have a fair audience with you and will not likely afford you their attention. With those people, you’re certainly welcome to just ignore them or press the ignore button on this forum and discuss with people that agree with you…but then you’re just preaching to the choir. If it comes down to that, what are you accomplishing? If you’re as paranoid about outsider ‘influence’ changing the minds of Americans as I think you are, then I have news for you. I’m not here to change minds. I’m not here to change your mind. I’ve realised long ago that it’s impossible to change someone else’s mind. Only you can change your own mind. The harder I try to change someone’s mind, the harder they dig in. Admittedly, this has not yet sunk into the minds of the wisecracks running China as they force Hong Kongers and Taiwanese to dig their heels in so deep that their feet are now poking out of Peru. Some countries don’t learn. @Andrew0409 and I rarely agree on politics. But we treat each other like the adults we are. I had the wonderful opportunity to hear his insights on the Electoral College the other day. I don’t know if I agree with what he says. I don’t think I do, but I really enjoyed listening to his insight as an equal and I think he makes good points.
This coming November, you’re going to have an uphill battle succeeding in convincing others to be open minded towards your opinions if you fail to show that the opinions of others, even the ones you disagree with are important to you. This is free advice and intended to help you. I don’t think you are an idiot and have no ill-will towards you and, as someone who strives to be open minded, will continue to happily extend an olive branch and listen to your opinions should you share them. But I won’t be silenced on mine and if you view mine as obstacles towards your goal, then you are simply going to have to deal with it. The US as a government will also have to deal with the opinions and interests of its allies if it expects any of its allies to cooperate in furthering US interests, that includes the opinions of Trudeau. We certainly wouldn’t want a…uhh Ms Meng accidentally escaping to China, would we?
Thank you for your time in reading this.
No. I suggested it, unprovoked because you were close with @shiadoa. That I felt sorry that you couldn’t participate, despite being the OP of the topic. I wanted you to come and pay your respects with the rest of us. It’s called being a good person and extending an olive branch. But to be faced with such an attack on dignity through arbitrary and uncontrollable aspects of me, and attacks on my country are causing me to second guess if I should extend another olive branch in the future. You never spoke to @shiadoa in the way you have spoken to me, despite @shiadoa being equally not-American. And he’s chimed in the politics section a good number of times. Our lives are not shitty in Canada and it’s disingenious to suggest so. Instead of ‘supposing’ our alleged dystopia, perhaps you should come and experience it for a while. You might like it.
