Trump by name......

My understanding is that he is almost as religously conservative as Cruz, he is just smoother with it.

He's anti global warming, pro-life, hawkish on war, anti gay marriage (tho he thinks states should have the final say), wants to reduce medicare and social security, and doesn't believe in decriminalisation of drugs.

 

What do people think of this article?
http://www.vox.com/2016/2/5/10918164/donald-trump-morality


I found this statement interesting given the emphasis on Trump being an extremist in most media.

"One surprise in our data was that Trump supporters were not extreme on any of the foundations. This means that Trump supporters are more centrist than is commonly realized; consequently, Trump's prospects in the general election may be better than many pundits have thought. Cruz meanwhile, with a further-right moral profile, may have more difficulty attracting centrist Democrats and independents than would Trump."

 

Good article, I'm reading his last book arm


Simply put, the average person who gets scared gets stupid, this is why its important to exposure his extremism, and encourage thinking.

 

poor other candidates mainly. although of the republicans, he has really good ideas on immigration (helping illegals obtain legality was his priority)

 

How is it better handled locally? Do you think that education decisions in the past should also have been handled locally?

It is only hypocritical if you assume that ignorance and falsehoods are equal to knowledge and truth. Creationism and intelligent design are bankrupt hypotheses for the biodiversity of life on earth; they exist only to further a religious agenda. Slaves were not workers and teaching children that is abhorrent. Wiping out teen suicide hotlines because they offer particular support to LGBTQ teens is just disgusting.

Do I believe that churches should be free to teach such a thing? Yes. That's tolerance.

Do I believe that any involuntary taxes, be they state or federal, should support such a thing? No.

Do I believe that involuntary taxes should support an education in the arts, history and science? Abbbbbsoooooluteeeeelyyyyyy.

It's not intolerant to believe that children should have access to medical care, even if that medical care goes against their parent's religion. Nor so is it intolerant to believe that education should be based on our best understanding of the truth. The benefits to having an educated populace are numerous. I would even support the expansion of federal funds to cover the costs of associate's schools, trade schools and community colleges. Given the cost of producing such textbooks I'm not sure how you plan to grant one to each state except magic. What benefit do you see in allowing states to teach such things? How does having a scientifically illiterate populace help us to deal with existential threats like ecological collapse?

I did not erase any words, I claimed the distinction was semantic. I see no moral difference between a person here illegally fleeing either economic poverty, political oppression, what have you and one here legally. I would oppose any policy that resulted in significant deaths of any sort if they are for no clear gain based upon that distinction.

Fine, politicians exaggerate. I'd much rather a politician exaggerate about giving everyone free college than waging a domestic war. But Trump's grotesqueries are not confined to his proposed immigration policy they continue onto making the families of terrorists targets and making the US military into a mercenary force. This is by no means an aberration. It doesn't seem like a strong endorsement of a candidate if your response to his platform is "He can't really mean that," and "Someone will surely stop him from actually doing that."

 

But every President will try

 

i'm wondering what part of the common core standards are so offensive. please do tell us, someone, why these standards are so offensive.

http://www.corestandards.org/read-the-standards/

 

Ugh! My eyes!

Surely posting that is against the ToS?

 

Actually, if you want to compete with China in manufacturing, that's exactly what you'll have to support. I mean literally, you will have to repeal a couple of centuries of labour laws.

So who wins if the US "beats" China? Will it be the serfs working 18 hour days in factories with suicide nets under the balconies, or will it be the distant leaders who can claim the victory?

 

What gets me is how dumb we are.

If candidates give detailed plans for enacting policy we think they're boring and/or untrustworthy.

If candidates give banal sound bites appealing to the worst in people we love them.

More on American anti-intellectualism from a science fiction author:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhkzYnaAvAA"]Philip K. Dick - Anti-Intellectualism in America - YouTube[/ame]

 

i think that might be true for some people, but not all of us. we're not dumb, we're actually very smart as a country and as a people. the dumb part is equating ignorance and knowledge, in the name of democracy--as philo has pointed out on many occasions.

 

Also, if Trump deports all illegal immigrants, who's going to build his real estate?

 

I said "we" because it's not much better here.

People, on the whole, react to politicians on an emotional level, rather than an objective or pragmatic level.

There was a great documentary on our Channel 4 a couple of weeks ago about Trump. It compared his rhetoric to that of the Nazis, and it was kind of hard to argue with. People at the bottom always want a vengeful saviour to smite the alien tribes that are holding them back from a life of comfort and wealth.

EDIT: also, anti-intellectualism is pretty common in both the UK and USA amongst the poorer-educated (which is an arming proportion of the population), simply for the fact that they do not understand intellectuals, and see them as being of a different tribe. Also, like I just demonstrated, they can be very patronising

 

Does Trump have illegal immigrants on his payroll?

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...785116-20ec-11e5-84d5-eb37ee8eaa61_story.html

Quite likely. If not his, then one of his subsidiaries. I doubt you can go very far in the US and not find someone who has benefitted from illegal labor.

 

"Ahmad Samadi, 26, a site foreman who arrived last year from Afghanistan under U.S. political asylum..."

What?! I thought Muslims were out too, until Trump can "figure out what's going on"?

There's also this case of 200 illegal Polish workers from the 80's: http://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/13/nyregion/trump-says-he-didn-t-know-he-employed-illegal-aliens.html

 

I have never seen this diversity bumper sticker you speak of, and I have been in a lot of traffic. A quick google doesn't pull it up either.

I have seen many times a Coexist bumper sticker that is made up of religious symbols like you mention. Clearly all the folks with this coexist sticker were commie pinko liberals. On that sticker there is no mention of Baphomet, Cthulhu, Satan, etc. Heck, not even Athena or Poseidon. Just a big old cross as the last symbol. So clearly these folks were very disingenuous in their diversity. They only want to coexist if you are into one of these mainstream things that are represented in that sticker. So not much diversity there with their peace symbol, yin and yang, cross and all that!

Seriously, whenever I hear anything that approximates a plea for "states rights" like you seem to be making, it takes me back to the Civil War. I can't help sometimes thinking America would be better if split into 2 countries - red states and blue states. The Blue states will be a cool progressive place that makes lots of money and makes countries in Europe jealous with our health care, and education. The Red states can do whatever they want, but Blue states won't be paying for it.