Jump to content
downzy

US Politics/Elections Thread

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Gordon Comstock said:

It's only dangerous if you think of it as something more than it is - it's casual, it can be ridiculous, it's not intended to be taken as a serious news source. It's entertainment first.

And that's my issue.  I think many people view Rogan as something more than just a casual conversation.  In my opinion if Rogan is going to have to people like Shapiro, Jones, and Peterson on, he needs to do a better job at pushing back at some of their more preposterous positions.  He doesn't need to make it his mission to invalidate them, but from what I've seen/heard so far, he doesn't do nearly enough to challenge these guys who hold some dangerous positions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, downzy said:

And that's my issue.  I think many people view Rogan as something more than just a casual conversation.  In my opinion if Rogan is going to have to people like Shapiro, Jones, and Peterson on, he needs to do a better job at pushing back at some of their more preposterous positions.  He doesn't need to make it his mission to invalidate them, but from what I've seen/heard so far, he doesn't do nearly enough to challenge these guys who hold some dangerous positions.  

That's fair, he doesn't just say 'that's bullshit' too often, but you could argue that by asking his guests to explain themselves he doesn't need to really push back against them. If you let someone like Jones talk for long enough, he invalidates himself, at least to almost any rational person. He does disagree with some of his guests though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

She's more charismatic than Sanders or Warren too, which is something the democrats need in a candidate.

I once said Tulsi was more personable but came to realize later i was wrong - Bernie with his disheveled look and yelling is really the perfect representation of how tired we are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

I find Rogan a waste of time and extremely overrated.  

This is why journalism is an actual profession, an art even and furthermore why its dangerous that, in this day and age, a certain cross-section are inclined to turn to a podcast to get informed or, worse still, when real estate sharks become presidents.  To illustrate how far we've fallen, David Frost is pretty respected in journalistic circles, on the back of Nixon/Frost and various other things...and he was considered a third rate satirist and a bit of a journalistic lightweight back in the day.  Cut to 2019 and Joe Rogan is doing a similar job, and Tommy Robinson too, he's a journalist too apparently :lol:  Joe Rogan puts my fuckin' brain to sleep.

Edited by Len Cnut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, downzy said:

People ask me if I listen to podcasts and this is a pretty good example of why I don't (save for the very good Appetite for Distortion, of course)....

They just meander and drone on about topics for the sake of droning on about topics.  Since there's no limit on time, there's no need to self-edit and all the minutia is aired in full.  

In any event, I find these "podcasts" strange in that they accuse others of focusing on something narrow while missing the point of the entire piece.

Anyone who knows anything about Maddow knows she's taken people like Bolton to task time and time again for what happened with Iraq.  It's not even debatable.  Whether you agree with her positions or not, she's been pretty consistent on her distaste for those responsible for Iraq and those who would unjustifiably put America into war. 

The point she's trying to make isn't about Bolton.  It's not about Russia.  It's about Trump's repeated instances of undermining his own cabinet and officials.  Bolton goes out and says one thing, Trump says another to completely cut him off.  Her focus is on the unprofessionalism of the Trump presidency; that he continually sells out his own officials; that the administration is never on the same page.  That's the point she's making, and hence why she makes the caveat that she's not concerned about how one views Bolton.  

But I guess people with podcasts who don't structure their shows need to fill time to keep people listening.  

As I said before, there's a lot to knock Maddow about.  Her faith and certainty in the Mueller report and Trump's absolute guilt led her to a place that undermined her credibility.  She got way ahead of that story and has since had a difficult time acknowledging that she resorted to almost conspiratorial nonsense to support her certainty in Trump's guilty and Mueller's mission.  So I'm not here saying that Maddow isn't without faults and isn't above criticisms.  But these people trying to make a name for themselves with podcasts need to adjust their sights a bit.  

 

You know that tons of people listen to Maddow as a podcast right?:smiley-confused2: And yes, she fills it with safe, surface level analysis and conspiracy theory to fill time, trying to make a name for herself.

There are so many podcasts that arent chat and comedy oriented like this one. Make no mistake, this podcast is a decompression about these deadly serious issues. Its like a daily show approach. And I know you arent adverses to the daily show format given the clip you used to launch this thread. But there are so many sober, short and journalism centred casts. So many, like Deconstructed with Medhi Hasan and Intercepted with Jeremy Scahil and Edge of Sports that I linked above. This is odd to learn about someone having a generalized and prejudiced view of an entire form of media. Especially since this one is a YouTube video with a studio and video captions - making it incredibly similar to Maddows format.

Evidently you wouldnt even listen to this short clip of a podcast. :P Because they talk about how vocal she was against Bolton and Iraq. They use that track record as a measurement to display how far she's meandered away from being a vocal critic. Thats their core point.

Yes, we all understand her very basic talking point. It is useless and vapid in the face of all she ignores and skims over. Criticizing ones form and substance is not one and the same as missing their (empty) point.

Again, you can know Maddow and also know the extreme limitations that the editorial framework she's operating within. She still has the haircut, hubris, pretension and snarky tone of an east coast liberal, but often thats about it.

The largest single day protest in history took place in protest to the Iraq war. One doesnt get extra points for being on side with their built in audience about such an open and closed issue. Russia gate was huge ratings with her built in audience. So we got all of that non stop. US Imperialsm in LATAM doesnt have the same hold on the people (in no small part because idiots like herself distracting the people). So we can easily see a pattern. She panders.

The very on point, full of useful commentary, journalism and critical analysis podcast that you are trying to reject by virtue of its medium is under Sam Seeders umbrella. He obviously rejected his seat at MSNBC and already had a big enough name to launch a podcast. The opposite of trying to make a name for oneself is resting on ones laurels from reporting done 20 years ago. You had to go back 20 years to find something positive to say about her. Michael Brooks, Ben Burgis and Jamie Peck put forward invaluable commentary and analysis ever single day.

Seems like we agree on her and Russiagate. Like, when you have luminaries like Chomsky telling you to rein it in; fucking rein it in already. Not only Chomsky was out their making a great case to shift focus onto the real world evil the Trump regime presents daily, but Glen Greenwald was entirely critical of the liberal to lefts coverage of the investigation. Thats the courage this age requires. When one no longer value Chompskys input and are distracting the people for ratings and skimming over war criminals they get called out and kicked to the curb. And luckily for humanity there is a new medium that is not beholden to corporate overlords for the honest actors to present quality analysis.

Now this is the type of cutting and serious analysis The Michael Brooks show could only hope for! :lol:

 

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, downzy said:

As I get older I pay less and less attention to sports, hence I hardly ever read sports commentators.  Does he speak to more than just sports?

Click the link :P He talks about the politics of sports. A recent episode was interviewing a pro wrestler about their activism. As you can imagine over the last 2 years he's covered the NFL regarding head injury and Kaepernick, including black lives matter. He talks about the gentrification involved with the Olympics. He talks to feminist authors about the struggle for women's professional football/soccer in some latam nations. All that kind of stuff. If you ever saw Sorkin's Sports Night tv series - its like that lens come to life. Except Zirin doesn't really talk about athletes stats and records much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Gordon Comstock said:

Question for the Americans on here - what are your thoughts on Tulsi Gabbard?

It seems that the mainstream media focuses more on people like Kamala Harris, or Pete Buttigieg, but Tulsi seems like one of the better candidates - almost an 'ideal candidate' for the 'modern democrats'. Does she get less coverage because of her foreign policy, and comments on Assad? Do people think she's 'in with the Russians'? I'm interested to hear what Americans think about her.

As someone who voted for Trump in 2016, I would seriously consider voting for Tulsi in 2020 (as well as seriously considering Bernie and Yang). You hit the nail in regards to her foreign policy views being the reason she isn't getting any glowing coverage in MSNBC/CNN land. There is a bipartisan and globalist military intervention establishment that runs much of both parties and the media of both sides in the US. Tulsi being called a Russian shill is nothing more than a smear from a bunch of establishment lackeys. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, soon said:

You know that tons of people listen to Maddow as a podcast right?:smiley-confused2: And yes, she fills it with safe, surface level analysis and conspiracy theory to fill time, trying to make a name for herself.

The podcast is simply her show.  The issue I have with podcasts is that they generally run unstructured and lack format.  Not saying all, but to suggest her actual show, whether one consumes it directly through television or via the rebranded "podcast," is akin to the podcast you linked above is absurd.  I'm not talking about content.  She does do some long form stuff, particularly in the A block that can run 20+ minutes before a commercial break.  But again, from a structural standpoint, I'd take someone like Maddow all day long over the whatever podcast you posted above where hosts spout nonsense for the sake of spouting nonsense.

6 hours ago, soon said:

Evidently you wouldnt even listen to this short clip of a podcast. :P Because they talk about how vocal she was against Bolton and Iraq

I did listen to the first half but again, don't have time to waste on people who think they can just meander through a point rather than getting right to it.  If that was suppose to be humorous then good lord than my sense of humour is very different than theirs.

6 hours ago, soon said:

Yes, we all understand her very basic talking point. It is useless and vapid in the face of all she ignores and skims over. Criticizing ones form and substance is not one and the same as missing their (empty) point.

It would appear it doesn't seem so basic since the hosts seem to miss the main argument and feel compelled to latch on to something completely else.  They are criticizing Maddow's caveat and misconstruing it as some sort of complicit approval of Bolton himself.  Again, what's the point of all of this?  To me, it's just an utter waste of time.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, soon said:

Click the link :P He talks about the politics of sports. A recent episode was interviewing a pro wrestler about their activism. As you can imagine over the last 2 years he's covered the NFL regarding head injury and Kaepernick, including black lives matter. He talks about the gentrification involved with the Olympics. He talks to feminist authors about the struggle for women's professional football/soccer in some latam nations. All that kind of stuff. If you ever saw Sorkin's Sports Night tv series - its like that lens come to life. Except Zirin doesn't really talk about athletes stats and records much.

I did click the link.  

From what I gathered his articles are focused on sports matters what might expand on more societal issues.  

Not saying he's not worthwhile or good at what he does.  I just don't have time or interest for sports-focused commentary, just as I have less and less time for sports in general.  I've got two businesses to run, this site, an 18 month old to look after so the little free time I do have I spend reading authors and reporters with a focus on matters I'm more interested in.

I do appreciate the recommendation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Podcasts are great for many purposes. One of the greatest things about them is that anyone can create one. There's an audience for what you want to say? Then start a podcast. You don't need to rely on conventional, restrictive platforms to get your message out there. Just use the internet, start a podcast. Much better than roaring from a soapbox in the park. But paradoxically the fact that anyone can create one makes it a really poor medium for topics that preferably benefits from deeper understanding of the issue at hand. Not saying that informed people aren't using podcasts, just that uninformed people use them too, and they tend to be in the majority. So there is no vetting there, no filtering or screening, anyone can start one and if the message is popular, but not necessarily correct, then you get many listeners. So podcasts are perfect for populism. You have a message people want to hear more than need to hear, then podcasts are ideal. You want to host a huge TV program on a well-established, respected network? Then you need to be knowledgeable, have the right education or experience, and be good at expressing yourself. Unless of course it is Fox News ;).

The problem is of course that now the discourse (in the US) have become so polarized that people reject networks offhand because they have the wrong political position. Or people have become so disenfranchised with the establishment that they reject all traditional channels and news sources, and instead cling to whatever podcasts/echo chambers they can find that confirm whatever they already believe in. And this is worrying since a functioning democracy relies on a free press that people can trust, a press that does proper journalism, a press that is objective, a press that confronts the powers that be, a media that protects individuals and our rights. And this cannot be replaced with people yelling from soapboxes.

Edited by SoulMonster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And don't get me wrong, I don't think podcasts are a threat to democracy :) Podcasts can be a great asset to democracy. What I fear is knee-jerk rejection of respectable media sources and unconditional embrace of anyone who tends to say what you already think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, downzy said:

But again, from a structural standpoint, I'd take someone like Maddow all day long over the whatever podcast you posted above where hosts spout nonsense for the sake of spouting nonsense. 

So the podcast that you dont know about definitely does the thing you're saying it does?:shrugs:And the Podcast I offer that are in Maddows format arent spoken too. Alright. If you prefer Maddow spouting nonsense, its your prerogative to lap it up. Hosts like her were of such service to the people last prez election cycle:facepalm:. And as you and I agree, she's been shit in the Trump era too. 

I wrote and then erased "you dont need to watch the podcast clip I posts if you dont like the format" and then I realized, as a admin/mod you do! Bless your soul! :) I also post a shit ton of other content in this thread - articles in standard format. They illicit far less reaction.

I speculate that you are more exposed to the Right Wing "fake news" criticism of mainstream news then the longstanding leftist criticisms that have lead leftist to create their own media going all the way back to the likes of Kropotkin. I appreciate that you havent hoisted any 'by the numbers' retorts to a "Fake News" position on me for the most part. I have friends running printing presses today. Also a ton of content creators in my world. Same shit different space, honestly.

9 minutes ago, downzy said:

It would appear it doesn't seem so basic since the hosts seem to miss the main argument and feel compelled to latch on to something completely else.  They are criticizing Maddow's caveat and misconstruing it as some sort of complicit approval of Bolton himself.  Again, what's the point of all of this.  To me, it's just an utter waste of time.  

They dont miss any point. Dance circles around her, yes. They accurately point out all the other aspects of her approach and analysis that sit along side her embarrassingly simplistic, procedural focus. Its basic media criticism. 

The point is to hear accurate and informed analysis that you wont get from Maddow. I dont know if some of them being SDA members bothers you, or that some of the IDW's they go after used to be embraced by the liberal and progressive camps, but they are clearly incredibly intelligent and capable folks. 

11 minutes ago, downzy said:

I did listen to the first half but again, don't have time to waste on people who think they can just meander through a point rather than getting right to it.  If that was suppose to be humorous then good lord than my sense of humour is very different than theirs.

Being confronted with this anti-podcast sentiment is brand new ground for me. Which is a welcomed excursion. And I think I've cracked the case - Hating on the medium of podcasting is just another example of millennial bashing! :bitchfight: It doesnt matter that most of those podcasts I put forward are by award winning journalists or even editors of highly regarded news outlets - the suggestion is that they lack substbace and oversight. 

And the parent thing. Every working parent of kids that I know enjoys podcasts. And youre like a millennial with you 2.5 jobs! 

Go ahead and compare the diversity of voices and themes on network news and in the podcast sphere. Its just healthy to hear from more povs.

You know what would bother you more than a christian leftist millennial and his podcast playlist? (J/K)? You would hate "Progressive TMZ" which is actually called The Progressive Voice on Youtube. Dude actually comments on and/or creates internet drama about progressive and lefty creators. Channels like Majority Report w/Sam Seeder, TYT, Kulinski at Secular Talk, Rational National, Vice, Destiny, David Packman Show, Brian Taylor Cohen, etc. Like its a straight up gossip show about progressive channels/podcasts! :rofl-lol: I think Now This is faceless just to avoid Progressive TMZ! :lol:

He tried to create a beef between Sam Seeder and David Pakman over an alleged studio set design rip off :lol: Like this boring AF vid about Kulinskis debate skills claims and who won the "debate" about debaters on the left. :lol:

And yes, I hate Progressive TMC, too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more speech and the more discourse available, the better. I don't know how anyone could yearn for the days with 3 networks and no Internet to communicate with anybody outside of your local town.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

As someone who voted for Trump in 2016, I would seriously consider voting for Tulsi in 2020 (as well as seriously considering Bernie and Yang). You hit the nail in regards to her foreign policy views being the reason she isn't getting any glowing coverage in MSNBC/CNN land. There is a bipartisan and globalist military intervention establishment that runs much of both parties and the media of both sides in the US. Tulsi being called a Russian shill is nothing more than a smear from a bunch of establishment lackeys. 

Fair warning: if conservative leaning folks like yourself help us win a progressive POTUS, we're still gonna do our darnedest to have the liberal individuals that you would have saved the election from school you hard before the midterms. :lol:

(Im just talking shit!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, soon said:

So the podcast that you dont know about definitely does the thing you're saying it does?:shrugs:And the Podcast I offer that are in Maddows format arent spoken too. Alright. If you prefer Maddow spouting nonsense, its your prerogative to lap it up. Hosts like her were of such service to the people last prez election cycle:facepalm:. And as you and I agree, she's been shit in the Trump era too. 

I wrote and then erased "you dont need to watch the podcast clip I posts if you dont like the format" and then I realized, as a admin/mod you do! Bless your soul! :) I also post a shit ton of other content in this thread - articles in standard format. They illicit far less reaction.

I speculate that you are more exposed to the Right Wing "fake news" criticism of mainstream news then the longstanding leftist criticisms that have lead leftist to create their own media going all the way back to the likes of Kropotkin. I appreciate that you havent hoisted any 'by the numbers' retorts to a "Fake News" position on me for the most part. I have friends running printing presses today. Also a ton of content creators in my world. Same shit different space, honestly.

They dont miss any point. Dance circles around her, yes. They accurately point out all the other aspects of her approach and analysis that sit along side her embarrassingly simplistic, procedural focus. Its basic media criticism. 

The point is to hear accurate and informed analysis that you wont get from Maddow. I dont know if some of them being SDA members bothers you, or that some of the IDW's they go after used to be embraced by the liberal and progressive camps, but they are clearly incredibly intelligent and capable folks. 

Being confronted with this anti-podcast sentiment is brand new ground for me. Which is a welcomed excursion. And I think I've cracked the case - Hating on the medium of podcasting is just another example of millennial bashing! :bitchfight: It doesnt matter that most of those podcasts I put forward are by award winning journalists or even editors of highly regarded news outlets - the suggestion is that they lack substbace and oversight. 

And the parent thing. Every working parent of kids that I know enjoys podcasts. And youre like a millennial with you 2.5 jobs! 

Go ahead and compare the diversity of voices and themes on network news and in the podcast sphere. Its just healthy to hear from more povs.

You know what would bother you more than a christian leftist millennial and his podcast playlist? (J/K)? You would hate "Progressive TMZ" which is actually called The Progressive Voice on Youtube. Dude actually comments on and/or creates internet drama about progressive and lefty creators. Channels like Majority Report w/Sam Seeder, TYT, Kulinski at Secular Talk, Rational National, Vice, Destiny, David Packman Show, Brian Taylor Cohen, etc. Like its a straight up gossip show about progressive channels/podcasts! :rofl-lol: I think Now This is faceless just to avoid Progressive TMZ! :lol:

He tried to create a beef between Sam Seeder and David Pakman over an alleged studio set design rip off :lol: Like this boring AF vid about Kulinskis debate skills claims and who won the "debate" about debaters on the left. :lol:

And yes, I hate Progressive TMC, too. 

Honestly, and I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't have time to read all of this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, soon said:

Fair warning: if conservative leaning folks like yourself help us win a progressive POTUS, we're still gonna do our darnedest to have the liberal individuals that you would have saved the election from school you hard before the midterms. :lol:

(Im just talking shit!)

Haha yeah I don't take offense. I don't even like labeling myself a conservative, because the only thing I have in common with them are agreement on some social issues. But on economics and foreign policy, they've been pretty putrid for a long time. Politics are entirely transactional for me, and Tulsi checks 2 of the 3. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, downzy said:

Honestly, and I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't have time to read all of this.  

Thats cool, doggy. No one should spend any time defending Maddow.

But, to be clear, you engaged me on this understandably expansive issue, so this counts as a win for me. ^_^

And I will be happy to remind you about your time management priorities in future discussions I'm sure :shades:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

The more speech and the more discourse available, the better. I don't know how anyone could yearn for the days with 3 networks and no Internet to communicate with anybody outside of your local town.

I don't think anyone is? What I wish, now that everybody can talk to everybody, is that we demonstrated a little bit more critical sense in regards to who we actually listen to. Our tendency to confuse many followers with credentials, and to seek confirmation bias, is a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Haha yeah I don't take offense. I don't even like labeling myself a conservative, because the only thing I have in common with them are agreement on some social issues. But on economics and foreign policy, they've been pretty putrid for a long time. Politics are entirely transactional for me, and Tulsi checks 2 of the 3. 

Im always curious how one can identify as socially conservative and economically liberal/progressive/whatever thats not conservative?

Under the portfolio of 'economic policy' is the question of investment supports for socially marginalized people. Like, for instance, should there be money spent to train suicide prevention hot line councillors about the specific needs of LGBTQA people? The worlds of economic policy and social issues seems to confront one another daily. How do you navigate that apparent tension?

Edited by soon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, soon said:

Im always curious how one can identify as socially conservative and economically liberal/progressive/whatever thats not conservative?

Under the portfolio of 'economic policy' is the question of investment supports for socially marginalized people. Like, for instance, should there be money spent to train suicide prevention hot line councillors about the specific needs of LGBTQA people? The worlds of economic policy and social issues seems to confront one another daily. How do you navigate that apparent tension?

I don't like to bring up religion in political discussions, but part of it comes from a Catholic upbringing. Using the life of Jesus as an example, he was a guy who constantly railed against the excesses of the rich and was seeking forms of economic justice for the common people. On the social side, he challenged his followers to hold their temptations in check. Go back and read the sermon on the mount, if a married man even looks at another woman that isn't his wife with lustful eyes, he's essentially cheated on his wife. Also the story of the woman he saved from stoning because she was caught in adultery. He saved her life, but he also told her to go and sin no more, ie stop with the sleeping around. Ultimately he didn't say that these people would be damned and that they could be saved by his grace, but he also wasn't encouraging that type of behavior. So with that informing my upbringing, I don't see it as unnatural to have a socially conservative outlook but also an economic populist or even left leaning economic view. Plus I come from a working class family, so I'll always be looking out for that class of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, soon said:

Thats cool, doggy. No one should spend any time defending Maddow.

But, to be clear, you engaged me on this understandably expansive issue, so this counts as a win for me. ^_^

And I will be happy to remind you about your time management priorities in future discussions I'm sure :shades:

 

 

No, the point being I don't have any more time to continue a discussion over a video I find absurd.  

You're not going to change my mind since I watched the video and I'm not an idiot.  

I see what they're to say and I just don't agree.  I think they're either missing the point completely or reaching to fill time (common for podcasts run by amateurs and non-professionals).  It's just one big waste of everyones time.

No need to write 1000 words or for me to read it.  I'm not interested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't think anyone is? What I wish, now that everybody can talk to everybody, is that we demonstrated a little bit more critical sense in regards to who we actually listen to. Our tendency to confuse many followers with credentials, and to seek confirmation bias, is a problem.

Critical thinking is what you are getting at. I think people should actively seek out opinions that go against their worldview, and give their own worldview a rigorous challenge and see what's left by the end of it. I've always had this idea of if I was a teacher in the social sciences, I would give the kids an assignment to write a paper on who they are and what their worldview is, and then have them describe how they came to those conclusions. What people, books, or even media informed their worldview. I think a lot of people would realize their worldview is based on a thinner layer of reason than they initially thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I don't like to bring up religion in political discussions, but part of it comes from a Catholic upbringing. Using the life of Jesus as an example, he was a guy who constantly railed against the excesses of the rich and was seeking forms of economic justice for the common people. On the social side, he challenged his followers to hold their temptations in check. Go back and read the sermon on the mount, if a married man even looks at another woman that isn't his wife with lustful eyes, he's essentially cheated on his wife. Also the story of the woman he saved from stoning because she was caught in adultery. He saved her life, but he also told her to go and sin no more, ie stop with the sleeping around. Ultimately he didn't say that these people would be damned and that they could be saved by his grace, but he also wasn't encouraging that type of behavior. So with that informing my upbringing, I don't see it as unnatural to have a socially conservative outlook but also an economic populist or even left leaning economic view. Plus I come from a working class family, so I'll always be looking out for that class of people.

All for one and one for all. Unshakable class solidarity.

So, in that case, how does your social conservatism inform your vote then (I guess perhaps it doesnt)? If you are for spending, even in some cases spending 'extra' on people with lifestyles you would aspire to abstain from, then where does your social conservatism manifest itself in your voting? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

I don't like to bring up religion in political discussions, but part of it comes from a Catholic upbringing. Using the life of Jesus as an example, he was a guy who constantly railed against the excesses of the rich and was seeking forms of economic justice for the common people. On the social side, he challenged his followers to hold their temptations in check. Go back and read the sermon on the mount, if a married man even looks at another woman that isn't his wife with lustful eyes, he's essentially cheated on his wife. Also the story of the woman he saved from stoning because she was caught in adultery. He saved her life, but he also told her to go and sin no more, ie stop with the sleeping around. Ultimately he didn't say that these people would be damned and that they could be saved by his grace, but he also wasn't encouraging that type of behavior. So with that informing my upbringing, I don't see it as unnatural to have a socially conservative outlook but also an economic populist or even left leaning economic view. Plus I come from a working class family, so I'll always be looking out for that class of people.

You're moderate/independent. I'm glad that's the case. But what makes you believe that someone like Trump supports Christian values? The whole world knew that Trump was far from being a role model. He has always been a public figure. It was clear he only cares about building casinos, parting with hot women and making a lot of money. Sorry but I really don't understand why Trump has become Pope Francis for a lot of people

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×