I'll leave quietly, then.
"Well, what's wrong with slavery?"
- Thread starter Homicidal_Squirrel
- Start date
- Status
I'll leave quietly, then.
Deathstrike
First Post
I wondered how long it would be before someone mentioned this comic! [emoji1] Trump was featured CONSTANTLY. I may be mistaken, but I believe that in one story arc, Trump had his brain surgically implanted in a cat.
Homicidal_Squirrel
Adventurer
Oh, I know Conservapedia is full of completely insane conservative propaganda. It's what makes the site such a hilarious site. It's kind of like reading the Onion, but Conservapedia is serious.That description reinforces why I don't reference Conservapedia
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Since I didn't vote for them, I hadn't voted for their stated policies either, hence their existence as Republican politicians in the first place, doesn't apply to me. I haven't voted since the start of Obama's first Presidential election, otherwise have only voted in local referendums and such. As stated, none of the current Republican candidates were anyone I voted for, and haven't voted congressional elections ever. I'm a reluctant participant to politics at any time, and loyal to no party. I'm a poor target as representing any political party, let alone the GOP, in this discussion.
MechaPilot
Explorer
Except that "you" as an individual are not being targeted. A point is simply being made that casting a vote for a candidate is, in form as well as substance, saying "I approve of his/her policies and stated goals." Now, if you personally don't vote for those candidates, then you have excluded yourself from the group being mentioned (i.e. Republicans). However, in any discussion of who among a party's members supports the opinions of a given candidate, those who cast votes for those candidates are extremely relevant.
gamerprinter
Mapper/Publisher
Except that the post I was responding specifically was quoting my own post and suggesting that possessing some Republican sympathies implies that "someone" including myself needs to hold some responsibility for these Republican candidates being in office in the first place. Had it not been my post that was quoted, I would not consider somehow applying to me as a part of that whole.
Pointing out that post I responded, again for clarification...
I don't disagree that someone certainly voted them into office, but this shouldn't label all members of a specific party as also being their supporters somehow by default. Considering that the states where the Republican candidates originate, aren't from my state, meaning there was no legal way for me to have a vote connected to any of them, how does having them elected by somebody imply that all Republicans share their views?
In the posts pointing to the polling of Republican trends, even if heavily in favor of Trump (for example), it wasn't 100% in his favor, which meant that some elements of the GOP do not favor Trump. Though barely Republican, I count myself as not a Trump fan, nor a fan of any of the current candidates. So even admitting to some Republican leanings in my political views, doesn't and shouldn't automatically label me as "favorable to racist policies." That's all I'm stating.
It's a post hoc ergo proptor hoc fallacy to think so.
As the son of an immigrant, myself, the current anti-immigrant policies by the candidates are very much counter to my views. On many Republican policies, I'm not in agreement, which definitely makes me an outlier among Republicans, so I cannot accept that being a member of a party implies agreement with all/most of its policies - and likely also applies to other members of various political parties. I cannot be the only exception. There are no absolutes among all members of any political party.
You say, this discussion isn't about "me", rather perceptions of a party professes. If I'm a member of that party, even an extreme minority segment of that party, how can I separate myself from that discussion that is applying labels to the party as a whole.
Last edited:
prosfilaes
Adventurer
I don't get it; why is it okay to exclude the non-Western World but not okay to look at the US as the US? I'm not telling anyone to leave, but I don't think it reasonable to boil down American politics to everyone is right of center just because Europe does it that way.
Both Marcus Aurelius and Caligula were far right-wing tyrants by modern standards, but there is no hope of understanding the history of the Roman Empire if you let that get in your way.
Because Europeans are participating in this conversation, while Marcus Aurelius and Caligula are - to my knowledge - not. It's reasonable to include the viewpoints of those present when discussing a topic.
If you're not personally interested in other perspectives, that's fine - you can simply ignore those posts.
Last edited:
You speak in the past tense. You may not be aware - Berkeley Breathed is writing Bloom County again. That comic I posted is from last weekend!
https://www.facebook.com/berkeleybreathed?ref=profile
It should if those people share funding and campaign machinery. Rare indeed is the candidate who says, "I'm a member of Party X, but I get *nothing* from being part of the party!"
The whole point of having a "party" is to work as a group, cooperate, and have a sort of political "brand". They are *choosing* to associate with that brand, and what it implies. When you do that, you don't get to take only the good bits.
And you might want to check on specific voting records - while they may have not run campaigns putting emphasis on some of the uglier bits, each party does tend to vote as a block. On the federal level, voting against party lines is pretty rare these days. I can't speak to what happens on your state level, but I think you actually have to go look to be sure.
- Status
Similar Threads
