By far? Did he intern the Japanese? Re-segregate the civil service? Did he ignore the Supreme Court’s Worcester v. Georgia ruling and beginning the process of Indian removal? Did he use the sedition act to imprison political protesters?
I am no massive fan of Trump, but he has a long way to go to be the worst US president ever.
NB. I am aware I included Woodrow Wilson’s myriad shitty actions on this list twice. It was very intentional.
You mean what Christians did for years with anyone that isn’t Christian?
Wrong is a matter of perspective. As my gen is the future and yours the past, history will look back and think that you were wrong in hindsight.
Said Christians about atheists, racists about black integration, christians (again) about gay marriage, hippies about business professionals, etcetc. Latching on to pre determined ideas and fearing the following generations is so common it’s almost a requirement.
What is “American” is what Americans are doing, not the mindset one generation has locked themselves into. Respectfully, every group of people in this country that were about to become obsolete also thought the following generation was un-American. This time it happens to be people like you.
At one point “American” used to mean being alright with owning human beings. “American” used to mean all kinds of things. Then society evolved and being “American” changed.
You’re not talking about racism or discrimination. You’re talking about intolerance of fundamental religious belief. Something protected by our constitution. Even religious belief about something like salvation. You think Article VI is BS.
Don’t kid yourself about how your generation is past that, so you’re now comfortable persecuting or tyranizing others. You talk about past injustices. That’s “they have it coming” so it’s time to be intolerant to them, even over private religious belief. By your standard, you resent millions of people. Tell us more about how tolerant you are. Unfortunately, that won’t make it the right thing to do.
Yes, being intolerant of different religions is un-American. We’re a nation of diverse people, although changing religion is a goal of the Dem party. Remember the leaked emails during the 2016 campaign? The Dems think planting people within the Catholic Church to try to effect doctrine on abortion or gay marriage is a good strategy. HRC’s campaign. Let’s not represent Catholics, let’s change their fundamental doctrine to go along with our political agenda.
Don’t think you know a damn thing about how I personally feel about LGBT people, or how I treat them in my everyday life. I’m arguing with you about right to religious belief and the protections for that. It’s a fundamental thing.
I don’t think Article VI is BS, I just don’t agree with you that it’s being violated. You still haven’t told me what the right and wrong answers to Bernie’s questions were. If it’s a test, you have to be capable of failing it. Or are you inferring Article VI to mean we’re not allowed to ask religious questions of our elected officials?
Wrong. I’m not comfortable with persecuting, I’m just not of the opinion that asking politicians about their religion qualifies as persecuting.
Wrong again. It’s not about how they have it coming. It’s about how history repeats itself in regards to the old generation thinking the sky is falling and the following generation is un-American. I could give 2 shits about religious people and their views as long as they’re not forcing it on other people.
Never said I did. Please point out where I did and I’ll gladly apologize.
Holding opinions held by millions of people seems offensive to you. You think it’s ok to go into religious doctrines about salvation. That’s what Bernie did, and then he said he would not approve. That’s a religious test.
I disagree. History, you’re right about that. Look at the totalitarian regimes of the past century. People who perceived themselves as oppressed victims justified intolerance and even death to the perceived oppressors. The Germans saw themselves as oppressed by Jews. Silencing people who are perceived oppressors or who have dissenting opinions is how it starts. For you, I believe that’s religious people who aren’t yet capitulating to the PC agenda. It’s now their turn because some of them have been oppressive to gays or to atheists. It’s neo-Marxism.
You personally don’t have to vote for them. Of course not. I said before, I expect more of that kind of intolerance for their religious ideas from your generation. Call them out on their religion. Publicly shame them for it. Voters in the UK got Farron to denounce a basic tenet of his religion. He caved. It didn’t matter if he was strongly in support of anti-discrimination laws, and was liberal in other policies. The demographic is shifting, so maybe that will be a political strategy that works. It won’t be right, but it may work, at least in more progressive areas. It will certainly pressure the churches to change so their members can be involved in civic life.
edited
Also wrong. You keep assuming you know my viewpoints even after I tell you otherwise. I don’t have a problem with religious ideologies as long as I’m left alone in regards to them.
Edit: Better way to phrase would be as long as OTHERS are left alone by them. Not specifically just myself.
Bernie asked him a question about writing a piece that clearly labelled Muslims as condemned. He then didn’t believe this man could be impartial based on what he wrote and what he said. As America is built on religious freedom, and Bernie didn’t believe Vought could carry that out, he said he would not approve.
Again, don’t care about their beliefs. If a politician votes on behalf of the people (like they’re elected to do) they’re free to think whatever they want personally.
It works in all areas, not just progressive areas. Calling out Obama as a foreign born Muslim was a huge talking point of the GOP for YEARS. The GOP championed this idea that certain religions (ie, Muslims) are incapable of holding office. It works on/with Dems. It works on/with Republicans.
Chicago tribune is also reporting this. Most of the so called fake news comes from trumps own tweets or leaks from people that are near him. He is also looking to stop the Russian probe by discrediting mueller. They are desperately looking for a reason to fire him. He can’t fire his way out of this. (Legally he can’t fire him, the Ag must do it)We are headed for a constitutional crisis and history is not on his side.
If this all somehow ends badly…then Trump’s “Disparage and hit-'em hard/Take-no-Prisoners/Win-at-all-cost-and-by-any-means-possible” strategy to win the Presidency would have in fact come with a cost.
I have no idea how this all ends…but America will not be greater because of it.
We’ll see.
It strikes me ironic when those who proselytize tolerance are the least tolerant of all.
Let’s have a religion test to see how tolerant you are, where being more religious makes you less “tolerant” and ye shall be named called and expelled from the public discourse. Because obviously, religion makes you too stupid to talk about grown up things like gay marriage, because it’s right Goddammit, whether you like it or not and if you don’t, you’re a bigot.
The leftist mantra, “We will tolerate you as long as you think like us.” If not they will throw barricades through your windows, where masks and publicly beat you until you comply.
I’m still trying to figure out what the failing answers are for Bernie’s test. Also leaves me wondering if a Muslim ran for office, would these GOP’ers that are insanely outraged by Bernie’s questions go “Leave him/her alone, we should leave personal ideologies out of it?”
Furthermore, since we know absolutely that the GOP cares about the religious leanings of people that run for office, is the GOP hypocrites for getting upset by all this, or are both sides equally hypocritical?
Just because the right views this as the left’s mantra doesn’t make it so. Makes as much sense to call all right leaning people racists or deplorable to me.
This was a small minority of Tea Party-ers, extreme right wing nuts, and off the hook libertarians. It was not a position held by the mainstream GOP. It seems like you want to manufacture hatred where there is not really an issue. You will find such a statement nowhere in the GOP mission statement. This was a media driven hysteria.
See, I don’t hate Obama as a person. Outside our political differences, I think we’d get along just fine. I detested his policies, though and I thought they were crippling. A truncated list would be the “Russian Reset”, the ACA which has been personally crippling, the feel good apology to the muslim world, pulling the troops out of Iraq against the advise of every General and person in his cabinet before Iraq was stable enough on it’s own, the Syrian Red Line, letting Russia annex Crimea and do nothing. Letting Russia get involved in Syria at all, etc. (emphasis on the Red Line because I think it was one of the greatest foreign policy blunders in history).
I don’t dislike the guy, I disliked his policies, most of them anyway. That’s a short list, if I were to spend some time, I could provide a wall of words on each topic.
Now, I would say I hated him sometimes out of anger and that’s only natural, when something flies in the face of everything you hold dear. But I don’t really hate him. I actually believe he’s a decent man. And I believe that we do want the same things, but that we simply don’t agree on the method by which to achieve it.
I say all this to make the point that I am not bigoted towards somebody with whom I stand pretty much diametrically opposed to politically in every way. But you fall just short of calling for a ‘Religious test’ to see how bigoted people are. Assuming that religious people are by default bigoted. Ironically, that’s bigoted. Do you recognize that?
Fucking PREACH Sister! You put it down well…
Oh, that is a HUGE reason I could not vote for HRC. This sentiment is not something she misspoke about but had said several times. Indicating that the doctrine of The Church and other churches need to conform to liberal beliefs.
Go to the 20 second mark if you can’t stand her shrill…This is totally in context. Even if I were on the fence about her, this would have killed it for me right here.
Zeb posted something similar the other day, so this comes to mind. 43% of republicans think/thought Obama is a Muslim. As of 2015.
Media driven hysteria is a very out of touch with the real world way of looking at this topic.
Actually he wasn’t assuming. Which is why Bernie asked his questions. To assume would be for him to have voted no WITHOUT asking the questions.
Here’s the problem of the numbers here. From the article:
CNN/ORC surveyed 1,012 adult Americans by landline and cell phones, for a sampling margin of error of 3 percentage points. 1012 people is hardly a good sample. The poll was conducted thus…
Public Policy Polling surveyed 572 usual Republican primary voters and 545 usual Democratic
primary voters from August 28th to 30th. The margin of error for the Republicans is +/-4.1% and
for the Democrats it’s +/-4.2%. 80% of participants responded via the phone, while 20% of
respondents who did not have landlines conducted the survey over the internet.
The problem is that your president built his platform on doubting that Obama was born here without ever showing any proof and his followers bought into and still believe it today. His association with groups like the alt-right is very troubling to say the least. If he has nothing to hide when it comes to Russia, why all the stonewalling? Who has a group of people that has had this many meeting with Russians and then lie about it? Why does he have so many lawyers? Most of these answers are in his tax returns and I am confident that special counsel mueller will get them and we will get some answers. The question is, can you handle the truth? I can.
As an atheist, I am tolerant of most. I do have a problem with bigots and religious zealots who have a problem with me.
I’m aware polls alone aren’t the standalone metric for these things. The rest I get from anecdotal claims amongst a few of my wife’s relatives, as well as most of my own. People commonly GENUINELY believe Obama is a Muslim. I’ve personally heard a few of them speak against his birth certificate as “only showing he was born here, not showing he isn’t a Muslim.”
They found 43% of the voters to believe Obama was a Muslim. Is it possible this is a not a big enough test to warrant drawing conclusions? Possibly. But it’s statistically more likely these polls are closer to the mark than the statement of “Media driven hysteria.” Whether or not it was all built on horseshit doesn’t actually matter. The problem was the mouth breathers who ate into it.
This topic drew national headlines, was paraded around by sitting Congressmen, and was publicly pushed by our current sitting President. Personally I don’t care if Obama is a Muslim or a Christian or an Atheist or a whatever. I think politicians should have every right to believe whatever they want to believe. As always, my issue is with them ignoring the will of their constituents for religious purposes.
You don’t care about their beliefs, but you’ve said that as a voter, you need to know this information. You’ve defended asking religious questions that would disqualify millions of Americans from civic service. Of who? Wait for it… a political nominee for the Office of Management and Budget. You need to know his religion, but you want to leave people alone?
By this standard -
Do you need to know if the guy running for city council is an atheist? He might not want to put a stop sign in front of a church.
Do you need to know if the lady running for county assessor belongs to a church that doesn’t marry gays?
You need to know if someone running for the local school board is Muslim, and believes Christian theology is insufficient for getting the Christians into heaven?
In your view, the economist appointed for the Office of Management and Budget needs to field questions about his belief that you need to be Christian to be saved (a position held by millions, that any other theology is insufficient, he just wrote a religious essay at a religious college, so he put it into words), rather than focusing on finances, so where’s the line for needing to know all about people’s private religious views?
You’re upset that some conservatives spread rumors about Obama being Muslim? I agree. I think that’s wrong, and unfounded, and some conspiracy theory garbage where that was used as a political tool. So how does that make Democrats putting people who want to serve through a bunch of religious questions the right thing? I don’t see the logical argument. I thought focusing on religious belief was wrong, we should focus on policy issues and qualifications instead.
Whataboutism has been roundly condemned by liberals here, talking about Trump. Applied here, it’s whatabout some Republicans calling Obama a Muslim as a political tool. “Teacher, the Republicans did it first!!” In which case, our moral reasoning is on the level of a bunch of third graders, and you’ll need to let the playground supervisor sort it out.
I know I’m being harsh, because your ideas are actually dangerous. I said I’d stop responding, but it’s very hard to let this lie. Let’s ask anyone who wants to be involved in civic life questions about religious affiliations. “Christians in government (who hold ideas that go against the far leftist Dem’s political ideology) have four options: They can hide their faith, deny it, recant it, or work elsewhere” Parenthetic remark is mine. Quote (Perkins, 2017)
Maybe we can have them sew a little gold star on their chest so we can better identify them. Or we can issue an extermination order and chase them from their homes. This happened to people with my faith, hundreds died right here in the US, so I take it fairly seriously. Missouri “Governor Boggs directed that ‘the Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary for the public peace’.” We were anti-slavery in a slave state, and our numbers were large enough to sway elections. Politically dangerous religious ideas indeed. As you pointed out, history tends to repeat.
I just wanted to comment on this as a technical point.
pat, while I understand your skepticism, you’re arguing a “problem of the numbers” that can be mathematically proven. A 1000-person sample typically yields a margin of error around 3 points - regardless of the size of the total population from which it is sampled - as long as the sampling is a random sample of the entire population (I think we’ve even discussed this before, and you mentioned that your issue is more a disbelief that the sample is actually random).
If 43% of Republican respondents in this survey believed that Obama was Muslim with a margin of error of 4.1% that means it is extremely likely (>95% in the way these polls are typically conducted) that the true value for the population from which the data are sampled lies between 39% and 47%.
If the sampling is bad, then you are right to be skeptical. But you’re arguing the wrong piece of this particular issue. The size of the sample is more than sufficient - this can be mathematically proven. The problem isn’t that we need a larger sample; it’s that we need a representative sample.
Basically, you can question that number if you have some reason to believe that alt-right looney tunes are somehow overrepresented in the sample; just don’t question it because the number of respondents doesn’t seem big enough for you.
It would be interesting to see internet vs landline respondents.
Btw - who responds to polls of any sort these days???
It would seem difficult to gather data.