The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Eh Hillary's pretty much center left. But it's the best I've got to deal with. :<

Yea but she's got to keep a party happy too. A party which includes the much lefter Sanders. And Trump's gotta keep the radical christians in check too.

We're radical? Since when?

Not all christians are radical christians. It could be said that no radical christians are truly christians, concerning themselves more with Pharisaical rules than christian principles of loving and accepting those around you.

The radical christians are the ones who proclaim that "God hates fags", that women who get abortions go to hell, that we need prayer in school, that Islam is evil, etc.

Mike Pence?

I mean.....Islam DOES teach that we should stone disloyal wives.....and men have the right to beat their wives.....sounds evil to me.

To be fair, we can't start judging religions based off teachings, unless we do hold Trump to some passive-aggressive hostile vibes he puts off about inequality, or Christianity for it's equally-colorful background. Then, our country would allow, atheists, sihks, and maybe and only maybe, buddhists. I could handle that, I'm buddhist, but I'd rather just judge on a more detailed bases of "person by person".

Trump doesn't want to do that, but he's not my friend, he's just more convenient in other ways, to be entirely fair. Definitely more convenient to have someone republican right now to balance out the last 8 years of liberal, as well as balance back the supreme court (people bitch we need a democratic justice but that'll just throw all balance out when it worked better balanced), and hopefully balance the budget, and even then, most of those can be done better sadly by a Libertarian than a republican, but for all we have, that is why I'd even consider Trump. For his party, for less functional corruption, and for the fact that his negatives are easily kept in check by his limited power while the other choice may abuse their power in secret rather out-loud...

you sure you wanna go down that road?
"The Lord commands: "slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women" Ezechial 9:4-6
"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourself every girl who has never slept with a man." Numbers 31:17-18
"Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword and; also the women and little ones.... every male and every woman that has lain with a male you shall utterly destroy." Judges 21:10-12

we've been over this before. no your religion is not better than any other religion: all religions suck equally; have a far-out book that promotes equal part love and equal part violence making the whole exercise a vain effort; things that were impossible to ever have happened and historic events that make religious nuts the cunts of the earch the rest of the lot have had to "deal with" since the start.

lol. You know, everything you just quoted is actually Judaism not Christianity. Lefties who lunge out at other people and try to drown out fact and reason without doing any research really irk me so i am compelled to respond to this.

For anyone genuinely interested in religions, what Christianity and Islam etc. actually are, and where they all fit together historically, one of the most important concepts to understand is the idea of contracts. Christianity views the old testament as the old contract between man and god, and the new testament as the new overriding contract between man and god. So wherever you get conflicting ideas like kill all the people and love your neighbour, the latter abrogates the former simply as a matter of chronology.

There's a reason why our western dating system is based in BC/AD. Literally "before christ", and "anno domini" translation: the year of our lord.

Lefties who don't understand religious history like to say Christianity is only good because it went through a reformation. Well, Christianity is itself a peaceful reformation of Judaism. When people talk about the protestant reformation around the time catholic domination, it would be more accurate to portray it as an ideological rediscovery.

Islam on the other hand isn't a peaceful reformation of Judaism but rather more of a twin competing ideology based in the same cultural values of the time. The big difference is that it got progressively more and more twisted, hateful, bigoted, misogynistic, violent, and anti-human as Muhammad used it as a tool of political control and conquest. Objective studies on the Quran and Hadif show that more than 50% of it talks about what you should do to nonbelievers (political) as opposed to what you should do as a believer (religious). The worst part is that the violent Quranic passages are specifically stated doctrinally to abrogate the earlier peace loving ones. ISIS isn't calling themselves "Islamic State" for no reason.

There's a lot more interesting stuff to talk about the differences and why Islam is dangerous while Christianity is at worst a non-issue, but you are probably tuning out now.

I think if anyone is called a "leftie" two or three times in a single post, they have the right to tune you out

so edgy. I guess next you'll be telling me i shouldn't call the sky blue.

So when you say christianity, do you mean Orthodox, Roman Catholic or Protestantism? Because christianity itself is heavily divided and it seems there are plenty that have no problem seeing old stories like sodom and gomorrah as proof that certain groups can be hated, even though the new testament is full of "god loves all".

EDIT:
Besides, isn't this the exact thing extremist Muslims are doing? Quote the bible like Tatsu and you can justify such things. Then christian scholars can wave their books and go "but but history has it..." and fundamentalists can simply point at the lines. "it's in the bible, god hates you, your argument is invalid".

It's a canonized scripture in Christianity. The fact that it's canonized in Judaism is irrelevant; if Christians don't want to be defined by canonized scripture then they should decanonize it.

I really think the technicalities are beside the point. He was having a low blow; I had a low blow. that there must be such a difference between the two to you guys and that you'd refuse to admit you were wrong to go down that road in the first place really demonstrates the double-standard.

that's all the lefties do anyway

ever since you guys got "more invested" in this thread (I'd say that started two or three pages ago) this has been devolving into terrains you're more familiar with (the mudpits) can we just bring it back to the scholar's level? hmm?

It makes about as much sense as me calling anyone else a "rightie", or a Nazi, or anything inbetween. It's a pathetic attempt at a stereotype to make the debate into "us" vs. "them" because characterising everyone who disagrees with you as a "leftie" just like the rest makes it easy for you to dismiss them.

Not all left-wingers are what you'd call a "leftie". Not all right-wingers are alt-right nutjobs. Barely anybody talks about the centrists.

Labels are moderately dumb. It doesn't speak well of the people that overuse them, and is incredibly ironically simply you trying to tune out all the people who disagree with you. By grouping them all under one convenient word.

When, in fact, a lot of them probably don't consider themselves "left" at all. Who knows? But I wouldn't make the assumption, anyhow. I mean, I certainly am. But that's just me.

it was a witty comment, I fully understand

who said anything about leftie being pejorative? It describes certain ideological perspectives. In fact, it used to be a badge of honour when it stood for gay rights, free speech, and other classically liberal principles. "Left of the King".

You didn't have to tell me you were on the left either, that much was pretty clear. Only someone on the left would try to take offense with someone describing objective facts. Swear to god if i said water at room temperature is generally a liquid you would tell me to stop using labels and call me a racist.

not pejorative. dismissive. you're doing it again. detracting from the point.

besides if you really wanted to seem puuuuuuuurely factuuuuuuuaaaaaal then you might have taken to sticking to the "factual" appellation : leftist rather than lefties a made up surname that absolutely noone uses. google the two if you're somehow confused. with the "ies" for a simmilar tone as to "commies" "ruskies" "dummies" ect... seems juvenile considering the former option. you think we're that dumb for it to go unnoticed ?
and we're free not to want the left label. may we kindly (once again) remind you once again even the political sphere isn't only black and white.



I identify more as a libertarian than a leftist. but def. more leftist than rightist.