Several races...

[Timur]

.

Edited April 24, 2022 by Timur

[ShortKing]

this would be cool to expand to the House Republicans who voted to impeach who are running for reelection this year, Peter Meijer, Tom Rice, Jaime Herrera-Beutler etc. Maybe even some primaries on the left like the run off between Henry Cuellar and Jessica Cisneros or Kurt Schrader and the progressive challenger whose name I forget.

[Pringles]

The amount of MTG and Boebert support scares me...

[Rezi]

Just to clarify on Alaska: My Ballot would probably be:

1. Santa Claus
2. Al Gross
3. Nick Begich

[Timur]

11 hours ago, ShortKing said:

this would be cool to expand to the House Republicans who voted to impeach who are running for reelection this year, Peter Meijer, Tom Rice, Jaime Herrera-Beutler etc. Maybe even some primaries on the left like the run off between Henry Cuellar and Jessica Cisneros or Kurt Schrader and the progressive challenger whose name I forget.

I definitely could have added Herrera-Beutler...

Definitely rooting for her. Her main primary opponent is awful.

Edited April 25, 2022 by Timur

[Timur]

10 hours ago, Pringles said:

The amount of MTG and Boebert support scares me...

Well at least nobody voted for Madison Cawthorn.

[ConservativeElector2]

11 hours ago, Pringles said:

The amount of MTG and Boebert support scares me...

Well, I consider all my votes conditionally one way or the other. I don't know anything about the Republican squad's challengers. I voted for Boebert because Coram's Wiki page lists things, I generally do not like to read in a proper Republican CV. He supports marijuana legalization (a big no-go for me) and LGBT rights. Whether I am supportive of the second depends on what is actually meant by it. I think people should respect gays as much as other people and personally I don't hold any grudge against gays.

However, if some super-woke shit is meant by LGBT rights, like telling us that more and more movies or school textbooks need gay characters, just in order to be political correct I have to disagree firmly. That's unnecessary attention seeking. Most nations are already enlightened in a way, that LGBT people don't have to fear persecution and I believe additional protections and promotions are not needed as they just create inequality again (same goes for ''BIPOC only parties'' at my college; I mean that's segregation just in super-woke). 

Boebert on the other hand is a loudmouthed, isolationist airhead. It's not easy to support her either and I had definitely preferred Scott Tipton compared to her.

[Hestia]

5 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Most nations are already enlightened in a way, that LGBT people don't have to fear persecution and I believe additional protections and promotions are not needed as they just create inequality again (same goes for ''BIPOC only parties'' at my college; I mean that's segregation just in super-woke). 

[ConservativeElector2]

35 minutes ago, Hestia said:

I can see why you disagree with the first part, but at least tell me why BIPOC only parties are not just woke segregation? Is this really preferable to parties where people regardless of their ethnicity can associate with each other? I thought our societies have moved past racial segregation in colleges and work places and so on.

Furthermore imagine a "White only party". Seems pretty racist to me and that's nothing I would like to see or attend. It's just not better the other way round because it demonizes white people as racist from the get go, so they aren't allowed to attend. PS: it's not just a hypothetical example. It happened exactly that way at my university. 

[Hestia]

1 minute ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I can see why you disagree with the first part, but at least tell me why BIPOC only parties are not just woke segregation? Is this really preferable to parties where people regardless of their ethnicity can associate with each other? I thought our societies have moved past racial segregation in colleges and work places and so on.

Furthermore imagine a "White only party". Seems pretty racist to me and that's nothing I would like to see or attend. It's just not better the other way round because it demonizes white people as racist from the get go, so they aren't allowed to attend. PS: it's not just a hypothetical example. It happened exactly that way at my university. 

In my opinion, I would guess your university is very heavily white. I think that would be a pretty good guess from my standpoint. It's good for people to meet others that have a shared life experience and can get to know people to help them understand that they're not alone. Now, saying it like 'BIPOC only' is not a great way to advertise it. I've seen a lot on campus here where it's like 'Black Cultural Forums' or 'Italian etc etc'. Adding the word 'only' is brash and can give the wrong impression. Segregation is a really hard term, and I think you're abusing its use. While by technical definition it may fit, it is a very, very different connotation than what happened in the 60s. 

[Pringles]

11 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

He supports marijuana legalization (a big no-go for me) and LGBT rights.

Personally I think these kind of qualms against her opposition should be dismissed when we are up against Boebert. Who is without a doubt one of the worst Representatives we've had in modern history. From anti-semitic comments, to poking fun about "killing" other members of Congress... to perpetrating the Big Lie.... there are so many more instances I can bring up against MTG, even. She is a stain on the Republican Party. Her and the soccer mom duo (Greene included), are not a good look at all, nor a worthy group to support. 

Now let's tackle the issues. Ok, you don't support marijuana legalization. Fair enough, wouldn't be a deal breaker for most. Next, LGBT rights. Now I don't want to mischaracterize here, but I don't know what LGBT rights actually means. Do you oppose gays/lesbians/bisexuals/transgenders being allowed to marry? 

Because in accordance with the Constitution, 1st Amendment, and especially the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause), if you're advocating restricting the rights of these "LGBT" rights, you're disregarding the Constitution.

11 hours ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

However, if some super-woke shit is meant by LGBT rights, like telling us that more and more movies or school textbooks need gay characters, just in order to be political correct I have to disagree firmly. That's unnecessary attention seeking. Most nations are already enlightened in a way, that LGBT people don't have to fear persecution and I believe additional protections and promotions are not needed as they just create inequality again (same goes for ''BIPOC only parties'' at my college; I mean that's segregation just in super-woke). 

Boebert on the other hand is a loudmouthed, isolationist airhead. It's not easy to support her either and I had definitely preferred Scott Tipton compared to her.

So the first sentence, movies and textbooks need gay characters. Not really a problem of the government. I'd probably bitch about the same if a good TV show added a random character, solely for that reason, and had no context in it. But that's not an important issue for me. 

"LGBT people don't have to fear persecution" Idk, this is a bit of a tricky one. Society can be awfully combative of LGBT people in the US. Depending on the area. You could argue these current bills coming out banning the one transgender kid in the state from attending sports is a form of persecution. 

So I might just try to rethink that. 

These "BIPOC" parties. Again, I don't think the government is having much responsibility here in this area, might be wrong lol, but I'm pretty sure they aren't. I agree, it sounds pretty stupid too I guess. But do I care? Is it important? No. 

Unless the government is sponsoring said things, is it really an issue if it happens at a few universities around the world. There are billions of parties that happen every week. Am I invited to all of them? No. Do I care? No. 
 

So it sounds like to me we're just complaining about issues that A. Don't really matter or relate to the government, B. Don't really exist other than in rhetoric and political battle. 

It is hard for me to respect someone that would vote MTG or Boebert. No matter which way you put it. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Pringles

[ConservativeElector2]

43 minutes ago, Hestia said:

In my opinion, I would guess your university is very heavily white. I think that would be a pretty good guess from my standpoint. It's good for people to meet others that have a shared life experience and can get to know people to help them understand that they're not alone. Now, saying it like 'BIPOC only' is not a great way to advertise it. I've seen a lot on campus here where it's like 'Black Cultural Forums' or 'Italian etc etc'. Adding the word 'only' is brash and can give the wrong impression. Segregation is a really hard term, and I think you're abusing its use. While by technical definition it may fit, it is a very, very different connotation than what happened in the 60s. 

Your guess is right. The said party happened at the Department of African Studies (which I am not affiliated with, but I got an Email about the party being a safe space for BIPoC and found that rather offensive. From my point of view a "safe space" already demonizes those not invited of having a negative impact on others).

Outside this institute I remember only a few black students of which I had only one as a project partner about a year ago. Probably one of the best project partners I ever had. She was kind and working in a team on contemporary history was a pleasure as she seemed very motivated and her input was always great. We as a team probably fulfilled the teacher's expectation very well. The best thing was, race was never a topic between us and I guess that's the way it should be. I think nowadays there's too much focus on sexual identities and race, because my personal feeling is that minorities are constantly told that non-minorities are after them and want to oppress them. 

[Hestia]

3 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Your guess is right. The said party happened at the Department of African Studies (which I am not affiliated with, but I got an Email about the party being a safe space for BIPoC and found that rather offensive. From my point of view a "safe space" already demonizes those not invited of having a negative impact on others).

 

You found it offensive because it simply said it was a safe space by the Department of African Studies? A safe space simply means that they can discuss race, identity, and everything in peace with others with similar experiences - by a department which is almost solely devoted to the topic of race. It's not accusatory. That's not racism and if you're offended by that, that's pretty thin skin at best. It doesn't affect you - why do you care so much? 

[Cenzonico]

Love to see Santa Claus leading the pack so far.

[ConservativeElector2]

3 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Personally I think these kind of qualms against her opposition should be dismissed when we are up against Boebert. Who is without a doubt one of the worst Representatives we've had in modern history. From anti-semitic comments, to poking fun about "killing" other members of Congress... to perpetrating the Big Lie.... there are so many more instances I can bring up against MTG, even. She is a stain on the Republican Party. Her and the soccer mom duo (Greene included), are not a good look at all, nor a worthy group to support. 

I know MTG was an anti-semite several times, but I don't know of Boebert. That's why I rank her higher than MTG.

I agree, I would not want those people in the GOP, but they are there. 90% of their policies on abortion etc. are probably in line with mine. The only really good thing about them is that they counter the squad people a bit. Most politicians are afraid to do that, because they fear to be at odds with the liberal media. 

Quote

Now let's tackle the issues. Ok, you don't support marijuana legalization. Fair enough, wouldn't be a deal breaker for most. Next, LGBT rights. Now I don't want to mischaracterize here, but I don't know what LGBT rights actually means. Do you oppose gays/lesbians/bisexuals/transgenders being allowed to marry? 

Because in accordance with the Constitution, 1st Amendment, and especially the 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause), if you're advocating restricting the rights of these "LGBT" rights, you're trampling on the Constitution. 

No, I do not support same-sex marriage. If it's done I don't care, but I would not have voted to legalize it. Despite this I don't believe LGBT people would have an enemy in me. The real enemies of LGBT people are those who attack them either verbally or physical. I would never do.

I also do not believe to be against the Constitution with this view point. Four justices who unlike me have actually studied constituional law and whom I respect very much, have dissented in Obergefell vs. Hodges for their own reasons. I believe they did also not trample on the Constitution by this ruling.

Quote

So the first sentence, movies and textbooks need gay characters. Not really a problem of the government. I'd probably bitch about the same if a good TV show added a random character, solely for that reason, and had no context in it. But that's not an important issue for me.

No, It's not important for me either. I just find it stupid to push inclusion to an awkward level. Probably 50% of TV ads in Austria nowadays have Blacks in it. Inclusion it not a bad thing but it reaches a really awkward level these days.

Quote

These "BIPOC" parties. Again, I don't think the government is having much responsibility here in this area, might be wrong lol, but I'm pretty sure they aren't. I agree, it sounds pretty stupid too I guess. But do I care? Is it important? No. 

Again I don't really care either (I didn't even want to attend the party). I cannot say if it's important tho. I feel that nowadays the races are told again to remain with their ethnicities instead of exchanging viewpoints with others. For me that's not a good dynamic and it could get dangerous if not stopped from the beginning. Like today we exclude whites from a party, next time we exclude people with red hair from everyday life.

Quote

So it sounds like to me we're just complaining about issues that A. Don't really matter or relate to the government, B. Don't really exist other than in rhetoric and political battle.

I feel most of a woke left-wing candidates platform is exactly that. Like gender neutral speech or the option to choose out of 50 genders in Facebook which was reported a few years ago for example. 

Quote

It is hard for me to respect someone that would vote MTG or Boebert. No matter which way you put it.

Well, I could say the same about people backing the Democratic squad, but guess what my approach to life, respect and friendships is to not care about politics, sexual identity and race. Character is what matters and I believe people, even if open to vote for the squad or MTG can be good people. I am sure there are also really bad people only backing candidates popular on both sides of the aisle. This alone tells nothing of a person or character, at least for me.

[ConservativeElector2]

25 minutes ago, Hestia said:

You found it offensive because it simply said it was a safe space by the Department of African Studies? A safe space simply means that they can discuss race, identity, and everything in peace with others with similar experiences - by a department which is almost solely devoted to the topic of race. It's not accusatory. That's not racism and if you're offended by that, that's pretty thin skin at best. It doesn't affect you - why do you care so much? 

As I have said above I didn't really care and I didn't even want to attend. I just found it interesting that this kind of thing is declared cool, while a party solely for whites at another department rightfully would not be. That's the woke sentiment I view illogical. Oftentimes the woke people are the real ones with thin skin lol

You could discuss race, identity, and everything in peace with sane white people as well. Therefore it's not right to tell them kind of "they are probably all after you and we need to close them out for your safety."

[ShortKing]

I think this era of both parties racing to the bottom has forced a lot of people to reckon with how much, if any, weight they give to the character of the person they vote for public office. For me personally, it is difficult to envision letting policy reasons be enough for me to overlook the character, or lack thereof, of folks like MTG or Boebert. I find them to be bad people, and even if I could be assured that they would prioritize the issues that are important to me and vote the way I would want them to vote, I would still vote for a liberal candidate of better character because I think we should hold our public servants to higher standards.

[Pringles]

4 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Well, I could say the same about people backing the Democratic squad, but guess what my approach to life, respect and friendships is to not care about politics, sexual identity and race. Character is what matters and I believe people, even if open to vote for the squad or MTG can be good people. I am sure there are also really bad people only backing candidates popular on both sides of the aisle. This alone tells nothing of a person or character, at least for me.

Sometimes character can also be seen in who we support in politics. I treat both ends of the squad as enemies. 

 

5 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

No, I do not support same-sex marriage. If it's done I don't care, but I would not have voted to legalize it. Despite this I don't believe LGBT people would have an enemy in me. The real enemies of LGBT people are those who attack them either verbally or physical. I would never do.

 

Verbal and physical abuse are not the only forms of being an enemy to LGBT people. It can also be supporting those who wish to trample on their rights. 

 

7 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

I also do not believe to be against the Constitution with this view point. Four justices who unlike me have actually studied constituional law and whom I respect very much, have dissented in Obergefell vs. Hodges for their own reasons. I believe they did also not trample on the Constitution by this ruling.

Quote

That's fine. But it's still a decided ruling. 

9 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

90% of their policies on abortion etc. are probably in line with mine. The only really good thing about them is that they counter the squad people a bit. Most politicians are afraid to do that, because they fear to be at odds with the liberal media. 

The key takeaway from this is that policy shouldn't be the only thing that affects your support of a candidate. This denies ones humanity. I'm all for pragmatism. But this ain't it. 

14 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Like gender neutral speech or the option to choose out of 50 genders in Facebook which was reported a few years ago for example. 

What Facebook does about their gender list or whatever gender neutral speech isn't really a real problem. It hasn't affected me once. 

 

11 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Probably 50% of TV ads in Austria nowadays have Blacks in it. Inclusion it not a bad thing but it reaches a really awkward level these days.

This just reeks of racist undertones to me. Regardless of if it is representative or not, it clearly bothers you. And I do not know exactly why. 

 

15 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

This alone tells nothing of a person or character, at least for me.

Politics shouldn't define ones true character, but who you support does have a reflection of it in my opinion. I think most people would say the same. The logic of voting solely for who's closest to me leads to potential support for dangerous candidates, simply because you don't like the policies of the opposition. 

[The Blood]

20 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Therefore it's not right to tell them kind of "they are probably all after you and we need to close them out for your safety."

 

[Cenzonico]

4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Santa Claus is not an American citizen or resident. The United States' maritime boundaries do not reach the North Pole. Only Canada's do, of sovereign nations in the world. 😛 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Pole,_Alaska, That is actually objectively false Mr. Patine as shown by the wikipedia article. The North Pole is totally within the territorial borders of the United States of America and it is totally not just a ploy name to drive tourism to a desolate place in Alaska 😉.

[Cenzonico]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

A conjured tourist trap is not THE North Pole. You've fallen for commercial chicanery and hoodwinks. Damn those lying plutocrats! 😛 

North Pole - Wikipedia

I've been bamboozled! How dare they!

[ConservativeElector2]

14 minutes ago, Patine said:

Would you please, for the love of God and all that still eeks out remaining good in this world, CEASE AND DESIST to use the buzzword I have bolded. 

No, because otherwise I cannot criticize what I like to criticize here.

21 minutes ago, Pringles said:

Sometimes character can also be seen in who we support in politics. I treat both ends of the squad as enemies. 

I disagree with the first part, the second part's perhaps a valid point, but one squad might still be better if one really has to choose. I guess many here would choose the Dem squad, I would not. That's it, no more no less.

Quote

What Facebook does about their gender list or whatever gender neutral speech isn't really a real problem. It hasn't affected me once.

That's exactly what I have said lol these are made up problems, which I am criticizing. Just these problems are taken seriously by too many people nowadays.

Quote

This just reeks of racist undertones to me. Regardless of if it is representative or not, it clearly bothers you. And I do not know exactly why. 

It doesn't bother me the way you might think here. I don't care, but I just find this whole race and sexual stuff too much nowadays. There's no need to include blacks or gay couples in like half of all ads. Yeah, it's not representative as well but that's not even the main point. It just seems too political correct and that fails it's purpose, as it creates even more hate and division in the long run. I also don't think TV should be used trying to educate people.

Quote

Politics shouldn't define ones true character, but who you support does have a reflection of it in my opinion. I think most people would say the same. The logic of voting solely for who's closest to me leads to potential support for dangerous candidates, simply because you don't like the policies of the opposition. 

Yep, that's what I always try to do because voting blank isn't really an option for me. I am not a constituant of MTG or whatever so I lack the complete insight of course. Maybe I would vote blank there, Idk. I probably have to vote blank in the next legislative election. I really dislike all parties here by now.

[Rezi]

1 hour ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

No, I do not support same-sex marriage.

Can we make 😬 a reaction emoji

Edited April 25, 2022 by Rezi

[The Blood]

Hey, @ConservativeElector2, since you refuse to support Don in part because of his mentioned support for LGBT rights, I just want to know how you feel about Boebert's view on the issue.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/lauren-boebert-lgbt-age-21-b2049628.html

[DakotaHale]

The same vilification and discontent that arises when discussing Boebert and MTG should also arise when discussing AOC or Omar IMO. I support them only as a counter to the other squad.