• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What's an everyday American?

FastPace said:
I voted Democrats all my life (but twice) including when I was in the military. How does the fact I voted for Obama or the current mayor of Milwaukee give me "experience"? Experience in what? :roll:

Now, when does biological human life begin?
Click to expand...

Your posts display remarkable intransigence along with ignorance. This makes discussion and debate with you a low brow and digressive endeavor. If you continue to use this Forum on a frequent basis, I hope you work on these issues.
You have continued your efforts to divert the topic from "Everyday Americans" in the General Political Discussion section to your preferred topic: "When does biological human life begin?" Your preferred topic would make more sense in either the "Abortion" or "Sex and Sexuality" sections.

Peace to you and yours!
 
sanman said:
Since when has America prided itself on being multi-cultural? America prides itself on being a Melting Pot, which isn't the same as multiculturalism.

What you shouldn't be, is an illegal immigrant. Let's hear some words from a Democrat President that Lefties sometimes pretend to like:
Click to expand...
So a melting pot is where no matter what colour you are the end result is that you will be white. Something tells me you do not even understand the word melting pot let alone multicultural.

And of course in these conversations the new godwin law is to bring up illegals. Just another pathetic racist who thinks he is an american.
 
MrWonka said:
How so? I hear conservatives throw this term around all the time. They talk about everyday Americans, and how the Media, and the liberal elite are out of touch with them.

But aren't members of the media, and liberal elites Americans too?

Does being out of touch mean you're wrong?

Is it possible that "everyday American's" are out of touch with the Media or the liberal elite? Why is it that the people who are well educated and trying to inform everyone else are supposed to cater their ideas to the people they're teaching? Isn't that kind of backwards? Shouldn't the people who need to be informed be changing their minds based on what the informers are telling them? Are teachers supposed to change their lesson plans to re-enforce the current beliefs of their students or are they supposed to open their student's minds to ideas they maybe haven't considered before?

If the Majority of Americans believe X, shouldn't the job of the media be to analyze X to verify whether X is an accurate thing to believe? Or should they just regurgitate X knowing it's what the majority will want to hear?
Click to expand...
You raise some interesting points.

1. No its not a news reprters job to give their opinion. It is their responsibility to objectivly present all the facts and let the viewer make their own conclusion

2. You say many times there is no middle ground only right and wrong. That may have some truth to it but part of freedom is having the right to be wrong. Just because you think your right does not mean that you are and just because i think im right does not give me the authority to tell you how to live.

Gay marriage is a good example of what i mean.

I agree that two people of the same sex should be able to enter into the same legally binding contract as a nan and a woman. Those who feel differently should not be obligated to marry them or bake cakes for them. Thats called compromise.

People should be free to agree to disagree.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Your posts display remarkable intransigence along with ignorance. This makes discussion and debate with you a low brow and digressive endeavor. If you continue to use this Forum on a frequent basis, I hope you work on these issues.
You have continued your efforts to divert the topic from "Everyday Americans" in the General Political Discussion section to your preferred topic: "When does biological human life begin?" Your preferred topic would make more sense in either the "Abortion" or "Sex and Sexuality" sections.

Peace to you and yours!
Click to expand...

Basically you refuse to answer because you suspect your ignorance and stupidity will be revealed.

And then you go on with personal attacks. I told you I voted for Democrats my entire life even when I was in the military and I voted for the current Mayor of Milwaukee. You claimed voting gives one experience. My question to you was how and exactly what experience did my casted votes give me? Did me voting for the Obama or Trump give me some greater experience into life than my service in the 1st Gulf War?

You talk stupid and try to toss around words like "intransigence" to make yourself sound smart.

Here Trippy Trekker the progressive: One race of humans, two sexes, and human life begins when sperm fertilizes the female's egg. Science 101.
 
FastPace said:
Basically you refuse to answer because you suspect your ignorance and stupidity will be revealed.

And then you go on with personal attacks. I told you I voted for Democrats my entire life even when I was in the military and I voted for the current Mayor of Milwaukee. You claimed voting gives one experience. My question to you was how and exactly what experience did my casted votes give me? Did me voting for the Obama or Trump give me some greater experience into life than my service in the 1st Gulf War?

You talk stupid and try to toss around words like "intransigence" to make yourself sound smart.

Here Trippy Trekker the progressive: One race of humans, two sexes, and human life begins when sperm fertilizes the female's egg. Science 101.
Click to expand...

Hey NOOB, you use a misleading moniker. You have no slope to your Learning Curve. Take your discussion of Science to where it belongs.

As to voting choices, time spent evaluating how my choices affect me, others in the community and society in general have absolutely increased my understanding of political ideologies and American politics.

Thank you for your military service. The Forum has a section and a thread where DP members have posted descriptions of their military service.
 
trouble13 said:
1. No its not a news reporters job to give their opinion. It is their responsibility to objectively present all the facts and let the viewer make their own conclusion
Click to expand...
Yes, but when those facts lead to an inescapable conclusion you don't get to call that bias because you don't like the conclusion.

trouble13 said:
2. You say many times there is no middle ground only right and wrong. That may have some truth to it but part of freedom is having the right to be wrong. Just because you think your right does not mean that you are and just because i think im right does not give me the authority to tell you how to live.
Click to expand...
When you're making decisions that only effect your own life that's true. However when you're making decisions that effect the lives of others you do not have a right to be wrong. If you want to be gay you have a right to because whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter since it only realistically effects you. Even if others believe you're wrong, you still have the right to be wrong. When you're passing a law that bans gay people from marrying each other you're interfering with their right to be wrong.

trouble13 said:
Gay marriage is a good example of what i mean.

I agree that two people of the same sex should be able to enter into the same legally binding contract as a nan and a woman. Those who feel differently should not be obligated to marry them or bake cakes for them. Thats called compromise.
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. Your right to be wrong ends when it begins to hurt other people.

trouble13 said:
People should be free to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...
Not when your beliefs are affecting the lives of others. In that case you have to demonstrate that your way of thinking is correct.
 
sanman said:
....
Click to expand...

You're going to have to summarize whatever garbage claims are being made in these videos. Every time I'm stuck watching Tucker Carlson, or Tomi Lahren, I seem to end up vomiting.
 
MrWonka said:
Yes, but when those facts lead to an inescapable conclusion you don't get to call that bias because you don't like the conclusion.


When you're making decisions that only effect your own life that's true. However when you're making decisions that effect the lives of others you do not have a right to be wrong. If you want to be gay you have a right to because whether it's right or wrong doesn't matter since it only realistically effects you. Even if others believe you're wrong, you still have the right to be wrong. When you're passing a law that bans gay people from marrying each other you're interfering with their right to be wrong.


No, it isn't. Your right to be wrong ends when it begins to hurt other people.


Not when your beliefs are affecting the lives of others. In that case you have to demonstrate that your way of thinking is correct.
Click to expand...

The media in the 1850's in certain parts of the US concluded Blacks were less than human. That was the consensus. Based on your argument, nobody should have questioned that conclusion.

The problem with your argument is that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution and the founding principles of this Nation.

Going to be tough to persuade many people outside of those who already agree with you to throw out basic human rights and freedoms and to become subservient to the requirements others set for them.
 
Conaeolos said:
“requiring you to accept” = intolerant
Click to expand...
So if I was buying a $5 widget from you, and I gave you a $10, I would be intolerant if I required you to give me $5 in change back just because you think 10 - 5 = 3?

Conaeolos said:
Is it possible you just don't like liberal intellectuals teaching you things because it makes you feel foolish?
Yes but ..... I have no problem being proved wrong but when I challenge certain areas and the response is dismissive rather than challenging.
Click to expand...
Are you sure it's not possible that you were in fact proven wrong, your ego just won't allow you to admit it?

Conaeolos said:
But whether or not the climate is changing isn't really an opinion. It's a logical conclusion.
Yes but that would be ignoring that the real argument about how a certian action is not going to change said outcome; which then is routed into an argument you are denying the climate is changing. This constant conflation is one example of lecturing instead of listening.
Click to expand...
No, that is a problem with the reality that huge swathes of the Republican party flat out deny the existence of Climate Change. If it's that difficult to get you people to simply acknowledge the existence of a problem why should we be forced to bend over backwards convincing you how to fix it. It seems painfully obvious that you people are way way behind the rest of the world, and by the time we've convinced you to act it may be too late.

Conaeolos said:
The statement "All Muslims are Terrorists" isn't an opinion, it's factually inaccurate.
Although I’ve never heard that ever said by anyone; I think you mean “Islam produces terrorists” and I am 99% sure they have a prophet who conquered nations to spread said religion. So, factually inaccurate if read without the understanding the implication is that muslims are under the influence of an ideology which makes them prone to become terrorists. Again conflation.
Click to expand...
No, that's just the bull**** story you make up to hide the truth of what you actually believe. In reality there are all kinds of christian bible versus that teach them to do horrible things, yet nobody seems to be all that alarmed about the constant acts of christian terrorism that happen all over this country every day.

Conaeolos said:
It’s why the comment section is usually 5000x more informative than a news article.
Click to expand...

Well I think you've officially demonstrated yourself to be not worthy of listening to. Anybody who would consider the comments section of a typical news article to be informative is not someone worth talking to.
 
ocean515 said:
The media in the 1850's in certain parts of the US concluded Blacks were less than human. That was the consensus. Based on your argument, nobody should have questioned that conclusion.
Click to expand...
Questioning a consensus is fine, and hindsight is 20/20. But when making decisions about how to act moving forward particularly when those decisions can effect the lives of millions of people you don't get to ignore a mountain of evidence and go with your gut.

Furthermore, many of the people on the right in this country still seem to think that Blacks are less than Human. In fact Trump's own son just declared that opposition to his son was coming from people that aren't human. The 1850's are the time when Trump supporters seem to think America was Great, and want to take us back there again. That should tell you how much you should be listening to them.


ocean515 said:
The problem with your argument is that it is in direct conflict with the Constitution and the founding principles of this Nation.
Click to expand...
No, it does not. But if you believe that the only counter argument you have to mine is the fact that the law says so then that means the problem is with the law not my argument.

ocean515 said:
Going to be tough to persuade many people outside of those who already agree with you to throw out basic human rights and freedoms and to become subservient to the requirements others set for them.
Click to expand...

I'm not the one doing that. You are.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Hey NOOB, you use a misleading moniker. You have no slope to your Learning Curve.
Click to expand...

There you go again with your ignorant personal attacks.

Take your discussion of Science to where it belongs.
Click to expand...

The issue of when human life begins arose during Roe vs Wade before the Justices of the US Supreme Court. Are you letting me know you're so ignorant you know none of this? The US Constitution protects our right to life. Many of the Justices wanted to legalize abortion so they claimed they have no idea when human life first begins and were not competent to decided that. So, the used privacy rights to rule in favor of legalizing abortion.

So, the issue of science enters political and legal discourse frequently. Or have you not heard of the political controversy surrounding Climate Change?



As to voting choices, time spent evaluating how my choices affect me, others in the community and society in general have absolutely increased my understanding of political ideologies and American politics.
Click to expand...

Basically, you said nothing of substance there. Is that what makes you a progressive, repeatedly making proclamations that lack any substance and retreating to personal attacks?

Thank you for your military service.
Click to expand...

I don't need your thanks. And it's a patronizing "thank you" anyways.

The Forum has a section and a thread where DP members have posted descriptions of their military service.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know, I've posted on it already. My question was to you how you figure my voting for Obama (which I did first time he ran) and the current Mayor of Milwaukee provided me with so much more experience than my time in military service?

I voted for Trump this last presidential election but originally I had voted for Bernie Sanders. One thing I was not going to do was vote for Hillary Clinton.

Had she gotten elected the world might right now be in a state of post-nuclear apocalypse. And we wouldn't be on an internet forum debating like we are. Because they wouldn't exist. Because us any many other species of life would be Dead. D. E. A. D.

Here... let a fiscally liberal Australian medical doctor spell it out for you:


Published on Aug 14, 2016

Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Helen Caldicott, known as the world’s foremost anti-nuclear activist, speaks about whether nuclear disarmament is achievable. Dr. Caldicott is author of The New Nuclear Danger, Nuclear Power is Not the Answer, and Crisis Without End, among others. She has devoted the last forty-five years to an international campaign to educate the public about the medical hazards of the nuclear age and the necessary changes in human behavior to stop environmental destruction.
Click to expand...

(I read her book, New Nuclear Danger, years ago. She made a bit of a convert of me, that along with a paper for an undergrad class in Environmental Science I wrote regarding the environmental effects of nuclear war. Like the physicist Freeman Dyson I regard nuclear war as a far greater threat to the environment and man than rising CO2 levels or the warming of the planet.)
 
MrWonka said:
Why aren't members of the Media every day Americans? Do they not have families? Do they not have children? Do they not have to wake up and go to work just like the rest of us? Do they not pay taxes? Are they not mostly white Christians?

What reason does a member of the media have for supporting liberal ideas compared to conservative ideas? Do they not live in major cities that are susceptible to terrorist attacks?

Why is it that in the major cities where terrorist attacks are the most likely to happen you have by far the most liberal voters? Why is it that people living in small town Alabama where there are virtually no terrorist attacks ever so hell bent on antagonizing Muslims?

Where do you have to be born to be an everyday American? What do you have to look like? What jobs are you allowed to have?

What exactly is it about this person that leads you to believe that he can relate to average every day working class Americans.....

http://hbu.h-cdn.co/assets/16/19/980x639/gallery-1462816039-donald-trump-1.jpg

Does this land belong to you and me or is it just you?
Click to expand...

Why does a person necessarily have to relate to anybody or anything to do the job he/she was hired or appointed or elected to do?

I don't have to see through a homeless man's eyes or understand the pure hatred felt by the angry young black man to understand that the homeless have unique problems that I do not or that racism creates dangerous and destructive societies.

The journalist or editor does not have to relate to the everyday American to report something that has happened. In fact, if he/she is doing his/her job, relating to people won't factor into the story in any way or fashion.

The Plumber doesn't need to understand my problem with finding an affordable housekeeping service or that I have a huge dental bill coming up in order to do a good job replacing the kitchen faucet. The grocer doesn't need to know what my occupation is in order to provide me with a clean, well stocked store to shop in.

That the President and his family are fantastically wealthy does not make him incapable of doing his job. In fact, because he already has so much money he wouldn't be able to spend it in his lifetime, there is more reason to believe he is doing the job for reasons other than material ones and is free to focus on getting things done. And that is a good thing.
 
FastPace said:
There you go again with your ignorant personal attacks.



The issue of when human life begins arose during Roe vs Wade before the Justices of the US Supreme Court. Are you letting me know you're so ignorant you know none of this? The US Constitution protects our right to life. Many of the Justices wanted to legalize abortion so they claimed they have no idea when human life first begins and were not competent to decided that. So, the used privacy rights to rule in favor of legalizing abortion.

So, the issue of science enters political and legal discourse frequently. Or have you not heard of the political controversy surrounding Climate Change?





Basically, you said nothing of substance there. Is that what makes you a progressive, repeatedly making proclamations that lack any substance and retreating to personal attacks?



I don't need your thanks. And it's a patronizing "thank you" anyways.



Yes, I know, I've posted on it already. My question was to you how you figure my voting for Obama (which I did first time he ran) and the current Mayor of Milwaukee provided me with so much more experience than my time in military service?

I voted for Trump this last presidential election but originally I had voted for Bernie Sanders. One thing I was not going to do was vote for Hillary Clinton.

Had she gotten elected the world might right now be in a state of post-nuclear apocalypse. And we wouldn't be on an internet forum debating like we are. Because they wouldn't exist. Because us any many other species of life would be Dead. D. E. A. D.

Here... let a fiscally liberal Australian medical doctor spell it out for you:




(I read her book, New Nuclear Danger, years ago. She made a bit of a convert of me, that along with a paper for an undergrad class in Environmental Science I wrote regarding the environmental effects of nuclear war. Like the physicist Freeman Dyson I regard nuclear war as a far greater threat to the environment and man than rising CO2 levels or the warming of the planet.)
Click to expand...


I don't know if you intentionally interspersed humor into your response? I appreciate humor! The range of DP posters runs the gamut from numb skulls to the highly erudite. You refuse to stay on topic in this thread. If you catch my drift, that alone would move your placement leftward.

I have referenced Roe v. Wade in at least a few previous posts and participated in a Norma McCorvey thread. I don't make a habit of participating in threads of that nature.

So far your posts indicate you would not know substance to save your life. Your rambling barely sensible style might fit well in the Conspiracy Theory section!
 
AlbqOwl said:
That the President and his family are fantastically wealthy does not make him incapable of doing his job.
Click to expand...
No, but it does make it virtually impossible for him to relate to the problems of average people, and as it turns out average people voted for him specifically because they thought he could meanwhile attacking the Media who in reality is far more like them than he is.

AlbqOwl said:
In fact, because he already has so much money he wouldn't be able to spend it in his lifetime, there is more reason to believe he is doing the job for reasons other than material ones and is free to focus on getting things done. And that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Do you know absolutely nothing about this person? Trump's goal throughout his entire life has been nothing more than to put his name on things. Towers, Casino's, golf courses, helicopters, steaks, clothing lines, T.V. shows........

His obsession is fame and adoration. That's what a narcissist is all about. Wealth is a means to that end, but putting his name in big gold letters all over the world is what brings him joy. By putting President in front of his name, and allowing him to be adorned forever in the history books, you have given the ultimate gift to the ultimate narcissist.

He wants to be President to elevate his own name, and his own legend. He does not give a **** about anybody else.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
I've been an American every day and for most of my 62 years I have lived here in the states (except for 3 years each in Germany and Guam) - does that count?
Click to expand...

I've been an everyday Texan for nearly 60 [except for 8 months living in Georgia]
 
MrWonka said:
No, but it does make it virtually impossible for him to relate to the problems of average people, and as it turns out average people voted for him specifically because they thought he could meanwhile attacking the Media who in reality is far more like them than he is.



Do you know absolutely nothing about this person? Trump's goal throughout his entire life has been nothing more than to put his name on things. Towers, Casino's, golf courses, helicopters, steaks, clothing lines, T.V. shows........

His obsession is fame and adoration. That's what a narcissist is all about. Wealth is a means to that end, but putting his name in big gold letters all over the world is what brings him joy. By putting President in front of his name, and allowing him to be adorned forever in the history books, you have given the ultimate gift to the ultimate narcissist.

He wants to be President to elevate his own name, and his own legend. He does not give a **** about anybody else.
Click to expand...

Well I will freely admit I don't have the special insight into President Trump's soul that you claim to have. All I see is an agenda that I can endorse and support with a clear conscience, and I can believe that he honestly does want to do something great for America for his own legacy or for whatever reason. But then I'm not a bitter, snowflaky, angry, judgmental lefty so I honestly don't care what his personal motives are so long as he does do something great for America. If in some way Trump, Inc. benefits too, well good for that. I have no problem with it
 
WCH said:
I've been an everyday Texan for nearly 60 [except for 8 months living in Georgia]
Click to expand...

My mother was born in Texas (1919) but since my father was in the military for a bit over 22 years we moved around some.
 
MrWonka said:
Questioning a consensus is fine, and hindsight is 20/20. But when making decisions about how to act moving forward particularly when those decisions can effect the lives of millions of people you don't get to ignore a mountain of evidence and go with your gut.

Furthermore, many of the people on the right in this country still seem to think that Blacks are less than Human. In fact Trump's own son just declared that opposition to his son was coming from people that aren't human. The 1850's are the time when Trump supporters seem to think America was Great, and want to take us back there again. That should tell you how much you should be listening to them.



No, it does not. But if you believe that the only counter argument you have to mine is the fact that the law says so then that means the problem is with the law not my argument.



I'm not the one doing that. You are.
Click to expand...

Of course you get to consider the evidence. And once considered, you get to respond accordingly.

What country do you think you live in?

Thank goodness your perspective is in the extreme minority, as you don't have a clue what principles guide this country, and what foundational principles are enumerated in the Constitution.

:screwy
 
WCH said:
She must of had you later in life. My late grandmother was born in 1919.

Was that a misprint?
Click to expand...

She was 34 when I was born and 38 when my youngest brother was born.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom