American Politics Thread VI: Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Sundiata]

That's idea is not just stupid, it's racist.

how? the entirety of europe is based on cultural and ethnic heritages.

Not by law, anyone of any ethnic background can be a citizen of a European country. There are Khoisan citizens of Ireland and Han citizens of France. Anyone of any ethnic background can be virtuous.

[North Washington Republic]

That's support for a politician, not on actual public policy. Republicans are not hivemind on any political policy issue.

Well of course not, they don't care about policy issues. That's why they didn't even have a platform for 2020. It's all about the Messiah Trump.

“Owning da libs” seems the only thing 99.8% Republicans care about these days.

[Second Indus Order]

So, you may have interpreted my words that way, but I did not say that. We shouldn't jail homosexuals for simply being homosexuals, that is a homophobic policy if there ever was one. There's also no legal basis for it.

We shouldn't make it illegal for blacks to vote...we just need to make sure that people pass a certain test in order to vote.

any IQ based test would keep a vast majority of blacks in the united states from voting. lol.

[Second Indus Order]

how? the entirety of europe is based on cultural and ethnic heritages.

Not by law, anyone of any ethnic background can be a citizen of a European country. There are Khoisan citizens of Ireland and Han citizens of France. Anyone of any ethnic background can be virtuous.

which is pretty cringe because they are not ancestrally native to the lands they are "assimilating" to. should be reversed.

[Punished UMN]

Well of course not, they don't care about policy issues. That's why they didn't even have a platform for 2020. It's all about the Messiah Trump.

“Owning da libs” seems the only thing 99.8% Republicans care about these days.

Because it has, unfortunately, been an effective electoral strategy.

[Second Indus Order]

Well of course not, they don't care about policy issues. That's why they didn't even have a platform for 2020. It's all about the Messiah Trump.

“Owning da libs” seems the only thing 99.8% Republicans care about these days.

the only things american republicans ;conserve' is Israel and big business.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

We shouldn't make it illegal for blacks to vote...we just need to make sure that people pass a certain test in order to vote.

any IQ based test would keep a vast majority of blacks in the united states from voting. lol.

Cue rant about how IQ is more a reflection of education (i.e., according to IQ tests, the average member of certain African tribes has IQs equivalent to people with (genetic) severe mental deficiencies, while they obviously aren't.)

[North Washington Republic]

“Owning da libs” seems the only thing 99.8% Republicans care about these days.

Because it has, unfortunately, been an effective electoral strategy.

And that’s why I left the Republican Party. They have embraced degeneracy and rejected good governance.

[Second Indus Order]

any IQ based test would keep a vast majority of blacks in the united states from voting. lol.

Cue rant about how IQ is more a reflection of education (i.e., according to IQ tests, the average member of certain African tribes has IQs equivalent to people with (genetic) severe mental deficiencies, while they obviously aren't.)

IQ totally isn't genetic. There isn't a genetic diversity of intelligence in human beings. Of course I'm not an NPC.

[Meretica]

So, you may have interpreted my words that way, but I did not say that. We shouldn't jail homosexuals for simply being homosexuals, that is a homophobic policy if there ever was one. There's also no legal basis for it.

We shouldn't make it illegal for blacks to vote...we just need to make sure that people pass a certain test to vote.

A test that can stop certain groups from being able to vote. Your statement reminds me of a story I heard about Quakers in New England. A certain election was being held back before America had declared independence. The establishment was sure they would win despite their popularity. Local farmers fathered more people than was expected to turn up at the town hall to vote. In an attempt to change the results, Quakers were barred from voting because they would not swear on the Bible; it violated their religious beliefs. It didn't change the outcome of the election (the farmers won) but it demonstrates that some will use any & all ways possible to stop groups they oppose from voting. I oppose a test from a moral standpoint because I believe in popular & national sovereignty; that the government has power only because it has the consent of the governed.

[Sundiata]

So, you may have interpreted my words that way, but I did not say that. We shouldn't jail homosexuals for simply being homosexuals, that is a homophobic policy if there ever was one. There's also no legal basis for it.

Then why did finding out that sodomy laws are unconstitutional here make you fly into a rant about how America is doomed?

To be perfectly honest, the United States was doomed from the start. It's designed extraordinarily poorly, from its Constitution to its Declaration of Independence.

So, you may have interpreted my words that way, but I did not say that. We shouldn't jail homosexuals for simply being homosexuals, that is a homophobic policy if there ever was one. There's also no legal basis for it.

it will have a legal basis if society is based on scripture and not secular constitution.

I absolutely do not think so.

So, you may have interpreted my words that way, but I did not say that. We shouldn't jail homosexuals for simply being homosexuals, that is a homophobic policy if there ever was one. There's also no legal basis for it.

We shouldn't make it illegal for blacks to vote...we just need to make sure that people pass a certain test in order to vote.

A person should not be denied the right to participate in politics because they are a homosexual.

[Second Indus Order]

We shouldn't make it illegal for blacks to vote...we just need to make sure that people pass a certain test to vote.

A test that can stop certain groups from being able to vote. Your statement reminds me of a story I heard about Quakers in New England. A certain election was being held back before America had declared independence. The establishment was sure they would win despite their popularity. Local farmers fathered more people than was expected to turn up at the town hall to vote. In an attempt to change the results, Quakers were barred from voting because they would not swear on the Bible; it violated their religious beliefs. It didn't change the outcome of the election (the farmers won) but it demonstrates that some will use any & all ways possible to stop groups they oppose from voting. I oppose a test from a moral standpoint because I believe in popular & national sovereignty; that the government has power only because it has the consent of the governed.

well ideally no one should be allowed to be vote at all, just let religious and military leaders govern society.

[Second Indus Order]

Then why did finding out that sodomy laws are unconstitutional here make you fly into a rant about how America is doomed?

To be perfectly honest, the United States was doomed from the start. It's designed extraordinarily poorly, from its Constitution to its Declaration of Independence.

it will have a legal basis if society is based on scripture and not secular constitution.

I absolutely do not think so.

We shouldn't make it illegal for blacks to vote...we just need to make sure that people pass a certain test in order to vote.

A person should not be denied the right to participate in politics because they are a homosexual.

i disagree.

[Neutraligon]

Then why did finding out that sodomy laws are unconstitutional here make you fly into a rant about how America is doomed?

To be perfectly honest, the United States was doomed from the start. It's designed extraordinarily poorly, from its Constitution to its Declaration of Independence.

it will have a legal basis if society is based on scripture and not secular constitution.

I absolutely do not think so.

We shouldn't make it illegal for blacks to vote...we just need to make sure that people pass a certain test in order to vote.

A person should not be denied the right to participate in politics because they are a homosexual.

You missed the point of what I was saying.

A test that can stop certain groups from being able to vote. Your statement reminds me of a story I heard about Quakers in New England. A certain election was being held back before America had declared independence. The establishment was sure they would win despite their popularity. Local farmers fathered more people than was expected to turn up at the town hall to vote. In an attempt to change the results, Quakers were barred from voting because they would not swear on the Bible; it violated their religious beliefs. It didn't change the outcome of the election (the farmers won) but it demonstrates that some will use any & all ways possible to stop groups they oppose from voting. I oppose a test from a moral standpoint because I believe in popular & national sovereignty; that the government has power only because it has the consent of the governed.

well ideally no one should be allowed to be vote at all, just let religious and military leaders govern society.

Hell no

[Meretica]

To be perfectly honest, the United States was doomed from the start. It's designed extraordinarily poorly, from its Constitution to its Declaration of Independence.

I absolutely do not think so.

A person should not be denied the right to participate in politics because they are a homosexual.

I disagree.

Why? What makes them sub-human in your eyes?

[Meretica]

A test that can stop certain groups from being able to vote. Your statement reminds me of a story I heard about Quakers in New England. A certain election was being held back before America had declared independence. The establishment was sure they would win despite their popularity. Local farmers fathered more people than was expected to turn up at the town hall to vote. In an attempt to change the results, Quakers were barred from voting because they would not swear on the Bible; it violated their religious beliefs. It didn't change the outcome of the election (the farmers won) but it demonstrates that some will use any & all ways possible to stop groups they oppose from voting. I oppose a test from a moral standpoint because I believe in popular & national sovereignty; that the government has power only because it has the consent of the governed.

well ideally no one should be allowed to be vote at all, just let religious and military leaders govern society.

If Trump joined the army and became a priest, we'd be doomed.

[Second Indus Order]

I disagree.

Why? What makes them sub-human in your eyes?

because the Vedas say so. Scripture is superior to all collective human wisdom. If scripture says intercourse and marriage are between a man and a woman, than intercourse and marriage are between a man and a woman.

[Second Indus Order]

well ideally no one should be allowed to be vote at all, just let religious and military leaders govern society.

If Trump joined the army and became a priest, we'd be doomed.

Tbh trump is a degenerate and a zionist shill.

[Vassenor]

Why? What makes them sub-human in your eyes?

because the Vedas say so. Scripture is superior to all collective human wisdom. If scripture says intercourse and marriage are between a man and a woman, than intercourse and marriage are between a man and a woman.

Let me introduce you to my friend Separation of Church And State.

[Second Indus Order]

well ideally no one should be allowed to be vote at all, just let religious and military leaders govern society.

If Trump joined the army and became a priest, we'd be doomed.

Tbh trump is a degenerate and a zionist shill.

[Sundiata]

You missed the point of what I was saying.

Well, at least let me be emphatically clear that I do not believe that a person should be denied political participation because they are a homosexual or for any reason at all.

[Second Indus Order]

because the Vedas say so. Scripture is superior to all collective human wisdom. If scripture says intercourse and marriage are between a man and a woman, than intercourse and marriage are between a man and a woman.

Let me introduce you to my friend Separation of Church And State.

hold on, wait a second.








*dies of cringe*.

[Neutraligon]

You missed the point of what I was saying.

Well, at least let me be emphatically clear that I do not believe that a person should be denied political participation because they are a homosexual or for any reason at all.

Still missing the point. The point was about laws crafted explicitly to target specific groups.

[Meretica]

Why? What makes them sub-human in your eyes?

because the Vedas say so. Scripture is superior to all collective human wisdom. If scripture says intercourse and marriage are between a man and a woman, than intercourse and marriage are between a man and a woman.

No, they do not. The Vedas have, at times, referred to a third sex and the Kama Sutra, a Hindu text detailing the pleasures of sexuality, states that same-sex experience is "to be engaged in and enjoyed for its own sake as one of the arts." The Gay & Lesbian Vaishnava Association (GALVA) highlights, in its report Homosexuality, Hinduism and the Third Gender, the gender fluidity of Hindu deities, and notes that “everything in this world is a reflection of the original subtle and spiritual reality.” The epic Mahabharata features the transgender character Sikhandin, and depicts the warrior Arjuna cross-dressing to become Brihannala, teacher of fine arts. GALVA further notes, “Vedic culture allowed transgender people of the third sex, known as hijras, to live openly according to their gender identity.”

[Sundiata]

Well, at least let me be emphatically clear that I do not believe that a person should be denied political participation because they are a homosexual or for any reason at all.

Still missing the point. The point was about laws crafted explicitly to target specific groups.

What do you mean to say?