Should the religious world thank the secular world for impro
Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ]
19 May 2018, 11:06 am
Should the religious world thank the secular world for improving older religious law to the level of excellence we now enjoy?
If we grade secular law against theistic laws, I think we will agree that God’s laws are unjust when compared to the laws of most lands.
Three cheers for secular world and the world’s intelligentsia. They are the Gnostics of the world and their just laws prove it.
Regards
DL
Michael Bone
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 22 May 2018
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Location: Altoona, Iowa, USA
22 May 2018, 7:20 pm
I would say yes, Religion is a primitive tool for primitive people, some people are primitive and need such primitive tools, but Secularism is superior and beneficial to anyone willing to abandon archaic thought no longer relevant or needed in the modern age.
_________________
One who consistently finds humility from hardship will become a hero, while one who consistently finds self-righteousness from hardship will become a tyrant.
23 May 2018, 4:33 pm
I would say that this post is inflammatory and seems primarily to have the purpose of angering those of religious faith. I can understand part of your argument. Should the religious world thank the secular world? Ignoring the arbitrariness of those terms considering the vast ocean of gray between secularism and religion, I would say yes. Yes to the inverse as well. That the secular world should thank the religious world. Christianity more or less invented hospitals, orphanages, and homes for the homeless. Mysticism gave women power in male dominated worlds. Shamans discovered medicinal herbs and invented early medicine. Religion in general gave people a societal order that was based on something larger then themselves that could not be questioned. When that societal order was good, religion was good. And when religion was bad and run by bad people then the societal order turned corrupt and self-serving. The same can be said about any secular system of government. That when the people running the government turned bad, the society faltered and fell. In fact, most of religion and secular society are only of worth when those governing are empathetic towards the governed. Religion is itself a form of government. And the government that is religion is of course improved and informed by the non-religious government of secularism and vice-versa, or they can detract from each other and seek each other's destruction. Something I believe to be on impossibility since there will always be things, concepts, and people held as sacred and things, concepts, and people held to be non-sacred.
In summary: secularism and religion are two incredibly broad concepts with an intense amount of gray between their individual polarities and thus trying to decide which is better is like trying to decide which pole of the world is best without taking into consideration the rest of the planet.
_________________
I am a traditional, non-Roman Catholic feminist married to a Bahá'í. Decide for yourself what that means.
Michael Bone
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 22 May 2018
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Location: Altoona, Iowa, USA
23 May 2018, 4:59 pm
Drone232 wrote:
I would say that this post is inflammatory and seems primarily to have the purpose of angering those of religious faith. I can understand part of your argument. Should the religious world thank the secular world? Ignoring the arbitrariness of those terms considering the vast ocean of gray between secularism and religion, I would say yes. Yes to the inverse as well. That the secular world should thank the religious world. Christianity more or less invented hospitals, orphanages, and homes for the homeless. Mysticism gave women power in male dominated worlds. Shamans discovered medicinal herbs and invented early medicine. Religion in general gave people a societal order that was based on something larger then themselves that could not be questioned. When that societal order was good, religion was good. And when religion was bad and run by bad people then the societal order turned corrupt and self-serving. The same can be said about any secular system of government. That when the people running the government turned bad, the society faltered and fell. In fact, most of religion and secular society are only of worth when those governing are empathetic towards the governed. Religion is itself a form of government. And the government that is religion is of course improved and informed by the non-religious government of secularism and vice-versa, or they can detract from each other and seek each other's destruction. Something I believe to be on impossibility since there will always be things, concepts, and people held as sacred and things, concepts, and people held to be non-sacred.
In summary: secularism and religion are two incredibly broad concepts with an intense amount of gray between their individual polarities and thus trying to decide which is better is like trying to decide which pole of the world is best without taking into consideration the rest of the planet.
In summary: secularism and religion are two incredibly broad concepts with an intense amount of gray between their individual polarities and thus trying to decide which is better is like trying to decide which pole of the world is best without taking into consideration the rest of the planet.
Secularism has all the benefits and more of a Theocracy, it doesn't tell you what to think but how to think, and it doesn't give you bs stories to try and justify why you should give your loyalty, money, and time to God through the church.
_________________
One who consistently finds humility from hardship will become a hero, while one who consistently finds self-righteousness from hardship will become a tyrant.
23 May 2018, 10:34 pm
You say that secularism doesn't give us the BS stories that tell us how to think and behave. If secularism won't give those stories then who will. I do believe you have misconceptions of the meaning of religion, myth, and society. We need those BS stories to tell us how to think and behave. If religion doesn't give them then secularism needs to. And if secularism gives them then secularism becomes the new sacred, the new religion. In my view, what is religion is that which is sacred while secularism is what is not sacred. But what is secular can become sacred and vise-versa. Football can be sacred to some people (I live in Alabama and know this to be true) while Jesus can become secular (I have taken historical religion courses and know this to be true too).
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
_________________
I am a traditional, non-Roman Catholic feminist married to a Bahá'í. Decide for yourself what that means.
24 May 2018, 9:50 am
Michael Bone wrote:
I would say yes, Religion is a primitive tool for primitive people, some people are primitive and need such primitive tools, but Secularism is superior and beneficial to anyone willing to abandon archaic thought no longer relevant or needed in the modern age.
Nicely put.
U C 20/20
Regards
DL
24 May 2018, 9:56 am
Drone232 wrote:
You say that secularism doesn't give us the BS stories that tell us how to think and behave. If secularism won't give those stories then who will. I do believe you have misconceptions of the meaning of religion, myth, and society. We need those BS stories to tell us how to think and behave. If religion doesn't give them then secularism needs to. And if secularism gives them then secularism becomes the new sacred, the new religion. In my view, what is religion is that which is sacred while secularism is what is not sacred. But what is secular can become sacred and vise-versa. Football can be sacred to some people (I live in Alabama and know this to be true) while Jesus can become secular (I have taken historical religion courses and know this to be true too).
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
True that all those ideologies can be made sacred.
I think it is better to make secularism and it's laws sacred because the laws can be questioned and amended to a better form while religious God given laws cannot be questioned and improved.
If we are talking Christian laws, why would you think that laws given by a genocidal God to be moral laws?
That is analogous to thinking Hitler's laws were better than secular laws.
Regards
DL
Michael Bone
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 22 May 2018
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Location: Altoona, Iowa, USA
24 May 2018, 11:43 am
GnosticBishop wrote:
Drone232 wrote:
You say that secularism doesn't give us the BS stories that tell us how to think and behave. If secularism won't give those stories then who will. I do believe you have misconceptions of the meaning of religion, myth, and society. We need those BS stories to tell us how to think and behave. If religion doesn't give them then secularism needs to. And if secularism gives them then secularism becomes the new sacred, the new religion. In my view, what is religion is that which is sacred while secularism is what is not sacred. But what is secular can become sacred and vise-versa. Football can be sacred to some people (I live in Alabama and know this to be true) while Jesus can become secular (I have taken historical religion courses and know this to be true too).
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
True that all those ideologies can be made sacred.
I think it is better to make secularism and it's laws sacred because the laws can be questioned and amended to a better form while religious God given laws cannot be questioned and improved.
If we are talking Christian laws, why would you think that laws given by a genocidal God to be moral laws?
That is analogous to thinking Hitler's laws were better than secular laws.
Regards
DL
Godwin's Law aside, part of the point of Secularism is that you aren't obligated to hold anything "sacred", you as an individual get to choose what you personally hold sacred and authority won't try to control your thoughts or beliefs. In a theocracy you are bound by law to worship the god or or follow the religion of the land, which is arbitrary and oppressive.
_________________
One who consistently finds humility from hardship will become a hero, while one who consistently finds self-righteousness from hardship will become a tyrant.
Michael Bone
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 22 May 2018
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Location: Altoona, Iowa, USA
24 May 2018, 12:04 pm
Drone232 wrote:
You say that secularism doesn't give us the BS stories that tell us how to think and behave. If secularism won't give those stories then who will. I do believe you have misconceptions of the meaning of religion, myth, and society. We need those BS stories to tell us how to think and behave. If religion doesn't give them then secularism needs to. And if secularism gives them then secularism becomes the new sacred, the new religion. In my view, what is religion is that which is sacred while secularism is what is not sacred. But what is secular can become sacred and vise-versa. Football can be sacred to some people (I live in Alabama and know this to be true) while Jesus can become secular (I have taken historical religion courses and know this to be true too).
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
1. "You say that secularism doesn't give us the BS stories that tell us how to think and behave. If secularism won't give those stories then who will. I do believe you have misconceptions of the meaning of religion, myth, and society.
We need those BS stories to tell us how to think and behave. If religion doesn't give them then secularism needs to."
You make the false assumption that we need to be told lies to function in society.
2. "In my view, what is religion is that which is sacred while secularism is what is not sacred."
re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
noun: religion
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
synonyms: faith, belief, worship, creed; More
sect, church, cult, denomination
"the freedom to practice their own religion"
a particular system of faith and worship.
plural noun: religions
"the world's great religions"
sec·u·lar·ism
ˈsekyələˌrizəm/
noun
noun: secularism
the principle of separation of the state from religious institutions.
"he believes that secularism means no discrimination against anybody in the name of religion"
3. "Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards."
Semantics, it doesn't matter if it's a god or an ideology or a chicken, an institution demanding blind faith and money in exchange for eternal salvation are either liars or fools.
4. " Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular."
There are not "followers" of Democracy, Communism, and Socialism. You don't "believe" in these things any more than you believe the sun rises and sets. These systems of government are not faith based and do not call upon supreme authority as absolute (although Communism and arguably Socialism are de facto no different). They do not denote the supernatural and do not denote faith or worship.
5. "You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them."
Yes you can.
6. "People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular."
Sacred =/= Religion
Not Sacred =/= Secular
7. "What you want is that nothing have meaning."
What I want is for you to not make assumptions about my beliefs.
8. In closing, You don't need Religion to give things meaning or even be spiritual, Religion is a specific organized set of collective beliefs that are in some way enforced by society upon the individual. Spirituality is the subjective set of beliefs and experiences one has as a human being in regards to meaning and purpose, life and happiness, etc.
_________________
One who consistently finds humility from hardship will become a hero, while one who consistently finds self-righteousness from hardship will become a tyrant.
24 May 2018, 3:44 pm
Michael Bone wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Drone232 wrote:
You say that secularism doesn't give us the BS stories that tell us how to think and behave. If secularism won't give those stories then who will. I do believe you have misconceptions of the meaning of religion, myth, and society. We need those BS stories to tell us how to think and behave. If religion doesn't give them then secularism needs to. And if secularism gives them then secularism becomes the new sacred, the new religion. In my view, what is religion is that which is sacred while secularism is what is not sacred. But what is secular can become sacred and vise-versa. Football can be sacred to some people (I live in Alabama and know this to be true) while Jesus can become secular (I have taken historical religion courses and know this to be true too).
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
True that all those ideologies can be made sacred.
I think it is better to make secularism and it's laws sacred because the laws can be questioned and amended to a better form while religious God given laws cannot be questioned and improved.
If we are talking Christian laws, why would you think that laws given by a genocidal God to be moral laws?
That is analogous to thinking Hitler's laws were better than secular laws.
Regards
DL
Godwin's Law aside, part of the point of Secularism is that you aren't obligated to hold anything "sacred", you as an individual get to choose what you personally hold sacred and authority won't try to control your thoughts or beliefs. In a theocracy you are bound by law to worship the god or or follow the religion of the land, which is arbitrary and oppressive.
I agree fully but sociology is showing that we tend to sacralise something.
A quick example is in the way the N F L has just, more or less, sacralised standing for the national anthem by threats of fines to those who refuse.
This link speaks to this issue and the intelligentsia might be using sacralisation against us as a way of insuring a longer life to the present system. The second link speaks to how the more is demanded from individuals, by religions and political groups, the longer they will last.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... anguage=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU
Apologies for the longish links but I find it faster and more entertaining to watch such than to type or read such longish presentations.
Regards
DL
Michael Bone
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 22 May 2018
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Location: Altoona, Iowa, USA
24 May 2018, 3:47 pm
GnosticBishop wrote:
Michael Bone wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Drone232 wrote:
You say that secularism doesn't give us the BS stories that tell us how to think and behave. If secularism won't give those stories then who will. I do believe you have misconceptions of the meaning of religion, myth, and society. We need those BS stories to tell us how to think and behave. If religion doesn't give them then secularism needs to. And if secularism gives them then secularism becomes the new sacred, the new religion. In my view, what is religion is that which is sacred while secularism is what is not sacred. But what is secular can become sacred and vise-versa. Football can be sacred to some people (I live in Alabama and know this to be true) while Jesus can become secular (I have taken historical religion courses and know this to be true too).
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
You say that secularism doesn't tell us to give our time. money, and loyalty to a God that you probably think doesn't exist. Those of Shintoism and Taoism and Buddhism likewise don't believe in a God and yet they are called a religion. Theirs is a spiritual ideology that they put their time and loyalty towards. These religions tell their followers what to believe and in return the followers expect peace and meaning. Democracy, Communism, and Socialism also tell their followers what to believe; that everyone has a right to speak their mind, that everyone should hold everything in common, that the state should be responsible for caring for everyone; and yet they are all deemed secular.
You can't get rid of either secularism and religion and you can't separate them. People will inevitably believe some thins sacred and others secular. What you want is that nothing have meaning. But everything has some meaning. Everything has purpose. Anything can be sacred. And religion is what you make of it.
True that all those ideologies can be made sacred.
I think it is better to make secularism and it's laws sacred because the laws can be questioned and amended to a better form while religious God given laws cannot be questioned and improved.
If we are talking Christian laws, why would you think that laws given by a genocidal God to be moral laws?
That is analogous to thinking Hitler's laws were better than secular laws.
Regards
DL
Godwin's Law aside, part of the point of Secularism is that you aren't obligated to hold anything "sacred", you as an individual get to choose what you personally hold sacred and authority won't try to control your thoughts or beliefs. In a theocracy you are bound by law to worship the god or or follow the religion of the land, which is arbitrary and oppressive.
I agree fully but sociology is showing that we tend to sacralise something.
A quick example is in the way the N F L has just, more or less, sacralised standing for the national anthem by threats of fines to those who refuse.
This link speaks to this issue and the intelligentsia might be using sacralisation against us as a way of insuring a longer life to the present system. The second link speaks to how the more is demanded from individuals, by religions and political groups, the longer they will last.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haid ... anguage=en
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T64_El2s7FU
Apologies for the longish links but I find it faster and more entertaining to watch such than to type or read such longish presentations.
Regards
DL
Yes, I understand humans are prone to giving meaning and purpose to things, but that doesn't necessitate blind devotion and tribalism, we can and will rise above these things with time, despite our nature, not because of it.
_________________
One who consistently finds humility from hardship will become a hero, while one who consistently finds self-righteousness from hardship will become a tyrant.
24 May 2018, 4:20 pm
Michael Bone wrote:
Yes, I understand humans are prone to giving meaning and purpose to things, but that doesn't necessitate blind devotion and tribalism, we can and will rise above these things with time, despite our nature, not because of it.
I agree that it does not necessitate it but it often causes it and has in recent cases that comes to mind.
Regards
DL
Michael Bone
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 22 May 2018
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Location: Altoona, Iowa, USA
24 May 2018, 4:26 pm
You could say that about a lot of politicians, Trump is just eccentric and the media hates him so he gets more scrutiny/attention
_________________
One who consistently finds humility from hardship will become a hero, while one who consistently finds self-righteousness from hardship will become a tyrant.
24 May 2018, 4:33 pm
Michael Bone wrote:
You could say that about a lot of politicians, Trump is just eccentric and the media hates him so he gets more scrutiny/attention
To some extent, no argument.
In Trump's case, many Republicans, before the election, said they would put the party ahead of their morals and hold their nose and vote for him.
Even now after all his lies, you might note how loyal his base is.
Regards
DL
Michael Bone
Tufted Titmouse
Joined: 22 May 2018
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 38
Location: Altoona, Iowa, USA
24 May 2018, 4:49 pm
GnosticBishop wrote:
Michael Bone wrote:
You could say that about a lot of politicians, Trump is just eccentric and the media hates him so he gets more scrutiny/attention
To some extent, no argument.
In Trump's case, many Republicans, before the election, said they would put the party ahead of their morals and hold their nose and vote for him.
Even now after all his lies, you might note how loyal his base is.
Regards
DL
I don't like/support trump, but I recognize he came in an opportune time while both parties were and still are weak and unpopular amongst many of the general public. He's playing as a populist and following the rules, and it's working.
_________________
One who consistently finds humility from hardship will become a hero, while one who consistently finds self-righteousness from hardship will become a tyrant.
24 May 2018, 4:56 pm
Michael Bone wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Michael Bone wrote:
You could say that about a lot of politicians, Trump is just eccentric and the media hates him so he gets more scrutiny/attention
To some extent, no argument.
In Trump's case, many Republicans, before the election, said they would put the party ahead of their morals and hold their nose and vote for him.
Even now after all his lies, you might note how loyal his base is.
Regards
DL
I don't like/support trump, but I recognize he came in an opportune time while both parties were and still are weak and unpopular amongst many of the general public. He's playing as a populist and following the rules, and it's working.
With the what, 3 investigations going with one of them convicting, is it 5 people now, I don't know if your "it's working" really applies. Your subjective view and mine do not match here.
You can also bet that when the many women who he has assaulted get their day in court your "it's working" might be said of the justice system that nails him.
Boy, am I glad I am a Canadian.
Regards
DL
Page 1 of 1 [ 16 posts ]
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Hello, World! |
Today, 1:17 pm |
| Hello, world! |
30 Mar 2024, 8:15 am |
| Understanding the world! |
19 Feb 2024, 9:07 am |
| I don't know where I belong in this world |
30 Mar 2024, 10:02 am |
