Jump to content

HorrifiedHeartlander

Members
  • Content count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

HorrifiedHeartlander last won the day on October 30 2016

HorrifiedHeartlander had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

1 Follower

About HorrifiedHeartlander

  • Rank
    Newbie

Personal Information

  • Party Affiliation
    Democratic Party
  1. Governor Pence, scientific literacy, tolerance, and "populism"

    Regardless as to how many in the Republican Party hate him, Mr. Trump opted to stand as the Party's leader, He would have welcomed the support among those in the ranks who dislike him. That makes him a Republican. We have no reason to believe he disdains the party platform. That is just wishful thinking, far from hard evidence. The fact that Tony Perkins now has effectively withdrawn his support of Trump is what is irrelevant. The fact remains the presumptive candidate, whether for political or policy reasons was willing to allow a widely acknowledged bigot to influence the composition of the party platform. This speaks volumes about the character and judgement of Donald Trump. Most of all, it would seem The Aggravator chooses to ignore the central point of my post. Are we to assume that the background and standing of the running mate, and ostensibly an important player in the populist movement is to be ignored? Is that a sensible and astute way of evaluating an upcoming election and a way of casting our votes? He claims the video I embedded will not redeem my argument. But he chooses not to consider the underlying assertions. Governor Pence embraces religious dogma at the expense of science literacy and civil rights. Maybe this is a matter of little import. I hardly thinks so. Look up the RIFRA legislation in several states and learn what the governor did to support this reprehensible policy in Indiana. Of course we all are revolted by the depths of corruption in the other party of our demented duopoly. Does the opportunity to bring some measure of justice for its calumnies, likely politically motivated, mean we must assent through our vote the denial of reproductive rights to millions of women, support policy that would notably undermine separation from church and state freedoms, continue and advance economic policies with prospects of dubious success except to those who already prosper the most, encourage popular affiliation with religious dogma at the expense of science literacy? Are we to affirm policies with our vote that favor industries that threaten environmental sustainability to the point future generations could experience the extinction of many species including our own ? , You may think that worth your while, but I will vote my conscience by voting for candidates of conscience, thank you.
  2. Consider this to be my followup post to my introduction as a member. The following video features a presentation by the running mate of a presidential candidacy which posits the heart of a current populist movement sweeping the country, now. I feel the narrator does not sufficiently respect the sincere efforts of millions of Americans to reconcile their personal faith with the best understood outcomes of the physical sciences. Nonetheless, it reveals a bias by a powerful individual that I would think all the readers here would find disturbing. Then Rep. Mike Pence reads a statement into the Congressional record on July 2002. When considering support and a vote for a candidacy rooted in a true populist candidacy, this is a deal breaker for me. Don't tell me about how people change, I remember the folks who ultimately choked on the words about the "new Nixon". At any time in the 20th century, when have we needed the broad spectrum of public policy in our nation to advance the spread of scientific literacy more than we do now? This is prima facie evidence that we would benefit by only the contrary regarding the current movement in consideration. Consider the Republican Party platform of 2016. Donald Trump, its candidate, allowed carte blanche to Tony Perkins, leader of the American Family Council to contrive significant portions of intended policy pursuits. In keeping with “the bible is the Constitution and god runs America theme,” the religious Republican platform wants “teaching of the Bible in public schools; because a good understanding of its contents is indispensable for the development of an educated citizenry.” The American Family Council has been identified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Intolerance and a bias toward religious dogma in this movement trump the time honored pursuits of best understandings of our physical reality and expectations for the future. Will you be a part of it? Within 2 years will you do the face palm of "what was I thinking?"? I know people who voted for Dubya in both 2000 and 2004 who consider those gestures as blots on their abilities for rational considerate judgement. Is that what you want for yourselves? Happy Halloween and think carefully, friends!
  3. Greetings "Populism" vs. critical thinking?

    I am a retired programmer/analyst who has observed American political dynamics for more than 50 years. This morning, the very thoughtful Michael Trimm appropriately identified Republican presidential contender, Donald Trump as "the populist candidate." He also identified his running mate Governor Mike Pence as "establishment", but I feel inappropriately did not elaborate because this relates to one of many reasons why it might be better to embrace and support "candidates of conscience" than those who foment "populist' followings It is great to be united, but with whom? What are the costs for supporting some populist coalitions? Will Donald Trump and Mike Pence advance education so that the broad sweep of their supporters have a better understanding of their social and economic circumstances? Will their policy pursuits uphold an American tradition of innovation in technological development and the critical thinking skills necessary to evaluate the reality of our lives any better than do wealthy elitists who corruptly guard their own powerful interests? Will their 4 years of many appointments to our judiciary, posts that will be filled for generations, be best suited to the "populist" interests of their supporters? Yes, they could win, but do we want to lend our support to what could be a wave of hostility toward civil rights and more tax breaks for all but the most overtly criminal among the wealthy? I will consider these questions by more closely scrutinizing the role of "establishment" Gov. Mike Pence in a "populist" movement in another post.
×