(Closed) Who won the presidential debate?

posted 4 years ago in The Lounge
Post # 241
Member
9966 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

View original reply
@ Katie-Didnt   
View original reply
@ Katie-Didnt   

My husband actually fervently agrees with both of you on this issue and we agree to disagree.

I do agree there should be proven just cause to monitor an organization such as a “church.”

I personally feel that Snowden is a traitor.

Post # 242
Member
1038 posts
Bumble bee

View original reply
@ Sunfire   The government has no right to hack into your phone, or your computer, or to single you out for your faith without just cause. Period. Even if you have nothing to hide that is the ultimate invasion of your privacy and your right to basic tenents of privacy and the 4th Amendment. My point being, even if you think thats ok, our constitution completely disagrees with you.

Post # 243
Member
9966 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

View original reply
@ WestCoastV   How fortuitous that you caught the irony in my purposely quoting an article from the Chicago Tribune to make my point.  I am well aware of their stance on Trump.

Post # 244
Member
9966 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

View original reply
@ Katie-Didnt   Yep, this is what my beloved husband says, too. 

Point Katie-Didnt.

However, your key words are “without just cause.”  If there is proven just cause, I am ok with it. 

Post # 245
Member
1222 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: September 2010

 

View original reply
@ Sunfire   Yes but how is this “just reason” to be decided? How would you find the bad Muslims without monitoring ALL of them? Would some 15 year old kid have his parents house wired and camera’d if he made some statement on twitter about wishing Trump was dead?

Post # 246
Member
9966 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

View original reply
@ fiver   No, that would require way too much monitoring (everyone who posts on Twitter wishing Trump were dead).  I realize what you’re saying and, like I said, my husband tells me the same thing. 

My point is that if a group, let’s use Westboro Baptist as an example, makes it their mission to promote hatred and they don’t mind inciting violence – and they use religion as a guise – I personally am fine with them being monitoried if it would happen to save someone’s life.

Is that more clear?  I understand the 4th Amendment and agree with it.  I also have my personal emotions about this issue because I am angry that some people who want to promote evil and violence use a religion (like Islam) to further their violent agenda. 

It is an extremely difficult and tricky issue.  But if lives can be saved and a terrorist act, say against your child’s elementary school, may be averted due to government monitoring, then so be it.

Post # 247
Member
1038 posts
Bumble bee

View original reply
@ Sunfire   but your example is missing the point of what Trump is suggesting. We already monitor mosques, groups, churches, and individuals who are listed as either “hate groups” like WBC or members of said hate groups. 

Trumps suggestion goes something more like McCarthyism, which would be more like this: the government would start monitoring ANY church or organization that thinks gay marriage is an abomination and preaches accordingly that they don’t support it, citing just cause because they agree with Westboro Baptist Church on that issue. So the government should monitor them and spy on its members “just in case.”

this is not ok. It never was when we did it during the Cold War and it never will be.

Post # 248
Member
621 posts
Busy bee
  • Wedding: September 2019

View original reply
@ Sunfire   what is the basis of “choosing” these extreme groups? Cause there are extremes of every religion.  

How do you differentiate a man who had gone off the deep end and murdered for the sake of his religion without that religion promoting it? Should that group of church be punished for one deranged mans sin? 

Who gets to choose who is these “groups” that needs to be monitored? Are they impartial? Can they guarantee they have no bias?  

Is this surveillance forever? When would you think is the appropriate time for them to stop being monitored? 

What if the killers have no religion? Should we monitor base on.. what race? Gender? Socioeconomic affiliations? Their friends and family? 

If i monitor your home, could you say you are completely innocent?’can one shouting match with your Fiance result in us arresting him or yourself for abuse?  Can we be punished for profiling you and your spouse base on what we data mined your life would be?  Who would pay for these monitoring activities if the republicans are so against “more government”? 

I am against many things unconstitutional because greater individuals than I have deemed them important enough to imprint into our history and judicial system.  I done ‘t mess around with the constitution because I trust their judgment more than any of the politicians and people that are living today. 

Post # 249
Member
9966 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

View original reply
@ Katie-Didnt   I agree with you.  However, I disagree that that is what Trump would try to do or is suggesting take place.  The difference is that Trump says out loud what a lot of people are silently thinking.  The difference also is that Trump says out loud what is already going on, but covertly. 

He is being politically incorrect, maybe on purpose.  I think a lot of what he says is part of his strategy to bring in people, to vote for him, who were not passionate about Romney but wouldn’t vote for Obama and probably sat out the last election.  He is stirring up some people – taking a page out of the Clinton’s book but in reverse, so to speak.  Like reverse race-baiting.  Maybe.  This is all speculation on my part.  Too bad Hillary is so heinous because it would have been a good thing to have a woman as President.  Maybe one day a wonderful woman will run and become the 2nd woman President (if Hill wins this one).

Post # 250
Member
9966 posts
Buzzing Beekeeper
  • Wedding: September 2012

View original reply
@ forgotusername   I hear you; very good points you have made, all of them.  I honor the Constitution right along with you. 

It just hurts my heart when people get killed but perhaps it could have been prevented.  I guess that is just the price that has to be paid and the risk that is taken.

My emotional viewpoint on this monitoring issue does cloud my logic about it, I will admit.

Post # 251
Member
1183 posts
Bumble bee

As a British I’m yet to find anyone with mainstream political views who supports Trump.  Consensus over here is he’still a racist radical on a level with the English Defence League and other groups we consider to be thick, ignorant idiots. Even British conservatives think the man is a joke.

I asked my secondary students (13-14 years) to write about what’s wrong with the world and Donald Trump was listed alongside ISIS. They clarifies that they’re not the same but felt he was a threat to world peace. 

Post # 252
Member
1740 posts
Bumble bee
  • Wedding: June 2016

The cognitive dissonance on this thread is over-whelming.  Kodus to those of you who are trying to make logical connections, I admire the patience and respect you have demonstrated.  But you’re having a battle of wits with an unarmed person, and that is never successful.  

Post # 254
Member
1984 posts
Buzzing bee
  • Wedding: October 2017

View original reply
@ MelissainNC   wow resorting to insult because another doesn’t share your viewpoint. Very close minded and uncalled for!undecided

Post # 255
Member
1987 posts
Buzzing bee

View original reply
@MelissainNC   A sound process of thought and argumentation often yields conclusions with which one disagrees.  
View original reply
@MelissainNC  has extensive training and education and knows this well.  She knows that highly educated people often come to very different conclusions on important issues.  However, she also knows that participants in a productive discussion will all honor certain ground rules for how to discuss their disagreements: standards for empirical evidence, certain principles of internal consistency for an argument, etc.  Some people that want to discuss serious matters like politics on WB do not honor these ground rules.  It is not closed-minded to point out when this is happening.  Indeed, when this happens it can be very frustrating for the people who are honoring the ground rules, because when other people refuse to do so we lose the opportunity for possible advancements in discussion.

The topic ‘Who won the presidential debate?’ is closed to new replies.

Find Amazing Vendors