Republicans with honour

THE US election is just three months away, but Donald Trump’s campaign has hit rock bottom.

Things have gotten so bad for the celebrity billionaire that even top-of-the-shelf Republicans are turning on him.

A growing movement has launched for Republicans to line up behind Hillary Clinton, with party activists saying it’s time to put the country first.

On Tuesday, Rep Richard Hanna of New York became the first congressional Republican to announce he would vote for the Democratic presidential nominee over his own party’s.

In a widely-shared opinion piece, Mr Hanna said Mr Trump was “profoundly offensive and narcissistic... a world-class panderer, anything but a leader”. He went on to say he was “deeply flawed”, “self-involved” and “unrepentant”.

Citing the global controversy of Trump’s dispute with the Khan family, Mr Hanna concluded: “He is unfit to serve our party and cannot lead this country”, and confirmed he will vote for Mrs Clinton.

John Stubbs and Ricardo Reyes, who both worked in the White House under George W. Bush, are now actively recruiting others to back Hillary Clinton.

They founded a grassroots group, ‘Republicans for Clinton 2016’, saying the only way to defeat the “dangerous” and “completely irresponsible” nominee would be to cross parties for this election.

Former three-term Republican Senator Larry Pressler, Jeb Bush’s senior adviser Sally Bradshaw, Hewlett Packard Enterprise CEO Meg Whitman and former Treasury secretary for the Bush administration Hank Paulson have all also confirmed they will be voting for Hillary.

The polls are reflecting this growing sentiment, with Clinton breaking into a 10-point lead in today’s Fox News poll.

It all comes on the back of a disastrous week for the Republican presidential nominee, whose series of unfortunate actions have kept him in the spotlight for the wrong reasons.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/donald-trump-just-suffered-his-most-disastrous-week-yet/news-story/7ee923a9e8b625f23f5b490621727e79

list of reason at source

Got to support Rep Richard Hanna and the senators

that is the sort of Pollie you want
One that put the good of the nation before the party politics

veya_victaous wrote:Got to support Rep Richard Hanna and the senators

that is the sort of Pollie you want
One that put the good of the nation before the party politics

It's extremely heartening. I've also been seeing a lot from rank-and-file Republicans, many of them younger, who are disgusted by what's happened.

What we may be seeing is the beginning of the end of the two-party machine in American politics. If anti-Trump Republicans and Trump's contingent split, that will be major, but there are also people who were passionate Sanders supporters and now they're swelling the ranks of the Green Party (which might find it has to alter its platform a bit to keep them). On the conservative side, a number of anti-Trump Republicans have also joined (or at least are supporting) the Libertarian Party, which is really a natural fit for the type of conservative who doesn't mind gay marriage, equal rights, etc.

In the short term, that would mean a lot of easy elections for the Democrats, since they haven't been fractured nearly as badly this election season as the Republicans have. But as time goes on, you could see the Greens and Libertarians emerge as true forces to reckon with, and possibly some Green-Dem and Lib-Rep alliances in Congress (I'm shortening them in the hope that I'll be first to use the nicknames ...)

Ben Reilly wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:Got to support Rep Richard Hanna and the senators

that is the sort of Pollie you want
One that put the good of the nation before the party politics

It's extremely heartening. I've also been seeing a lot from rank-and-file Republicans, many of them younger, who are disgusted by what's happened.

What we may be seeing is the beginning of the end of the two-party machine in American politics. If anti-Trump Republicans and Trump's contingent split, that will be major, but there are also people who were passionate Sanders supporters and now they're swelling the ranks of the Green Party (which might find it has to alter its platform a bit to keep them). On the conservative side, a number of anti-Trump Republicans have also joined (or at least are supporting) the Libertarian Party, which is really a natural fit for the type of conservative who doesn't mind gay marriage, equal rights, etc.

In the short term, that would mean a lot of easy elections for the Democrats, since they haven't been fractured nearly as badly this election season as the Republicans have. But as time goes on, you could see the Greens and Libertarians emerge as true forces to reckon with, and possibly some Green-Dem and Lib-Rep alliances in Congress (I'm shortening them in the hope that I'll be first to use the nicknames ...)

Agree
i think the Time is coming for change, the people want it and neither party is willing to deleiver
New parties will rise If they cant give the people what they want.

News.com wrote:They founded a grassroots group, ‘Republicans for Clinton 2016’, saying the only way to defeat the “dangerous” and “completely irresponsible” nominee would be to cross parties for this election.

Much as I am a Democrat and would love the influx of new voters, I think this is the wrong course for Republicans...or, that is to say, conservatives in America.  I feel we are seeing what I have been predicting for several years now: the complete destruction of the Republican Party.

Since 1860, the Republican Party has been a rudderless ship.  After Lincoln, the party fell into a ‘dirty politics’ mode, where they developed the idea that politics was a pig trough, at which the stronger slopped and got fat.  Briefly, Ted Roosevelt lit a moral beacon, but after only two terms the Party returned to Taft, and Roosevelt was forced to start a third party, the Progressives.

Except for the brief reemergence of Coolidge and Hoover, the Republicans went quiet until after WWII, with a pretty good choice (all things considered) in Eisenhower.  From there it was downhill: sneaky-burglar Dick Nixon, drunk Gerald Ford, communist-troller Ronald Reagan, CIA manipulator George H. W. Bush (Bush I), and finally his son, little-boy-lost, George W. Bush (Bush II).

Then came the days of mendacity.  Republicans since Nixon had already become quite practiced at lying.  Under Reagan and Bush I, it was written protocol in the Republican manual, running guns to Iran and Nicaragua, and starting pet revolutions hither and yon.  Then it blossomed big-time with the ex-Bush I boys, Cheney and Rumsfeld, plus the Leo Strauss Neo-Cons, reincorporated into the Bush II administration: WMD’s in Iraq, Saddam responsible for 9-11, yellow-cake from Nigeria and so forth.  Always along with mendacity comes moral debauchery, and the Iraq War showed us the worst of Republicanism: kidnapping, rendition, rape, torture murder and war crimes on high.

At this point, the Republicans ceased to be a political party and became a corrosive, divisive political critic—liars still, but only invested in criticism of the other guy: Obama wasn’t born in the US; Obama is a Muslim, death panels in the Affordable Care Act, secret plots to take your guns, Benghazi and Hillary’s emails.  And of course, under cover of this evil darkness, they let all of the cats loose: white supremacy, racism regarding Obama, sexism regarding women, Hispanics are taking over.  This then spawned radical Republicanism: voter suppression, disregard for the Constitution, hatred for Muslims and Mexicans, murder of doctors performing abortions, and indeed, anti-abortion laws, intolerance for veterans and the disabled, culminating in Donald Trump, calling for a wall with Mexico, prohibition of a religion, insulting women, spitting on veterans, war heroes and gold star families, and a return to nuclear warfare, with no understanding of mutually assured destruction.

Now, that’s the reality of the history of the Republican Party.  Do you think they are still a viable force in American politics?  If anything, they have become a pure expression of the dark side in all of us...every dark thought we ever had, every misdeed, every lie or act of cheating we ever undertook…put it all into the Republican bin.  Do we need a political party that represents the worst in us all?  As Senator Roman Hruska once argued about mediocrity, is evil too “entitled to a little representation”?

How could we ever have another Republican in charge?   The so-called backlash is a rejection of Republicans in Congress, misdirected into the puke-strewn Donald Trump campaign for the presidency.

What we need is a new and dignified conservative party, along the lines of Nobel Prize laurate Friedrich Hayek.  I'm no conservative, so I'll leave the details up to them.  But at least return the dignity.  The rotten shell of the Republican Party is the wrong vehicle for a return to conservatism and the two-party system.

Yeah Quill, I really think there's going to be a Republican Party that will either be controlled by the pro- or anti-Trump faction, and that the other faction will form something else (or if the Trumpers keep the party, the dignified faction might join the Libertarians).

A recent poll found the Libertarians polling at 10 percent and the Greens at 5, so they're already pretty close to relevance, at least nationally. They'll need to work a lot harder to get members in Congress, obviously.

Ben Reilly wrote:Yeah Quill, I really think there's going to be a Republican Party that will either be controlled by the pro- or anti-Trump faction, and that the other faction will form something else (or if the Trumpers keep the party, the dignified faction might join the Libertarians).

A recent poll found the Libertarians polling at 10 percent and the Greens at 5, so they're already pretty close to relevance, at least nationally. They'll need to work a lot harder to get members in Congress, obviously.

Serious question and hypothetically

Would you fear Trump gaining power as i would for the sake of many minority groups?

THE LIBERTARIANS would seem to be the natural receptacle for disaffected Repub's to flee to, if they're looking for an alternative ???


After all, the Libertarians are still a conservative minded group, even if more "progressive" and less radical than the Repub's..

They probably have more in common with the mainstream "Liberalism" centre-right conservative parties in Canada, Australia and NZ than the Repub's have these days; (even though these parties also have their ultra-right-wing factions that ally themselves with the 'Teabagger' Repug's -- only need to think of Tony Abbott in Oz, and Stephen Harper in Canada..).      

I don't think that we are seeing the demise of the Republican Party or the two-party system, both of which are fairly stable fixtures in US politics. Trump is something of an aberration that will be corrected within the GOP after this election cycle. We will see a very different primary season in 2020, with Republicans adopting something like the Democratic model of having superdelegates to act as a check against demagogues and unelectable outsiders.

Every nation has its progressives and conservatives, who struggle in a perpetual tug of war over the center field of public sentiment. The Republicans could have picked a real conservative like Cruz, or another narcissistic bully like Christie, but their coalition has been breaking apart ever since GW Bush made a mess of things. Libertarians represent a very narrow base for the American right wing, and so do evangelicals. What Republicans need to do is work on reassembling the coalition that has proven successful in the past--religious (social) conservatives, fiscal conservatives, pro-security (military, police), blue collar, white supremacists, the elderly, big business, and xenophobes. Third party politics only serves to divide and weaken that coalition.

The Democratic coalition is, in some respects, even more divided. It consists of social progressives, pro-government, college-educated, ethnic minorities, unionists, the young, environmentalists, and xenophiles. My impression is that Democrats do better in times of social stability, because people are more open to change then. We are probably going to face even greater instability in the future, so I am not as optimistic as some that we are seeing the end of Republicans or conservative politics. Progressives and liberals are going to find that their policies are not as easy a sell as they think they are.

Copernicus wrote:I don't think that we are seeing the demise of the Republican Party or the two-party system, both of which are fairly stable fixtures in US politics. Trump is something of an aberration that will be corrected within the GOP after this election cycle. We will see a very different primary season in 2020, with Republicans adopting something like the Democratic model of having superdelegates to act as a check against demagogues and unelectable outsiders.

I have to respectfully disagree with you there.  The Republican Party is not that well established, having come on the scene in 1854.  Slavery was the issue then, an racism is a big part of the issue today.

The problem isn't Trump; he is the effect.  The problem started with a series of blows: most of all the lies and the Iraq II war...which can be laid to the Bushes.  In school, we were taught we were the good guys; come to find out we are murderers, rapists and torturers. But the double wammy was the election of a black president, what with the southern startegy and Lee Atwater.  The average Republican suffered a loss of confidence, and a loss in the prestige of the white, American male.  

Most of all Republicans lie.  This, psychologically, drives deep down into their souls that they really have no substance within them.  These are big and deep cuts, of the magnitude that was felt in 1860, which established the Republican Party.

Now we have this tremendous restlessness.  But it has been little understood, even by those involved.  It has been misdirected into the Trump camp, which offers candy, but no real nourishment.  Left to stew, this group has no choice but to be done with the Republican Party as Republicans once were with whigs..

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Yeah Quill, I really think there's going to be a Republican Party that will either be controlled by the pro- or anti-Trump faction, and that the other faction will form something else (or if the Trumpers keep the party, the dignified faction might join the Libertarians).

A recent poll found the Libertarians polling at 10 percent and the Greens at 5, so they're already pretty close to relevance, at least nationally. They'll need to work a lot harder to get members in Congress, obviously.

Serious question and hypothetically

Would you fear Trump gaining power as i would for the sake of many minority groups?

A lot of people have been pointing out how America's governmental institutions are quite robust and would likely prevent Trump from doing a lot of the things he says he'll do. For example, the Muslim ban would never happen.

But I do worry about what he might try to do, yes.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Serious question and hypothetically

Would you fear Trump gaining power as i would for the sake of many minority groups?

A lot of people have been pointing out how America's governmental institutions are quite robust and would likely prevent Trump from doing a lot of the things he says he'll do. For example, the Muslim ban would never happen.

But I do worry about what he might try to do, yes.

A lot of people thought Hindenburg would stop Hitler, too. I think we are underestimating the restlessness of the American people right now.

Trying to win elections makes some candidates move in strange ways.  Sometimes there was a reciprocal agreement between parties, where, say, if the party X  knew they had no chance of winning a seat in a borough, the members would  vote for another party Y which had a good chance.

Then in another constituency at the other end of the country, where party Y had no chance of winning, they would all vote for party X.

If both parties managed to keep out a mutual enemy each time, all the better.

Unethical? Hell yes, but not illegal.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Serious question and hypothetically

Would you fear Trump gaining power as i would for the sake of many minority groups?

A lot of people have been pointing out how America's governmental institutions are quite robust and would likely prevent Trump from doing a lot of the things he says he'll do. For example, the Muslim ban would never happen.

But I do worry about what he might try to do, yes.

A lot of people thought Hindenburg would stop Hitler, too.  I think we are underestimating the restlessness of the American people right now.

Clinton with a 10-point lead in the polls and a 75 percent chance of winning according to expert forecaster Nate Silver?

Maybe a few Americans are restless, but there aren't nearly enough of them to put Trump into office.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

A lot of people thought Hindenburg would stop Hitler, too.  I think we are underestimating the restlessness of the American people right now.

Clinton with a 10-point lead in the polls and a 75 percent chance of winning according to expert forecaster Nate Silver?

Maybe a few Americans are restless, but there aren't nearly enough of them to put Trump into office.

Oh, I have no doubt that Clinton is going to win, given the array as it is.  But the question isn't whether Clinton is going to win, but whether the Republican Party is dead.

We still have the disaffected, particularly on the right.  Are they going to regroup with a damaged Republican Party that now has stood for killing of children, torture and rape?  They were raised to believe that their country was the righteous group...the ones who wore the white hat and saved women and children.  The Republican Party let them down.

And, they are predominately white males, who see their country slip away to, first the negro president, then to Hispanics, who back their ex-wife...fcs!!  Trump's slogan, Make America Great Again is an unfinished phrase:  Make America Great Again...like it was before the black guy took it away from us and gave it to the shrew.

These people have to die of a natural death, or be reconstructed somehow.  The majority of Americans will never support their camp again.

Copernicus wrote:I don't think that we are seeing the demise of the Republican Party or the two-party system, both of which are fairly stable fixtures in US politics.  Trump is something of an aberration that will be corrected within the GOP after this election cycle.  We will see a very different primary season in 2020, with Republicans adopting something like the Democratic model of having superdelegates to act as a check against demagogues and unelectable outsiders. 
Every nation has its progressives and conservatives, who struggle in a perpetual tug of war over the center field of public sentiment.  The Republicans could have picked a real conservative like Cruz, or another narcissistic bully like Christie, but their coalition has been breaking apart ever since GW Bush made a mess of things.  Libertarians represent a very narrow base for the American right wing, and so do evangelicals.  What Republicans need to do is work on reassembling the coalition that has proven successful in the past--religious (social) conservatives, fiscal conservatives, pro-security (military, police), blue collar, white supremacists, the elderly, big business, and xenophobes.  Third party politics only serves to divide and weaken that coalition.
The Democratic coalition is, in some respects, even more divided.  It consists of social progressives, pro-government, college-educated, ethnic minorities, unionists, the young, environmentalists, and xenophiles.  My impression is that Democrats do better in times of social stability, because people are more open to change then.  We are probably going to face even greater instability in the future, so I am not as optimistic as some that we are seeing the end of Republicans or conservative politics.  Progressives and liberals are going to find that their policies are not as easy a sell as they think they are.  

While I get the angst and energy of Veya and his generation {even if it's from some far-far-away place} there's a lot of equal discontent and pure disgust for our 'DO NOTHING' political parties here in America and nothing has proven that to be true then the steady movement of people changing over to the Independent/Un-Declared from both sides of our polarized 2 party system.
Some interesting 'PEW' results that I found > > >  










This was the most telling ...the shift in IDEOLOGIES >





http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/section-9-trends-in-party-affiliation/

The only thing I would add is: the "do-nothing" element is the Republican Party.  First, a lot of the conservative Republican effort is devoted to preventing regulations, anyway.  But, second, when the black president was elected, the Republicans specifically established the McConnell-Boehner doctrine, proclaiming that they would shut government down as long as a black man was president. True to form, the Republican Congress has yet to pass a War Bill that would permit the US to go after ISIL, despite Obama having sent one up to the hill--so much for their passion to fight terrorism!

The McConnell-Boehner doctrine redoubled the Republican resolve to close down government, including a few shut-downs for strategic things like passing a budget.  So, the "do-nothing" aspect of politicians cannot be laid at the feet of the generic 'politician' or "political parties".  It was a distinctly Republican thing.

Moreover, the Republicans were quite outspoken about it at the time.  Does anyone remember Senator Rand Paul's threat to filibuster the passage of a bill raising the debt limit, and thereby shuting down the government?  "Do-nothing" is a tag one can put on Republicans, but it does not describe Democrats at all.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


Serious question and hypothetically

Would you fear Trump gaining power as i would for the sake of many minority groups?

A lot of people have been pointing out how America's governmental institutions are quite robust and would likely prevent Trump from doing a lot of the things he says he'll do. For example, the Muslim ban would never happen.

But I do worry about what he might try to do, yes.

So you would admit to having a reasoned fear if in power then?

So is it unreasonable that some groups lik women, homosexuals, ethnic and religious minorities have a reasoned fear of islamists, Neo Conservative Christians, Far Right, and Far left entering their country?
Thus vastly increasing the possibilities of hate crime and disharmony in any given country

Original Quill wrote:The only thing I would add is: the "do-nothing" element is the Republican Party.  First, a lot of the conservative Republican effort is devoted to preventing regulations, anyway.  But, second, when the black president was elected, the Republicans established the McConnell-Boehner doctrine, proclaiming that they would shut government down as long as a black man was president.

The McConnell-Boehner doctrine redoubled the Republican resolve to close down government, including a few shut-downs for strategic things like passing a budget.  So, the "do-nothing" aspect of politicians cannot be laid at the feet of the generic 'politician' or "political parties".  It was a distinctly Republican thing.

Moreover, the Republicans were quiet outspoken about it at the time.  Does anyone remember Senator Rand Paul's threat to filibuster the passage of a bill raising the debt limit, and thereby shut down the government?  "Do-nothing" is a tag one can put on Republicans, but it does not describe Democrats at all.

What you say is true ...but the Democrats have had their fair share of pulling the filibuster when they so chose too >

But the 'T-Bagger Party' platform and entire reason to obtain their power numbers seemed to have gotten lost along the way from 'Jobs' - 'Jobs' - 'Jobs' to the continued attack on equality issues: - ACA - Prop 8 - PP - Birth Control - and the 11+ anti-abortion bills that kept every thing tied up!
Just caused stagnation and not much getting accomplished, period.  

didge wrote:So is it unreasonable that some groups lik women, homosexuals, ethnic and religious minorities have a reasoned fear of islamists, Neo Conservative Christians, Far Right, and Far left entering their country?
Thus vastly increasing the possibilities of hate crime and disharmony in any given country

We have an open society, which means while we willingly redress crimes already committed, we are not in the habit of curtailing the rights of the innocent so that the guilty few may be apprehended.  See, Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Such prior restraint is called a closed society.  It would be a fundamental change in our presumptions about who we are, not to mention the substantial changes in the US Constitution, were we to start limiting open freedom.

4EVER2 wrote:

Original Quill wrote:The only thing I would add is: the "do-nothing" element is the Republican Party.  First, a lot of the conservative Republican effort is devoted to preventing regulations, anyway.  But, second, when the black president was elected, the Republicans established the McConnell-Boehner doctrine, proclaiming that they would shut government down as long as a black man was president.

The McConnell-Boehner doctrine redoubled the Republican resolve to close down government, including a few shut-downs for strategic things like passing a budget.  So, the "do-nothing" aspect of politicians cannot be laid at the feet of the generic 'politician' or "political parties".  It was a distinctly Republican thing.

Moreover, the Republicans were quiet outspoken about it at the time.  Does anyone remember Senator Rand Paul's threat to filibuster the passage of a bill raising the debt limit, and thereby shut down the government?  "Do-nothing" is a tag one can put on Republicans, but it does not describe Democrats at all.

What you say is true ...but the Democrats have had their fair share of pulling the filibuster when they so chose too >

But the 'T-Bagger Party' platform and entire reason to obtain their power numbers seemed to have gotten lost along the way from 'Jobs' - 'Jobs' - 'Jobs' to the continued attack on equality issues: - ACA - Prop 8 - PP - Birth Control - and the 11+ anti-abortion bills that kept every thing tied up!
Just caused stagnation and not much getting accomplished, period.  

In that post you wrote too instead of to
In your sig you wrote to instead of too
Is it your accent?
Sorry 4EVER, I notice all typos (except my own occasional ones) and they distract me, somewhat.

Oh, you'll be kept extremely busy with that font changing over to(o) red around this community! 
Long story short - I'm tryiing some new improved Meds and they are having fun with my reading and typing (hand eye coordination) ...so skip my posts - won't hurt my feelings any!
I've been told I post like a child - that my posts are pure jibberish - that I'm a horrible member and the other resident 'GRAMMAR POLICE' used to troll my posts but no others - that I use too many STUPID smilies and WHY THE FUCK AM I WASTING MY TIME POSTING!

Hahaha    Grammar nazi, that's me!

I read all your posts, 4EVER. You're a deep thinker and very expressive.
Goodnight, lady. x

Original Quill wrote:

didge wrote:So is it unreasonable that some groups lik women, homosexuals, ethnic and religious minorities have a reasoned fear of islamists, Neo Conservative Christians, Far Right, and Far left entering their country?
Thus vastly increasing the possibilities of hate crime and disharmony in any given country

We have an open society, which means while we willingly redress crimes already committed, we are not in the habit of curtailing the rights of the innocent so that the guilty few may be apprehended.  See, Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Such prior restraint is called a closed society.  It would be a fundamental change in our presumptions about who we are, not to mention the substantial changes in the US Constitution, were we to start limiting open freedom.

That is not answering my point

I never said about having a closed society but the views and geuine fears some people will have based on how they are looked at by the beliefs of some groups of people
Some constantly get castigated over claims of fears and I am asking around if they are reasoned of which in this case they would be, but sadly the regressive mind set, by some on here, will either call them bigoted, Islamophobes etc.
What happens with the regressive mind set is then end up promoting inequality as they superscede the rights of some over others

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

We have an open society, which means while we willingly redress crimes already committed, we are not in the habit of curtailing the rights of the innocent so that the guilty few may be apprehended.  See, Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies.

Such prior restraint is called a closed society.  It would be a fundamental change in our presumptions about who we are, not to mention the substantial changes in the US Constitution, were we to start limiting open freedom.

That is not answering my point

I never said about having a closed society but the views and geuine fears some people will have based on how they are looked at by the beliefs of some groups of people

What about those views?  You are constantly criticizing others for not answering your questions, yet you never ask a question.

didge wrote:Some constantly get castigated over claims of fears and I am asking around if they are reasoned of which in this case they would be, but sadly the regressive mind set, by some on here, will either call them bigoted, Islamophobes etc.

What does 'reasoned' mean?  You are using a noun as a verb, and you leave us to guess your meaning.  Do you mean 'well taken'?  Are you asking if "claims of fears" are 'well taken'?  Well, no matter...you answer your own question when you say "which in this case they would be..." but you don't tell us what they are!?  These are the points we are supposed to address?    

didge wrote:What happens with the regressive mind set is [who?] then end up promoting inequality as they superscede the rights of some over others

This makes absolutely no sense.  The sentence lacks a subject (I have placed a 'who' where the subject would ordinarily go).  If you can't frame a question with proper grammar, how do you have the nerve to criticize others when it comes to understanding you?

I despair for UK education.

Original Quill wrote:

What about those views?  You are constantly criticizing others for not answering your questions, yet you never ask a question.

What does 'reasoned' mean?  You are using a noun as a verb, and you leave us to guess your meaning.  Do you mean 'well taken'?  Are you asking if "claims of fears" are 'well taken'?  Well, no matter...you answer your own question when you say "which in this case they would be..." but you don't tell us what they are!?  These are the points we are supposed to address?    
This makes absolutely no sense.  The sentence lacks a subject (I have placed a 'who' where the subject would ordinarily go).  If you can't frame a question with proper grammar, how do you have the nerve to criticize others when it comes to understanding you?

I despair for UK education.

You simply have absolutely no idea.

Ben for example rightfully is fearful of Trump obtaining power.
That is a reasoned concern.

A women, homosexual, someone from religious minority like Jews or other Muslims for example, could have a reasoned fear of Islamists entering the country, even more so with the continued rise of hate crimes

It makes perfect sense to people who are rational unless of course you do not think Ben is tratonal for having a reasoned fear of Trump

He answered with reasons, as just have I, because Islamists are prejudiced against the groups I have listed.

That vastly increases the chances of further and more hate crimes, discrimination, prejudice within a society

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What about those views?  You are constantly criticizing others for not answering your questions, yet you never ask a question.

What does 'reasoned' mean?  You are using a noun as a verb, and you leave us to guess your meaning.  Do you mean 'well taken'?  Are you asking if "claims of fears" are 'well taken'?  Well, no matter...you answer your own question when you say "which in this case they would be..." but you don't tell us what they are!?  These are the points we are supposed to address?    
This makes absolutely no sense.  The sentence lacks a subject (I have placed a 'who' where the subject would ordinarily go).  If you can't frame a question with proper grammar, how do you have the nerve to criticize others when it comes to understanding you?

I despair for UK education.

You simply have absolutely no idea.

Ben for example rightfully is fearful of Trump obtaining power.
That is a reasoned concern.

A women, homosexual, someone from religious minority like Jews or other Muslims for example, could have a reasoned fear of Islamists entering the country, even more so with the continued rise of hate crimes

It makes perfect sense to people who are rational unless of course you do not think Ben is tratonal for having a reasoned fear of Trump

He answered with reasons, as just have I, because Islamists are prejudiced against the groups I have listed.

That vastly increases the chances of further and more hate crimes, discrimination, prejudice within a society

Now you are using "reasoned" as an adjective. Before you were using it as a verb. But your real grammatical problem is that you leave out subjects and predicates of sentences altogether. It's sloppy didge, like your reasoning.

Let's discuss this for a second. The only time you post a fully intelligible message is when you post one of your tiresome c&p jobs--at least some editor has looked the copy over. Otherwise, when you draft your own passages you do so in such chaotic and disheveled fashion that your reader must literally fill in most of the gaps for you. That is why people don't answer your questions...they don't understand you!

Do you not take the time to read over your posts before entering them? People who reason carefully, also carefully review their work before sending it on. I realize that there are times when typos and odd typing errors--even honest mistakes--take place, and I'm perfectly tolerant of them. I make them too...that's why, often, you see a revision note at the bottom of my posts. But if you don't care enough to look them over before hitting 'Send', then you probably don't care enough about your reasoning either.

You have several, what I call, longitudinal messages that you most often want to convey. These are long-time gripes, like sympathy for Israel, Palestinian-bashing, relating criticism for modern Israel to the holocaust (Antisemitism). You appear to be so anxious to get at those melodies that you don't stop to tune your violin.

So I say, pay a little attention to your writing so we can better understand you.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:


You simply have absolutely no idea.

Ben for example rightfully is fearful of Trump obtaining power.
That is a reasoned concern.

A women, homosexual, someone from religious minority like Jews or other Muslims for example, could have a reasoned fear of Islamists entering the country, even more so with the continued rise of hate crimes

It makes perfect sense to people who are rational unless of course you do not think Ben is tratonal for having a reasoned fear of Trump

He answered with reasons, as just have I, because Islamists are prejudiced against the groups I have listed.

That vastly increases the chances of further and more hate crimes, discrimination, prejudice within a society

Now you are using "reasoned" as an adjective.  Before you were using it as a verb.  But your real grammatical problem is that you leave out subjects and predicates of sentences altogether.  It's sloppy didge, like your reasoning.

Let's discuss this for a second.  The only time you post a fully intelligible message is when you post one of your tiresome c&p jobs--at least some editor has looked the copy over.  Otherwise, when you draft your own passages you do so in such chaotic and disheveled fashion that your reader must literally fill in most of the gaps for you.  That is why people don't answer your questions...they don't understand you!

Do you not take the time to read over your posts before entering them?  People who reason carefully, also carefully review their work before sending it on.  I realize that there are times when typos and odd typing errors--even honest mistakes--take place, and I'm perfectly tolerant of them.  I make them too...that's why, often, you see a revision note at the bottom of my posts.  But if you don't care enough to look them over before hitting 'Send', then you probably don't care enough about your reasoning either.

You have several, what I call, longitudinal messages that you most often want to convey.  These are long-time gripes, like sympathy for Israel, Palestinian-bashing, relating criticism for modern Israel to the holocaust (Antisemitism).  You appear to be so anxious to get at those melodies that you don't stop to tune your violin.

So I say, pay a little attention to your writing so we can better understand you.

No I just have assumed you understand islamists beliefs.

Clearly I guess you do not.

Do you know that their beliefs discrrminate and are prejudiced against the current equality laws that we have?

I am speaking about a specific set of beliefs, one of which effects many other Muslims as well as they are not consider Muslims by these Islamists.

This really shows by your poor answer that fails to grasp this.

So lets understand what you know first of all

It also shows you fail to understand the possible percenatges of increased risk of hate, of which will have a circular effect also

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

What about those views?  You are constantly criticizing others for not answering your questions, yet you never ask a question.

What does 'reasoned' mean?  You are using a noun as a verb, and you leave us to guess your meaning.  Do you mean 'well taken'?  Are you asking if "claims of fears" are 'well taken'?  Well, no matter...you answer your own question when you say "which in this case they would be..." but you don't tell us what they are!?  These are the points we are supposed to address?    
This makes absolutely no sense.  The sentence lacks a subject (I have placed a 'who' where the subject would ordinarily go).  If you can't frame a question with proper grammar, how do you have the nerve to criticize others when it comes to understanding you?

I despair for UK education.

You simply have absolutely no idea.

Ben for example rightfully is fearful of Trump obtaining power.
That is a reasoned concern.

A women, homosexual, someone from religious minority like Jews or other Muslims for example, could have a reasoned fear of Islamists entering the country, even more so with the continued rise of hate crimes

It makes perfect sense to people who are rational unless of course you do not think Ben is tratonal for having a reasoned fear of Trump

He answered with reasons, as just have I, because Islamists are prejudiced against the groups I have listed.

That vastly increases the chances of further and more hate crimes, discrimination, prejudice within a society

America is a country that trusts democracy and its laws, and is not in the business of "cultivating" society with a particular goal in mind.

When we don't like the ideas of one group or another, we do our best to defeat them at the polls.

Also wanted to ask, Didge -- how can you tell someone is an Islamist?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


You simply have absolutely no idea.

Ben for example rightfully is fearful of Trump obtaining power.
That is a reasoned concern.

A women, homosexual, someone from religious minority like Jews or other Muslims for example, could have a reasoned fear of Islamists entering the country, even more so with the continued rise of hate crimes

It makes perfect sense to people who are rational unless of course you do not think Ben is tratonal for having a reasoned fear of Trump

He answered with reasons, as just have I, because Islamists are prejudiced against the groups I have listed.

That vastly increases the chances of further and more hate crimes, discrimination, prejudice within a society

America is a country that trusts democracy and its laws, and is not in the business of "cultivating" society with a particular goal in mind.

When we don't like the ideas of one group or another, we do our best to defeat them at the polls.

All irrelevant to the point on a reasoned fear which you admitted to having

Are you saying a homosexual is being unreasonable to be fearful of the possibility of a increased risk of hate crimes and discrimination due to more Islamists entering he country (and I stress Islamists, those with a neo-conservative religious political belief, which is not all Muslims by the way, ).?

Ben Reilly wrote:Also wanted to ask, Didge -- how can you tell someone is an Islamist?

By their religious political beliefs.

For example a follower of wahhabism

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Also wanted to ask, Didge -- how can you tell someone is an Islamist?

By their religious political beliefs.

For example a follower of wahhabism

So they have to have some record of Islamism?

Didge wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


You simply have absolutely no idea.

Ben for example rightfully is fearful of Trump obtaining power.
That is a reasoned concern.

A women, homosexual, someone from religious minority like Jews or other Muslims for example, could have a reasoned fear of Islamists entering the country, even more so with the continued rise of hate crimes

It makes perfect sense to people who are rational unless of course you do not think Ben is tratonal for having a reasoned fear of Trump

He answered with reasons, as just have I, because Islamists are prejudiced against the groups I have listed.

That vastly increases the chances of further and more hate crimes, discrimination, prejudice within a society

America is a country that trusts democracy and its laws, and is not in the business of "cultivating" society with a particular goal in mind.

When we don't like the ideas of one group or another, we do our best to defeat them at the polls.

All irrelevant to the point on a reasoned fear which you admitted to having

Are you saying a homosexual is being unreasonable to be fearful of the possibility of a increased risk of hate crimes and discrimination due to more Islamists entering he country (and I stress Islamists, those with a neo-conservative religious political belief, which is not all Muslims by the way, ).?

No, but in other posts you suggest that this fear is a reason to stop people from coming into the country. That kind of fear is why racists lock their cars when they see black people walking by, or pass laws in which it's legal for a police officer to demand to see paperwork showing that someone of Latino heritage is in the U.S. legally.

As progressive and egalitarian as you like to act, you're actually a true right-winger in that you allow overblown fears to shape your views on public policy.

Ben Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:

All irrelevant to the point on a reasoned fear which you admitted to having

Are you saying a homosexual is being unreasonable to be fearful of the possibility of a increased risk of hate crimes and discrimination due to more Islamists entering he country (and I stress Islamists, those with a neo-conservative religious political belief, which is not all Muslims by the way, ).?

No, but in other posts you suggest that this fear is a reason to stop people from coming into the country. That kind of fear is why racists lock their cars when they see black people walking by, or pass laws in which it's legal for a police officer to demand to see paperwork showing that someone of Latino heritage is in the U.S. legally.

As progressive and egalitarian as you like to act, you're actually a true right-winger in that you allow overblown fears to shape your views on public policy.

No that is not what I am suggesting at all and again you digress.
I never said or even asked you about Trump if he would indeed become or had a chance of being President.
I asked you whether you had a fear based off he did.
You expressed that you did.
Racists who locvk their cars are doing so off a prejudiced that is unfounded and a poor sterotype.
Is it a poor sterotype to reason and understand that Islamists are prejudiced against Homosexuals?
No, as this is a major aspect of their beliefs, just as it would be the same for evangical neo conservative Christians, of which the same would apply here
Hence why I am asking you the following which you have done everything to avoid answering
So try again
Are you saying a homosexual is being unreasonable to be fearful of the possibility of a increased risk of hate crimes and discrimination due to more Islamists entering he country (and I stress Islamists, those with a neo-conservative religious political belief, which is not all Muslims by the way, ).?