Who Are The Trump Voters?

[mtangelsfan]

Never underestimate mtangelsfan's sensitive little ego and lack of sense of humor.

[/quote

your idea of humor is simply insulting people who disagree with you.

You do this a lot and then don't get why people say you come off belittling and arrogant.

[mtangelsfan]

They don't give a damn that Trump might be pro-choice or not sufficiently religious enough. They just want someone who will yell, insult and offend people on  their behalf. These are the people who listen  to right-wing talk radio for hours on end. They hate the Republican leadership who they believe have foisted (in their minds) "liberal" presidential candidates on them like McCain and  Romney.

They just want to see the world burn. 

 

Why so angry?

 

Aside from what others have already pointed out (nobody has voted for anyone) I find this post ironic.  One complaint from the left regarding Republicans is that they vote lock step on issues.  So now a guy who tosses many of the Republicans social stances on their ear becomes popular and they are accused of being lock step again.

 

Which is it?

[Angelsjunky]

 

your idea of humor is simply insulting people who disagree with you.

You do this a lot and then don't get why people say you come off belittling and arrogant.

 

 

 

Who is "people"? Why don't you speak for yourself without trying to bring hypothetical other people in? Do you need them to make your point? Or are you talking about broad groups, like Republicans or fundie Christians? I generally don't insult individuals.

[mtangelsfan]

Who is "people"? Why don't you speak for yourself without trying to bring hypothetical other people in? Do you need them to make your point? Or are you talking about broad groups, like Republicans or fundie Christians? I generally don't insult individuals.

 

What is the difference?

[Angelsjunky]

The difference is subtle but important and may require more back-and-forth than you or I are willing or wanting to engage in. But in short, I generally don't attack or insult individuals. I might jab a bit, but I don't attack or insult you, the human being. That said, I might attack or insult beliefs and ideologies that you hold dear. But that isn't you, the human individual.

[Angelsjunky]

On a different note:

 

 

I think you could replace "USA" with "Republican Party" and it would be equally true.

[Jay]

The libs are freeeeeeaking out

[Jason]

Who said Trump was a Conservative? I don't consider him one.

[red321]

not really

[mtangelsfan]

The difference is subtle but important and may require more back-and-forth than you or I are willing or wanting to engage in. But in short, I generally don't attack or insult individuals. I might jab a bit, but I don't attack or insult you, the human being. That said, I might attack or insult beliefs and ideologies that you hold dear. But that isn't you, the human individual.

 

Please, you are playing with semantics.  I doubt you would feel the same if someone made blanket insults about african-americans, homosexuals etc...................

 

The idea that any group of people all think and believe the same exact way is simply lazy reasoning. 

 

Let me give you a couple of examples.........

 

I could say that Adam is a jerk.  But if I said all white dudes living in Mission Viejo were jerks, I am probably wrong.

 

or..............  IEBruin is an a-hole but if I said all hispanics living in the IE were a-holes I am probably wrong.

[Jason]

A Trump presidency is a very scary thought. I bet he would be way more executive order crazy than the current king.

This is why I wouldn't even vote for him with your ballot

[Adam]

Would they shitcan the Oscars if Trump won?

[Angelsjunky]

OK, I guess we're going for it...

 

Please, you are playing with semantics.  I doubt you would feel the same if someone made blanket insults about african-americans, homosexuals etc...................

 

The idea that any group of people all think and believe the same exact way is simply lazy reasoning. 

 

Let me give you a couple of examples.........

 

I could say that Adam is a jerk.  But if I said all white dudes living in Mission Viejo were jerks, I am probably wrong.

 

or..............  IEBruin is an a-hole but if I said all hispanics living in the IE were a-holes I am probably wrong.

 

Blanket statements about blacks and homosexuals are very different than statements about Christians and Republicans. You see the difference, right? They are different types of categories.

 

But yeah, I completely agree with your second sentence. Although I think "Christianity" is much more diverse than "fundamentalist Christian" and that fundamentalist Christians do hold certain beliefs in common, and thus we can make some blanket statements (although I like to be flexible to change). For instance, we can say that "fundamentalist Christians generally take a literalist view of the Bible," right? Isn't that generally true? But I will give you that I probably iron out too many wrinkles with the term "fundamentalist Christian," when there is probably more diversity than I realize.

 

As for your examples, of course. Not only are there always exceptions, but everyone is different (to some degree). That said, you're shifting this slightly. "Adam is a jerk/all white dudes are jerks" isn't really a great comp for my comments on fundamentalists or Republicans. Also, I try to use words like "in general" or "many" or "most."

 

But again, this is aside from the point I was trying to make. I can say that I generally dislike fundamentalist Christian ideology and find it backward and out-dated, but this doesn't mean I dislike you or even think that your religious views are entirely or even mostly fundamentalist.

 

Anyhow, it seems you don't like generalizations. I get and can empathize to a point. I don't mind using generations IF we use them loosely and are willing and able to recognize them for what they are.

[mtangelsfan]

Blanket statements about blacks and homosexuals are very different than statements about Christians and Republicans. You see the difference, right? They are different types of categories.

 

You are making up some imaginary line of demarcation.  The only difference is that you have decided they are.

[Angelsjunky]

Blanket statements about blacks and homosexuals are very different than statements about Christians and Republicans. You see the difference, right? They are different types of categories.

 

You are making up some imaginary line of demarcation.  The only difference is that you have decided they are.

 

Black/African-American is a race.

 

Homosexuals are people of same-sexual orientation.

 

Christians are those who hold to a certain religious belief.

 

Republicans are those that hold to a certain political belief.

 

Is the line so imaginary? The first two are biological and physical. The second two are ideological. One can disagree with an ideology, even find it abhorrent. But can one disagree with something that is biological and physical in nature?

[mtangelsfan]

Black/African-American is a race.

 

Homosexuals are people of same-sexual orientation.

 

Christians are those who hold to a certain religious belief.

 

Republicans are those that hold to a certain political belief.

 

Is the line so imaginary? The first two are biological and physical. The second two are ideological. One can disagree with an ideology, even find it abhorrent. But can one disagree with something that is biological and physical in nature?

 

and yet the Civil Rights act protects religious beliefs and treats them the same as race, gender, etc.

 

You want to draw the line because Christian belief is something you don't agree with.  Since you do not agree with it you find a reason to make some differention from things you care about. 

 

When you make blanket statements about an entire group of people (whatever group) you show limited intellect or just an unwillingness to delve into it enough to learn the differences.

 

I know Christians who are smarter than most people on this board and I know others that are as dumb as posts.  You see what you want to see.

[Angelsjunky]

I didn't say they shouldn't be protected by the Civil Right act, just pointing out the obvious: that race and religion are very different. One is something you are born with, that is intrinsic to your biology, while the other is something you are taught or choose to believe. Its not unlike the difference between your arm and your shirt.

 

Also, as I've said before I don't have an issue with Christianity or religion as a whole, just the more fundamentalist variations. There are some brilliant Christian thinkers, such as Thomas Merton or Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or Matthew Fox, although to me "brilliance" and "fundamentalism" are generally mutually exclusive, or at least fundamentalism is a form of ignorance that occludes brilliance.

 

So again, I'm not making pejorative blanket statements about Christians, although I am to some degree about fundamentalists. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong and there are some brilliant fundamentalists out there. But again, to me the nature of fundamentalism is a form of ignorance and narrowness of thinking, and thus antithetical to brilliance.

[mtangelsfan]

Please, you are making blanket statements.  If you want to qualify them, have at it but it doesn't make it any less lazy. 

 

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about if you throw all bible believing Christians into one pot.

 

RC Sproul, JI Packer, John Piper are just as brilliant as any you have spoken of and they could out-think you in a heart beat.

[Angelsjunky]

Please, you are making blanket statements.  If you want to qualify them, have at it but it doesn't make it any less lazy. 

 

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about if you throw all bible believing Christians into one pot.

 

RC Sproul, JI Packer, John Piper are just as brilliant as any you have spoken of and they could out-think you in a heart beat.

 

OK, dude. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

[Crampknees]

The libs are freeeeeeaking out

Jay, I think it is the cons freeeeeeaking out more.  They have more to worry about this guy than any lib does. 

[Glen]

A Trump presidency is a very scary thought. I bet he would be way more executive order crazy than the current king.

Franklin D Roosevelt?

I assume you know that Obama doesn't even crack the top 10 on the presidential EO list. Right?

[Glen]

The libs are freeeeeeaking out

Our heads are literally exploding.

[mtangelsfan]

OK, dude. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

OK, dude. Whatever makes you feel better about yourself.

LOL, I think you insult other groups so you can feel smarter.

Believe me when I tell you it doesn't work.

[Angelsjunky]

LOL, I think you insult other groups so you can feel smarter.

Believe me when I tell you it doesn't work.

 

Uhh, how do you know it doesn't make me feel smarter?

[Puget Sound Angel]

Our heads are exploding with joy. Please make Trump your nominee.