Define "betterment" for the nation in your mind?
Economic developments, social and cultural acceptance, taking the right kind of criticism and working upon it, being united, doing away with politians that divide and rule etc.
Hope you don't mean foreign culture?
Ofc not. But many people of my country can't help but get westernized.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Do you know my political ideology, Morpheus?
Dude, you screamed at your mother over politics. "I hate the dems!"What kind of person does that? Can't you explain your ideology and Conservatism in way that makes a compelling argument to your family?
Re-read it. My mom said she hates democrats, not me.My key political ideology is the following.Country and citizens first above all except God and Jesus Christ. No forcing religion upon anyone.Free speech, expression and freedom of the press.Strict immigration laws. No open borders. Illegal aliens must deported ASAP.No same sex marriage.Ban abortion.Ban same sex couples from adopting kids.Separation from state and religion.Pro gun rights.Universal health care for all citizens only.Guarantee education to all citizens only. Investment in clean energy for better climate.Death penalty for horrible crimes i. e. premeditated murder, rape and child molesters.Welfare and housing for the very needy, sick and poor elderly. The lazy who refuse to work don't qualify.Progressive tax increase for the super rich but nothing too extreme.
@Hispanic-Cool-Guy Playing devil advocate here, but I have to ask.How can you be for the separation of state and religion, but at the same time be for a nationwide ban against same-sex marriage? Last time I check, the main groups opposing same-sex marriage are religious institutions and they oppose it on the basis of religious doctrine. If religion is your reasoning behind why gay couples can't be married then that contradicts your claim of being for the separation of religion and state.The same also applies to same-sex couples adopting. Religious institutions may be against it, but science and years of research on that topic have shown no negative effects (whether physical, mental, emotional, or psychological) in children who were raised by a same-sex couple. If the science shows there is no harm to the child, then what's the reasoning for being for a wide-sweeping law that would prevent it.
@Starrk: Easy. Homosexuality don't have nothing to do with religion. Homosexuality is against nature and it doesn't take religion to figure it out that two man or two woman don't belong married to each other. Gay marriage sends a horrible message to society especially the youth that filth and sexual perversion is endorsed by its leaders and I won't stand for that.Second point about same sex couples adopting children same applies. Children don't need to be around nor raised by sexual perverts.
It can't be against nature, because even nature engages in it. Hundreds of species engage in homosexuality, so you can't just chalk it up as a human thing. And even if you were to ignore other species, it still wouldn't make it unnatural because humans are just as a part of nature as other species. Just because we decide to live behind walls and build cities does not take away the fact that we are a byproduct of nature."Gay marriage sends a horrible message to society"Gay marriage sends no such message and stating such with evidence is simply an opinion, with a hint of religious undertones. Also, the term sexual perversion is very subjective and differs from culture to culture as well as whatever era you happen to be looking at. There is a wide host of things that people did back then that we would find perverse as well as the inverse. Being inclusive doesn't send a horrible message to society. It's when you exclude a group of people and marginalize them that you send a horrible message throughout society. "Children don't need to be around nor raised by sexual perverts."Once again this is subjective and is not a valid argument for a nationwide ban on same-sex marriage or same-sex couples adopting a child. While you might not notice it, your religious views are still creeping into what you believe our secular laws should be despite you claiming that state and religion should be separated. If you're going to argue those things should be legally banned then your argument needs to be based on concrete data that implies these things have a negative consequence on either society or the individual. If you can't provide such data, then you're essentially peddling religious dogma.
@Starrk: You can't compare a animal to a human being. A animal will hump a teddy bear, a chair and your leg etcWe humans have a conscience to know right from wrong which animals don't possess. A man having sex with another man is disgusting and doesn't fit nature and with what God originally created which was a man to have sex with a woman and vice versa.
"You can't compare a animal to a human being. A animal will hump a teddy bear, a chair and your leg etc"In the context of whether something is natural or not? Yes, it is valid to bring other animals in as a comparison group to ensure that the thing in question is something unique to only humans or something that's present in other species as well. And even if said thing isn't found in other animals, but is found in humans, it is still natural, because humans are apart of nature. Also, whether something is "right or wrong" should have zero connection with whether something is "natural vs unnatural". A TV is technically "unnatural" but you'll be hard press to find someone who would claim it's wrong to own one. "A man having sex with another man is disgusting and doesn't fit nature and with what God originally created which was a man to have sex with a woman and vice versa."There goes the religious aspect of it. You can't claim to be for separation of church and state when aspects of the church are directly influencing how you feel the state should be operated. If a person doesn't believe in God or religion then why should that religion have any role in how that person chooses to live their life? Simple, it shouldn't.
@Starrk: I didn't mention religion; I said God created a man to be with a woman and vice versa. I don't need religion to tell two homos giving each pipe is wrong; common sense tells me is wrong.
Inserting God implies your comment has a religious undertone, and common sense isn't always correct. It seems we share a fundamental difference in what constitutes as being "wrong".Personally, I believe it's wrong to prevent two consenting adults from being together on the simple basis of "it's disgusting to me". As long as no one in the said relationship is being harmed, or coerced then I find it hard to label such a union as "wrong". Now what I would label as wrong is a third party/stranger getting involve and trying to force their oppressive subjective views of ethics onto those who are simply trying to live their lives in peace. To each their own.
Biden is a better leader than Trump. Trump causes too much drama and division.
You know Trump really hasn't been the one causing the drama. It's the media and democrats whining about Trump's every move. Just you wait, they'll do it again next time a Republican is in the white house.
Patriot: A person who vigorously supports their country and is prepared to defend it against enemies or detractors.
Then no. I'm not prepared to murder "detractors" just for disagreeing with me. And any country that agrees with your definition can fall to ruin immediately, as far as I'm concerned, even if it were my own. Fortunately the U. S not on that path anymore.
"Patriot" then would be anyone in high office that swears to uphold the Constitution and protect the country from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Hopefully we won't lose this important focus in the near future with so many socialist/communists trying to exert their influence on the United States of America, or we will start to lose out sovereignty again (as happened about 12 years ago).
Yeah, that's not how I define a patriot. As trump and his legion of republican trolls have shown, you have to do more than just swear uphold the constitution- you habe to actually do it, and defending a guy like trump or any of the republicans in Congress who have violated that oath is more like treason than patriotism, by my count.
Funny - when you mentioned violating oath of office, I thought you may have meant Hillary throwing SEALS under the proverbial bus, Obama saying he'd side with the muslims, the "squad" openly calling for the overthrow of the US. But, yeah, I guess it was just a bad dream.
Why would you think I might have meant a bunch of far right fake news? I don't pay attention to that trash.
For someone who doesn't "pay attention" to it, you sure seem to think they know all about it. :- )
I know it's all fake, hence the name. Do you respond to all the princes of Nigeria in your spam box because you don't know they are all scams? Or are you not a moron?