Democrats struggle with diversity. The Dem gov of New Jersey removed the flag of Mississippi because, he said, "New Jersey is rooted in diversity, and the flag doesn't fit." Now I am not a supporter of that flag, but I wonder if it occurred to him for even a second that diversity requires that I tolerate that with which I don't necessarily agree? How can you promote diversity by narrowing the field of ideas? Now he could have said that the confederate battle emblem on the flag promotes inequality, and that would have been a reasonable objection, but "the flag doesn't fit" into diversity? Actually, that flag would promote diversity. Perhaps not in a good way, but still would promote diversity.

The reason they struggle with diversity is because they divide people into subsect and groups of interests . Eventually the rights and privileges of one minority group will run counter to the rights and privileges of another .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Democrats struggle with diversity. The Dem gov of New Jersey removed the flag of Mississippi because, he said, "New Jersey is rooted in diversity, and the flag doesn't fit." Now I am not a supporter of that flag, but I wonder if it occurred to him for even a second that diversity requires that I tolerate that with which I don't necessarily agree? How can you promote diversity by narrowing the field of ideas? Now he could have said that the confederate battle emblem on the flag promotes inequality, and that would have been a reasonable objection, but "the flag doesn't fit" into diversity? Actually, that flag would promote diversity. Perhaps not in a good way, but still would promote diversity.

---

Would you expect the Jewish community to tolerate the Nazi swastika? Of course not, so can we apply the same standard to the symbols and statutes of the slave days? I don't think we want that kind of diversity, why would you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The reason they struggle with diversity is because they divide people into subsect and groups of interests . Eventually the rights and privileges of one minority group will run counter to the rights and privileges of another .

---

Nature of the beast. Diversity is like a kitchen with many chefs, kind of messy until the it's actually presented for consumption. For sure it will be a while until the dems serve up the nominee. The process calls for consensus though and it's rather early.

Quote:

---

Would you expect the Jewish community to tolerate the Nazi swastika? Of course not, so can we apply the same standard to the symbols and statutes of the slave days? I don't think we want that kind of diversity, why would you?

---

"Why would you?" If you will read my post carefully, the part that said, "Now he could have said that the confederate battle emblem on the flag promotes inequality, and that would have been a reasonable objection," then you will have your answer. But you cannot exclude something and then say you are promoting diversity unless you simply don't understand what the word "diversity" means. That is one reason that I am generally not a fan of the concept of diversity.

What's your definition of diversity?

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...0e&oe=5D345F1B

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/171/17180/1718057.gif
https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/171/17164/1716453.gif

Quote:

---

What's your definition of diversity?

---

This is probably the modern, politically correct version: the inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, color, religion,socioeconomic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.:

you seriously putting your eggs in the Trump tower meeting ? That meeting was set up by Fusion GPS .Natalya Veselnitskaya was a client of Glenn Simpson .

The information she brought with her when she met Donald Trump Jr. came from research conducted by Fusion GPS .When she met with Don Jr and Kushner all she talked about was the Magnistsky act ;which was about Americans adopting Russian children.

Don Jr. did nothing wrong in setting up this meeting.

No campaign in American history would pass up the opportunity of receiving dirt on their opponents.

Somebody colluded with Russia, and it wasn’t the Trump campaign .
Veselnitskaya was working to repeal the Magnitsky Act for the Kremlin
with Fusion GPS.

https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net...63&oe=5D765582

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

you seriously putting your eggs in the Trump tower meeting ? That meeting was set up by Fusion GPS .Natalya Veselnitskaya was a client of Glenn Simpson .

The information she brought with her when she met Donald Trump Jr. came from research conducted by Fusion GPS .When she met with Don Jr and Kushner all she talked about was the Magnistsky act ;which was about Americans adopting Russian children.

Don Jr. did nothing wrong in setting up this meeting.

No campaign in American history would pass up the opportunity of receiving dirt on their opponents.

Somebody colluded with Russia, and it wasn’t the Trump campaign .
Veselnitskaya was working to repeal the Magnitsky Act for the Kremlin
with Fusion GPS.

---

We differ on that because most Americans would notify the FBI about being contacted by the Russians, and wouldn't lie about it repeatedly. Clearly they didn't need a signed contract for that but two criminal enterprises often dance well together if they can profit from it, and they have. Vlad has even moved in on the Dufus's main squeeze Korean Kim and if you think that's good for America then don't bend over.

Make it worse, the dufus lied about his knowledge of the meeting. WHY THE LIES about Russian contacts and why oh why was Manaafort passing on campaign data to the Ruskies?

Naw, we got plenty of baskets and not enough eggs for them all.

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/171/17143/1714351.gif

https://www.arcamax.com/newspics/cac...78/1717852.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

This is probably the modern, politically correct version: the inclusion of individuals representing more than one national origin, color, religion,socioeconomic stratum, sexual orientation, etc.:

---

The dems certainly look the part.

Yep. Gross inefficiency based upon a numbers game. That is the democrat party. In the meantime, Trump has the economy practically better than ever.

Voting is a numbers game. That's how all those woman took the house in a very efficient way. We can debate the part about the dufus having the economy humming or not since it's been trending that way for a long time, but no doubt he benefits greatly from it in talking points. Just like all the presidents did before him when the economy was good.

The economy is good because business has confidence, it maybe that despite the obvious trump instills confidence

Business is confident, and rightfully so, since they recovered quickly from the WFC with the bailouts, and the rollbacks on consumer protections and a windfall tax cuts, without giving up any loopholes and deductions. Mainstreet though has not recovered at the same pace and wage stagnation is slowly creeping up, but prices are too, so not everybody is giddy happy, and flush with cash.

They can no longer blame Obama either, so who will the electorate blame this time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You need to explain why you think it should be legal to kill an unborn child. Perhaps your anger is a reflection of your frustration. Perhaps this will become your awakening.

---

You need to explain why an unborn child who is an unbeliever will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Perhaps your anger is a result of your frustration. Perhaps this will become your awakening.

Quote:

---

You need to explain why an unborn child who is an unbeliever will be condemned to eternal punishment in hell. Perhaps your anger is a result of your frustration. Perhaps this will become your awakening.

---

If I believed that, then I would need to explain it. Since I don't believe that, I don't need to. I'm not angry nor frustrated, but I am certainly open to being enlightened if you would care to answer the question I first raised several days ago which no one has addressed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

Since I don't believe that, I don't need to. I am certainly open to being enlightened if you would care to answer the question I first raised several days ago which no one has addressed.

---

Then you HAVE become enlightened. That's very good. Your position had been that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. I'm sincerely glad you no longer believe that.

As far as your comment re an answer to a question you first raised several days ago, I am not familiar with it since I come to this page only from time to time. My interest is primarily Trump whose lies, I noticed today, have now reached north of 10,000 since election.

Quote:

---

Then you HAVE become enlightened. That's very good. Your position had been that unbelievers go to hell for eternal punishment. I'm sincerely glad you no longer believe that.

---

A completely ridiculous analysis. To refer to unborn children as unbelievers is totally non-biblical.

Don't feel too badly about not answering the question. No one else has either, which is really disappointing. If I thought that I was possibly voting for people responsible for a million deaths a year, I would hope I would think about it a great deal.