DrmDoc

In my view, there's the job and the people vying for that job. The people vying for POTUS are politicians, which is a class of individuals who seldom satisfy my expectations. Like Used Car salesmen, I don't believe what the say or promise without checking under the hood and reading the fine print. With politicians, my way of checking under the hood is looking at past acts and what they suggest about the quality of a candidate. The job of POTUS is about what a candidate will do and not what he or she says. I think the best indication of what a candidate will do as POTUS is what the candidate has done on behalf of our nation or common folk in general.

And Christianity has and is not? Where is your equal outrage? Why is there enmity for one ideology and no enmity for other ideologies whose devotees perpetrate the same transgressions?

Although Swansont can answer for himself, Hillary and Trump are both politicians competing for the same job and should be held to the same standard. Qualification for that job shouldn't be any easier or more difficult for either applicant because we expect more of less of the other. What we should expect of both candidates is an essential measure of discipline, temperament, judgement, and leadership, which I believe we all want from our President.

This is the kind of informed investigative support of an opinion that I appreciate and recommend. The kind of support that elevates intelligent discussion.

Ok, let me see if I got this right...you were friends with Muslims with whom you voluntarily discussed Sharia law, correct? They did not attempt to force their beliefs on you or engage in any apparent effort to change the laws of our nation other than to express their belief to you that Sharia law would be good for America, correct? This doesn't seem to me to be quite the major issue you've made this out to be, particularly if it was you not they who broach the subject. I get that you think Sharia law is terrible and those who believe in it should be criticized or ridiculed. However, I can't get upset about the ideology people hold, no matter how extreme or because they disagree with mine, particularly when they've made no attempt to force their ideology upon me or my way of life. If that should ever happen, I would vigorously challenge and resist their efforts.

That's very interesting...so...at one point during your knowing or friendship with these Muslims did they attempt to either force or subject you to Sharia law?

I don't think we'll have to do that anytime soon. Personally, I've yet to meet or hear of anyone in America clamoring for or about Sharia law other than those vehemently opposed to it. This would probably be a non-issue for the few who may have concerns if it wasn't quite the subject of fearmongering as it appears to be, in my opinion.

So, is the goal to hurt their feelings or criticize the effort? Which do you think would be more productive?

Laws are necessary to a civilized society and even Sharia laws was likely necessary to the societies and cultures that originated them. I do think certain religious laws aren't particularly conducive to a free-thinking society. Some laws can be quite severe and disproportionate where harsh punishments are meted out for relatively minor infractions. Sharia law in America is frankly an irrational concern, it would require a change to our Constitution that likely won't occur without a revolution or actual war.

I don't think your proposal would address the primary cause of this movement, which is what appears to be the sanctioning of violence and oppression by officials of government authority against people of color. What you're suggesting is a separate movement, which could potentially dilute the effectiveness of the current BLM movement--in my opinion.

Frankly, I was never bothered...but I respect your decision.

And I think the point being made here is that the ideology is not the problem​.​ The problem appears to be certain people's misinterpretation or corruption of that ideology.

As I now understand, your country has a BLM movement and you appear to have found it more disruptive than productive? Although I too disagree with some of the movement's demonstration methods, I've at least devoted some time to understanding the origin of the BLM cause and I do agree with its motives. Our country, unlike Canada, has a deplorable history in the treatment of people of color and the indigenous people of America. There's more than sufficient recent evidence that certain deplorable treatment continues unabated by past civil rights efforts, which I also supported. I support the movement because it's to my advantage to live in a society where others receive the same measure of consideration and respect I demand for myself. Regarding words of offense and whether they are harmful, I'm reminded of how easily a word in stereotyped use harmed the dignity of an important part of our population. I'm certain there are words or phases you will not countenance or calmly face against you or loved one without an angry response. You have a right to personal honor and dignity, which no one has a right to verbally or otherwise denigrate unjustly with impunity.

I don't see how these comments relate to my post?

Although the perception of her comments is unfortunate, Mrs. Clinton wasn't addressing the entirety of Mr. Trumps supporters. Her comments were directed towards a "half" or element of Trump's base that spew actual hatred. As to the other subjects: In America, everyone has a right to freedom from harm. If an offense can or does cause harm, everyone has rights against that offense. Regarding the BLM movement, as you are not an American citizen nor seem to be a person of color, you might not or even care to know and understand the significance of this issue in America. If so, your opinion here is clearly without basis. Unless you care to add further?

Those are remarkable statistics and, yes, sample sizes do matter. Those polls may indeed reflect the mindset of a small sampling of people in those specific countries. However, if you're interest is a fair and balanced perspective, do you really think the opinion of a small group of individuals speaks for an entire nations of people? Put in perspective, do you think the numbers in our country's current political polling is an accurate reflection of your thoughts or the thoughts of our nation? I agree, opinion polling can be a useful tool but not quite as useful in uncovering the facts or tenets of a truth or idea I'm investigating. What a small group of people believes may not reflect the beliefs in their doctrine or the beliefs held by billions of people worldwide. Opinion polls reflect what may be in the minds of those believers but not necessarily what's in their religious text. I get that religious fanaticism spawns bad people and violent behavior, but their ignorance is an insufficient excuse for our own--in my opinion.

As I wrote, "Subconscious isn't a functional state our brain produces; however, subconscious is a term that can describe how our brain perceives and exerts influence. Subconscious most suitably describes a way in which our brain receives and delivers influence rather than a separate part or aspect of our psychology or brain function." Although a totally different thing, your description isn't the only proper use of the term. As I also wrote, "If instinct describes behaviors opposite of conscious direction, unconscious ​is the most precise description of those behaviors because it is indeed opposite of consciousness. Unconscious isn't necessarily an ineffectual state of being or brain function as many misinterpret. Unconscious is an active state of brain function that produces active behaviors we engage unconsciously or without conscious awareness." ​Perhaps the clearest example this active unconscious brain behavior is what occurs in brain and the imagery it produces whenever we dream.

Unfortunately, the opinions we express sometimes result in unfavorable and unwelcomed assessments of our character. Some of us are sensitive and take offense to opinions opposite our own and that too is unfortunate. However, the only opinion I find offensive are those delivered in deliberate ignorance of facts with harmful intent. Certainly a disinterest is facts is deliberate. I heard Mrs. Clinton's speech and understand the furor it has raised albeit delivered in offense to only the bigoted "half" of Mr. Trump's voters. It might be suggested that only those in the half to which Mrs. Clinton was referring should be offended; however, the perception is that she was referencing all of Mr. Trump's supporters, which is a very clear misstep. There is a lot of needless anger and enmity expressed during this election that shouldn't be held above what is best for our nation and our people. I think we know enough about both candidates to make the proper decision. Ideology aside, our reason should prevail over our emotions.

Apparently she has qualities a lot of people value and her opponent isn't the only person who potentially brings "remarkable acumen in business" to the presidency.

I can understand a problem one might have with certain religious doctrine, what I don't understand is how one can have a problem with something they've never read for themselves or have discussed or investigated through a knowledgeable and trusted source. The scientific method frames all my interests including foreign philosophies and ideologies. It's my always my objective to reach a clear, fair and balanced perspective of whatever I investigate. If a subject is worthy of my opinion, then it is worthy of my thorough investigation. You appear to have very strong opinions with very little investigative interest in support of them. I presume your fine with that?

So, she made a living before her candidacy like her competitor...why is that so objectionable. She has revealed her sources of wealth unlike her competitor. No doubt if she hadn't, you might have thought she had something to hide like the other candidate...or perhaps you don't think he does but that's irrelevant here.

As I recall, it speaks of a deep respect for and connection to other faiths, as well as, a fervent regard for female virtue, which is unlike the corrupt version radicals appear to espouse.

Honestly, sincerely, yes! As much as I would any other politician including Trump. For me, it isn't so much about what they say, it's what they do. Politicians lie all the time and it doesn't put me off as much as it does others. I evaluate actions and from what I've observed of Mrs. Clinton's past acts, she cares more about our nation and people than her competitor.

If I now understand correctly, it isn't her lying but her penchant for changing positions? I visited the PTT website and posted link in with prior comments here. I'm curious, what do you find so objectionable about the PTT and Mrs. Clinton's current stance?

I'm not piling on here, but have you ever talked to a Muslim or read the Quran? I have. I don't subscribe to their ideology or any other than my own; however, that hasn't stop my curiosity in wanting to know their truths rather than what's forced upon me by the media, religious fanaticism, and unapologetic bigotry.