Can you describe an opinion/belief from the other side of the political chasm, accurately and neutrally (see details)

My beef of course is onTrump and the required state of denial to sustain a pretense of the man as an instrument of credible governance. We’re not talking about quirks or little flukes of personality here. And the supposed void between liberals and conservatives on the topic is in reality non existent. And the proof—It is in the absolute refusal of the other side to discuss the topic. It must be avoided at any and all costs, because the man runs counter to every fundamental belief and platitude supposedly righteous conservatives espouse and embrace. So here we have conservatives endorsing the character and deportment they would not tolerate were it exhibited by their eight year old child. It is a profound failure of intellect as well as their own character in the steadfast refusal to recognize the hypocrisy in denying their life long standards of schooling in the requirements for basic decency and the necessary virtues we’ve been taught to uphold. It is appalling to consider that they endorse and support this man with their children watching.

@stanleybmanly You didn’t state anything from another viewpoint, that’s what you always post haha

I’m stating an opinion from the other side of the political chasm. I’m on the “other side” and stating my opinion as instructed. Do you disagree with it haha?

People who are pro-life believe that people become human at the moment of conception, when the sperm fertilizes the egg. To them, embryos, and fetuses are the same as babies who have become viable outside of the womb, and are the same as newborns, toddlers, older kids, and adults with regards to the rights they should have. They believe that a mother who chooses to abort her unborn child is a murderer. Although they do agree that sperm and eggs are alive, they do not believe that these potential human beings are yet human beings.

I think I stated that fairly concisely, and neutrally.

As most of you know, I am on the complete other side of this viewpoint.

They think the trickle down system works,if you give the wealthy all the breaks,that will spill down on the lesser people and all will benefit.

The pro life people. They’re all hypocrites.

@Kardamom Pretty close, good job.

We recognize the fetus as a person with the same constitutional rights. Which is why fetal homicide is a crime, ie Scott Peterson case.

The Bible must be interpreted literally—not allegorically, and most of science (geology, biology, physics) contradicts a “Young Earth” literal interpretation of the Bible. Because our faith guarantees us that we’re right about our literal interpretation of the Bible, the only possible explanation for this contradiction is that the scientists are wrong. It is possible that the Devil is planting fake evidence to deceive the scientists, or it could be God who is misleading them to test the conviction of our faith.

God has promised us the holy land of Israel. The Palestinians who currently live here are an inconvenience to our vision of a Jewish state. We are a fair an just people so we won’t just outright exterminate the locals (plus the international community would really frown on that). It’s not exterminating them to isolate them and make conditions miserable though. If they attack us in retaliation, using overwhelming force is perfectly justifiable. Having a Palestinian to Israeli death count of 192 to 1 is perfectly justified (we shouldn’t apologize for being effective at defending ourselves). Expanding settlements is perfectly justified (we will use the land better than them anyways). If we can maintain the status quo, eventually the Palestinians will be purged (without resorting to a literal genocide) and we will finally have our Jewish state.

Government is a horrendously bloated and inefficient institution because of bureaucracy and regulation. Private business do not have this problem because the market will force efficiency. Ergo, we should reduce the scope of the Government’s role as much as possible (and deregulate) and there should be net gains as those efficiencies are realized. Notable exceptions are the Military and Police.

Tell me you’re joking @gorillapaw….

@Dutchess_lll I’m just trying to post from the other side, as the question requested. There are obviously premises I disagree with in those arguments.

Whew. Thanks.

In the late 80s my friends pressured me into going to a seminar that would “prove” evolution isn’t possible. The devil planting dinosaur bones hither and yon was part of their argument.
WHY would he even DO such a thing? Like a Easter egg.hunt or what?

Yes. Apparently we are supposed to find the strengths in the arguments opposite our beliefs. The question is worded such that this is not readily apparent.

I destroyed the speaker btw. I was just going to keep my mouth shut but then he made some casual sexist remark and pissed me off.
I was nice about the destroying, of course. I mean I WAS a Christian.

@stanleybmanly No such manipulation intended. The question is about whether you can hear what the people on the other side are saying well enough to state it in a way that would satisfy them. It’s about listening, even if it’s a stupid idea, with nothing redeeming about it.

I’m confused about your original answer: I thought you were opposed to President Trump. Your answer looks like more opposition. Are you yanking my chain?

No. It’s definitely not the view of Trump reality promulgated by his supporters.