Atheists becoming less unpopular?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Your analysis is just insane -- even little children were bought and sold into slavery to varying degrees all throughout the Middle Ages throughout Christian (Catholic) Europe.  Serfdom was slavery, and one cannot help but notice that the Revolution (in France, of course) abolished the feudal system...suggest that you read more of Aquinas...

All of which has nothing to do with Aquinas since he in no way defended slavery as practiced during his time. The original objection was that Scholastic philosophy did not support the concept of inherent natural rights - the same divinely provided natural rights to which the American Founding Fathers referred. I have adequately demonstrated that objection to be false. It should surprise no one that people throughout the ages do not always live up to the ideals they espouse. Failure of someone to practice an idea does not make the idea false.

[downbeatplumb]

I wouldn't have a problem voting for anyone on the list except for maybe the socialist, depending on what exactly was meant by that. It kinda doesn't fit in with the rest of what was on the list, because it is itself a political stance.

There can be Mormons, Muslims, Atheists, etc, who share similar political views as myself. Tibs, for example, has a lot of the same political views as myself and he's an atheist. I'd vote for his ass.

Why not the socialist?

Socialism (other then the soviet model) is about fairness, working for the common good and equality, what's so wrong with that?

An example of a socialist institution is the British National Health Service which runs of universal tax  (National Insurance) and gives universal free medical treatment at point of use.

It turns out that it is also cheaper for a nation to do its health this way

In the past few years my eldest son has had metal work put in his arm, my middle son had an operation to realign a broken bone and my mother had lengthy treatment for breast cancer all at no expense.

This is socialism in action and its great.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Some bit of propaganda did its job too well when people in 2017 still think that "socialist" is equivalent to "communist". I'd advise a look into European politics.

The concept is the same.

[Jackie]

[Amarok]

[pocaracas]

Some bit of propaganda did its job too well when people in 2017 still think that "socialist" is equivalent to "communist". I'd advise a look into European politics.

The concept is the same.

No.
I've lived all my life under either the socialist party or the socio-democratic party. With the first being in the center, between the left and the right wings, but leaning a bit more to the left, while the second one leans a bit more to the right.
Further to the left, we have the Communist party which gets around 10% of the votes in each election, and even further left we have the left bloc...they're relatively new but have gained on the communists.

To the right, we have the "centre democratic social" party. These guys are, to us, equivalent to your Republicans, with a Christian bend thrown in. They've lost support in recent times, having come down to 4% of the votes (from a previous 10~15%).

With so many parties claiming some social bit in them...regardless of their actual ideology... I'm pretty sure that socialist and communist are very different political ideologies.

[Jackie]

[Jehanne]

[Amarok]

And to further add to the point nope Hitler believed in god and saw the things he did as part of "his mission" .As for economics Nazism borrowed from just about every system. The idea that word socialism in the name is truthful is like saying all the countries that have taken the word Republic fit the bill . Nazism has more in common with corporatism then anything else.

As for Stalin . The Czars terrorized Russia under divine right . Stalin terrorized Russia under the" inevitability of history to which all must submit" And saw the horrors he unleashed as the inevitability. Pure mysticism no wonder he wanted to research psychic powers and all manor of other occult nonsense. As for economics Stalin was not a socialist and Stalinism  is not socialism.

The Nazis like Stalin had their one party states investing in the same global market the west invested in. The case is still the same with friend and foe alike, both open west and closed states like North Korea and Theocracies like Saudi Arabia have global business investments. If your dictator family, such as the Saudi Royals, or Kim Jong Un family had no investments they would have no way to pay armies to protect them. 

"Capitalism" IS NOT a form of government. China allows western label business and international business because it brings in money to the economy as well as supporting China's communist party. Fidel Castro at his death was estimated to be worth $800,000,000 net personal wealth. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE.

There are only more open states like in the west that when the laws are made right, block rising monopolies and bust corruption. But outside that there are simply more open societies and more closed societies. But the world's leaders and their parties that support them both friend and foe are part of a global market.

Oh I agree completely

[Jackie]

The Nazis like Stalin had their one party states investing in the same global market the west invested in. The case is still the same with friend and foe alike, both open west and closed states like North Korea and Theocracies like Saudi Arabia have global business investments. If your dictator family, such as the Saudi Royals, or Kim Jong Un family had no investments they would have no way to pay armies to protect them. 

"Capitalism" IS NOT a form of government. China allows western label business and international business because it brings in money to the economy as well as supporting China's communist party. Fidel Castro at his death was estimated to be worth $800,000,000 net personal wealth. Gadaffi was a billionaire who owned stock in GE.

There are only more open states like in the west that when the laws are made right, block rising monopolies and bust corruption. But outside that there are simply more open societies and more closed societies. But the world's leaders and their parties that support them both friend and foe are part of a global market.

Oh I agree completely

Which is also why a Trump presidency makes me very nervous long term. Not just his impulsive tweets that could get us into WW3, that scares me the most. But outside that you look at his business history and how many people he ripped off and used high priced lawyers to drag court cases out to make the complainant quit or settle. No he cant become a ruling family, but you see how close his kids are and no, I don't believe for one second he will keep his nose out of it. He is using his own private club, which isn't a private house, but a BUSINESS, in FLA. I fear the tone the economic right is setting for more and more politicians long term. That lack of separation sets up long term dept and cronism. The very things that lead to economic collapse and civil war and revolutions. 

You don't allow any class or sect of religion or political party a monopoly. Our separations of powers in the west are designed to prevent monopolies of power. I don't see right now in this point in history the GOP really giving one shit about stopping monopolies.