Cancer

Sounds like a business opportunity.

Do it. Do it for capitalism.

I am a centrist Democrat and I approve this message.

Centrist? Really?

I'll bite. What left-wing views of the Democrats do you reject?

I recognize this is an exercise in futility as you'll find a reason why I do not match what I am describing. But, maybe this might give you insight that not all Democrats/liberals share the same views. Or, it won't. I don't care.

I'll treat you to my top positions as a whole!
1. The government cannot afford to create a whole new budget for more social welfare programs. The money simply isn't there.

2. The government does a better job than most people give it credit for, rather than being inefficient and wasteful.

3. For the most part, minorities have only themselves to blame if they cannot "get ahead" in this country. (There are many services available to them already out there.)

4. Government regulation of business is necessary to protect the public interest.

5. Homosexuality should be accepted by society.

6. MOST corporations make a fair and reasonable profit.

7. Stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost

8. Immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents

9. Poor people have hard lives because government benefits don't go far enough to help them live decently, that is, those that work hard. For some, it's still not enough.

10. The economic system in this country unfairly favors powerful interests

11. Our country has made the changes needed to give black people equal rights with white people

12. It's best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs

13. MOST people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard

14. The obstacles that once made it harder for women than men to get ahead are now largely gone

15. In foreign policy, the U.S. should take into account the interests of its allies even if it means making compromises with them

16. I actually consider myself an independent. But since politics are so polarized in this binary trible war, I identify more with Democrats.

I guess I am what you would call an opportunity Democrat. Statistics show that of the Democrat population only 12% of Democrats identify this way.

5. Homosexuality should be accepted by society.

It is and has been for decades but tell me, why should anyone be forced to accept drag queens educating their children? why should anyone be forced to change their language to "appease" gay people? and why would any reasonable adult accept sexual acts being performed/mimicked in the street, in broad daylight for the sake of gay "pride"?

I would disagree on the part of "decades." But, that's irrelevant.

No one is forced to have drag queens to teach their children. There are multiple ways to circumvent this issue. Such as (but not limited to) finding a new class, home schooling, private schooling, and changing schools.

By "Change their language" I assume you mean "gay," "f*g," etc. Well, I would have to say that it depends on the context of which it is used. Words have their meaning changed over time. And when one uses the term gay in the context of "Oh that's gay" they're saying that something is negative or not good the the speaker. While homosexuals also have had this nomenclature for a longer time than the phrase was coined, I believe. You can see how such phrases can be -reasonably- offensive. Just as the term "honky" is a white slur but is also used in conjunction with the phrase "honkey dorey" meaning "all right."

And for your last question. That is a question that you have to ask yourself and understand the perspective of the homosexual. You see, this event is an event where they are permitted to be blatantly and completely open and honest with who they are and not be afraid to show this. If this offends you, don't attend. If it goes by where you work, ask for the day off, but don't say why. There are many ways to avoid this issue if it offends you. I would imagine they respect your right to feel offended, they might feel bad about it, but they will respect it. I would expect, if I were gay, that you would equally respect what I am. You don't have to agree with it, you might feel bad, but that in this hypothetical, that you respect me individuality - that which this country was built on. That is, the right to individual freedom.

sorry no, just to clarify, by "changing language" i meant this idea that we have to adopt new gender identities and things like pronouns to address people

the simplest way to circumvent the issue would be to not hire drag queens for school story times. it was designed for, and serves, no other purpose than to cause outrage ...so that the left-wing media and politicians can call us all "white supremacists"

i think public displays of sexuality are gross and unnecessary, whether homosexual or heterosexual, i also think that if gay people can have pride in what they do with their dicks, then i can have a march to show how proud I am of mine ...I wouldn't take part in it, but i'd like the opportunity without left-wing media labelling me a "white supremacist" for it

"sorry no, just to clarify, by "changing language" i meant this idea that we have to adopt new gender identities and things like pronouns to address people"
The only new gender identity I am aware of is they/them/their. Beyond that I am not aware of anything else. The reason there are three is for the same reason as we have Him/his/he. Also, in German they have been using the "nuetered" pronouns for many things for a long time. "Das" I believe it is. It isn't uncommon for a language to have a third pronoun. If you click the map found here:
https://wals.info/chapter/44
You'll find that some languages have no pronouns at all. Some have more than three. Language evolves to better describe something. While we're talking about a specific case as with people, the case still stands.

If a teacher wants to dress in drag, I would expect them to do it with class and look respectable as would any logical person in this situation. I don't think "white supremacy" has anything to do with trans-sexuals as the conversation of white supremacy is based on skin color. How many trans teachers are there for this to be an issue, anyway? Is this a common occurance in your part of the country? I could understand if it were.

Portland Oregon actually has such hetero-sexual parades. I believe it's called the "Naked Bike Ride." Granted, this event is more about body positivity, but heterosexuals are not an oppressed and persecuted minority. That being said, there are nude beaches around the world, nudist camps, and even spring break where nudity can be seen and practiced even in defiance of the law and is typically revered as part and parcel of the spring break event.

I'm sure there are other events in which you might find nudity and heterosexual celebration that go hand in hand, I just don't know them all.

6. MOST corporations make a fair and reasonable profit

most LARGE corporations make so much money that they believe they can tell governments how to run. Jeff bazos made so much profit from selling stuff that he was able to hold the usps to ransom. bill gates made so much money selling computers he now feels that it is his unassailable right to vaccinate you and your family ...money = power, power = corruption

This (link below) is a great documentary exposing the true powers behind the EU ...the corporations. I would suspect that people like bezos, gates, zuck, dorsey etc. are part of a big club just like this one in Europe

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMuUEd6w54E

They are not "most" corporations, they are a VERY small number of the total collections of corporations as a whole. I understand your argument, but I think you need to take a second look at my carefully constructed wording.

I think you need to take a closer at my carefully constructed wording...this is why i specifically said "most LARGE corporations..."

You're absolutely right, I did miss that specific verbiage. Yet, this begs the question of what determines a large corporation? The term is subjective. If you're talking about the corporations you mentioned, there's few that are on their level that I can think of if any. Corporations aren't my area of expertise and I can't really comment on it, if I am honest.

I'm not trying to be facetious, but Keizer-Permanente is a big corporation, McDonald's is big, Wal-Mart is big...

8. Immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents

Legal immigrants who have to declare skills and qualifications on their applications, yes

illegal immigrants, skilled or otherwise, will only be employed in the black market. this does nobody any good ...and no, handing out green cards like a lottery won't help that situation. listen to groups like Black voices for Trump, Hispanics for Trump ...those are the people who are most active against illegal immigration

I stated Immigrants. I said nothing about undocumented immigrants. "Immigrants" as I said would imply those who are authorized to be here. In this capacity, I encourage immigration.

and I used it in an umbrella fashion, to reflect how left-wing media and politicians use the term. the word "illegal" is anathema to them. but i did want you to clarify, so thanks for that

12. It's best for the future of our country to be active in world affairs
&
15. In foreign policy, the U.S. should take into account the interests of its allies even if it means making compromises with them

The best foreign policy move the US has made ...ever(?) ...was electing Trump. Four years, and not a single regime change or invasion!

When has the US ever suffered an invasion in the last 50 years?

I meant the US doing the invading and regime changing

There is much I don't understand about war.

I do know that Russia and US fight over countries for power. I do know that there are terrorist cells in the middle east that are being hunted down. I do know we have allies and people that rely on us for protection which requires our presence.

I do not think regime change is inherently bad. It depends on the context of which the regime change is taking place. For instance, if a people is suffering crimes against humanity by a dictatorship and we decide to put a military presence there, two narratives become drawn:

To the ruling government, we become invaders - an unwelcomed large military force within their sphere of influence. To the oppressed, we become the liberators. Mind you, that's the closest antonym that I could think of which serves the same purpose.

In any case, as the liberators, we help build the governmental infrastructure that the new regime needs to successfully operate. While for our personal interest a lack of invasion or regime change is good as we aren't spending any money or potentially any lives, it also leaves possible allies on the market open to our adversaries to form coalitions. I digress. I don't know enough to say 100%, but I do know that there's more to it than that of simply not being active on the world stage is inherently a good thing.