I was talking about you thinking I was from Brooklyn NY.
Is there a Brooklyn accent in my writing?

Are you telling me that you think that points 1 to 10 are values you hold up highly, and therefore you end up supporting Trump and the current Republican party? I would call that impossible or delusional.

You're not getting just a yes or no, your getting a full explanation, so you cannot straw-man my opinions.

1. I healthfully agree, which is why I care about tough restrictions against pollution (while Trump is doing the opposite) and why I was very angry with Trump abandoning the Paris Climate Agreement.

2. I see no evidence for a creator. It is possible that there is an entity behind the multiverse, but I think it's more likely to be non-sentient processes that "caused" our universe. The question "Why is there something, rather than nothing?" is either unanswerable, or you start by asking "Is the state of nothingness even possible?". All the evidence related with the existence of a creator as religions present it, is refuting the existence of their creator. I need not imagine a "creator", to honor "creation" (I use that term only because people use it, not because I think that the "everything" was "created"). I honor "creation" by supporting ideas and actions that maintain humanity, because it's possible that humanity is the only intelligent life in the universe, capable of appreciating and increasingly understanding the universe.

3. Yes, that's the basis for humanism, which is the basis for my politics.

4. Yes, that's the basis for our socialism (not your straw-man of it)

5. Yes, that's my default attitude towards every person, until they personally show me that they deserve another attitude. I do not judge a person by their innate characteristics, I purely judge a person by their voluntary actions and cultivated traits. "Judge people by agency, not by accident". I am not like Jesus (turn the other cheek). I care about justice, and I don't shy away from defending it.
I feel empathy for all living things, but it is proportional with their sentience. I am not a vegetarian, but I do want to minimize the suffering of our consumption animals.
The political party that I support, the Dutch Socialist Party, is the best representative of the less fortunate (other than myself). They are not a charity organization, but they constantly help individuals and small groups of people, who were victimized by a system that is not designed with empathy in mind, but to serve powerful interests. I donate some money to charities monthly, but overall I think that humanity shouldn't need charities. I think that charities are degrading. This was also argued by philosophers like Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx and Hannah Arendt. Compassion is good, but it should result in humanity creating systems that make charities redundant. We can take care of the unlucky and vulnerable, without disrespecting their dignity, by creating systems of solidarity from the "privileged" with the "disadvantaged".
Your whole idea of "seeing a homeless person on the street and throwing scraps for him" and associating that with "take a huge sacrifice of humility" is completely reprehensible to me. I would not sacrifice my humility, I would damage THEIR dignity. Anytime I see a homeless person in my country, I am ashamed and angry towards my government, failing to represent my principles. My country doesn't let those people starve, so they don't need my "scraps", but we do fail to house them. NOTE: Housing is the highest priorities of my party. I personally coordinated several political actions relating to housing.

6. To me, morality is about the well-being of conscious creatures. Any action that generally supports the well-being of conscious creatures is "good". Any action that generally harms the well-being of conscious creatures is "bad". That means that there are circumstances in which you can hurt the well-being of a conscious creature, to support the well-being of bigger groups. That is what punishment for breaking the law is intending. We need laws to generally support the well-being of conscious creatures. Those laws are not "objective", they constantly need to be reassessed for their effect. Dogmas need to be kept far away from the law. The (re)assessment needs to be performed through science and philosophy. Are your last questions serious? Yes, do you? Do you even understand how your choices hurt others?

7. Not as much as I should. I should exercise more. We eat reasonably healthy and I take supplements to care foe my heart and vascular system, but it's all not near enough to optimize my health. My mind gets better treatment; I know my limits and respect them. I am constantly putting effort to increase my knowledge and thinking skills. Also, I don't think entertainment is a vice, but a necessity for a healthy mind. My goal is to save my emotions for the times that are worth it. There are parts of stoicism that I like; the rationality part, and a part that I don't like; the acceptance of injustice outside your control. Even if my control would be extremely small, I do not accept acceptance of injustice. Injustice is man-made, and is therefore subject to my influence, even if minute. Purely natural events are not "injustice", but we have influence on how to manage them. In any case, I chose to widen my circle of influence, by engaging in politics. I tend to approach all choices in life rationally, even the ones that might require emotional decisions. That might have changed the course of my life several times, but I cannot say that I have significant remorse or regrets, at worse, some missed opportunities.

8. Within reason, I am supporting (not serving) the "Greater Good".
I'll refer you back to #6, to understand how I define the "Greater Good".
By definition, egoism is the opposite of altruism. However, we are all part of humanity, and every act for self-interest will inevitably result in harming humanity, and therefore oneself. Most acts of altruism will likely result in improving humanity, and will therefore benefit oneself. That is Karma, without the spirituality association.
I want to live my life among humanity that is improving, rather than collapsing. In that situation, egoism and altruism are not opposites.
That indeed requires personal growth through learning. It doesn't require humility at all. It requires Engagement. What a stupid idea that blaming the world would be cowardly. Do you think that one person is responsible for anything good or bad happening in this world? Humanity made a mess, and humanity needs to fix it. I have a responsibility to support that, but it is not greater than yours, and many times smaller than the responsibilities of our elected representatives. It is their job to fix the mess that humanity made. It's also the responsibility of voters to elect representatives that best serve the goal of fixing the mess that humanity made. I am trying to convince people to use their vote for that purpose, and I am engaging in politics to help my representatives to best serve the goal of fixing the mess that humanity made. I am learning to maybe become one of those representatives myself, but at this moment, I don't think I am capable of doing a better job than my current representatives. I still provide them with constructive criticism, when I see how they can do better.

9. Yes, if you feel the need to lie about your principles, then you are admitting that you cannot convince people of your principles, without lying. That would be very strange for principles that are based on humanism, because we are all human. Right?

10. Yes! Denying reality is the opposite of taking responsibility.

With you, everything is a trick question, because if I leave margin for you to straw-man me, you will use it. This is not necessarily a dishonest tactic, if your debate opponent leaves open lots of space for interpretation. I aim to make those spaces as small as possible.

Now, it's your turn. Unlike you, I would like you to explain your answers, because I gain minimal insight into your motives from just yes and no answers.

Who is blaming others now? It's your own responsibility to provide reason in your comments, in order to convince people that you deserve to be taken seriously.

How farsighted of me, to pretend to be a Dutch guy, so I somehow have a better standing in discussions about American politics, EIGHT YEARS before I ever posted anything political. Strange how all the other right-wingers here have argued many times that a foreigner like me doesn't know anything about the US. Off course, then they show that they in fact know less about for example their own Constitution, than I do, just like you. Maybe you think I'm an immigrant who just passed the U.S. naturalization civics test, because I know it so much better than you do.

You are quite hateful towards the Sudanese refugees.
I think you're a racist. At the very least, it's not very empathetic.

Let us also note that you had no counterargument to my argument against your claim that tariffs have been lopsided for years.

And Trump sat there on pleaded the 5th hundreds of times.
He had NO defense against any of it. He only obstructed and delayed.
Unlike you, I followed those court cases in detail.
You just spout your biased opinion.

You are commenting on what I provided for the sexual abuse and fraud cases. I was not talking about the election interference case or his classified documents case.

The evidence pieces related to the election interference conspiracy are:
Audio/Recordings: Trump–Raffensperger recorded call
Official Documents: Draft Clark letter; Eastman memos; fake elector certificates
Emails/Text Logs: Internal campaign coordination messages
Court Records: Indictments, plea transcripts
Testimony: Raffensperger & other officials before investigators
Video Footage: Alternate electors meeting publicly
Emails/communications: Discussions of plans to block/count electoral votes and non-public strategies
Official filings by Jan 6 committee: Detailed evidence summaries and assertions that Trump’s actions obstructed certification
Depositions & official records: Testimony that Trump was informed the fraud claims were false yet repeated them
Pence’s contemporaneous notes: Direct account of pressure on Pence to overrule electoral certification

The evidence pieces related to the classified documents case are:
Physical Documents: Classified records seized; inventories; photos
Recordings: Trump audio discussing classified items
Witness/Testimony: Grand jury testimony; staff statements
Lawyer Notes/Transcripts: Corcoran production ordered by appeals court
Court Filings & Discovery: Indictment, discovery sets, warrant affidavit
Video Footage: Mar-a-Lago camera recordings
Indictment narrative: Detailed account of statements and actions pushing for deletion of security footage
Sworn charging documents: Formal judicial accusations that Trump and aides sought to destroy evidence
Statements in the indictment: Quoted language from aides (“the boss wants … deleted”)
Subpoena timing: Shows deletion attempt occurred after legal demand for footage
Successful preservation of footage: Demonstrates the attempted deletion is independent from the fact the footage still exists

Where these cases stand out is quality and type, not just quantity:
1. Direct evidence of conduct
2. Evidence of knowledge and intent (the hardest element)
3. Multiple independent evidence streams

Are you comparing your government under Democrats with Iran?

You do not refuse to comment, you are commenting A LOT, you are just failing to refute anything I am saying.

I said nothing of the sort. You just need to pretend that, to do a character assassination, because you cannot win the argument in a honest way.

A "John Doe" and a "Straw-man" is not the same thing.
A "John Doe" is some unknown person or personality.
A "Straw-man" is misrepresentation of someone’s position to make it easier to attack.

The Intent: To win an argument by deception.
The "straw-man" isn't a real person; it's a caricature.

When you are straw-manning someone, then you are not attacking the actual ideas of that person, but what you are pretending are his ideas.

Here is a common example involving a workplace project:

Colleague A (Actual proposal): "I think we should extend the testing phase of this software by one week. I’m worried we might miss some bugs if we rush to launch on Monday."

Colleague B (The straw-man): "So, your plan is to delay the entire launch indefinitely and tell our clients that we are incapable of meeting deadlines? We can't just stop working every time someone gets nervous."