I believe I pointed out the gender swap as a DEI policy. It's pretty hard to have "gay representation wit gay actors" in movies and such, because your sexual orientation isn't anyone's business.

Yes, you seem to understand the problems with DEI, which is not providing the audience what they want. In the 90's nobody was interested who played who, as long as they did a good job. Today it's really hard to say who's a DEI hire and who's not, the only way to judge is whether The role qas good or not. If you had some African playing a role in the 80's, you knew that guy was good, today If you don''t have any Africans or women playing a lead role, the actors in all likeliness are chosen because they were the best available.

Cruise and Washington are bad examples, because they made their merits before the modern policies took place. They could draw in audience 20.years ago and they can do it today. Who'd be playing Maverick if Top Gun were made today? Would Maverick be the OP pilot? 

How are people frequently more moral? Haven't really seen it happening.

Why isn't there an answer? If we have dogmas that are being forced to everyone and then we don''t have anything to defend against them. 

It reads libertarian, because the follows the US rhetoric. The libertarian in the map should be liberal. 

How liberal and libertarian are different, is that liberalism end at night-watch state and for libertarian, the night-watch state is bare minimum. In practice, it's not that simple, but you can take it as a rule of thumb.

Libertarian is a right wing anarchist. Basically the difference between a right wing anarchist and a left wing anarchist is, that right wing sees that you can gather personal property whereas on the left The property is for anyone to take.

Because people often use religion to justify terrible things. 

Religion has been used to justify going to war. It has been used to justify murdering your child because we don't want a gay/trans child.

Because people aren't monoliths. They don't all want the same things. 

Some Christians are very fundamentalists and believe that everyone should be (forced to be) Christians.

And lots of other Christians don't believe that - who have no issue with people being atheists and believe that plenty of people can just do good.

If 10 million Muslims come into a small country, and believe that the country should match their ideals, then yes it'll happen.

If 10 million Muslims come into a small country, but believe in freedom of religion, then it doesn't happen. 

Because it has the word "Democratic" and "Republic" in it.

When most **Americans hear those words in contexts that obviously have to do with a political party, they immediately associate them with their respective parties..

Most Americans understand that Democracy predates the "Democratic" party. Most Americans understand that words like Socialism, Communism, have meanings beyond a political party. 

Many other countries have their own Democratic, Republican, Socialist, Social Democratic parties, and the author of the website is clearly very aware of that.

Because: 

A.) The compass was originally conceived decades before the Libertarian party.

"In the 1950s, psychologists Leonard Ferguson and Hans Eysenck both individually suggested that double-axis, two-dimensional graphs were more fitting for understanding the political spectrum that existed.⁷ These theories understood political identities as being reflective of personalities rather than just economic preferences. In particular, Hans Eysenck’s model, as seen above, is similar to the political compass model, especially in its innovative move that did not place fascism as the opposite of communism, contrary to popular belief, but instead that fascism was the opposite anarchism. The political compass is rooted in similar beliefs, but places authoritarianism as the opposite of libertarian, and uses left and right instead of radical and conservative."

https://thedecisionlab.com/reference-guide/political-science/political-compass

B.) The word libertarian predates the current Libertarian party.

Again, all of these words have political definitions that have nothing to do with the current breakdown of US political parties. 

C.) The compass itself isn't scaled to anything in US politics. 

Most US politicians are in the top right corner. 

There is no way Trump and Hillary belong in the same quadrant. This whole "Political Compass" talk, is a pile of BS.

Mostly because you don't understand how wide the spectrum actually is. 

The bottom half would have more to do with dissolving the government, including the military. Which no US Republican or US Democrat is pushing to do. 

The left half would have more to do with dissolving private businesses, in favor of social ownership. Which aside from health insurance (Medicare for all), no US Republican or Democrat is pushing to do.  

I would disagree on the exact placement on where some of the people are, and yes I have some issues with the test. But the concept is there. 

But the horrible things justified by religion are just morals of the religion. They are doing good according to their moral. Moral is just the set of rules to follow. The less rules you have, the less moral you have. High moral is following the rules closely and low moral not following them. 

People don''t want the same things, but people follow a religion that has it's own dogmas. They follow the dogmas, the teachings that are not allowed to be questioned. You can't be a christian without believing in Jesus (well, technically anyone who's ever been christened is a christian, no matter if you leave the religion or adopt a new one, but I think you know what I meant). 

As a Brazillian, I live in a country where many parties co-exist and they have sometimes vastly different understanding of how government should work (or shouldn't work)

In my perspective, Trump and Hillary look fairly close. I think US bipartisan system make Americans somewhat unable to understand a broader political spectrum

I've seen Americans calling countries like Germany socialists, I don't think Germans seen themselves as a socialist nation, and socialists nations like China and Vietnam would quickly call Germany a capitalist country

It's surprising that Trump and Clinton aren't closer to each other. 

I think this map few posts above describes pretty good how the two parties in US are aligned. If you look from the outside, it looks like the two parties run the excact same things with a little twist. And they do.

In part they are aligned that way, because in most cases, it seems that US constitution is the bottom half. It gives people a lot of freedoms, and to an extent, both parties try to limit the freedoms that the constitution gives.