Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 9:33:27 GMT -5
I'm hoping God tells Oprah not to run. Enough already with the celebrities.
I want someone smart and boring who knows what he or she is doing, thoroughly understands and respects how our system of government is supposed to work, and who makes decisions based on facts and reason and not whatever they think God is saying to them in their heads.
ETA:
Don't get me wrong. I'd vote for her over Trump. She at least doesn't have a many-decade history of grifting, lying, and ugly behavior, and I think would be more likely to know when she's out of her depth and to consult experts accordingly.
She also strikes me as being a good sight more compassionate and intelligent.
Still. President is not an entry-level job.
|
|
|
Post by Angie on Mar 7, 2018 11:10:50 GMT -5
I have many reasons to object to Oprah running for president, chief among them being her constant peddling of woo and her promoting the likes of Drs. Oz and Phil. I'm crossing every crossable appendage that the choice doesn't come down to her vs. Trump...but if it did, I'd hold my nose and vote for her.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 11:18:34 GMT -5
I have many reasons to object to Oprah running for president, chief among them being her constant peddling of woo and her promoting the likes of Drs. Oz and Phil. I'm crossing every crossable appendage that the choice doesn't come down to her vs. Trump...but if it did, I'd hold my nose and vote for her. Agree -- her promoting Dr. Oz and Dr. Phil would be enough for me to say "no way." I'll deal if my other alternative is Trump. I hope to the spaghetti monster it doesn't come down to that.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 7, 2018 12:03:05 GMT -5
I have many reasons to object to Oprah running for president, chief among them being her constant peddling of woo and her promoting the likes of Drs. Oz and Phil. I'm crossing every crossable appendage that the choice doesn't come down to her vs. Trump...but if it did, I'd hold my nose and vote for her. Now you know how I felt during the last election.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 12:05:34 GMT -5
Oh please, c.e.
Neither Hillary Clinton nor Oprah are anywhere close to being in a ballpark with Trump. Not on the grift side, not on the lying side, not on a security risk side, not on the chaos and incompetence side.
Nowhere. In. A. Fucking. Ballpark.
When you do your rebuttal of my slam on the Christian Right continuing to give full-throated defense of Trump's grift, don't forget to give a nod to my "oh, by the way, all this shit happened, too, thread," the guilty pleas and indictments. Even taking aside what I consider to be some serious hypocrisy between the current GOP's advocated policies vs. alleged Christian values, there's the Christian right continuing to defend actions that are, frankly, beyond indefensible. If Clinton did a quarter of what Trump has done --hell, if her administration had a quarter as many scandals as are contained in that single thread -- the GOP would be calling for her head (and for the record, I'd be joining them). I defy you to deny it.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 7, 2018 12:53:42 GMT -5
Hi Cass. Before I can respond to your prior post, can you tell me who you mean by "the religious right"? Thanks.
I will respond, however. But don't think the time I'm taking to respond means my answer will be grand for the time it's taking. It just means life got busy temporarily.
As an aside, I think now that my board exam is done, I'm going to start writing a novel and decrease my participation here. Amadan's rant at me really made me examine the cost-benefit of posting here. I like interacting with writing with other folks, but I like it when that interaction develops into camaraderie and fun. There's just too much animosity here for me. I actually felt really bad the rest of that day. So I've come to realize my skin is too thin for this. I've even reached out by PM or email in a friendly way to a couple of folks here during times where I've felt their arguments crossed my line of respectful commentary. In both times I didn't even receive a response. And in one of those instances, the person I emailed was someone I considered a friend at that time.
Every once in a while a "like" from RT or poet or Opty, or a sweet comment or message from nighttimer, or a really reasoned argument from nighttimer or Christine with plenty of passion but no personal insults convinces me to stay here, but on balance it is just not fun to feel like I feel most of the time I'm arguing here. I will leave it, for the most part, to you folks who are better built for this. *note - this is not a flounce because I'm not leaving, just decreasing my arguing in these political threads. And I'm not asking for anyone to tell me not to leave. Please. That's not why I posted this. I just think I owe you all who've spent time on my posts an explanation why I plan on not being around as much.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2018 14:02:44 GMT -5
I mean the approximately 80% of Christian Republicans who supported and continue to support and defend Trump, regardless of what he does, at most giving a tsk tsk when he does something undeniably horrible, but mostly defend it as "fake news" I mean those who turn their heads -- or at most "tsk tsk" when, e.g., his deportation policies separate families or deport people who were brought here as tiny babies 35 years ago or people who served in our military. I mean those who voted for Roy Moore or would have done so if faced with a similar choice in their state. (Doug Jones won by a hair. That is freaking insane.) I mean those who march lock-step voting for candidates who embrace anti-science policies on things like climate change, or who put their hands over their ears when experts demonstrate just what will happen as a result of what Trump is doing and failing to do on healthcare -- what will happen if we dismantle the ACA without a viable replacement -- or who allow the NRA to nix all common sense gun restrictions that most people actually think are a good idea. Etc. Unfortunately, polls show that the overwhelming majority of the Christian right support all of this and still defend Trump to the hilt. Do you dispute that it's true? I will note -- prior to this last year or two, I didn't like a number of things I found anti-science or otherwise problematic on the GOPs platform. It's why I lean Democrat, although I do give a nod to some economic conservative takes on, say, tariffs, and agree with conservatives on the "let's consider where the money is going to come from" front, and yes, also see things to criticize Democrats for. I knew there were a handful of white nationalists crazies in the GOP, but I dismissed them as a fringe. By and large, I gave credit to the Christian right for good intentions -- that their position on abortion wasn't mine (and I thought would do more harm than good), but that it came from a sincere place and their faith; that they didn't like the ACA (hell, I don't love it either), but that they'd never condone just yanking it away and letting sick people flounder, etc. But now... I'm watching the Christan right overwhelmingly and full-throatedly supporting a guy who is -- and I'm totally serious -- the living embodiment of the seven deadly sins, and policies that are genuinely going to hurt a whole bunch of innocent people in bigly, irreparable ways that Jesus wouldn't like one little bit...that they're fine with the administration taking yuuuuuuuuuge actions without any consideration for the effect on the budget or poor people or our allies or any number of things... ...who know damn well they would be screaming bloody murder if a Democrat did a tenth of the things that happened this year, but turn their heads when it is the GOP guy... ...and then applaud politicians for asking people to pray to God to fix problems that are exacerbated by the policies they champion... ...and tsk tsk at those of us who are upset about it all as being overwrought and biased and mean... Yeah, I'm not buying it anymore. It's hypocritical at best. To note, I do continue to buy the sincerity of the Evan McMullins and the Jen Hatmakers, who, even if I don't agree with them on everything, I do believe act consistently and courageously in accordance with their beliefs, which is something I deeply admire. Vince might be angry with me, too, for this thread -- but FWIW, this is absolutely the category where I put him. ETA: To note, though -- even minus any hypocrisy, even with the sincerest of intentions, I don't think it's appropriate for a governor to use official stationary and taxpayer-paid postage to write in his capacity as governor to ask people to pray. The fact that he is a climate-change denier asking people to pray for relief from the consequences of climate change makes it much worse, but I'd still have a problem with it in any event.
|
|
|
Post by celawson on Mar 9, 2018 13:52:33 GMT -5
Cassandra said:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 14:50:00 GMT -5
My point was not that all Christians are Teh Evil. I don't think that at all. I can't see that you did anything to address my actual points, which were (1) that the Christian right is, as a group, supporting a man who is the personification of the seven deadly sins. The alt-right I get, since they dig that kind of thing, but the Christian right, well....yeah, that's really damn hypocritical, especially given how much wailing and screaming they did about Bill Clinton's blow job, (2) that Trump's policies overall are very un-Christlike, IMO -- they favor the rich and injure the poor; keep desperate refugees out of the country and deport good people, including war veterans, often separating families, because of trivial immigration issues; make health care even more unattainable, inadequate, and unaffordable than it already is, and are oblivious at best to our fragile environment at a time when we really need to act, (3) that praying for things like climate relief when you've voted in politicians that don't believe climate change is happening and policies that are oblivious to it is sadly ironic and hypocritical at best, and (4) that government officials shouldn't be using their official position and taxpayer funds for religious purposes. I disagree with many of your statements on abortion (which was an aside on my part in any case--I get being against abortion, I just don't get it being something one should be willing to throw every other value overboard for) and I disagree especially and utterly with your statements regarding Trump's position on DACA. On the economy, I think that Trump has done nothing other than inherit a healthy economy from Obama* that he is doing his best to damage. Your points on the economy and guns are addressed in other threads you're sidestepping, and not particularly relevant to my points anyway. The stuff about Christians doing good charity works is also irrelevant, since my argument is not that they are evil, but that those who continue to defend Trump and turn their heads when he does indefensible things are being hypocritical. I realize you're a Catholic, not an evangelical. But I'll note that Pope Francis (whom I like a lot, by the way) seems to agree with me on a number of issues -- e.g., the Wall , refugees , climate change. health care ... more so than a lot of evangelical preachers do. ETA: Can't imagine Pope Francis loves the way Trump's administration is separating families at the border... www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/huppke/ct-met-aclu-class-action-border-trump-huppke-20180309-story,amp.html?__twitter_impression=true ETA: Pope Francis isn't big on guns either... www.washingtonexaminer.com/media-gets-it-mostly-right-on-pope-francis-and-weapons-manufacturers/article/2566812ETA: Aaaaaand Pope Francis is not a fan of Trump's back and forth games on DACA, either. www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/09/pope-francis-trump-dacaETA: Nor does Pope Francis think Trump's decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem was a swell idea. www.nytimes.com/2017/12/06/world/europe/trump-jerusalem-pope.htmlETA: After Charlottesville, Pope Francis tweeted this: Aaaaand a month before that, a Vatican-approved journal said conservative American Catholics who supported Trump had joined an alliance of “hate.” www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/world/charlottesville-trump-world-reaction.htmlI dunno. It sounds to me like the Pope would agree with my take on Trump and Catholicism/Christianity not mixing well. ETA: *e.g , that black unemployment talking point you threw out there? -- that's part of a continuing several year trend that started -- you guessed it -- under Obama.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 20:51:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Don on Mar 9, 2018 21:15:30 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2018 21:37:21 GMT -5
Shocking. The atheist anarchist doesn't agree with the Pope.
My point is that the "hey let's give ginormous tax breaks to the rich and corporations!" is not quite what the Pope or Jesus would endorse.
Nor, near as I can tell, would either the Pope or Jesus approve the vast majority of other Trump policies. Indeed, they would endorse doing pretty much the opposite. If the economy were the only thing, maybe I could see, but the Christian right seems pretty damn excited about the Wall, keeping out refugees, deporting immigrants, and other policies that are the very reverse of what the Pope endorses and that the Biblical Jesus would have endorsed. It's not even like they're swallowing Trump but repudiating those policies -- they seem pretty darn keen on them.
And that's without even touching their swallowing Trump's personal history and current behavior (see e.g., the seven deadly sins) and excusing it at every turn.
And so I find it bizarre, inconsistent, and yes, hypocritical for the Christian right to champion Trump and defend him valiantly through every seedy, dishonest, grifting, greedy, sleazy, irresponsible thing he does.
ETA:
(This atheist by and large thinks Pope Francis and Jesus have the right idea on most of this stuff -- which is a good part of why I can't stomach Trump.)
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 9, 2018 22:35:40 GMT -5
I haven't seen anyone here, or elsewhere, claim that it's "hurting" anyone, i.e., other religions. That's not why politicians shouldn't invoke gods, or prayer, as a solution to problems. Angie brought up the parallel of invoking Muslim beliefs (Sharia law, anyone?) because some Americans tend to go batshit over the very suggestion that Islam might be promoted by government, while they have no problem with Christianity being promoted. Government "leaving out" other religions isn't the problem. Government promoting ANY religion(s) is the problem. It's fair to give him props for being inclusive, but this isn't a situation where inclusivity is applicable. Again: for me (and I think it's clear as being for everyone else who's objected here) it's about promoting religion, specifically prayer, to solve problems. Honest question, c.e., my friend: do you believe that praying can cause or deter meteorological events that would not / would otherwise have happened? Do you believe God controls the weather?* If so, then I can understand your support of the governor's prayer call. If not, then perhaps you can understand why other people feel frustrated with the governor's prayer call. *I know people, including family members, who firmly believe God can turn the path of a hurricane. There were a ton of "prayer calls" in my town when Irma was approaching. I guess that's why God let it annihilate Haiti and Puerto Rico instead of southeast Florida. Those other people just didn't pray hard enough. FFS, it pisses me off just to type that. Come ON. I believe God CAN control the weather. That wasn't my question. My question was: do you believe that praying can cause/deter meteorological events that would not/would otherwise have happened. It's an honest question. So, the weather plays out as it does, according to the rules, for the most part. What are the parameters for the part that's not the "most part"? What are the rules for God breaking the rules, as it were? I agree that if there is a God, he's made some pretty hard core, unchangeable rules. They're collectively called science. They don't get broken, as far as I can see. Take gravity for example. When's the last time God didn't allow that particular rule to play out? The problem here is that weather isn't entirely predictable. And as with unpredictable things, since the dawn of time, people tend to ascribe power over them to deities. I assume you wouldn't pray that a man falling off of a high-rise would suddenly float gently to the ground instead of splatting onto the pavement. That would be a ridiculous thing to pray for: rules are rules. But people pray for rain, or other favorable meteorological events. I think the reason people do this is because we don't have the ability to know exactly when the weather will change. Or, like in the case of the locals here, where the hurricane will land. People pray where there is uncertainty, but that's a function of the uncertainty, not "the rules." The rules are always going to be the rules. They're not breakable. The rules of the weather aren't any more breakable because of their uncertainty. I think you are conflating your own belief in prayer, which is perfectly fine, with the state calling for, and thus, representing a religious act, which is not fine. What if the state had called upon the Church of Satan to also pray (to Satan, obviously). Would that be okay with everyone? Seriously. The issue is that the STATE is calling upon the CHURCH but we have separation of church and state. Not only does prayer NOT CHANGE WEATHER but the state is aligning itself with the church, or churches, i.e, religion. The state should not do that. Like, do what? Perform a seance? Look into a crystal ball? Cut off the head of chicken? Sacrifice a goat? I don't think anyone has been condescending up until this point, but I'm officially putting on the mantle, c.e., because YES it would be FINE for a governor to reach out separately to a specific group of people and ask them to do something helpful but NO, it is NOT okay for a governor to promote religious acts AS SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS on his official fucking letterhead. (Sorry. Love you chica. Heads up, my all caps isn't over.) None of these things are bad. I disagree that prayer necessarily leads to any of these things. I think a person's willingness to consider and be open to the things you've mentioned above is all that is needed. No prayer necessary. I think you're giving prayer a sort of unmerited superpower here. But again, the point is, ACTS OF PRAYER SHOULD NOT BE PROMOTED BY GOVERNMENT AS SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS. See, none of this is actually about the prayerful practices of those with religious faith. It's about the governor PROMOTING those prayerful practices as A SOLUTION TO A PROBLEM. No one is trying to diss your faith. You are free to have it, practice it, shout it from the rooftops. It's just that your and everyone else's faith needs to stay out of government. You seem to be ignoring that part, and feeling offended by those who are making the point. It's not about you personally, or any person, or anyone's personal faith, at all. Swear to God.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Mar 9, 2018 23:40:23 GMT -5
Shocking. The atheist anarchist doesn't agree with the Pope. My point is that the "hey let's give ginormous tax breaks to the rich and corporations!" is not quite what the Pope or Jesus would endorse. Your point is taken here. For a long time I've wondered why we don't have a "radical Christian right" that demands society, via government, feed the poor, heal the sick, visit the prisoners, shelter the homeless. Those were Jesus' words, the very acts God judges and by which determines those who enter heaven and who are cast into outer darkness. I mean, Jesus was basically a socialist. It boggles the mind how he's been translated into a 21st century Republican. ETA: Literally today, I was following a minivan that had two stickers on its back window: On the left side: I'm a CHRISTIAN and I VOTE! On the right side: TRUMP Behind it: Me flailing
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Mar 9, 2018 23:46:32 GMT -5
Reminds me of my favorite Jesus meme. It's the one where Jesus says: "I can't feed all these people. That would only create dependency."
|
|