|
Post by robeiae on Nov 6, 2017 9:34:47 GMT -5
I found this piece interesting: www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-aslan-trump-cultists-20171106-story.htmlFrom it: From there, the author discussing these characteristics. As it happens, the author is Reza Aslan, whose recently published book-- Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth--offers a view of Jesus that I happen to largely agree with. Part of that view involves seeing Jesus as something of a political shit-stirrer. I mention this because Aslan has taken a lot of heat in the past from the Evangelical Right and both they and others have questioned his academic credentials. Anyway, I think his take on Trump--though heavily influenced by his documented disgust for the President--is fair to a degree. The question for me is to what degree, I guess. Allowing the cultish nature of Trump's supporters, where is the line? Because I don't think it's true of all of them, though it's certainly true of some of them.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 6, 2017 11:11:22 GMT -5
I think most Trump voters either believed his BS about making America great again, or just wanted to stick it to liberals. Not too different from any other election. But the Alt-Right has been calling him the "God-Emperor" since his election. It was originally meant as a tongue-in-cheek title, of course - yet another way to "trigger SJWs" and imply that Trump was an Alpha Male would Get Things Done and crush the jeweled thrones of Hollywood and (((New York))) beneath his feet. But I think an increasing number of his followers harbor a desire to make that title literal - if he declared himself God-Emperor for Life, a small but not insignificant percentage of his followers would support him and literally take up arms on his behalf.
The more he fails, the more this phenomenon grows. For two reasons - one is the human tendency to double down on one's mistakes rather than admitting them. The other is that the narrative is that all the opposition is coming from treasonous leftists, and resistance just means sterner measures are called for.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 6, 2017 13:02:46 GMT -5
With any politician, there's a tendency for some that anything they do that's bad is blamed on the opposition. That's politics in with the team sports mentality. Most reasonable people however know it's okay to disagree with someone they voted for an a specific issue. The flip side of that the opposition either refuses to give credit for anything good, or blames them for anything bad that they had no control over. The same thing is happening with Trump, but to a degree that goes beyond normal partisan politics. For example www.cnn.com/2017/11/06/politics/donald-trump-koi-pond-japan/index.htmlA big deal is being made out of the fact that In Japan while feeding some fish, Trump spooned some food in, then dumped the entire box into the tank or lake or whatever. Well, the President of Japan did the same exact thing first. Trump was following his lead. Why is this even worthy of an article? Put enough of these together and it numbs one to legit criticisms of Trump, of which there a legion.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Nov 6, 2017 13:31:24 GMT -5
The fish food thing is petty, but watching the video, Abe tossed some food from his box directly into the pond, followed by Trump just dumping the whole thing in. I agree it's a non-story, but it is pretty typical Trump - impatient and showy, always trying to one-up everyone around him.
None of that is really what rob was talking about, though. Yes, every politician has some devoted supporters who will excuse anything they do, and some haters who will spin sinister character flaws out of their every word and gesture, but the people calling Trump "the God-Emperor" are something new. And you're doing the reverse - conflating people who have serious and grave concerns about what Trump is doing to the Republican with people snarking about feeding fish.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 9, 2017 18:24:06 GMT -5
At the moment that cult is making highly technical legal argument that since the age of consent in Alabama was 12 in 1978, it was a-ok for a 32-year-old man to have sex with a 14-year-old. In fact, they say that since the age of consent was 12, Roy Moore did absolutely nothing wrong when he sexually molested a 14-year-old. Because of different sexual mores, or something.
Once again I'm reminded of something that Donald Trump said during the primaries, that he could stand on 5th Avenue in New York and shoot someone, and he'd still have support. I guess that in this, he was correct.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 11, 2017 5:46:00 GMT -5
At the moment that cult is making highly technical legal argument that since the age of consent in Alabama was 12 in 1978, it was a-ok for a 32-year-old man to have sex with a 14-year-old. Not looking to defend Roy Moore (in fact I think he should drop out of the senate race), but there was no allegation that he actually had sex with a 14 year old.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2017 11:22:36 GMT -5
At the moment that cult is making highly technical legal argument that since the age of consent in Alabama was 12 in 1978, it was a-ok for a 32-year-old man to have sex with a 14-year-old. Not looking to defend Roy Moore (in fact I think he should drop out of the senate race), but there was no allegation that he actually had sex with a 14 year old. There is, however, an allegation that Moore kissed a 14-year-old and tried to make her touch his genitals.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 11, 2017 18:19:00 GMT -5
Not looking to defend Roy Moore (in fact I think he should drop out of the senate race), but there was no allegation that he actually had sex with a 14 year old. There is, however, an allegation that Moore kissed a 14-year-old and tried to make her touch his genitals. Right. And I think that's enough that he should go away. Of course, it doesn't look like that's going to happen unless he loses the election.
|
|
|
Post by maxinquaye on Nov 11, 2017 20:04:14 GMT -5
At the moment that cult is making highly technical legal argument that since the age of consent in Alabama was 12 in 1978, it was a-ok for a 32-year-old man to have sex with a 14-year-old. Not looking to defend Roy Moore (in fact I think he should drop out of the senate race), but there was no allegation that he actually had sex with a 14 year old. I didn't say that Roy Moore had sex with a 14-year old. I said his followers defended having sex with a 14 year old, because age of consent in Alabama in 1978 was 12 years old. Which is only partly true, because Alabama had Romeo and Juliet laws. If you were under 19 years old, then the 12 year old could consent. If you were over, it was statutory rape. And now I need to go and shower... urgently.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 11, 2017 21:00:58 GMT -5
Not looking to defend Roy Moore (in fact I think he should drop out of the senate race), but there was no allegation that he actually had sex with a 14 year old. I didn't say that Roy Moore had sex with a 14-year old. Didn't say you did. But I should have been clearer. If people were indeed saying that, that would be incredibly stupid and unnecessary given that they're defending something that wasn't alleged. And I'm not even sure it would be correct, anyway. Everything I've seen on this puts the age of consent in Alabama at 16, not 12.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2017 21:27:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by poetinahat on Nov 12, 2017 19:44:24 GMT -5
How sad is it that this is even a question. I would say the bar can't get any lower for elected officials, but apparently that's taken as a dare.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Nov 13, 2017 13:26:23 GMT -5
The Moore situation is troubling to the point of wanting to vomit.
The Moore defenders can be split into 2 groups.
Group one, they don't believe the charges. Okay, so Moore hasn't been formally charged, much less convicted. So if you hold that position, fine. I think, based on the info available, it's precarious to say the least. But I can deal with someone who says they won't hold something against a man until it's been proven.
Group two, defending the alleged action as if it's not that big of a deal. Um... yeah it is. If you're someone who can't see that, if molesting a 14 year old isn't enough to disqualify someone in your eyes because he's got that little R after his name, I've got nothing but scorn for you.
Not that Moore was a catch before this.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Nov 13, 2017 17:50:16 GMT -5
Group one, they don't believe the charges. Okay, so Moore hasn't been formally charged, much less convicted. So if you hold that position, fine. I think, based on the info available, it's precarious to say the least. But I can deal with someone who says they won't hold something against a man until it's been proven. Well, it's never going to be proven in a court, at this point. And I doubt there are many people who actually hold that position consistently. Roy Moore, Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Harvey Weinstein have all been accused of some pretty serious misconduct, but how many people believe that all four should be given the benefit of the doubt? And how many pick and choose based on the who involved?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2017 18:39:43 GMT -5
|
|