Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Mon Jan 27 16:44:16 PST 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / God hates Trump
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 06:21:16
(CNN)A leading Christian magazine founded by late evangelist Billy Graham -- father of key presidential supporter Franklin Graham -- published an op-ed on Thursday calling for President Donald Trump to be removed from office and urging evangelicals not to support him.
"Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment," Christianity Today's editor in chief, Mark Galli, wrote in the op-ed. "That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments."
Galli continued, "We believe the impeachment hearings have made it absolutely clear, in a way the Mueller investigation did not, that President Trump has abused his authority for personal gain and betrayed his constitutional oath. The impeachment hearings have illuminated the president's moral deficiencies for all to see."

"None of the president's positives can balance the moral and political danger we face under a leader of such grossly immoral character," he added.
The publication, an influential one among evangelicals, has criticized Trump before on immigration and other issues, but never before called for his removal. The op-ed shows potential reasoning for dissent among a key faction of the Republican coalition as Trump prepares for a potential Senate trial following his impeachment by the House of Representatives Wednesday night.
"To the many evangelicals who continue to support Mr. Trump in spite of his blackened moral record, we might say this: Remember who you are and whom you serve," Galli wrote. "Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump's immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency."
The magazine's web servers were strained by all the web traffic when the editorial came out on Thursday afternoon. After some temporary hiccups, service was mostly restored.
Jim Wallis, one of the nation's most prominent liberal evangelical leaders, called the op-ed's stance a "huge, watershed event," adding that the magazine is arguably the leading evangelical magazine in the nation.
"What CT is saying in their editorial is removing Donald Trump from office is now a matter of faith, not politics, and I agree," Wallis told CNN.
Wallis, founder of Sojourners magazine, says evangelicals made a "Faustian" bargain with Trump -- appoint the federal judges we want and we will look the other way.
"They have made the Faustian bargain that no matter what he does, it's all acceptable because he gives them the judges he wants," says Wallis, author of "Christ in Crisis: Why We Need to Reclaim Jesus."
As far as the impact of the announcement, Wallis says it may impact two groups of evangelicals the most: suburban white women and younger evangelicals who are already jaded by older evangelicals' embrace of Trump.
"I bet there are going to be a lot of younger evangelicals who are going to be really excited," Wallis said about the editorial.

He says there are now cracks in the wall of evangelical support for Trump. The call for removal may not sway the majority of evangelicals but just enough to make a difference in the 2020 election.
"You don't need a whole lot to shift the race, just a few votes in key places in key states could make the ultimate difference" Wallis said.
TJ
Member
Fri Dec 20 10:30:42
I'll play the game.

A sinner pointing the finger at a sinner. lmao
kargen
Member
Fri Dec 20 15:37:15
Turns out Billy Graham voted for President Trump so leading with founded by Billy Graham might not have been the best way to start. I doubt the article is going to change many minds if any. They have about 200,000 as far as distribution goes and the magazine has been shifting to the left for a while now. Most subscribers probably already don't like President Trump.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 20 16:43:37
"has been shifting to the left for a while now"

how did you come to that conclusion?

also, it's a "far left magazine" according to the guy who they allege tweets a "habitual string of mischaracterizations, lies, and slanders"

also also... Trump's not being attacked on policies, so the left/rightness not that relevant, it's a pure character argument... that you happily dismiss as 'they must be on the left'


you exemplify the problem nicely
kargen
Member
Fri Dec 20 17:02:56
oh just a few articles I read and what I could find on contributors and editor. You know...research instead of feelings like you and your ilk.

They are on the left and I didn't mention that to dismiss their argument. I mentioned it to point out I doubt it will have any real affect on the outcome of the election. Also why I mentioned their distribution numbers.

Who knows what you read though. Obviously not what I typed out.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 20 17:23:00
since you did all that research, feel free to call Trump a liar then for calling it a "far left magazine"

and maybe acknowledge he did zero research to come to that conclusion, as is typical for his accusations
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 20 18:30:07
Well Billy Graham's son has come out in light of this saying not only did his father vote for Trump and openly supports him but that he would not share the opinions of the magazine.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 18:34:21
Its more that it sets free those who held their noses and voted Trump last cycle because its what God wanted.

Any change in voting habits will not be earth-shattering, but neither was the margins on Trump's electoral college victory.

Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 20 18:40:38
I doubt it will change a single vote.
kargen
Member
Fri Dec 20 18:40:39
We all know he loves hyperbole and it is part of his regular behavior. Nothing to be concerned about. I really doubt he spent any time researching before he responded. Really isn't worth his nor his staffs time.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 20 19:06:40
do you think he did any research before declaring the heads of the FBI to be dirty cops?

when does learning facts become worth his time?

seemingly never


Billy Graham's grandaughter says it's not proper to try to guess what Billy Graham would think, and agrees w/ op-ed

& worries those going w/ the lesser of two evils will stop noticing the evil of that lesser... (she said it better :p)
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 19:12:30
Habebe
You are underestimating how authoritarian evangilical christians are. Its not that it would change votes Trump would have gotten organically, but rather that now, charismatic christians are freer to not vote for Trump.

Likely by opting to not vote at all.
obaminated
Member
Fri Dec 20 19:18:33
God hates trump, that's why everything turns out good for him.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 20 19:27:17
Jergul, I think it's another straw that his dissenters are grasping at...these are all the same straw graspers that said " the impeachment will turn moderated or shake his base etc." And if anything he seems to have more support than ever...the biggest claim the dems have is claiming " only I can take on Trump" but as of yet its just more straw grasping.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 19:33:48
Habebe
His approval ratings suck. We both know there is no way he is going to win the popular vote.

Clutching at straws seems rather an overstatement.

The democrats have a real shot at taking the whitehouse.

And the outcome will be determined by relatively few votes in key electorates.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 19:42:43
The most approval he had ever was in January 2017 at 45.5% His current popularity is 43.5%

If you want clutching at straws - Trump is rambling more.

I have seen him employ early Altzheimer techniques more and more when responding to journalist questions.

Does that make him unelectable? Well, no. Reagan was proof of that. But Reagan allowed himself to be managed.

For Trump, the next election should be sooner, rahter than later.

End strawclutching.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 20 19:46:56
http://new...-support-impeachment-dips.aspx

From an outside view you may think they have a fair shot...but really it's a hail Mary.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 20:11:33
Habebe
Link was broken.

From the outside, I would say that Trump incumbent advantage is more than balanced out by a domocrat not being a Hillary Clinton linked to a federal investigation into wrongdoing on the eve of the election.

Has anything else changed? Some massive swell in support that will assure him a 2nd term that I am unaware of?

You are overstating the likelihood of Trump's re-election. By doing so, you are giving the democrats desperate motivations they simply do not have.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 20:12:00
I should type slower.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 20 20:24:21
They have no strong candidate ans they havnt since Obama. If Obama could run id say yeah they got a good fight...Biden os a weak contender.

Unless the economy tanks Trump is a shoe in.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 20:36:22
Again. There is no way he is going to win the popular vote, so a shoe in is really overstating the case.

According to polling, the democrats currently have 248 safe electorate college votes against the GOPs 204.

The GOP has to win florida, and has four variations on winning. The democrats have 6 varations on winning even if they lose florida, so 7 in total.

Trump moved to florida for a reason you know.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 20:38:48
http://www...-election-2020/card/1560881081

You are really overstating the likelihood of Trump winning.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 20 20:45:13
If they're so safe then why are democratic elite so concerned of weak prospects for front runners?

Why did Bloomberg enter again?

Why is so much talk devoted to " who can beat Trump"?

In US polotics the old saying goes democrats fall in love, Republicans fall in line....but they have no one to fall in love with other than Sanders.

Now a lot can happen in a year but unless say the economy tanks as I said earlier I dont see him losing.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 20 20:49:21
Your link is drom June.....
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 20:55:17
You too are typing to fast.

Yes, I noticed after posting the poll was a bit old. More recent polls (the latest in Oktober) show trump trailing within the margins of error.

My point is not that Trump will lose, but rather that this is a highly contested election where the outcome is in doubt.

TJ
Member
Fri Dec 20 21:10:23
The 2016 election wasn't in doubt either. It was thought to be a landslide for Hillary. I don't think you'll see the Republican party following suit that the Democratic Party did in 2016. I imagine they realize what is on the line in 2020 and they won't take it nonchalantly. I wouldn't put much weight into polls, especially so this early.

Every election is in doubt or there would be no need for an election.
jergul
large member
Fri Dec 20 21:18:02
No one could have planned on James Comney's untimely investigation.

What is on the line is what is always on the line.

The office of president.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 20 21:24:36
The current polls imho will show a tighter race until its one on one at which poimt the Democratic candidate may have a small bump in polling and then the real fight will ensue at which point I think Trump will take a strong lead.

I couls be wrong bit history shows its hard to unseat a sitting potus with a good economy on top of which trump is a strong candidate something the dems lack this cycle.
tumbleweed
the wanderer
Fri Dec 20 22:06:58
no history applies w/ Trump... his approval rating shouldn't suck w/ a good economy but it does because of how he behaves

there will be plenty more scandals between now and election, and hopefully a steady parade of people who work(ed) with him begging people not to vote for him again, as they spent all their time trying to contain him & his uninformed idiocy
kargen
Member
Fri Dec 20 22:13:18
"His approval ratings suck. We both know there is no way he is going to win the popular vote."

His approval rating is at or slightly higher than President Obama's at this point in President Obama's first term. Popular vote doesn't matter. If it did everyone would run different campaigns.

"No one could have planned on James Comney's untimely investigation."

That is a lame excuse. Hillary lost because she believed her own press and started celebrating her victory early. She was in California partying with celebrities when President Trump was hitting all the swing states. Look how much time she spent in California late in the campaign. She wasn't there to drum up votes, California was a lock for her. She thought she had won and was coasting. That is why she lost. One more circle around the midwest and I think she would have won easy.

Swing states are trending towards President Trump and the swing states really are all that matters.
Habebe
Member
Fri Dec 20 22:34:15
I remember watching the election from my corner cell on D block....i was found innocent of all charges btw...
kargen
Member
Fri Dec 20 22:38:07
This one is funny.

http://66....c1070fb637838dc817e61759fb.jpg
jergul
large member
Sat Dec 21 01:04:54
habebe
You were just overstating things.

Were you found innocent, or did the police not submit your arrest to the DA, so it turned out you were not actually arrested after all?

Kargen
Obama approval: 45.9
Trump approval: 43.3

The popular vote matter. It tells you who the majority of the voting population supported.

She lost because of Comney. She should have, could have, would have shifted her strategy against that backdrop. Perhaps it would have helped.

Trump really needs a swing state trend. Because as it stands, the democrats win.

There is in other words no slam dunk for anyone.
jergul
large member
Sat Dec 21 01:05:11
(that was funny. And topical).
TJ
Member
Sat Dec 21 10:16:31
"The popular vote matter."

It is eye opening when some things matter and others don't. Numbers matter alright, the numbers that matter. :)
Habebe
Member
Sat Dec 21 11:18:41
Jergul, I'm just gonna agree to disagree on there chances for now.

The judge threw my case out when thw cop wouldn't show up. Probably because the cop lied on camera, didn't get a warrant for my blood draw and figures no body fights a DUI.
jergul
large member
Sat Dec 21 12:15:02
TJ
It always matters. "The democrats are trying to steal the election from the electoral college" has a more hollow ring to it than "The democrats are trying to steal the election from the American people" :-).

The popular vote is the actual moral majority. A wise president morderate policy somewhat to reflect that he is the president of all Americans, not just the president for a few voters in a few key swing states.
TJ
Member
Sat Dec 21 12:59:47
j->The popular vote is the actual moral majority.

Interesting.

The popular vote is the actual majority that is attempting to subvert law. (Fixed) Moral is obviously subjective.

moral-> based on what you believe is right instead of what the law or rules say is right. Laws matter and the laws are being put through the process by what you label as moral majority.

Do you know why the Founders didn't use the wording of malfeasance or conduct of office in the grounds for impeachment. It was actually debated when the impeachment wording was decided upon. They thought it to be too vague and subject of abuse(bias points of view). Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors was their final wording applied for that very reason. Their is an attempt to reinvent the Constitution of this Republic. All things in proper time, eh?

The following is so true.

The public loves an impeachment, until the public hates an impeachment.

It all depends on the right numbers and those numbers matter in the House and Senate, which are the members decided on by the public and not the electoral college. It is the process of present legality.

What we have today with impeachment fully demonstrates their concern at the time. Numbers do matter when it comes to removal and conviction. The House chose not to follow procedure and now they are attempting to demand of the Senate that which they refused to do in the Judiciary. Not what you or I believe to be right or wrong.

I'm fully aware that huge numbers would prefer to have their morality dictate over law. There is a process for doing just that, but know it is a difficult path so the morality chooses to ignore the law.

Their is no valid argument against what I have said if you take the time to understand.

My morality isn't the deciding factor and neither is yours and that completes my position. Fight on soldier of morality as nothing is perfect. It isn't surprising to me that you have taken the position you do.
kargen
Member
Sun Dec 22 02:56:53
"The popular vote matter. It tells you who the majority of the voting population supported."

If the popular vote mattered the game would be played different. All candidates would spend their time in five or six states and mostly ignore the rest. Sometimes popular vote indicates the eventual winner but not always.

Think of a baseball game. The team that scores the most runs wins. The number of hits a team gets can help determine the score. If the winner was the team with the most hits the game would be played much different. The power hitters would be scrapped for faster players that can place a line drive. A couple of singles would be better than a home run. Oh and they would have to change the game so a pitcher didn't just walk all the best hitters. Walks wouldn't hurt the team any at all.

That is how it is with the election and the popular vote. The popular vote would be the hits and the electoral votes are the runs. The scores matter the number of runs do not.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 22 04:34:44
The limits of linear thinking along 1 axis. People who point to the popular vote in America. You won the wrong game! If the rules had been different (popular vote decided) then campaings would be run differently and the results would likely also be different. The assumption is made that if not for the wretched ellectoral system WE WOULD HAVE WON! Listen, if things had been different, things would be different.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 22 06:56:46
Its about the mandate nimi. In democracies, everyone is represented after an election no matter the party they voted for. A politician also has to cater to the needs of those that did not vote for him.

Otherwise, you are just electing a dictator or junta every 4 years.

Dinos. Democracies in name only.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 22 06:58:00
You meant binary btw.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 22 07:07:58
I am really not interested in your butchering of language to redefine the world.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 22 09:01:36
"linear thinking along one axis"

And you think I am butchering the language :).

I had explained why the popular vote matters. Its a key factor in representative democracy no matter how votes are weighted (most systems do weigh votes in one way or another).

The thought is anything but "linear thinking along one axis"

You were thinking binary and that would also be incorrect.

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 22 09:06:52
I said it right the first time, trust me.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 22 09:53:35
I think we should all start to write like you.

Albino people without pigmentation.

Billionaires that are rich.

Dead inanimate people

Linear thinking along one axis.

Gain-gain synergy.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 22 09:57:20
What incidentally is the tag you put on that "linear axis" of yours?
TJ
Member
Sun Dec 22 10:18:13
j->remember when I said all things in due time?

Presently, this post is the course I view the US in on if the government stays the current course without legislative change.

The US in 2020 will experience another census and it will alter the appropriation of our representative government. Of course I could be wrong, but it seems to be a realistic assessment.

The House passed the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929, fixing the number of Representatives at 435. The U.S. Constitution called for at least one Representative per state and that no more than one for every 30,000 persons. The size of a state's House delegation depends on its population and citizenship doesn't matter, population of States matter.

The population of 50 states is divided by 435 (the House size) in order to find the national “ideal size” district. Next this number is divided into each state's population. Each state is then awarded the whole number in its quotient (but at least one).

Tie that into immigration numbers and what States have the huge numbers of immigrants, mostly democratic. It appears to me that there will be considerable losses and gains in 2024 if there in no legislative changes prior 2024.

The slim popular majority vote is not the problem and it won't be in 2020 if Trump is reelected by the electoral college. What I said above will not only change State representation, it will also change the electoral college. The US in on a destructive path that will totally change its government. I never thought I'd see the day, but it is possible.
TJ
Member
Sun Dec 22 12:18:41
I think it is fair to say our 2 party system is in the process of being neutered from within. The majority of States will eventually lose representation in government and elections if its course remains steady.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 22 17:15:33
TJ
I did not mean it was a problem, nor did I mean that the electoral college is fundamentally undemocratic.

The founding fathers feared mob rule. The electoral college protected against that. In its modern incarnation, it protects less populated areas from the dictate of urban centres (generalized to a state level).

I was aware that the next census is 2020 (and will effect the 2022 midterms).

Urbanization increases by about 2% a decade. Which I think was the factor you were alluding to when you mentioned immigrants.

Urbanization is a global thing.

A party out of step with the population needs to become more in step with the population.

The Federalists did not learn that, and the party died out (or morphed into...?) The democrats and republicans changed pole positions over the course of a century.

Incemental change is still change on a long enough timeline.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 22 17:27:32
"The interactive map below shows that if the projected 2024 map had been in place in 2016, Trump would have won 309 electoral votes, 3 more than the 306 he actually won (excluding faithless electors)."
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 22 17:28:27

2016 Election with Projected 2024 Electoral Votes
Estimate as of December, 2018

The 2020 Census will lead to a reapportionment of Congressional Districts. Since each state receives electoral votes equal to its number of Districts (+2 for its Senators), the electoral map will be changing for the 2024 presidential election. Based on the late 2018 estimate by Election Data Services, TX and FL will be the big winners, gaining 3 and 2 electoral votes, respectively. AZ, CO, MT, NC and OR will gain one each. As the number of electoral votes is fixed, these 10 increased votes must come from somewhere else. The current projection is that New York will lose two electoral votes, while eight states (AL, IL, MI, MN, OH, PA, RI, WV) are on track to lose one each.

The interactive map below shows that if the projected 2024 map had been in place in 2016, Trump would have won 309 electoral votes, 3 more than the 306 he actually won (excluding faithless electors).
Habebe
Member
Sun Dec 22 17:41:07
TX- +3 R
FL- +2 toss up
Az, MT, CO, NC +4 R
OR- +1 D
Al, OH, WV- -3 R
Ri, IL, -2 D
PA is a toss up has leant D for years especially in the cities.

If enough about MN, MI.
TJ
Member
Sun Dec 22 20:19:22
jergul:

There are many electoral projections. You didn't provide a link for the one you are referring. You didn't provide a link, but I found several links that state nearly what you have stated. I've also seen projections where Hillary would win the election in 2020 if she was in the race. Go figure. :)

Before the census all projections of population is subject, because they are estimates.

I believe your map will change considerably after the 2020 census is completed. Like I said in my post I haven't locked everything down as a certain. Unknowns are unknowns. Most of my figures come from The center for immigration studies.

Guess we'll see. BTW, I'm fully aware of the reasoning behind the electoral college. I'm not senile or noticing a loss of memory.

I leaped from the top of my ego many years ago.

I always consider it fortunate when I've made a mistake. Makes for happy days. :)
kargen
Member
Sun Dec 22 21:30:22
The new one in Colorado will probably be Democrat. Denver and Boulder are growing and those are bastions of liberalism. Colorado does have two new laws in place that is suppose to prevent gerrymandering so it will be interesting to see how the map is drawn.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 24 07:59:02
This week we talked with Jennifer, a 38 year old white woman from North Carolina who wrote in to say, “I am an evangelical Christian but I think Trumpism is actually, truly a religious cult.” She feels “horrified to watch most of my friends and family believe Trump is God’s chosen one … I feel like I’m living inside of the story “The Emperor Has No Clothes.” Am I the crazy one?! Why can no one in church see he’s naked!!!!!”

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Clare Malone: When did you come to this opinion and how?

Jennifer: It was leading up to the 2016 election. And it really was hearing the sound bites of the actual words coming out of Donald Trump. Now, it wasn’t certain talking heads or certain news programs. It was literally the quotes or the video clips of him speaking that were so offensive to me. I couldn’t imagine voting for him even though I’ve always been a Republican.

I would probably consider myself a little bit of a centrist at this point. I mean, I’m pro-life — like, babies being born but also refugee children being cared for. I think it’s hypocritical to be here for one and not the other. And I care about women in crisis too, I just don’t think that these issues need to be so dehumanizing for certain people to win power.

CM: Take me back to 2016. When did you start to hear people start to make justifications for Trump?

Jennifer: My friends were conflicted when he made the remark about grabbing a woman. But once he ended up winning, then I felt like people really started to justify voting for him.

It’s just weird in this polarized environment because I can’t call myself a member of the GOP anymore. I am not super liberal, but I definitely can’t go along with the leadership of the country right now.

CM: Why do you think they have started justifying his actions? Is it the news they watch? Is there biblical justification to say, “Sure, God has picked an imperfect vessel.”

Jennifer: I think part of it is people feel the need to be consistent. If you went ahead and voted for the person, you don’t want to feel bad about yourself, you want to come up with reasons to feel good about the fact that you voted for them. If you agree with the president, you’re going to say we should pray for him. The Bible tells us to pray for our leaders. But if there is a person in power who is not of your political party, do you show them the same grace? Do you pray for them as well? I feel like it’s this double standard which I don’t think is biblical. I think that’s just our human nature.

CM: How do you feel about that personally? How do you feel about Trump and forgiveness?

Jennifer: Well, if you want to talk about the Bible, I think the Bible requires repentance for God to grant forgiveness to people. And so I think I haven’t seen any true repentance in any of his actions. I would use scripture that talks more about how a wise man deals with a fool — there’s a verse that says if a wise man tries to reason with a fool the fool only rages and laughs.

CM: Would you say that the attitude of people in your community about Trump has changed the way that you feel about your church?

Jennifer: I’m confronted with this reality of like four out of five evangelicals voting for this man. And it’s like, are we seeing the same reality? It’s made me want to be careful what church I attend, and what programs I’m involved with, because I think this is going to have really long term, deeply negative effects on the American culture’s view of Christians. The challenge for me is to think about how this one person, Donald Trump, doesn’t dictate who Jesus Christ is. The challenge is to focus on Jesus himself.

CM: You said earlier that you’re pro-life in the sense of wanting babies to be born but you also care about refugee children. How have the kids-in-cages news stories been received in your community given that the Trump administration has been defending that policy?

Jennifer: I do have some friends who are troubled by that. But I also have friends popping up in my Facebook newsfeed defending those policies. I think that we have to almost dehumanize people in our view of them in order to justify. So, if you talk to someone who’s very liberal and talk about the issue of abortion, they’re going to say that’s not a baby. That’s not a person. And if you talk to conservatives about a child of an immigrant in a cage, they’re going to say, they’re not Americans. They don’t belong here. Their parents broke the law. They deserve this. They’re distancing themselves from that humanity, leading to them to look at those children differently than they would look at an American child.

CM: Are you thinking of yourself as a Democrat right now?

Jennifer: I’ve switched my registration to independent. I have been GOP my whole life. At this point, I really want to see how the polling is and throw my support to whoever seems most likely to beat Donald Trump.

CM: Have you brought up your controversial opinion to family members or people in the community who support Trump?

Jennifer: I find it really hard to break through. I have some friends that are more extreme than others, like a couple friends who are really talking almost like he’s almost a messiah of sorts.

CM: How have you dealt with it on an interpersonal level? Do you switch the conversation topic at a certain point?

Jennifer: My husband and I don’t agree about it. We’ve only been married a couple years. If things get too heated we table the discussion. I think sometimes it helps if I can share personal stories or ways that seem to affect me personally; like, if I can talk about how upsetting it is being a woman to hear the derogatory comments. It’s frustrating. You care about someone and you’re on different pages.

The funny thing is, I felt like I wasn’t that political of a person before 2016. But then I just felt so deeply offended by the attitudes towards women, towards minorities, the horrible things happening at the border. And I mean, to be honest, I just expect more of Christians. Because I am a Christian.

For me, the challenge is, how do I keep from villainizing or dehumanizing those that I disagree with? And I feel like that has to start with me.

http://fiv...ical-who-doesnt-support-trump/
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Tue Dec 24 11:24:25
Jergul
You do understand that lines can be mapped along 2 or 3 axis? How is a line along one axis like albinos without pigment? I picked the simplest straight line (straight lines already being fairly straight forward... heh) for a reason. Can you guess why? Then again now that you failed at how straight lines work, guesswork is redundant. Jesus Christ, I though linear thinking was what you were good at.
Rugian
Member
Tue Dec 24 12:34:01
Are we now just posting the opinions of random people who were never fans of Trump? As much as I respect Jennifer's right to have an opinion, it reeks of desperation to be posting it here as some sort of act of self-reassurance that Trump can't win in 2020.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 24 13:19:16
Nimi
What tag do you have on that linear axis of yours?

Its a simple question. And telling that you cannot name what you may be thinking of.


Trump can win Ruggy.
TJ
Member
Tue Dec 24 14:01:34
Rugian:

It is quite odd. You should have kept posting in the thread I originated. As a matter of fact you should read if you haven't already. 11 accounts rivaled against one joining with this thread and the response I received. My facilities are firmly in tact and functioning well for a 71 year old even if I do say so myself. Different subject same principle.
TJ
Member
Tue Dec 24 14:05:32
It only fair that I say maybe jergul's intent wasn't to undermine others opinions either.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 24 14:33:09
TJ
Quite right. I was not at all suggesting that Trump is losing the entire evangelical vote (indeed, the woman suggest he cannot as parts of it have morphed into a cult of personality).

But it is interesting that he does not appeal at all to a minority of that almost exclusively GOP voter base.
jergul
large member
Tue Dec 24 18:54:46
Another issue is of course that more than a few evangelical christians are quite literally choosing God ahead of Trump.

"More than eight-in-ten members of the Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945) describe themselves as Christians (84%), as do three-quarters of Baby Boomers (76%). In stark contrast, only half of Millennials (49%) describe themselves as Christians;"

http://www...anity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
Habebe
Member
Wed Dec 25 04:11:06
Wait a second, TJ is 71?
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 11:03:55
Yes Habebe, I'm 71 with four daughters aged 43,41,33, and 31. My wife is 66 and we've been married, very soon to be, 49 years.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Wed Dec 25 11:18:25
Jergul
It is figurative, for someone who doesn’t understand that the outcome would not be the same if you change the rules of the game or play another game entirely. You then said some unhinged stuff, as if the office of the president is where democratic mandate resides in the American system and not the house and the state legislatures. Something something ”or else junta every 4 years”. Interesting analysis fo sho.
Habebe
Member
Wed Dec 25 12:30:36
Tj, congrats and respect.
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 12:32:05
Thanks Habebe.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 12:50:16
Nimi
You made up a term, then mounted a knee-jerk insulting defence when challenged. Got it!

The democratic responsibility to respresent all citizens rests with every elected office.

It is a cornerstone to the legitimacy of every representative democratic system.

I am fine with vote weighing such as done in most democracies and is certainly the case with the electoral college. As I have said before.

TJ
You suggested I post redundantly. True enough, but for a reason. Nimi is somewhat slow in reading, so needs stuff mentioned many, many times before he understands stuff has been written.
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 13:32:35
jergul:

I didn't suggest, and why people are redundant could be for many reasons. Whether it is logical reasoning is another story.

I'm not particularly fond of repetition when I speak unless I'm addressing children. I do repeat myself with adults, but with limitations. I find it to be considerably less fruitful.

I'm not going to get in the middle of the disagreement you have with Nim.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 13:53:55
Well, now at least you know why I repeat stuff.

It will hopefully save you from redundantly posting that I am posting redundantly.
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 16:16:59
I didn't mention it, you did. I said there were limitations. :)

I just got back home from a Christmas celebration.
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 18:49:16
jergul:

Since I came up with some spare time I decided to read the exchange between the two of you.

I agree with Nimatzo's usage of linear in his first post even though it appeared to be riddled in sarcasm. That possibly could be cause for misunderstanding. Don't confuse systems of government.

I'm not picking on you even though is may seem to be the case in the past few days. I enjoy reading both of your postings.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 19:28:04
TJ
Linear thinking is just another way of saying stupid. An insult as old as lines themselves.

I made fun of nimi for his crazy assed linear axis bullshit. No doubt he hoped for some gain-gain synergy. He obviously could not tag his linear axis because it is not a thing. An axist is incidentally defined by its tag. Its just a line without one. A linear line in other words. As opposed to the other kinds of lines that billionaires that are rich have.

I am suprised that you seem not to see that an electoral college is simply a way of weighing votes (assuming all electors are faithful).

Weighing votes is extremely common in representative democracies.

Surely you know that the US is a representative democracy? Despite silly claims I used to hear here that contrast democracy with republic (it more correctly denotes the difference between republics and say monarchies).
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 19:31:45
An axis without a tag is a straight line*
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 19:32:55
He tagged it. :)
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 19:35:22
Feel free to quote that unholy mess of a word salad.
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 19:37:45
NO doubt, the electoral college is a way of state representation and votes.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 19:53:26
The weighing is in the 103 of the 538 electoral votes that are independent of the population size in various states.

jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 19:59:57
An example. Wyoming. With weighing, it has 3 electors of 538 (2 for existing. 1 for its congressman) Without weighing, it would have a single elector of 435.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 20:10:06
There is actually quite a lot of weighing in the US system.

Wyoming has a senator per 284 000 people.
California has a senator per 18 641 000 people.

Rhode Island has 1 congressman per 538 000 people.
Montana has 1 congressman per 994 000 people.

Wyoming has 1 elector per 180 000 people.
California has 1 elector per 678 000 people.

http://www...0/FedRep.phtml?sort=Elec#table
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 20:18:13
Yes a different governmental system. The point of the discussion, it seemed, between the two of you.

Anyway, I'm about to do face time with grandchildren who live considerable distances from me. Maybe later I'll jump back in, but probably not to continue in this discussion.

"Linear thinking is just another way of saying stupid. An insult as old as lines themselves."

I think that was his point, but he can confirm if he chooses.
jergul
large member
Wed Dec 25 20:25:40
TJ
Weighing is done in most if not all representative democracies.

Your system is not particularly exceptional.

He may not have time to confirm. Last I heard, he was looking around in the snow for some gain-gain synergy.
TJ
Member
Wed Dec 25 20:33:38
In between face time.

TJ
Weighing is done in most if not all representative democracies.

We agree on something. hehe

I didn't say any system is particularly exceptional. It wasn't even part of the dialog.

I could disappear at any moment. :)
jergul
large member
Thu Dec 26 01:26:04
My argument was not particularly stupid. But it was misunderstood by someone clearly thinking along a linear axis (tagged gain-gain synergy for billionaires that are rich):

The founding fathers put into place strong measures to avoid a tyranny of the majority.

This strongly states that any elected official is morally obliged (by the intent of the founding fathers) to represent everyone.

No elected official has the moral mandate to steam-roll minority interests with dramatic change, even if the official has the technical means to do so.

This moral imperative includes salaried officials for similar reasons.

Moral change is incremental change.

You would have had a different Constitution if your founding father's wanted things to be different.
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 26 10:16:25
"My argument was not particularly stupid." No it wasn't, more of a misunderstanding of Nim's contextual expression.

I completely agree with the remainder of your post. Thumbs up.

I could write thousands of pages on moral change. The world isn't leaving me behind, I'm leaving it behind and it isn't incremental, but the world is. Mine is steadfast and stable. :)

jergul
large member
Thu Dec 26 14:12:00
TJ
I dunno. Statistically, we both have had fewer years left in life-expectancy than we do now. Its a thing with doing particularly dangerous shit for a living.

Steadfast in incremental steps perhaps. Even centarians have more than a year left in life on average.

The kicker is friends and loved ones. The more we have, the more loss there is to suffer.

Worth it? Totally. But still.
TJ
Member
Thu Dec 26 15:07:12
Death is inevitable and the utmost individual experience one can have. When I said I was leaving the world behind I wasn't talking about death. I was referring to my morality not mortality.

My glass is full.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 29 06:15:27
Some times life feels like drinking from a cupped hand. It’s not optimal, it is leaking and you better drink fast before it all has run away. But god dam it, it works.

Jergul
You have to explain for yourself, if what I said is another name for stupid as ancient as time, why you tried to convince us I meant something else. Is this a technical discussion around the correct usage of stupid? To be frank, it is an expression for making things easy(ier than they are) a straight line being the fastest rout between two points.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 29 08:02:12
Because I was messing with you. Condescension is fun.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sun Dec 29 10:11:13
I beg to differ, you attempted to mess with me and ended up selfpwning, forgetting how straight lines map along 1, 2 or 3 axis. You went on to say I ”made up a term” as in linear thinking along 1 axis. Linear thinking isn’t made up (it is an actual thing) and a line along one axis isn’t made up either. And it certainly isn’t redundant like albinos without pigment.

You acted like I dodged something with substance when you (messing with me) said I meant ”binary”. At least you admit now that I didn’t.
jergul
large member
Sun Dec 29 13:41:53
Neither are the terms rich billionairs, gain-gain synergy, and white albinos.

You just tossed in "along one axis" because you thought it sounded good and English is not your mother tongue.

A straight line along a straight line. Lol.

Binary would have been a better choice. The concept I was expressing was simply not the result of a linear thought process.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Mon Dec 30 04:34:50
Which is worde to troll and fail or forgetting how straight lines work? Anyway I will leave you to tend to this magnificent hole you have dugg as you seem intent on maintaining it.
Dukhat
Member
Mon Dec 30 06:14:36
I have seen the face of evil. And it is white evangelical christiantiy.
jergul
large member
Mon Dec 30 10:39:13
Nimi
You wrote something stupid. Man up, stop deflecting, and get over it.
Habebe
Member
Tue Jan 14 23:10:01
Well, I guess that was the end of Trump.... Who would have thought taken out in his political prime...
jergul
large member
Wed Jan 15 00:35:33
No one ever said Trump would be taken out by this.
show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message:
Bookmark and Share