Democrat's problem with messaging is that they assume the populace is smarter than it is.
That being said, calling people "stupid" is a really good way to motivate them to vote against you.
It is true, though, that most people don't understand the realities of certain situations. Consider insurance, for example. I do not insure my own car; instead, based on a combination of factors which include my zip code/residence, age, driving history, etc. I am categorized into a risk pool. My monthly premium goes into that risk pool's general fund and it either sits there accruing interest for the insurance provider or gets paid out into individual claims (minus the usual administrative fees). The same is true for health insurance--my individual premiums do not go into an account named "Mathsorcerer's medical coverage money" but instead go into the risk pool based on my age, existing medical history, where I live, etc. People who are in my risk pool who go visit the doctor submit claims (well, the doctor's offices submit the claims) and those claims are paid from the general fund (presuming the doctor's office can jump through all paperwork from the insurance provider and the government). People who strongly disagree with some form of nationalized health insurance coverage will claim that they don't feel the need to pay for someone else's poor health choices (which, on the one hand is true--if you have a chronic condition that isnt' my problem) but what they don't realize is that insurance already works that way--even if you have coverage through your employer you are paying for other people's medical problems.
I am not suggesting that every program which could be nationalized or socialized should be, of course, because the number one problem there is paying for it. If you charge everyone a flat rate (the government will take $150 out of your paycheck every two weeks) then people on the lower end of the income spectrum are paying a significantly higher percentage of their income (if you make $1500 then your cut is 10% but I make $15,000 so my cut is only 1%). If, on the other hand, you charge a sliding rate (the government will take 10% of your paycheck) then you are punishing people on the higher end of the spectrum for being successful--you paid $150 but I had to pay $1500. Also, what if my expenses didn't total to the amount I paid in? Do I get reimbursed for that like when I overpay my taxes?
Speaking of taxes...most people don't know how that works, either. The average person thinks "the government has to tax people so that it can pay for its programs like the military or paying the people who work in the government". The reality is that the government just prints the money it needs to pay for its services, declares the money to have its inherent value, then taxes people to shrink the money supply on the back end and thus hedge against inflation/devalued currency. (caveat: this is true at the Federal level since States, counties, and cities cannot print currency)
Anyway...although it is true that most people don't understand most things you have to be very diplomatic in telling them this. You can't blurt out "you just don't get it, do you?". It has long been known to journalists that their news stories must be written at about an 8th-grade level (that is "not quite high school" or "not quite secondary school" for those of you whose school systems are different--think average 14-year-old students).
One final note: the vast majority of all people who vote are about as bright as a 10w bulb. It doesn't matter for whom or for what they are voting.
I suppose it was only a matter of time after Trump before we got around to rationalizing statutory rape and child moleststion.
Let me again note that the Democrat who is running against Moore is the prosecutor who, decades after the fact, got a conviction against the Klan members who helped bomb a African-American church that killed 4 little girls in the '60s. The people of Alabama have some soul-searching to do. This shouldn't be a tough choice.
Yay, religion. Reminds me of the classic Weinberg quote
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
Don't make the mistake of lumping religious people into one category. Associating all Atheists with Mao or Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, etc is unfair but comparable.
There are shitty, shitty people in every grouping of any size. Most religious people I've known have been pretty decent, and most religions aren't 'evil', and those that were generally died out after meeting more positive religions. Christianity done correctly is literally pascifistic remember, and defined by both salvation by grace and a requirement to be charitable to an extreme.
What a wonderfully messed up example of how you can justify just about anything through your own interpretation of a religious text. The bible doesn’t even mention their ages (correct me if I missed something). It’s just assumptions.
Of course also a nice way to make people talk bible interpretation instead of child molesting...
Don't make the mistake of lumping religious people into one category. Associating all Atheists with Mao or Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, etc is unfair but comparable.
There are shitty, shitty people in every grouping of any size. Most religious people I've known have been pretty decent, and most religions aren't 'evil', and those that were generally died out after meeting more positive religions. Christianity done correctly is literally pascifistic remember, and defined by both salvation by grace and a requirement to be charitable to an extreme.
Oh boy....the Washington Post just brought a sledgehammer down on Roy Moore. At least 4 women are accusing him of being a statuatory rapist.
I'm shocked by this news. Seriously.
I don't even know where to begin.
...
I mean... I'm not surprised that Roy Moore is an awful human being, but... women? Usually for such virulent homophobes... well, I guess there are exceptions to everything.
Don't make the mistake of lumping religious people into one category. Associating all Atheists with Mao or Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, etc is unfair but comparable.
There are shitty, shitty people in every grouping of any size. Most religious people I've known have been pretty decent, and most religions aren't 'evil', and those that were generally died out after meeting more positive religions. Christianity done correctly is literally pascifistic remember, and defined by both salvation by grace and a requirement to be charitable to an extreme.
True as this may be, I bet you dollars to donuts they are going to spin this into a redemption story about Roy Moore. Why?? Because the strain of evangelical Christianity that is most tied to the politcal right in this country is one big get out of jail free card. All you have to do to be saved is accept Jesus as your savior. You can spend your weekends banging the babysitter, knocking up your cousin, or having a turn with the farm animals, but on Monday, you will be washed clean by the power of the Lord. Say what you will about Catholicism (and god knows you go all day with the clergy abuse epidemic) but at least, from a theological standpoint, you have to confess and atone from your wrongdoing. This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation. That also just so happens to sit in moral judgement of every other aspect of American society.
Oh boy....the Washington Post just brought a sledgehammer down on Roy Moore. At least 4 women are accusing him of being a statuatory rapist.
I'm shocked by this news. Seriously.
I don't even know where to begin.
...
I mean... I'm not surprised that Roy Moore is an awful human being, but... women? Usually for such virulent homophobes... well, I guess there are exceptions to everything.
Don't make the mistake of lumping religious people into one category. Associating all Atheists with Mao or Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, etc is unfair but comparable.
There are shitty, shitty people in every grouping of any size. Most religious people I've known have been pretty decent, and most religions aren't 'evil', and those that were generally died out after meeting more positive religions. Christianity done correctly is literally pascifistic remember, and defined by both salvation by grace and a requirement to be charitable to an extreme.
True as this may be, I bet you dollars to donuts they are going to spin this into a redemption story about Roy Moore. Why?? Because the strain of evangelical Christianity that is most tied to the politcal right in this country is one big get out of jail free card. All you have to do to be saved is accept Jesus as your savior. You can spend your weekends banging the babysitter, knocking up your cousin, or having a turn with the farm animals, but on Monday, you will be washed clean by the power of the Lord. Say what you will about Catholicism (and god knows you go all day with the clergy abuse epidemic) but at least, from a theological standpoint, you have to confess and atone from your wrongdoing. This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation. That also just so happens to sit in moral judgement of every other aspect of American society.
Regarding spin, if he's convicted it won't matter, and 4 accusations adds substantial weight in court. Not saying he'll go to jail, but I sure hope so!
Oh boy....the Washington Post just brought a sledgehammer down on Roy Moore. At least 4 women are accusing him of being a statuatory rapist.
I'm shocked by this news. Seriously.
I don't even know where to begin.
...
I mean... I'm not surprised that Roy Moore is an awful human being, but... women? Usually for such virulent homophobes... well, I guess there are exceptions to everything.
Don't make the mistake of lumping religious people into one category. Associating all Atheists with Mao or Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, etc is unfair but comparable.
There are shitty, shitty people in every grouping of any size. Most religious people I've known have been pretty decent, and most religions aren't 'evil', and those that were generally died out after meeting more positive religions. Christianity done correctly is literally pascifistic remember, and defined by both salvation by grace and a requirement to be charitable to an extreme.
True as this may be, I bet you dollars to donuts they are going to spin this into a redemption story about Roy Moore. Why?? Because the strain of evangelical Christianity that is most tied to the politcal right in this country is one big get out of jail free card. All you have to do to be saved is accept Jesus as your savior. You can spend your weekends banging the babysitter, knocking up your cousin, or having a turn with the farm animals, but on Monday, you will be washed clean by the power of the Lord. Say what you will about Catholicism (and god knows you go all day with the clergy abuse epidemic) but at least, from a theological standpoint, you have to confess and atone from your wrongdoing. This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation. That also just so happens to sit in moral judgement of every other aspect of American society.
Regarding spin, if he's convicted it won't matter, and 4 accusations adds substantial weight in court. Not saying he'll go to jail, but I sure hope so!
He isn't going to face any criminal accusations, it was too long ago. Moreover, I've read that the age of consent in Alabama at the time may have been 12. Which is disgusting in and of itself. Regardless, the story is airtight. One of the women remembers the exact type of wine he used to try get her drunk and lure her in.
Beyond that, I'll point out again, no one in this country on either side of the politcal spectrum had an ounce of trouble believing the myriad of allegations against Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. Both have justly lost their careers. Why don't these standards apply to Donald Trump and Roy Moore??
From what I read on CBC, several high up republicans have stated he should not be running/should be disqualified. Afaik his name is stuck on the ballot though.
So, statute of limitations applies to child abuse?? Yikes.
I agree Trump should be harshly castigated, yet hasn't been yet. Maybe this will change with some 'juicier' accusations?
From what I read on CBC, several high up republicans have stated he should not be running/should be disqualified. Afaik his name is stuck on the ballot though.
So, statute of limitations applies to child abuse?? Yikes.
I agree Trump should be harshly castigated, yet hasn't been yet. Maybe this will change with some 'juicier' accusations?
The Alabama State GOP is self-immolating in equivocation. Senators on the national level never wanted him in the first place. He won because of Steve Bannon. At this hour, Moore is literally fundraising off the accusations, calling them an Obama/Clinton conspiracy.
Oh boy....the Washington Post just brought a sledgehammer down on Roy Moore. At least 4 women are accusing him of being a statuatory rapist.
I'm shocked by this news. Seriously.
I don't even know where to begin.
...
I mean... I'm not surprised that Roy Moore is an awful human being, but... women? Usually for such virulent homophobes... well, I guess there are exceptions to everything.
Don't make the mistake of lumping religious people into one category. Associating all Atheists with Mao or Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot, etc is unfair but comparable.
There are shitty, shitty people in every grouping of any size. Most religious people I've known have been pretty decent, and most religions aren't 'evil', and those that were generally died out after meeting more positive religions. Christianity done correctly is literally pascifistic remember, and defined by both salvation by grace and a requirement to be charitable to an extreme.
True as this may be, I bet you dollars to donuts they are going to spin this into a redemption story about Roy Moore. Why?? Because the strain of evangelical Christianity that is most tied to the politcal right in this country is one big get out of jail free card. All you have to do to be saved is accept Jesus as your savior. You can spend your weekends banging the babysitter, knocking up your cousin, or having a turn with the farm animals, but on Monday, you will be washed clean by the power of the Lord. Say what you will about Catholicism (and god knows you go all day with the clergy abuse epidemic) but at least, from a theological standpoint, you have to confess and atone from your wrongdoing. This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation. That also just so happens to sit in moral judgement of every other aspect of American society.
Regarding spin, if he's convicted it won't matter, and 4 accusations adds substantial weight in court. Not saying he'll go to jail, but I sure hope so!
I'm watching Sean Hannity on my TV right now giving a full-on defense of an accused child predator. This story has 30 sources, and 4 women who are on the record. This guy was apparently trolling shopping malls while he was a 32-year old ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY trying to pick up teenage girls. None of these women came forward to tell their story, the Washington Post FOUND them through investigative work, at which time they decided to speak up.
Something else I am also sick of hearing?? "As the father of daughters, as the brother of sisters, this infuriates me". Why the hell should you have to have a daughter or sister to be outraged about sexual abuse??
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
Faults are one thing. Believing being gay should be ILLEGAL while also apparently being someone who lured teenage girls into sex acts as a Assistant DA is quite another.
We have now also entered a time where the phrase "fake news" is now being used for, literally EVERY SINGLE STORY that is negative about Republicans. All of them. When I read "1984" for the first time, I never imagined it would actually happen, much less seem almost quaint by comparison to real life.
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
Faults are one thing. Believing being gay should be ILLEGAL while also apparently being someone who lured teenage girls into sex acts as a Assistant DA is quite another.
I may agree with you but the religious right does not. I have the mind of a scientist so I can see the difference between government and religion. Unfortunately most people don't see the distinction. I agree with them on one point, only action matters on the macro (ie: governmental) scale. The individual who votes in your favor is better than one who doesn't, regardless of what a piece of crap that person is as a human being. Sorry but it's true. I'd rather vote for someone who advances my view than one who doesn't. I'll venture to bet that I'm not the only one. Hillary would never had been able to run for president if I'm wrong. I dare a liberal to tell me she was your best bet for winning the election!
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
Faults are one thing. Believing being gay should be ILLEGAL while also apparently being someone who lured teenage girls into sex acts as a Assistant DA is quite another.
I may agree with you but the religious right does not. I have the mind of a scientist so I can see the difference between government and religion. Unfortunately most people don't see the distinction. I agree with them on one point, only action matters on the macro (ie: governmental) scale. The individual who votes in your favor is better than one who doesn't, regardless of what a piece of crap that person is as a human being. Sorry but it's true. I'd rather vote for someone who advances my view than one who doesn't. I'll venture to bet that I'm not the only one. Hillary would never had been able to run for president if I'm wrong. I dare a liberal to tell me she was your best bet for winning the election!
I just so happened to read an article before the election that detailed the most damning oppo research on Bernie Sanders. Hillary clearly had it and DIDN'T use it, but Trump and the GOP would have. Two main ones: when he was younger, he stole electricity from a neighbor's house and was on unemployment til his mid-30s. But beyond that, the Republicans had video of him at a Sandinista rally in Nicaragua in 1985. Point being, Bernie Sanders was going to be painted as a communist Jew looking to turn the US into South America. And if you think the alt-right hates Clinton, you can't imagine what they say about Jews. Bernie would have been turned into the second coming of Lenin and Trotsky in the media.
And quite frankly, though I agree with them in principle, more than a few of Bernie's policies were just as pie in the sky as Trump's wall.
The Alabama GOP officials on the record about Roy Moore have lost their goddamn minds. They aren't even using the denial defense, which would be one thing. They are basically saying that IF he did it, it isn't a big deal anyway.
If anyone is interested, read this Twitter thread (click to get the whole thing) from someone who grew up in this movement. This is some sick shit:
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
Faults are one thing. Believing being gay should be ILLEGAL while also apparently being someone who lured teenage girls into sex acts as a Assistant DA is quite another.
I may agree with you but the religious right does not. I have the mind of a scientist so I can see the difference between government and religion. Unfortunately most people don't see the distinction. I agree with them on one point, only action matters on the macro (ie: governmental) scale. The individual who votes in your favor is better than one who doesn't, regardless of what a piece of crap that person is as a human being. Sorry but it's true. I'd rather vote for someone who advances my view than one who doesn't. I'll venture to bet that I'm not the only one. Hillary would never had been able to run for president if I'm wrong. I dare a liberal to tell me she was your best bet for winning the election!
I just so happened to read an article before the election that detailed the most damning oppo research on Bernie Sanders. Hillary clearly had it and DIDN'T use it, but Trump and the GOP would have. Two main ones: when he was younger, he stole electricity from a neighbor's house and was on unemployment til his mid-30s. But beyond that, the Republicans had video of him at a Sandinista rally in Nicaragua in 1985. Point being, Bernie Sanders was going to be painted as a communist Jew looking to turn the US into South America. And if you think the alt-right hates Clinton, you can't imagine what they say about Jews. Bernie would have been turned into the second coming of Lenin and Trotsky in the media.
And quite frankly, though I agree with them in principle, more than a few of Bernie's policies were just as pie in the sky as Trump's wall.
The religious right loves Jews. My family is a good cross-section of that. They would sink our economy to save Israel and there is no disputing that. Read any of the Chick comics or pamphlets...
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
Faults are one thing. Believing being gay should be ILLEGAL while also apparently being someone who lured teenage girls into sex acts as a Assistant DA is quite another.
I may agree with you but the religious right does not. I have the mind of a scientist so I can see the difference between government and religion. Unfortunately most people don't see the distinction. I agree with them on one point, only action matters on the macro (ie: governmental) scale. The individual who votes in your favor is better than one who doesn't, regardless of what a piece of crap that person is as a human being. Sorry but it's true. I'd rather vote for someone who advances my view than one who doesn't. I'll venture to bet that I'm not the only one. Hillary would never had been able to run for president if I'm wrong. I dare a liberal to tell me she was your best bet for winning the election!
I just so happened to read an article before the election that detailed the most damning oppo research on Bernie Sanders. Hillary clearly had it and DIDN'T use it, but Trump and the GOP would have. Two main ones: when he was younger, he stole electricity from a neighbor's house and was on unemployment til his mid-30s. But beyond that, the Republicans had video of him at a Sandinista rally in Nicaragua in 1985. Point being, Bernie Sanders was going to be painted as a communist Jew looking to turn the US into South America. And if you think the alt-right hates Clinton, you can't imagine what they say about Jews. Bernie would have been turned into the second coming of Lenin and Trotsky in the media.
And quite frankly, though I agree with them in principle, more than a few of Bernie's policies were just as pie in the sky as Trump's wall.
The religious right loves Jews. My family is a good cross-section of that. They would sink our economy to save Israel and there is no disputing that. Read any of the Chick comics or pamphlets...
I believe it would be more accurate to say they believe the Jews need to be in Israel as a sign of the Second Coming and the end of the world, at which point they will either finally accept Jesus as their savior, or fall under the sword of the Lamb of God. In 2013, 77% of Evangelicals believed we are living in end times. #1, it is unbelievably arrogant and convenient for anyone to believe that (considering the length of human history), but beyond that, #2 it also significantly contributes to why many people don't believe we should do anything about.....well, ANYTHING really. It's all God's plan, and who cares?? The world is ending. Yikes.
Interestingly, I used to commute to work an hour each way and when driving home late at night, I would pick up a station in Iowa where some maniac named "Brother Stair" bought time from 10-midnight. He was an end-times preacher from South Carolina, and it sounded like he was broadcasting from a shack in the middle of nowhere. It was sort of scary and funny at the same time, but by far the most interesting thing to listen to on the drive. Eventually, I did some research on him, and not only had he had multiple arrests over the years based on sexual assault claims in regards to his commune in South Carolina, he had also been making end of the world predictions on a yearly basis since the early 1980s.
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
Faults are one thing. Believing being gay should be ILLEGAL while also apparently being someone who lured teenage girls into sex acts as a Assistant DA is quite another.
I may agree with you but the religious right does not. I have the mind of a scientist so I can see the difference between government and religion. Unfortunately most people don't see the distinction. I agree with them on one point, only action matters on the macro (ie: governmental) scale. The individual who votes in your favor is better than one who doesn't, regardless of what a piece of crap that person is as a human being. Sorry but it's true. I'd rather vote for someone who advances my view than one who doesn't. I'll venture to bet that I'm not the only one. Hillary would never had been able to run for president if I'm wrong. I dare a liberal to tell me she was your best bet for winning the election!
I just so happened to read an article before the election that detailed the most damning oppo research on Bernie Sanders. Hillary clearly had it and DIDN'T use it, but Trump and the GOP would have. Two main ones: when he was younger, he stole electricity from a neighbor's house and was on unemployment til his mid-30s. But beyond that, the Republicans had video of him at a Sandinista rally in Nicaragua in 1985. Point being, Bernie Sanders was going to be painted as a communist Jew looking to turn the US into South America. And if you think the alt-right hates Clinton, you can't imagine what they say about Jews. Bernie would have been turned into the second coming of Lenin and Trotsky in the media.
And quite frankly, though I agree with them in principle, more than a few of Bernie's policies were just as pie in the sky as Trump's wall.
The religious right loves Jews. My family is a good cross-section of that. They would sink our economy to save Israel and there is no disputing that. Read any of the Chick comics or pamphlets...
I believe it would be more accurate to say they believe the Jews need to be in Israel as a sign of the Second Coming and the end of the world, at which point they will either finally accept Jesus as their savior, or fall under the sword of the Lamb of God. In 2013, 77% of Evangelicals believed we are living in end times. #1, it is unbelievably arrogant and convenient for anyone to believe that (considering the length of human history), but beyond that, #2 it also significantly contributes to why many people don't believe we should do anything about.....well, ANYTHING really. It's all God's plan, and who cares?? The world is ending. Yikes.
I agree. I was never supposed to be here past 1984. My problem with my family religion is I have a very good memory. If I had $1 for every prophecy that was a pile of crap I'd be a rich man. A good memory does not score me any points with my family however...
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
Faults are one thing. Believing being gay should be ILLEGAL while also apparently being someone who lured teenage girls into sex acts as a Assistant DA is quite another.
I may agree with you but the religious right does not. I have the mind of a scientist so I can see the difference between government and religion. Unfortunately most people don't see the distinction. I agree with them on one point, only action matters on the macro (ie: governmental) scale. The individual who votes in your favor is better than one who doesn't, regardless of what a piece of crap that person is as a human being. Sorry but it's true. I'd rather vote for someone who advances my view than one who doesn't. I'll venture to bet that I'm not the only one. Hillary would never had been able to run for president if I'm wrong. I dare a liberal to tell me she was your best bet for winning the election!
I just so happened to read an article before the election that detailed the most damning oppo research on Bernie Sanders. Hillary clearly had it and DIDN'T use it, but Trump and the GOP would have. Two main ones: when he was younger, he stole electricity from a neighbor's house and was on unemployment til his mid-30s. But beyond that, the Republicans had video of him at a Sandinista rally in Nicaragua in 1985. Point being, Bernie Sanders was going to be painted as a communist Jew looking to turn the US into South America. And if you think the alt-right hates Clinton, you can't imagine what they say about Jews. Bernie would have been turned into the second coming of Lenin and Trotsky in the media.
And quite frankly, though I agree with them in principle, more than a few of Bernie's policies were just as pie in the sky as Trump's wall.
The religious right loves Jews. My family is a good cross-section of that. They would sink our economy to save Israel and there is no disputing that. Read any of the Chick comics or pamphlets...
I believe it would be more accurate to say they believe the Jews need to be in Israel as a sign of the Second Coming and the end of the world, at which point they will either finally accept Jesus as their savior, or fall under the sword of the Lamb of God. In 2013, 77% of Evangelicals believed we are living in end times. #1, it is unbelievably arrogant and convenient for anyone to believe that (considering the length of human history), but beyond that, #2 it also significantly contributes to why many people don't believe we should do anything about.....well, ANYTHING really. It's all God's plan, and who cares?? The world is ending. Yikes.
I agree. I was never supposed to be here past 1984. My problem with my family religion is I have a very good memory. If I had $1 for every prophecy that was a pile of crap I'd be a rich man. A good memory does not score me any points with my family however...
See, I can buy people falling for one end-times prophecy. But 3, 6, 10?? For 30 years?? That's just madness.
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
Faults are one thing. Believing being gay should be ILLEGAL while also apparently being someone who lured teenage girls into sex acts as a Assistant DA is quite another.
I may agree with you but the religious right does not. I have the mind of a scientist so I can see the difference between government and religion. Unfortunately most people don't see the distinction. I agree with them on one point, only action matters on the macro (ie: governmental) scale. The individual who votes in your favor is better than one who doesn't, regardless of what a piece of crap that person is as a human being. Sorry but it's true. I'd rather vote for someone who advances my view than one who doesn't. I'll venture to bet that I'm not the only one. Hillary would never had been able to run for president if I'm wrong. I dare a liberal to tell me she was your best bet for winning the election!
I just so happened to read an article before the election that detailed the most damning oppo research on Bernie Sanders. Hillary clearly had it and DIDN'T use it, but Trump and the GOP would have. Two main ones: when he was younger, he stole electricity from a neighbor's house and was on unemployment til his mid-30s. But beyond that, the Republicans had video of him at a Sandinista rally in Nicaragua in 1985. Point being, Bernie Sanders was going to be painted as a communist Jew looking to turn the US into South America. And if you think the alt-right hates Clinton, you can't imagine what they say about Jews. Bernie would have been turned into the second coming of Lenin and Trotsky in the media.
And quite frankly, though I agree with them in principle, more than a few of Bernie's policies were just as pie in the sky as Trump's wall.
The religious right loves Jews. My family is a good cross-section of that. They would sink our economy to save Israel and there is no disputing that. Read any of the Chick comics or pamphlets...
I believe it would be more accurate to say they believe the Jews need to be in Israel as a sign of the Second Coming and the end of the world, at which point they will either finally accept Jesus as their savior, or fall under the sword of the Lamb of God. In 2013, 77% of Evangelicals believed we are living in end times. #1, it is unbelievably arrogant and convenient for anyone to believe that (considering the length of human history), but beyond that, #2 it also significantly contributes to why many people don't believe we should do anything about.....well, ANYTHING really. It's all God's plan, and who cares?? The world is ending. Yikes.
I agree. I was never supposed to be here past 1984. My problem with my family religion is I have a very good memory. If I had $1 for every prophecy that was a pile of crap I'd be a rich man. A good memory does not score me any points with my family however...
See, I can buy people falling for one end-times prophecy. But 3, 6, 10?? For 30 years?? That's just madness.
I'm the way I am because of education and experience. Remember, there are many scriptures denigrating intelligence. My parents think I'm an intelligent idiot!
What really sucks is that I'm basically torn because my brain is at war with the way I was raised. I really can't ever be happy. I've kind of satisfied myself with not being unhappy...
@jjstraka34 "This is just no-effort, no responsibility salvation."
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
The religious right is more concerned about the federal government legislating against their morality. That's all it's about. They don't care about the actual morals of anybody representing them as long as that person advances that agenda or at least slows down the liberal agenda. I know that for a fact since most of my family has that viewpoint. I admit that even I overlook the faults of candidates that represent my point of view. I'll wager that the same holds for just about everybody out there. If I waited around for somebody perfect to vote for I'd never show up at the polling station!
Faults are one thing. Believing being gay should be ILLEGAL while also apparently being someone who lured teenage girls into sex acts as a Assistant DA is quite another.
I may agree with you but the religious right does not. I have the mind of a scientist so I can see the difference between government and religion. Unfortunately most people don't see the distinction. I agree with them on one point, only action matters on the macro (ie: governmental) scale. The individual who votes in your favor is better than one who doesn't, regardless of what a piece of crap that person is as a human being. Sorry but it's true. I'd rather vote for someone who advances my view than one who doesn't. I'll venture to bet that I'm not the only one. Hillary would never had been able to run for president if I'm wrong. I dare a liberal to tell me she was your best bet for winning the election!
I just so happened to read an article before the election that detailed the most damning oppo research on Bernie Sanders. Hillary clearly had it and DIDN'T use it, but Trump and the GOP would have. Two main ones: when he was younger, he stole electricity from a neighbor's house and was on unemployment til his mid-30s. But beyond that, the Republicans had video of him at a Sandinista rally in Nicaragua in 1985. Point being, Bernie Sanders was going to be painted as a communist Jew looking to turn the US into South America. And if you think the alt-right hates Clinton, you can't imagine what they say about Jews. Bernie would have been turned into the second coming of Lenin and Trotsky in the media.
And quite frankly, though I agree with them in principle, more than a few of Bernie's policies were just as pie in the sky as Trump's wall.
The religious right loves Jews. My family is a good cross-section of that. They would sink our economy to save Israel and there is no disputing that. Read any of the Chick comics or pamphlets...
I believe it would be more accurate to say they believe the Jews need to be in Israel as a sign of the Second Coming and the end of the world, at which point they will either finally accept Jesus as their savior, or fall under the sword of the Lamb of God. In 2013, 77% of Evangelicals believed we are living in end times. #1, it is unbelievably arrogant and convenient for anyone to believe that (considering the length of human history), but beyond that, #2 it also significantly contributes to why many people don't believe we should do anything about.....well, ANYTHING really. It's all God's plan, and who cares?? The world is ending. Yikes.
I agree. I was never supposed to be here past 1984. My problem with my family religion is I have a very good memory. If I had $1 for every prophecy that was a pile of crap I'd be a rich man. A good memory does not score me any points with my family however...
See, I can buy people falling for one end-times prophecy. But 3, 6, 10?? For 30 years?? That's just madness.
I'm the way I am because of education and experience. Remember, there are many scriptures denigrating intelligence. My parents think I'm an intelligent idiot!
The question is this: deep down, they know you remember all the failed prophecies. You know they remember them too. They know you know they know. So what kind of cognitive dissonance causes this kind of behavior?? Who decides that intelligence is the work of the devil?? That is the way to....well, quite honestly it's the way to American circa 2017. How does a religious person become convinced that DONALD TRUMP was sent by God?? Other than the very in-vogue prosperity gospel I suppose.
Comments
It is true, though, that most people don't understand the realities of certain situations. Consider insurance, for example. I do not insure my own car; instead, based on a combination of factors which include my zip code/residence, age, driving history, etc. I am categorized into a risk pool. My monthly premium goes into that risk pool's general fund and it either sits there accruing interest for the insurance provider or gets paid out into individual claims (minus the usual administrative fees). The same is true for health insurance--my individual premiums do not go into an account named "Mathsorcerer's medical coverage money" but instead go into the risk pool based on my age, existing medical history, where I live, etc. People who are in my risk pool who go visit the doctor submit claims (well, the doctor's offices submit the claims) and those claims are paid from the general fund (presuming the doctor's office can jump through all paperwork from the insurance provider and the government). People who strongly disagree with some form of nationalized health insurance coverage will claim that they don't feel the need to pay for someone else's poor health choices (which, on the one hand is true--if you have a chronic condition that isnt' my problem) but what they don't realize is that insurance already works that way--even if you have coverage through your employer you are paying for other people's medical problems.
I am not suggesting that every program which could be nationalized or socialized should be, of course, because the number one problem there is paying for it. If you charge everyone a flat rate (the government will take $150 out of your paycheck every two weeks) then people on the lower end of the income spectrum are paying a significantly higher percentage of their income (if you make $1500 then your cut is 10% but I make $15,000 so my cut is only 1%). If, on the other hand, you charge a sliding rate (the government will take 10% of your paycheck) then you are punishing people on the higher end of the spectrum for being successful--you paid $150 but I had to pay $1500. Also, what if my expenses didn't total to the amount I paid in? Do I get reimbursed for that like when I overpay my taxes?
Speaking of taxes...most people don't know how that works, either. The average person thinks "the government has to tax people so that it can pay for its programs like the military or paying the people who work in the government". The reality is that the government just prints the money it needs to pay for its services, declares the money to have its inherent value, then taxes people to shrink the money supply on the back end and thus hedge against inflation/devalued currency. (caveat: this is true at the Federal level since States, counties, and cities cannot print currency)
Anyway...although it is true that most people don't understand most things you have to be very diplomatic in telling them this. You can't blurt out "you just don't get it, do you?". It has long been known to journalists that their news stories must be written at about an 8th-grade level (that is "not quite high school" or "not quite secondary school" for those of you whose school systems are different--think average 14-year-old students).
One final note: the vast majority of all people who vote are about as bright as a 10w bulb. It doesn't matter for whom or for what they are voting.
I suppose it was only a matter of time after Trump before we got around to rationalizing statutory rape and child moleststion.
Let me again note that the Democrat who is running against Moore is the prosecutor who, decades after the fact, got a conviction against the Klan members who helped bomb a African-American church that killed 4 little girls in the '60s. The people of Alabama have some soul-searching to do. This shouldn't be a tough choice.
Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
There are shitty, shitty people in every grouping of any size. Most religious people I've known have been pretty decent, and most religions aren't 'evil', and those that were generally died out after meeting more positive religions. Christianity done correctly is literally pascifistic remember, and defined by both salvation by grace and a requirement to be charitable to an extreme.
Of course also a nice way to make people talk bible interpretation instead of child molesting...
I don't even know where to begin.
...
I mean... I'm not surprised that Roy Moore is an awful human being, but... women? Usually for such virulent homophobes... well, I guess there are exceptions to everything.
I like to call it "pop Christianity". People want all the benefits and no responsibility.
...is there a vomit emoji?? Regarding spin, if he's convicted it won't matter, and 4 accusations adds substantial weight in court. Not saying he'll go to jail, but I sure hope so!
Beyond that, I'll point out again, no one in this country on either side of the politcal spectrum had an ounce of trouble believing the myriad of allegations against Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey. Both have justly lost their careers. Why don't these standards apply to Donald Trump and Roy Moore??
So, statute of limitations applies to child abuse?? Yikes.
I agree Trump should be harshly castigated, yet hasn't been yet. Maybe this will change with some 'juicier' accusations?
In 2015, while Moore was serving on the Alabama Supreme Court, Moore was the only vote in favor of a day care worker who raped a 12-yr old, claiming there was no 'implied threat of serious physical injury'. 8 other justices did not side with the rapist.
There's something going on there.
£€/#÷-;;;,,,,,,,
Vomit emoji...
Something else I am also sick of hearing?? "As the father of daughters, as the brother of sisters, this infuriates me". Why the hell should you have to have a daughter or sister to be outraged about sexual abuse??
We have now also entered a time where the phrase "fake news" is now being used for, literally EVERY SINGLE STORY that is negative about Republicans. All of them. When I read "1984" for the first time, I never imagined it would actually happen, much less seem almost quaint by comparison to real life.
And quite frankly, though I agree with them in principle, more than a few of Bernie's policies were just as pie in the sky as Trump's wall.
If anyone is interested, read this Twitter thread (click to get the whole thing) from someone who grew up in this movement. This is some sick shit:
Interestingly, I used to commute to work an hour each way and when driving home late at night, I would pick up a station in Iowa where some maniac named "Brother Stair" bought time from 10-midnight. He was an end-times preacher from South Carolina, and it sounded like he was broadcasting from a shack in the middle of nowhere. It was sort of scary and funny at the same time, but by far the most interesting thing to listen to on the drive. Eventually, I did some research on him, and not only had he had multiple arrests over the years based on sexual assault claims in regards to his commune in South Carolina, he had also been making end of the world predictions on a yearly basis since the early 1980s.