It's so difficult to know how to respond. I'm so very confused, which is to say, temporarily ungrounded. I'm completely worn out by the chaos. Ground down. Burnt out.

I can usually find my way off of any fence, which is a sound place to be while gathering data, forming opinions, and if not the actual words, the ending sounds like, "I don't know," or, "I don't know yet."

In the case of these slime-coated, Caesar [foul languge dodge involving male genitalia] suck-ups, am I to feel relief that slime is fleeing the slime pool? I would be more relieved to learn that he also acknowledges his role, his responsibility, in creating the cesspool.

He did not. He called it an "honor to have served his country." Whom was he trying to serve? The main character of the book from which he makes a fabulous living? I don't think so. He's straddling the fence between Caesar and Jesus, trying to reach the ground with both feet, his nether regions on the painful line.

I, an atheist, sit next to a liberal Christian at least 40 hours a week, one who proudly claims being anti-fascist and reviles all forms of bigotry. She has nurtured the natural color-blindness of her children to a degree that instead of saying "You know, mom, my black friend...," the child says, "You know, mom, the one who has a green backpack every day..." Gender is handled in much the same fashion, except, the kids only understand "he" and "she," and use these pronouns. Her church is inclusive of all, and the members are to view one another as equal under god.

This informed, loving and gentle woman never would have found herself in a position of "trying" to "serve her lord" or her country via someone like Trump. I've seen references to this group of evangelical leaders calling them "Pharisees." I think it not quite right. I would call them "Sadducees."

https://thinkprogress.org/meet-donald-trumps-new-evangelical-advisory-board-6a5bfc5460d7/

I live in Kentucky. Not all Southern Christians are evangelical.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2017/08/17/lexington-county-council-may-vote-thursday-to-move-confederate-statues/576368001/

What other country celebrates those who were traitors, or those who sought to maintain genocide and slavery? Yes, history belongs in museums, not as standing war memorials on the property of the winning government which those memorialized sought to destroy. That's factual history.

We would more accurately reflect history by memorializing the names of the 620,000 soldiers (never mind the rape and murder of civilians in war-torn nations) who died in that failed attempt to destroy our nation. The statues being removed are of those who were not only on the losing, traitorous side, but of the elite who led their men into defeat and slaughter on the morally wrong side. Their sycophants are some very sore losers.

Given that the police were being protested, I doubt that they would have arrested supporters:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/donald-trump-kkk-connection-dad-klan-riot-arrest-article-1.2546656

This is the face of evangelicalism, and history will call it what it is - white supremacy, Nazism. Nazis were in this country long before WWII, and fence-sitters were fine with that for a very long time.

Free speech? Fine, but don't ever expect me to side with a Nazi. Leave the weapons at home, and demand that the police police them.

The rats among us (especially those who led others onboard) will flee ship just as they did following WWII. Bernard is an early jumper. He needs to own his errors. It's not enough to simply jump, calling it "an honor" to have served the beast.

Not even his god forgives the unrepentant.

Clarity attained. Thank you Erik for this space and freedom.

Real thought, real emotion.

I'm starting to become optimistic. Sometimes a national disaster can stimulate a reaction, movement in a positive direction and an entrenchment of better values. I think that may be happening. Tolerance is on display today, not violence. I also think most of the statues will come down. Six months ago I don't think that was the case. But the nationalist extremes and the violence has forced average Americans to look at the situation and say, "hey, those men were traitors and they symbolize the oppression of our brothers and sisters." In other words, the racists woke up the silent minority and the latter decided they had had enough of the racists. The statues are not important, but their partial fall represents a reaffirmation of American tolerance. Sometimes good comes out of tragedy.

On religions, I agree that the corporate leaders were doing what was in their interests when they left the advisory councils. I'm not surprised to see the religious council stay more or less intact because those "religions" are arguably more "business" than "religion" and they are doing what their shareholders want. Bernard appears to be he marginal case in which true ethics are a consideration and the racism tipped the balance against prominent national service.

More generally, religions are both good and bad. In major social and political events most religions usually side with the state; they herald patriotism and suppress ethical considerations. But there are always exceptions, the politically-naive but ethically superior people, the ones who truly believe, and who denounce racism or xenophobia or class repression or war. We've seen some great leaders emerge, slowly, and I think there will be some more.

The Trump interlude, the racist interlude, will come to an end. And it may do so in a new and greater commitment to what makes this country great. The US will have lost a lot of international power and respect, and a lot of people will have been hurt, butt this may result in a more widespread and deeper American commitment to the best in our society.

Slow Burn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is the face of evangelicalism, and history
> will call it what it is - white supremacy, Nazism.

I doubt it.

Legitimate historians will refuse to label tens of millions of Americans as Nazis, because it's not true. Perhaps you should do likewise. It's convenient, but a sign of a simplistic ideology rooted in deep ignorance and bigotry.

A silly, but typical, rhetorical trick. No one said "millions of Nazis," let alone "tens of millions of Nazis." So you set up a straw man and then point out that it is wrong.

What will future historians say about what we are experiencing now? They will say that there was a surge in white nationalism, white racism, incited in part by an appallingly irresponsible president. They will then note that the effect of this evil little movement of evil little people was to bring out the best in the US people: the tolerance and mutual support.

Historians will look back on this period and observe how once again freedom of speech has revealed the small-minded hatred and bitterness of the armed but weeping extremists and their defenders on TV and websites and bulletin boards; and how the exercise of that free speech mobilized the vast majority of Americans to reaffirm their commitment to such traditional values as equality, tolerance, and at least a modicum of economic security.

Trump and the racists are indeed "Making America Great Again." They are doing so, however, by awakening the country to the need to preserve and promote the sources of its historical greatness.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A silly, but typical, rhetorical trick. No one
> said "millions of Nazis," let alone "tens of
> millions of Nazis." So you set up a straw man and
> then point out that it is wrong.

Please explain to me how to parse this. My understanding is that "the face of" any organization is representative of the whole. If you understand otherwise, will you please offer some supporting examples in common usage? Here's his claim again:

> This is the face of evangelicalism, and history
> will call it what it is - white supremacy, Nazism.

Good try, TMSH.

You attack someone else's post, saying that "Legitimate historians will refuse to label tens of millions of Americans as Nazis, because it's not true."

But of course no one said there were "tens of millions of" American Nazis. You asserted that canard and then rejected it as false. That is the definition of a straw man fallacy.

[Que here random links to articles that say precisely the opposite of your claims, like on Global Warming; or that describe North Korea as an example of a country that is losing its freedoms due to the gradual intrusions of liberals.]

Would you say that Trump has his own Tea Party to deal with?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/19/2017 08:31PM by thingsithink.

I live in the heart of Evangelical country. The county I live in voted 78% for the current president. I believe that outdid the Mormons. At a recent (3 weeks ago) Chamber of Commerce meeting, a woman gave a prayer at the conclusion of the meeting thanking God for our president and stating in her prayer that we are so blessed to have him as our president. The prayer lasted nearly 6 minutes. The Evangelicals here almost make hard core Mormons look sane.

I do not wish to disparage all Christians. I view these Evangelicals as a radical fringe that happen to dominate this area. Our recently announced city motto is 'The City with Spirit'. They seem to want to out do each other in their declarations of faith and to impose their beliefs on the rest of us. It is disheartening to observe. They seem to have been emboldened lately. I have great respect for the United Methodist and other similar religious organizations that are open and progressive. They exist here too, but are rarely heard from in the media. Perhaps things will change now when it is clear what happens when extreme views are expressed. I am hoping for a more rational world.

Ditto to that. Here in Alabama, I hear regularly how Alabama had the highest percentage of current president voters with pride.

The Evangelicals are definitely the loudest and most numerous. A white Evangelical preacher here would definitely be hesitant to to jump on the band wagon against Trump. But, if and when the public opinion turns, they will do what they have to do. There is a kind of echo chamber between the preachers and their flock, so if one pushes back against the other, change can be slow but it will happen.

I have also found United Methodist much more tolerant and agile in their thinking. My Methodist boss, who I respect, values volunteering and charity and her like-minded social group. She does not know I am an atheist (I don't use the A word at work). She has said many things that imply she is an open minded agnostic type. The noisy majority is voting and the preachers are a reflection of them.

Notice these preachers now leaving were not leading the way. They are following on the way out as it becomes apparent how the wind is blowing. Comically it was the customer-pleasing corporate leaders cutting ties with POTUS first (in general). I don't know what says about moral leadership because I am not a huge fan of giant corporations either.

The reasonable Christians have been an insignificant minority in this part of the country. It will be interesting to see if there is any momentum for a place like Alabama to tell if there are any changes in the way people vote.

In my mind, a lot will depend on who wins the Republican runoff election in Alabama next month. Roy Moore, one of the two candidates to be voted on, has a history of being removed from his judgeships for 1) having a marble tablet of the Ten Commandments placed on the courthouse grounds; and 2) refusing to allow homosexual marriages after the U.S. Supreme Court proclaimed that homosexuals had as much a right to marry as heterosexuals.

I agree with your thoughts.

I watched with interest and voted last week. Moore, of course, rode in on a horse to vote (apparently a symbol for something) and got the majority. His primary message is that everyone needs to turn to God and God's ways, and the HE is the one to bring that to Washington. Yikes! Somehow God picked him! No other religious views are correct or allowed the same privileges.

The fact that Alabamians keep voting this guy in is disturbing and reveals how they really feel. This IS the Bible belt and they would be perfectly happy with Bible-based everything (their interpretation, of course).

The guy running against him is Luther Strange, who was appointed to replace Clown Jeff Beauregard Sessions who is Trump's pick. Strange campaigned on hating Obama and building a wall with Trump while stating in his campaign ads that he follows Jesus Christ every day. (You can't make this stuff up.) He was also implicated in protecting the shady governor who was recently removed.

So, it will be either Moore Bible or Strange Bigot running against a Democrat who appears to have a higher IQ than both of them combined.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out. I'd like to think that for once Alabama won't pick the most embarrassing character running, but I honestly don't think they care what the rest of the nation thinks about them.

You all should perhaps consider the possibility that as nonbelievers, you don't have an accurate read on this situation. It's rare occurrence when a pastor will approach a member of their church and say, "I'm done with you. You're a sinner! You do things I don't approve of!"

But that seems to be what atheists expect to happen with Trump's Evangelical Advisory Council. The members of this council approve of Trump's foibles in the same way a pastor endorses the sins of his flock by not ousting them. That's just not the nature of the relationship.

Listen to one of the members who is staying:

"We believe it would be immoral to resign," says Johnnie Moore, a lay evangelical leader who has served as an informal spokesman for the Evangelical Advisory Board. "As faith leaders, we have been given an opportunity to speak directly to various members of the administration, to provide not just policy counsel but personal counsel. We're personally involved in the lives of all these people, praying for all these people, and answering their questions."

Trump is a deeply flawed man who has expressed an openness to Evangelical counsel and a desire to advance an agenda that aligns with theirs at significant points. I don't think anyone involved in this expected perfection from him.

Let him who is without sin cast the first resignation.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You all should perhaps consider the possibility
> that as nonbelievers, you don't have an accurate
> read on this situation.

What does this even mean? 'nonbelievers'? Believe in what?

Trump had multiple private sessions with Pastor Paula White and she laid hands on him. Do you need her husband and band (Journey) to play, 'Don't Stop Believin'?

To follow your reasoning, TMSH, none of us should ever leave/have left the LDS church. Why turn our backs on 'deeply flawed' prophet(s), GAs, et al?

Sorry if you misunderstood my post. Let me try it another way.

Most of the responses on this topic are from people who are not involved in religion and many disdain it. From that point of view they are saying, "If these religious people were TRULY religious, they'd dump this guy Trump because that's what any TRULY religious person would do."

My point is they are not themselves religious, and likely are not able to offer a relevant opinion on what a "TRULY religious" person should do. Anyone who is deeply ignorant of a specific group will likely be incapable of offering any meaningful opinion on how that group should act in any given situation.

People who aren't religious are unqualified to judge the actions of the religious. By that logic none of us can criticize Mormonism because we are no longer Mormon. Or, people who are not Nazis are unqualified to judge Hitler's actions.

All of that is nonsense. We can legitimately judge. Most of us were both very religious and very Mormon. We know what the traditions assert as truth and we recognize the hypocrisy. We know what the scriptures say and we recognize the incongruity. We know what Stalin did, and we can condemn that either in general human terms or as a contradiction to the promises communist ideology.

Your position--that only a believer in a system can criticize that system--is the ultimate in cultural relativism. Your thinking is actually very Mormon: the moment a person experiences doubts about a system, s/he loses the right and even the ability to comment on it.

Exactly. You dont have to be a believer to know what Jesus taught and that Trump's views are pretty much the opposite.

And the advisory council makes no endorsement of his message or actions. I take it you feel pastors should regularly cull their congregations to weed out the most evil sinners?

The insistence that this group resign in protest is the exact opposite of what a truly pastoral relationship calls for. In Christianity we come alongside sinners and stay with them for the long haul. Have you never read or truly pondered the meaning of the parable of the Good Samaritan? In your world you would condemn him for stopping to aid that beaten sinner.

This is why it's abundantly clear those antagonistic to Christianity, Trump, or both cannot be trusted to offer a meaningful insight into this. Why do you so quickly dismiss the actual statement of the group's spokesperson?

"We believe it would be immoral to resign," says Johnnie Moore, a lay evangelical leader who has served as an informal spokesman for the Evangelical Advisory Board. "As faith leaders, we have been given an opportunity to speak directly to various members of the administration, to provide not just policy counsel but personal counsel. We're personally involved in the lives of all these people, praying for all these people, and answering their questions."

If Trump has expressed a desire to have this group's input, are you actually suggesting that they should refuse? Should they demand he repent and implement Democratic policies before they deem him worthy of their input? Is that really how you understand Christian leaders should conduct their relationships?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2017 01:17PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

You are providing us with a compendium of ways NOT to win an argument.

1) You (in other threads) have linked to articles that say precisely the opposite of what you claim they say.

2) In this thread you have attributed words and thoughts to people who never expressed those ideas, then attempted to debunk those ideas and claimed implicitly to have won the argument. But there was no argument; you have only defeated yourself. The sound of one hand clapping.

3) Now you contend that Trump's religious advisory commission should not resign because that would be the "exact opposite of what a truly pastoral relationship calls for." What is the error with this contention? The fact that there is no pastoral relationship. Trump has not claimed that; his advisors have not claimed that. The advisors are no more Trump's pastors and confessors than the members of his business advisory panel were his bankers, car salesmen, and pharmacists.

4) You claim that Trump's religious advisors have not endorsed his view or actions. Of course they have. Trump formed his advisory councils primarily to give the impression that the members support his policies. Some of those councils have never even met: their sole purpose is to bolster the president politically.

Have the evangelists ever actually discussed policy with the president? Is there any evidence of their ever having met to do anything but the single time in July when they laid their hands on President Trump for a photo op? They are, in fact, neither pastors nor advisors: they are a political prop. As A.R. Bernard said when he resigned on moral grounds, the advisors' real purpose is to serve as "window dressing."

There is nothing morally commendable about serving as a political prop for a man who is tearing the country apart. The people still serving on that council should be ashamed.

I see that your edits continue to add new canards.

Now you retreat to your previous idiocy: ". . .it's abundantly clear those antagonistic to Christianity, Trump, or both cannot be trusted to offer a meaningful insight into this. "

You never let such considerations constrain your views on other topics. Just the other day you criticized the North Korean government for taking away its citizens' freedom. Yet by the logic you employ now, "it's abundantly clear those antagonistic to the government of North Korea, or Kim Jung Un, or both cannot be trusted to offer a meaningful insight into this."

That is as risible as it is relativistic.

Your willing ignorance is shameful.

"Based upon my antagonistic view of religion, this is the action I have decided is correct for religious people."

I even offered a specific quote from the spokesman for the group that specifically cite their personal relationship with the White House as reason whey they should not resign, but you ignore the actual words of those whose decision this is. You prefer to place your personal, antagonistic opinion into the equation and insist that you know better than those actually involved. You're the worst type of ideologue and your arrogance is breathtaking: "I reject what those people believe, but I know better what they should do than they do."

You're living in make believe world.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2017 03:46PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

1) You characterize me thus: "You prefer to place your personal, antagonistic opinion into the equation and insist that you know better than those actually involved." Perhaps. That is, of course, what people do when they debate politics in free societies.

2) You next characterize me as saying "I reject what those people believe, but I know better what they should do than they do." There are two problems with that statement. First, I don't think for a moment that most of those evangelical leaders "believe" Trump is a moral leader or follows the precepts of Jesus. But of course you don't know if they are sincere either.

Second, you are wrong to ascribe to me a conviction that "I know better what [the evangelist leaders] should do than they do." The truth is that they know their economic and political interests far better than I and hence are probably making much better decisions than I could given my limited understanding. I am merely pointing out, as have others, that their actions belie their claims to be motivated by Christian values.

3) You write to me that "I am the worst type of ideologue." I am in fact not an ideologue but a skeptic, which is pretty much the opposite. On the other hand, many people here probably share your view that my "arrogance is breathtaking." I am okay with that.

Finally, I would repeat that it is not I but you are are inclined towards totalitarianism. You have said several times that no one has the right to judge a person--particularly a powerful person--but those who share that person's views and interests. That is the ideologue's position; it is what all tyrants try to instill in their followers.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry if you misunderstood my post. Let me try it
> another way.

I didn't misunderstand. You weren't clear.

> Most of the responses on this topic are from
> people who are not involved in religion and many
> disdain it.

Do you have a list, chart of posters here and their 'involvement' in religion? What does that even mean? 'Involved in religion'?

You use a lot of phrases that seem to be lacking critical thinking skills.


> My point is they are not themselves religious, and
> likely are not able to offer a relevant opinion on
> what a "TRULY religious" person should do.

Are you the oracle on what is 'TRULY religious'? Let's hope not! There are some 22,000 sects of Christianity, for example. How is it you know what is 'TRULY religious' for all those? Or what defines, 'involved in religion'? How could you have time to post here???

Trump stands on his own, not compared with Hillary. The evangelical pastor has every right to take action according to his conscience. The fact that you are comparing him to pastors who haven't left Trump's side (yet) reflects on you, not them. You can't know their hearts.

Mizz Dagny ah do declare.....my my how you have gone from temple sessions unto the land of Jeff Sessions.

Hahaha. Funny that!

It's been interesting.

I feel like an anthropologist on Mars sometimes.

There's a reason why Mississippi, Alabama and Arkansas are at the bottom of the barrel. They are blessed with some beautiful country, but they are ugly states. Used to go fishing off Mobile Bay when my brother lived in Daphne. But, religious bigotry makes those states intolerable for decent people.

You know, I have to say in fairness there are a lot of positive things about living here. Despite the general in-your-face religiosity, I have also found most people to be friendly.

I love the flora and fauna here.

The best thing for me here was to live and work in a racially diverse environment. It has helped me relate to people who do not look like me and understand their points of view. I have come to see first hand there is as much diversity within any cultural group as there is between them. I had only lived in all-white areas until now, so I never really had a reason to gain awareness to be sensitive to racial issues.

Yeah, I did 3 years as a Texan.

I got out when my kids told me I was beginning to sound like one.

That's the question that needs to be asked here.

America has a binary caste system -- "white" and everybody else.

The definition of who was white and who was Christian has changed over time. Jews are now considered to be white -- but religion remains inextricably bound to this identity.

The Nazis are just the tip of the iceberg. Many disagree with their methods but silently share their views.

Trump's election represents this: A majority of white people in America want to return to a pre 1950 era that allows discrimination at will.

That is the "freedom of choice" that so many yern for.

It's interesting to watch the theological gymnastics that racist evangelicals go through to justify what they would do anyway and then denounce those that use their own faith against them.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2017 10:55AM by anybody.

Exactly.

I'm honestly hoping these sorts of messages continue. There were 62 million people who voted for Trump, and polls show that if the election were held again today, he would win the popular vote AND the Electoral College vote.

Your message is being heard and responded to. Most people really don't like being called Nazis and racists. Because they're not. They are however, keenly aware that one party sure likes to call them racists, bigots, homophobes, and all manner of despicable things. And this is the party that keeps losing elections. Coincidence? You decide.

But please don't let that stop you. Republicans have been on a roll for the past decade, and the Democrat party is swiftly moving to a small regional group with no real national relevance. Those outside of New York and California may soon wonder why they make the effort at all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/04/23/trump-voters-dont-have-buyers-remorse-but-some-hillary-clinton-voters-do/?utm_term=.755b50fb3acc

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wash-post-poll-hides-trump-still-beats-clinton-43-40/article/2621016

https://twitter.com/daveweigel/status/899282198456655875



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2017 04:38PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

Ah, the Hillary canard again. I didn't even like her or Bill that much. This has nothing to do with Hillary. You are an intelligent man. Use your brain and think. This is about the nexus of religion, intolerance and hate in an unholy alliance -- and Trump co-opting religion for his own political purposes.


I don't see why anyone would want to live under religious rule. That is what the evangelical right sees in Trump -- a crude instrument that will finally tear down the separation of church and state and make America into a "christian" republic.


If I were a Christian I would be ashamed at what Trump and the evangelicals were doing in the name of Christ.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 08/20/2017 04:57PM by anybody.

I would disagree with Anybody and Dagny; I do not think that a majority of voters want to return the US to the 1950s. There were lots of reasons people opted for Trump, including a dislike of Hillary that I share. The key to the election was that a significant group of people DO want to take the US back several decades. That group is perhaps 20% of the voting population, enough to tip the election, but far short of half. So I don't think we need be quite as pessimistic about our compatriots as you too suggest. There are grounds for optimism that this national nightmare is destroying itself.

Turning to TMSH, he writes of Trump supporters that "one party sure likes to call them racists, bigots, homophobes, and all manner of despicable things." That is not true. I acknowledge that Mitt Romney, the Bushes, McCain, Graham, a score of other members of Congress, many conservative members of Trumps business councils and other prominent Republicans have called Trump's supporters racists, bigots, homophobes and Nazis, but so too have a number of well-known Democrats. TMSH is therefore wrong to single out Republicans for disparagement.

I'd add that TMSH assures us that" polls show that if the election were held again today, [Trump] would win the popular vote AND the Electoral College vote." To bolster that view he sends us to two newspaper articles dated April 2017, before the Russia investigation heated up, before Trump praised people who describe THEMSELVES as white nationalists and Nazis, and before he purged his cabinet. My question for TMSH is whether he his contention that Trump would win a presidential election if it were held today.

That sentence should read:

"My question for TMSH is whether he has CURRENT evidence in support of his contention that Trump would win a presidential election if it were held today."

If someone chooses to carry a swastika, give Nazi salutes, chant Nazi slogans while marching with a torch reminscent of Nazi marches, forgive me if I wonder if they support Nazis. Nevermind the violence. If they didnt have Nazi or racist leanings, they wouldnt have been in a march filled with people who did or they would have left when the discovered the kind of people who were marching.

Nazi...

Yeah, bond dea sounds pretty intolerant in that post, doesn't she.

Here's the final scene from an old movie adapted from a famous book of the same name: "The Egyptian."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEAirCOyCXw

He assures us that "that if the election were held again today, he would win the popular vote AND the Electoral College vote" by quoting a 4 month old poll.

Are you really that stupid TMSH, or just intellectually dishonest.

HaHaHa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He assures us that "that if the election were held
> again today, he would win the popular vote AND the
> Electoral College vote" by quoting a 4 month old
> poll.
>
> Are you really that stupid TMSH, or just
> intellectually dishonest.


Do you have some specific, more recent data? If so, please present it.

If not, what factual basis do you have for questioning the earlier poll? Is this the braggadocio of your personal testimony we're hearing? Do you often call people "stupid" and "intellectually dishonest" without any supporting evidence whatsoever? If so, those pejoratives are clearly more at home in your life than mine.

Since that poll, we have had developments in the Russia probe, a crisis with N. Korea and skinheads and Nazis marching in the streets. Trump's approval rating is at his lowest point.Those things just could affect an election. Frankly, it is questionable if he would have won at all without the Russians. We shall see



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2017 05:37AM by bona dea.

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that this poll which was taken before Trump fired Comey, before the special counsel was appointed, before the news of Trump Jr. meeting with the Russians, before ACA repeal failed, and before Trump condoned racism, Nazism, and white supremacy is still valid?

You are the one making the assertion that if the elction were held today that Trump would win the popular vote. You need to provide proof that your evidence is valid.

That being said, here is more recent polling data

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/trump-s-approval-rating-stands-below-40-percent-three-key-n794061

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/trump-approval-ratings/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/08/17/trump-low-ratings-marist-poll/575856001/

http://www.gallup.com/poll/201617/gallup-daily-trump-job-approval.aspx

Based on this data, it's not clear that he would even win the Electoral College (see the first link).

I understand your point, but those number just may not matter. Approval ratings and actual votes are frequently in entirely different neighborhoods.

Congressional approval percentages hover in the teens and twenties, but incumbents are reelected at a rate north of 90%. It's hard to argue the votes cast were driven by their approval of their candidate.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspx
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_kyle_kondik/incumbent_reelection_rates_higher_than_average_in_2016


But if you see a linkage in actual votes to approval ratings, Trump still wins. Hillary Clinton's approval ratings as of last month were worse than Trump's.

http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-poll-numbers-after-216-election-2017-7

And Trump's approval rating is now below what it was a month ago (and below Clinton's rating last month). And you still haven't provided any evidence that your 4 month old poll proves that Trump would win the popular vote.

It's the only poll we have currently that addresses that specific question. If you actually believe you can make an argument from complete ignorance, feel free. I won't play.

Hillary Clinton is virtually alone among failed presidential candidates. With almost no exception, failed candidates will see their popularity rise after elections. But not her. Her poll numbers are bucking that trend and descending.

Feel free to cite the age of my data, but you cannot conclusively dismiss it without specific counter data.

>It's the only poll we have currently that addresses that specific question

But it doesn't actually address the question of who would win the popular vote. It determined that more Clinton voters than Trump voters would vote differently - that may have been Clinton voters who would have rather voted for Sanders. But it did not ask who they would vote for in April between Trump and Clinton, so your assertion that it shows that Trump would win the popular vote is an assumption on your part.
Secondly, I would disagree with your characterization of it as being current. It as 4 months old, and as noted, many things have happened in the intervening time period.

>Hillary Clinton is virtually alone among failed presidential candidates

And Donald Trump is alone in having an approval rating 35% or below 7 months into his presidency.

>With almost no exception, failed candidates will see their popularity rise after elections. But not her. Her poll numbers are bucking that trend and descending.

So what? The same is true of Donald trump.

>Feel free to cite the age of my data, but you cannot conclusively dismiss it without specific counter data.


And you apparently cannot defend it. You are the one making the assertion that Trump would win the popular vote, and yet you cannot adequately defend that assertion.

>If you actually believe you can make an argument from complete ignorance...

You seem to be the one doing this. I thought you were better than resorting to sarcastic ad hominems, but I may be wrong.

Sorry. This is not only in the wrong thread but on the wrong forum



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2017 01:26AM by bona dea.

Darn.

I thought you were just playing a couple of levels over our heads and was looking forward to your explanation!

A friend and I were discussing Greek literature in another forum. She had been watching 'Troy' and had some questions.I was switching back and forth between the two forums and posted the comment here. Lol. People must have wondered what I was smoking.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2017 03:30AM by bona dea.

Bona dea, sitting at Delphi, smelling the fumes, sputtering out cryptic phrases. . .

lol. That sounds about right.

Nope, that's not how it works.

If you make an assertion, the burden of proof is incumbent upon you. In this instance you asserted that a four-month-old article means that Trump would win election "today." People noted that your article does not describe the situation "today," and you turn around and demand that they provide evidence for the converse of your assertion. That's silly. People who point out the flaws in your analysis have no obligation to believe either your conclusion or its converse--let alone to provide evidence of either position.

You claim that we "cannot conclusively dismiss [a proposition] without specific counter data." But of course we can. Otherwise I could assert that Kim Jung Un would have won the US presidency if he had stood against Trump in the election and, to refute that groundless statement, people would have to go scurrying off in search of nonexistent data and analysis.

No, it is perfectly reasonable to reject an argument simply because it is highly implausible--until the day that its advocates bring forth persuasive evidence in its favor.

>Do you often call people "stupid" and "intellectually dishonest" without any supporting evidence whatsoever? If so, those pejoratives are clearly more at home in your life than mine

That's very rich coming from someone who posted this earlier in this thread:

>Your willing ignorance is shameful.
>You're living in make believe world

You're a hypocrite, too.

So, your answer is "Yes, I call people stupid and intellectually dishonest without any supporting evidence whatsoever."

It's pretty rare that we get to encounter such an exceptional human who possesses a towering intellect that is capable of rendering judgment on issues with no actual evidence whatsoever. I am in awe of you.

The evidence is right there in your own posts. Don't worry, no one will ever accuse you of possessing a towering intellect.

I'm in my mid 60's. I'm a 5th generation mormon who is no longer a mormon. The cult cycle stopped with me, at least in my family line.

Seeing things like the events down South make me wonder. Will I or my kids, maybe even grandkids live long enough to see the statues of Joseph Smith and Briggy come down? I can only hope.

Events like this is why its so important for the older generation to write down their thoughts, knowledge, and feelings about things that have gone on in their life. Especially when there were entire groups being oppressed.

I'm writing down my experience and my view of the women who went before me in mormonism. I think its important for my grandkids to have this information. My grandkids are the only ones out of over 200 people in my family that aren't being raised mormon. They need to know what I know. They need to know why I left, what happened to me when I left, how family responded.

My hope is that the buck stops with me. I worry that my grandkids may be drug into mormonism because they don't know how insidious it is. They may see that the majority of my side of the family is mormon. If they go through some difficult times, they may be tempted to search out mormonism.

I want them to know that this is a VERY BAD IDEA. I'm probably not going to live long enough to see my grandkids into adult hood. For that reason I feel an intense need to write down my experiences and thoughts concerning this cult. It would make me sick to see future generations being entrapped in the lie.