Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump will become just the 5th President to lose the Popular Vote.

Also interesting: Trump's won 47.5% of the popular vote it appears. Other Presidents have won smaller shares than that but in races where there was a significant 3rd party candidate (Clinton in 1992, Nixon in 1968, Wilson in 1912). In races that were essentially two-party, Trump's winning % appears to be the smallest since Grover Cleveland in 1892. That year included the little-remembered Populist Party candidate James Weaver who won 8.5% of the vote.

[froot loops]

At least those people got their protest votes in. They will get change, more supply side economics with a new wrinkle of protectionism. A return to waterboarding and a repeal of health insurance. Because they wanted change they gave the GOP everything. It's like they had collective amnesia of 2007-2008.

[froot loops]

The margin will be the biggest since the disastrous election of 1876.

[Da Geezer]

Just so I understand this correctly...your assertion is that Evengelicals broke 81-16 for Trump because they feared that HRC was going to prevent them from meeting in their homes or coffee shops to discuss religion. Correct?

Well, it is not only that, but that is part of it. I personally have no doubt that after 8 years of Hillary, the SC will have held that much of the Bible is hate speech. That is me personally. Obviously, I don't speak for every Evangelical. But, yes, Evangelicals do think Hillary would prohibit them from proselytizing. Why would the Evangelicals believe any differently given what the transnational progressives have done in Europe? I hope you can see how this dovetails into a mistrust of "the global elites".

I remember when we had a discussion about "freedom from religion". I'm not sure it was you Hoss, but someone considered overturning Roe v Wade to be an imposition of the right's moral code. That is just not true. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, I'd say 45 or more states (at a minimum) would allow abortion on demand in the first 2 trimesters. Some would allow partial birth abortion. But that is not "imposing" a moral code. Simply going back to a set of laws that most civilized societies in history have believed is not "imposing a moral code". If you look up conservative, that's part of what conservative means: keeping things the same way as before.

I don't want to debate "abortion" or "speaking of your faith at the coffee shop". I'm just trying to tell you guys that you won't understand "why?" unless you understand the language.

[Da Geezer]

hack:

I don't agree at all. Ours is a freedom to practice it, and not a protection from those who do. What you are talking about in the concept of ``freedome from it'' is the French concept of laicism. We don't have that here.

True and a good point. I'd agree that we have the right to tell the Jehovah's Witnesses to not bother us. To evangelize is to try to convince someone else of a belief, usually religious. Part of why I said that was to try to get the conversation away from the functioning of a religious person and onto the language.

__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________

The part above the line was before I read the exchange between hack and SLF. good discussion

[Da Geezer]

hack:

Are you suggesting that when politicians address the 330m people knows as Americans, they do so in a particularly coded language tailored to the needs of less than a third of them who apparently have redefined some very common words?

First, were you surprised by the distinction I drew between freedom of religion and freedom of worship?

[SeattleLionsFan]

why are evangelicals so paranoid? No one wants to outlaw the Bible.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Well, it is not only that, but that is part of it. I personally have no doubt that after 8 years of Hillary, the SC will have held that much of the Bible is hate speech. That is me personally. Obviously, I don't speak for every Evangelical. But, yes, Evangelicals do think Hillary would prohibit them from proselytizing. Why would the Evangelicals believe any differently given what the transnational progressives have done in Europe? I hope you can see how this dovetails into a mistrust of "the global elites".

I remember when we had a discussion about "freedom from religion". I'm not sure it was you Hoss, but someone considered overturning Roe v Wade to be an imposition of the right's moral code. That is just not true. If Roe were overturned tomorrow, I'd say 45 or more states (at a minimum) would allow abortion on demand in the first 2 trimesters. Some would allow partial birth abortion. But that is not "imposing" a moral code. Simply going back to a set of laws that most civilized societies in history have believed is not "imposing a moral code". If you look up conservative, that's part of what conservative means: keeping things the same way as before.

I don't want to debate "abortion" or "speaking of your faith at the coffee shop". I'm just trying to tell you guys that you won't understand "why?" unless you understand the language.

In the 1780's, suggesting that the government should should not collect taxes for the support of a state church was considered dangerously radical and highly non-conservative. Do you believe that the United States should have an official state church? I'm guessing not. So being 'conservative' is always relative.

[Rocky Bleier]

Since time immemorial, successful leaders have understood that, in order to take the attention off their actions, carefully constructed distractions are called for.

One of the greatest inventions in making propaganda easy to sell has been political parties. In the days of kings, it was common to hate the king and want his downfall, but, with political parties, it?s possible to get one half of the people hating one party and the other half hating the other party. Then, all that?s necessary is to assure that each party has roughly the same amount of apparent power and the people will focus all their attention on the hatred of the opposing party and fail to notice those who are pulling the strings equally for both parties. The kings thereby remain the kings forever, while remaining invisible. The idea is not to defeat the anger of the people, but to redirect it.

[Da Geezer]

Stan said:

You're fucking kidding me , right? That's the only laugh I've had all day.

point taken. I should have been specific in specifying religious proselytizing

[froot loops]

I know plenty of religious people, I go to church weekly. We have friends or acquaintances I should say that like to evangelize, generally their evangelizing comes devolves into how bad Muslims are or how awful a person Michelle Obama is. Their facebook feeds are a plethora of alt-right memes.
One of these guys was very vocal supporter of the quack Terry Jones and his quest to burn the Koran in Dearborn. Their kids are good friends with my daughters, but you have to watch how a coversation gets steered, if it turns into religion or politics they turn into the Pharisees. If the Geezer says you don't know how to speak the language, take it as a badge of honor.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Since time immemorial, successful leaders have understood that, in order to take the attention off their actions, carefully constructed distractions are called for.

One of the greatest inventions in making propaganda easy to sell has been political parties. In the days of kings, it was common to hate the king and want his downfall, but, with political parties, it?s possible to get one half of the people hating one party and the other half hating the other party. Then, all that?s necessary is to assure that each party has roughly the same amount of apparent power and the people will focus all their attention on the hatred of the opposing party and fail to notice those who are pulling the strings equally for both parties. The kings thereby remain the kings forever, while remaining invisible. The idea is not to defeat the anger of the people, but to redirect it.

Well, that's really more a two-party system you're describing. The American system, with it's winner-take-all attitude, no matter how slim the margin, pushes us into a binary paradigm.

Parliamentary systems allow for more complex relationships and more necessity for compromise.

[Da Geezer]

In the 1780's, suggesting that the government should not collect taxes for the support of a state church was considered dangerously radical and highly non-conservative. Do you believe that the United States should have an official state church? I'm guessing not. So being 'conservative' is always relative.

Yup. and so is being progressive. It all goes back to the Overton Window. Today, it is not "beyond acceptable" to think of a regime of 48 states allowing abortion, with two others banning it (as an example). If the US government wanted to tax you, DSL, to support the Presbyterian Church that would not fall within the range of acceptable outcomes even to conservatives.

HOWEVER, and I am doing this to infuriate you guys, environmentalism, particularly anthropogenic global warming, has all the same elements of any religion. I am being taxed, and regulated, and scolded, and threatened with prison by Dems in the Congress, who are doing so with blind faith in predictions of an apocalyptic future. I understand this is being done to accumulate power and wealth and to impose control and limit my freedoms, but isn't this what the Church of England did to the colonists circa 1780? Isn't this what the Constitution protects me from?

I know, Overton Window, but it was proposed in the last Congress to jail me and others like me who deny man-caused global warming. Eight years of Hillary might have made that law, who knows?

[hack]

hack:

First, were you surprised by the distinction I drew between freedom of religion and freedom of worship?

No. As you know I have lived in Turkey, where these finer distinctions are important and frequently discussed. So what?

[WM Wolverine]

Hillary never seemed to take any issue and get voters passionately behind her; other than the support of feminists. HRC's campaign was abysmal, it was Lloyd Ball playing not to lose only to see the opposition score 14 points in the 4th quarter and win after 2 or 3 4th quarter 3-and-outs