Evangelicals and Trump

[Gil Bang 26239]

10 hours ago, slorch said:

some of y'all make it sound like the alternative to voting for Trump was a more Christian thing to do.

 

LOLz.    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't; but it certainly isn't absolute like this thread makes it sound.

 

and FTR, the personal side of Trump is a big reason why I don't care for him.

you're such a fucking cunt.  There's NO FUCKING QUESTION WHATSOEVER that a vote for Hillary was more "Christian".  None.  You have to be Slorch-level stupid to think otherwise.  

[troph 25226]

Here’s a modern day evangelical rant on Facebook:

 

 

They conflate capitalism with religion and the United States with a type of Zion. They assume democrats are socialists that want to take away religious freedoms and are godless crusaders. They believe this is a war. They are afraid of sharia law because they want the Bible to be the law for all of us. Their views are militant and in order to justify them they need really dangerous foes. The Rapture is real and any conflict in the Middle East is confirmation of end times, so is the harvest moon btw. This need for a foe and the militant view of end times and a battle for the soul of a country begets conspiracy theories and it touches on Obama here but the gay agenda, the transgender agenda, the anti-Vax movement, textbook wars and the list goes on.

[Mdhorn 6166]

10 hours ago, slorch said:

Lolz. I meant from a character POV, not denomination or sect.  We were basically choosing from chopped shit sandwich or shit soup.

 

Then after the fact, people are saying, “You dumbasses chose shit!”

The shit sandwich of Hillary was by the Right's baking.  Benghazi--nothing proven.  Whitewater--Bill had extra marital affairs so we went all moral on him because that's all they had.  Aside from a blue dress, there hasn't been evidence of jack shit and certainly nothing they cared about in regards to Mr. Grab 'em by the Pussy.  If anybody has something, it's decades late but still bring it forward so Trump and the right can beat that dead horse again, maybe jail it.  I used to ride that train and realized at some point, it was never going anywhere.  

Hillary was a moderate if anything and actually probably more to the right aside from healthcare.  What she sucked at was campaigning and being something other than a politician, like a human being.  She would have been fine as a president, just based on competence.  And she was the only one that provided plans.  Trump said elect me and I'll show you my taxes, my simple and cheaper healthcare, my wall (and internment camps), my better trade agreements, stronger economy because the current models and employment numbers were lies, yada bs yada.  

As it is, I'm glad Hillary didn't win.  Republicans would still be fake conservatives, still probably have both Houses of Congress, still be investigating Hillary without evidence, and still be closet racists.  The current US is a republican wet dream--exactly how they envisioned government.  They said it was broken and if you elect them, they'll prove it.  Well, they're breaking the f'k out of it.  Nobody said Hillary was a steak sandwich but she was a hell of a lot better than the shit sandwich that continues to stink up the US.   

Edited July 11, 2020 by Mdhorn

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

So you are saying no one but Bernie wanted to run? Sure guy

So you're saying you can't provide evidence to support your assertion that the Dem establishment "cleared the field" for Hillary? Makes sense because that never happened. Biden didn't run because he was still in mourning and his family didn't support a run. Elizabeth Warren declined to run; she wasn't "cleared." If she had run then I think it's reasonabl to assume she would've fared no better than she did this year. O'Malley, Chaffee, Webb, and Lessig wanted to run and did. Who, do you ask? Exactly. They weren't "cleared." They never had a shot. What other names are there?

Hillary was the favorite in 2008 because of her career in public service and successful stint as Senator from New York. But she was upset by the underdog Obama. Can't say the field was cleared there. She only gained in qualification for the job by adding Secretary of State to her resume. The Republicans recognized her as the most likely Dem nominee in 2016 and turned their attention to her as soon as the results of the 2012 election were in. 

I was in Glendale, AZ for the BCS Championship Game in 2006. John McCain made an appearance and we were talking about how he was the likely Republican nominee in 2008. The GOP establishment didn't clear the field for him. It's not evidence of a conspiracy when the favorite wins. (Or when, like on that night in Glendale, the favorite loses in disastrous fashion.)

[WhatTheBuck 28929]

26 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

The shit sandwich of Hillary was by the Right's baking.  Benghazi--nothing proven.  Whitewater--Bill had extra marital affairs so we went all moral on him because that's all they had.  Aside from a blue dress, there hasn't been evidence of jack shit and certainly nothing they cared about in regards to Mr. Grab 'em by the Pussy.  If anybody has something, it's decades late but still bring it forward so Trump and the right can beat that dead horse again, maybe jail it.  I used to ride that train and realized at some point, it was never going anywhere.  

Hillary was a moderate if anything and actually probably more to the right aside from healthcare.  What she sucked at was campaigning and being something other than a politician, like a human being.  She would have been fine as a president, just based on competence.  And she was the only one that provided plans.  Trump said elect me and I'll show you my taxes, my simple and cheaper healthcare, my wall (and internment camps), my better trade agreements, stronger economy because the current models and employment numbers were lies, yada bs yada.  

As it is, I'm glad Hillary didn't win.  Republicans would still be fake conservatives, still probably have both Houses of Congress, still be investigating Hillary without evidence, and still be closet racists.  The current US is a republican wet dream--exactly how they envisioned government.  They said it was broken and if you elect them, they'll prove it.  Well, they're breaking the f'k out of it.  Nobody said Hillary was a steak sandwich but she was a hell of a lot better than the shit sandwich that continues to stink up the US.   

Hillary winning would've been the best thing that could happen to the GOP. It might have saved them fom themselves. Remember how they reacted after Obama won reelection? They were like a ship that came loose from its anchor. They were questioning themselves. Even a dufus like Bobby Jindal called them the party of stupid. There was talk about having to change their platform to appeal to the reality of a diverse electorate. Instead Trump won on a campaign of full bore racism and squashed any possibility of the party evolving along with a changing society. 

It took 12 years of Republican rule before Bill Clinton brought the Democratic Party closer to the middle. A dozen years of Democratic rule might have done the same for the Republicans. Instead they're now farther to the right than they've ever been and are an existential threat to democracy, and maybe their own party. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Mdhorn said:

The shit sandwich of Hillary was by the Right's baking.  Benghazi--nothing proven.  Whitewater--Bill had extra marital affairs so we went all moral on him because that's all they had.  Aside from a blue dress, there hasn't been evidence of jack shit and certainly nothing they cared about in regards to Mr. Grab 'em by the Pussy.  If anybody has something, it's decades late but still bring it forward so Trump and the right can beat that dead horse again, maybe jail it.  I used to ride that train and realized at some point, it was never going anywhere.  

Hillary was a moderate if anything and actually probably more to the right aside from healthcare.  What she sucked at was campaigning and being something other than a politician, like a human being.  She would have been fine as a president, just based on competence.  And she was the only one that provided plans.  Trump said elect me and I'll show you my taxes, my simple and cheaper healthcare, my wall (and internment camps), my better trade agreements, stronger economy because the current models and employment numbers were lies, yada bs yada.  

As it is, I'm glad Hillary didn't win.  Republicans would still be fake conservatives, still probably have both Houses of Congress, still be investigating Hillary without evidence, and still be closet racists.  The current US is a republican wet dream--exactly how they envisioned government.  They said it was broken and if you elect them, they'll prove it.  Well, they're breaking the f'k out of it.  Nobody said Hillary was a steak sandwich but she was a hell of a lot better than the shit sandwich that continues to stink up the US.   

fanboi still loves some Hilldawg, eh?  Gotdam, is she your sister?

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

you're such a fucking cunt.  There's NO FUCKING QUESTION WHATSOEVER that a vote for Hillary was more "Christian".  None.  You have to be Slorch-level stupid to think otherwise.  

LOLz.  Fuck you and your high horse.  No it wasn't.  They both sucked donkey dicks.

[SydneyCarton 49495]

7 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Can someone explain too me how Christians are persecuted in this country?  I am not saying all Christians are bad and not trying to argue the merits of religion.  I mean I see a church on every corner.  Christians are free to go to church, pray, do whatever they want as far as religion goes.  The main restraint of Christians in the US is what?  They can’t do religious stuff at a public school and this is what gets their panties in a wad?  They can’t treat gay people differently than everyone else so that makes them the ones that are persecuted?  I mean I don’t see Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc... complaining about being persecuted so I find it strange that the religion that most people belong to in this country are the ones crying out for help.  Now if we were crucifying Christians on every corner and feeding them to the lions then maybe they would have a valid reason to bitch.

 

7 hours ago, NWBuck said:

See, that's just it. They're not persecuted; at least no where near the level that many of our sisters and brothers in the developing world have been for their faith (fun fact: Those are the areas where the Church may actually be growing the fastest).
But they know that they should be... otherwise, they're "in the world", and they know that they're supposed to be different. So, they create things that show their "persecution", which (as you identified, are most often nothing more than "we want everyone to do things our way because it's easier for us to have our beliefs affirmed and central".

Can't have an open moment of sectarian prayer in school led by a school staff person? Persecution. Someone might say "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas"? Persecution. Super Bowl held on a Sunday night so people won't go to church? Persecution (this was a serious thing my mom believed). Remember, these are the folks who played records backwards to look for ways the devil was out to get them... while ignoring the Reagan administration gutting the social network that sought to help do the things that Jesus taught about.

It's been said before: "You know you have privilege when equality feels like oppression". Many Christians in America have yet to have any sort of reckoning with the privilege and blessing and power and influence that they have and have had for years... but it's coming. And when it does, these supposedly sanctified snowflakes will reach deep for the faith that should sustain them as it sustains believers all around the world... and find instead that their faith is as shallow and artificial as the orange hued "President Cyrus"  they've elected.

Great posts. But you forgot “won’t let football players and pasty and chubby losers rape whoever they want in Waco” on the list of persecutions. 

[troph 25226]

They are persecuted when the Supreme Court says you can’t fire the gays and trans people. And that’s evidence of the agenda, they want to take away our rights and when they strip our rights away they call us bigots at the same time. Immoral godless heathens trying to take over our Country!

[Sawbonz 28220]

7 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

So you're saying you can't provide evidence to support your assertion that the Dem establishment "cleared the field" for Hillary? Makes sense because that never happened. Biden didn't run because he was still in mourning and his family didn't support a run. Elizabeth Warren declined to run; she wasn't "cleared." If she had run then I think it's reasonabl to assume she would've fared no better than she did this year. O'Malley, Chaffee, Webb, and Lessig wanted to run and did. Who, do you ask? Exactly. They weren't "cleared." They never had a shot. What other names are there?

Hillary was the favorite in 2008 because of her career in public service and successful stint as Senator from New York. But she was upset by the underdog Obama. Can't say the field was cleared there. She only gained in qualification for the job by adding Secretary of State to her resume. The Republicans recognized her as the most likely Dem nominee in 2016 and turned their attention to her as soon as the results of the 2012 election were in. 

I was in Glendale, AZ for the BCS Championship Game in 2006. John McCain made an appearance and we were talking about how he was the likely Republican nominee in 2008. The GOP establishment didn't clear the field for him. It's not evidence of a conspiracy when the favorite wins. (Or when, like on that night in Glendale, the favorite loses in disastrous fashion.)

I guess you missed my follow up post #46

 

8 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

It’s easy to imagine Democrats who mighthave run in 2016. There’s Biden and Warren and Hickenlooper, but there was also New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker, and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, to name just a few. But all of these candidates, and all the other candidates like them, ultimately passed on the race. Why?http://www.vox.com/platform/amp/policy-and-politics/2017/11/14/16640082/donna-brazile-warren-bernie-sanders-democratic-primary-rigged

also from that article 

Democratic elites, defined broadly, shaped the primary before voters ever got a chance to weigh in, and the way they tried to shape it was by uniting behind Clinton early in the hopes of avoiding a bruising, raucous race.
 

from NPR 

https://www.npr.org/transcripts/561976645

 

(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)

JAKE TAPPER: Very quickly, Senator, do you agree with the notion that it was rigged?

ELIZABETH WARREN: Yes.

 

 

Brazile says shortly after she took over, she found a formal agreement between the DNC and the Clinton campaign.

The long and short of it was that the Clinton campaign would raise a lot of money for both the campaign and the DNC and help pay off the commission's debt. But in exchange, the Clinton campaign would have a say in DNC staffing decisions, communications and party strategy. And what's key is that this document was signed in 2015 before Clinton became the party's nominee, in fact before any primary votes were ever cast

You think she got it all on merit. Cool. A lot of people including the chair of the DNC during that campaign season didn’t 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Sawbonz

[formermav43 4630]

8 hours ago, NWBuck said:

See, that's just it. They're not persecuted; at least no where near the level that many of our sisters and brothers in the developing world have been for their faith (fun fact: Those are the areas where the Church may actually be growing the fastest).
But they know that they should be... otherwise, they're "in the world", and they know that they're supposed to be different. So, they create things that show their "persecution", which (as you identified, are most often nothing more than "we want everyone to do things our way because it's easier for us to have our beliefs affirmed and central".

Can't have an open moment of sectarian prayer in school led by a school staff person? Persecution. Someone might say "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas"? Persecution. Super Bowl held on a Sunday night so people won't go to church? Persecution (this was a serious thing my mom believed). Remember, these are the folks who played records backwards to look for ways the devil was out to get them... while ignoring the Reagan administration gutting the social network that sought to help do the things that Jesus taught about.

It's been said before: "You know you have privilege when equality feels like oppression". Many Christians in America have yet to have any sort of reckoning with the privilege and blessing and power and influence that they have and have had for years... but it's coming. And when it does, these supposedly sanctified snowflakes will reach deep for the faith that should sustain them as it sustains believers all around the world... and find instead that their faith is as shallow and artificial as the orange hued "President Cyrus"  they've elected.

I think the last paragraph is key. Rather than a desire for real persecution, I see it more as an inability to grapple with a post-Christian society. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6596]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

LOLz.  Fuck you and your high horse.  No it wasn't.  They both sucked donkey dicks.

OK.  They both sucked.  I disagree with that notion but you are entitled to your opinion.  My questions is, four years later, do you consider Trump and Biden the same shit sandwich.  You have seen Trump in action for 4 years.  Are you voting for him again?  Biden? Gary Johnson?  I ask because if you now consider Biden just as bad as Trump then the real truth is you are just voting for the team not the name on the jersey.  That’s fine also but don’t act like you would have voted for a Democrat if “a good one” was the nominee because people like you will always find a way to rationalize the Republican is the better choice no matter what.

 “Yeah, the Republican Party put forth Charles Manson as our nominee but I just can’t vote for Biden/Warren/Sanders/Any Democrat because their ideas are crazy and they will ruin our country so I gotta go with Manson on this one”

[Post Oak 20565]

8 hours ago, troph said:

Here’s a modern day evangelical rant on Facebook:

 

 

They conflate capitalism with religion and the United States with a type of Zion. They assume democrats are socialists that want to take away religious freedoms and are godless crusaders. They believe this is a war. They are afraid of sharia law because they want the Bible to be the law for all of us. Their views are militant and in order to justify them they need really dangerous foes. The Rapture is real and any conflict in the Middle East is confirmation of end times, so is the harvest moon btw. This need for a foe and the militant view of end times and a battle for the soul of a country begets conspiracy theories and it touches on Obama here but the gay agenda, the transgender agenda, the anti-Vax movement, textbook wars and the list goes on.

I'd like to join this shadow government if at all possible.

[Gil Bang 26239]

LOLz.  Fuck you and your high horse.  No it wasn't.  They both sucked donkey dicks.

Both sucked, but you enthusiastically supported dotard

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

OK.  They both sucked.  I disagree with that notion but you are entitled to your opinion.  My questions is, four years later, do you consider Trump and Biden the same shit sandwich.  You have seen Trump in action for 4 years.  Are you voting for him again?  Biden? Gary Johnson?  I ask because if you now consider Biden just as bad as Trump then the real truth is you are just voting for the team not the name on the jersey.  That’s fine also but don’t act like you would have voted for a Democrat if “a good one” was the nominee because people like you will always find a way to rationalize the Republican is the better choice no matter what.

 “Yeah, the Republican Party put forth Charles Manson as our nominee but I just can’t vote for Biden/Warren/Sanders/Any Democrat because their ideas are crazy and they will ruin our country so I gotta go with Manson on this one”

No. I will not vote for Trump.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

Both sucked, but you enthusiastically supported dotard

False.  I have always had issues with his character. I didn’t wishinstant death upon him like some of y’all do, so you equate that with ‘supporting Trump.’  It’s bullshit.

I reveled in the rustled jimmies of the left. Guilty as charged.

Edited July 11, 2020 by slorch

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Can we get back to re-litigating 2016 please?  

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Can we get back to re-litigating 2016 please?  

For the 4th time?

How many cuts would you like?

Edited July 11, 2020 by slorch

[TwiceHorn 32078]

19 minutes ago, slorch said:

For the 4th time?

How many cuts would you like?
 

and yes, this is a serious defect in the anti-Trumpers’ case.  Shit or get off the pot, motherfuckers.  Get on the business of the country.

It's not a defect in the anti-Trumper's case.  It's an excuse.

Trump is an horrible piece of shit.  That Hildawg may have been a lesser piece of shit does not change that fact.

A better excuse really is that one didn't think that, upon election to the highest office in the land, Trump would continue to be the piece of shit that he had been his entire life to date.  He's such an incredible piece of shit that it really defies belief, so that one could possibly make the mistake of believing that no one could be as big a piece of shit as Donald J. Trump actually is.

I disliked them both, intensely, and both based on informed but inarticulate revulsion.  A sort of intuition.

I wasn't going to vote at all, but then thought "cop out" and "downballot," but my instinct and intuition would not let me vote for either of them, even though I tried mightily to consider that my intuition about one or the other was wrong.  Thus I became the mythic Gary Johnson voter.

My informed intuition about Trump proved to be correct and beyond my wildest dreams, he's such a piece of shit.

I have to guess that my intuition about Hillary was correct also, but probably not beyond my wildest dreams.  At no time, however, would I have questioned her Christian bona fides, as flawed as she may be as a Christian or otherwise.

Edited July 11, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[wildcat09 29579]

4 hours ago, slorch said:

LOLz.  Fuck you and your high horse.  No it wasn't.  They both sucked donkey dicks.

This is like saying a hemorrhoid and cancer both suck equally.

[troph 25226]

Are you kidding twice - you you don’t question her Christian bonafides ? She’s a lesbian orgy having demonic spirit that manifests as a woman to lure libitards into thinking she’s ok. She is the devil in human form.

 

The reality is her unbridled ambition is wholly unacceptable to us. Every male president has unbridled ambition that if female would be revolting and repugnant. She’s had it since day one and she has been seen in a negative light from very early on. She’s made plenty of mistakes but nearly all of them stem from there.

 

Any likability or other personality traits are what they are, non issues that we all consider for everyone. She might not be likable but she was hardly unqualified. Probably the most qualified candidate since GHWB.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Are you telling me a bunch of white guys on a football forum in Texas don’t like Hillary Clinton?!?! 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Are you telling me a bunch of white guys on a football forum in Texas don’t like Hillary Clinton?!?! 

Certain racist and sexist remarks are ok...

[tx 3 putt 78677]

10 minutes ago, troph said:

lesbian orgy having demonic spirit

should one bring a bottle of wine to something like that ?

[hobbes2702 13475]

5 hours ago, slorch said:

LOLz.  Fuck you and your high horse.  No it wasn't.  They both sucked donkey dicks.

No they didn’t. Only a fucking moron thinks there was equality between the two candidates.

[Sawbonz 28220]

53 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Are you telling me a bunch of white guys on a football forum in Texas don’t like Hillary Clinton?!?! 

65% of the country in early 2015 didn’t like Hillary Clinton

[TwiceHorn 32078]

1 hour ago, troph said:

Are you kidding twice - you you don’t question her Christian bonafides ? She’s a lesbian orgy having demonic spirit that manifests as a woman to lure libitards into thinking she’s ok. She is the devil in human form.

 

The reality is her unbridled ambition is wholly unacceptable to us. Every male president has unbridled ambition that if female would be revolting and repugnant. She’s had it since day one and she has been seen in a negative light from very early on. She’s made plenty of mistakes but nearly all of them stem from there.

 

Any likability or other personality traits are what they are, non issues that we all consider for everyone. She might not be likable but she was hardly unqualified. Probably the most qualified candidate since GHWB.

Guilty as charged.

I would like to think that I would disdain a man who married a philandering wife for political purposes, but it's so hypothetical in the gender roles of our world that it is purely speculative.

[USMCHorn 1369]

Wait, are people arguing that Hillary and Trump are “equally” bad? Like, even after the last 3 and a half years of President Trump?

[troph 25226]

28 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Guilty as charged.

I would like to think that I would disdain a man who married a philandering wife for political purposes, but it's so hypothetical in the gender roles of our world that it is purely speculative.

we are actually ok with women who do that so long as they act like a first lady should.  tea with dignitaries and a policy agenda like children nutrition or some thing like that.  the moment we found out she wanted her turn using the Clinton name we were all like, hell nawh!! no you diddunt.  no no no. I'm not pointing you out I'm saying we all did it.  I voted for her but that urge not to was super strong.  I just recognized it for what it was, misogyny.  and anyone that says trump was the better of the two is a liar to themselves and to others.

[Mdhorn 6166]

5 hours ago, slorch said:

fanboi still loves some Hilldawg, eh?  Gotdam, is she your sister?

Hur dee hur, posting matches name. I didnt expect much from a slorch and I got less. 

[TwiceHorn 32078]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

we are actually ok with women who do that so long as they act like a first lady should.  tea with dignitaries and a policy agenda like children nutrition or some thing like that.  the moment we found out she wanted her turn using the Clinton name we were all like, hell nawh!! no you diddunt.  no no no. I'm not pointing you out I'm saying we all did it.  I voted for her but that urge not to was super strong.  I just recognized it for what it was, misogyny.  and anyone that says trump was the better of the two is a liar to themselves and to others.

I began to dislike her not for her performance as First Lady, but when I started getting into their history in Arkansas.  How they came to be married, how she covered for his philandering to advance his political career.

As "just a wife," that would be one thing, but her interest in advancing his career was clearly tied to advancing hers.  She never built herself much of a legal career, despite having the credentials and privilege to do so, instead taking scraps from Bill's "machine."

Once I got that into my head, everything sort of unlikeable about her became magnified.

There's an element of misogyny to it, or at least gender bias, but it's not as simple and straightforward as it may seem to a lot of people.

[Continental Op 3934]

We should move all the rice cooking talk into this thread. 

[TwiceHorn 32078]

Back on topic, Hillary has always professed to being a Methodist.  No one seems to have much problem with Methodists.

However, the Methodist denomination has always considered evangelism a high priority.  Evangelism meaning essentially mission work and engagement with the world using "practical divinity," rather than proselytizing.

[Beau Vine 55864]

12 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

Can someone explain too me how Christians are persecuted in this country?  I am not saying all Christians are bad and not trying to argue the merits of religion.  I mean I see a church on every corner.  Christians are free to go to church, pray, do whatever they want as far as religion goes.  The main restraint of Christians in the US is what?  They can’t do religious stuff at a public school and this is what gets their panties in a wad?  They can’t treat gay people differently than everyone else so that makes them the ones that are persecuted?  I mean I don’t see Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc... complaining about being persecuted so I find it strange that the religion that most people belong to in this country are the ones crying out for help.  Now if we were crucifying Christians on every corner and feeding them to the lions then maybe they would have a valid reason to bitch.

They're persecuted because they're not allowed to discriminate based on their religious beliefs -- it's a common theme in Southern Baptist sermons.

[Jack Straw 2955]

3 hours ago, slorch said:

No. I will not vote for Trump.

“but I just love how he drives the libs crazy!  as long as people I disagree with are unhappy, I’ll excuse away and ‘what about’ anything.” 

finished it for you. 

[Mdhorn 6166]

11 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hillary winning would've been the best thing that could happen to the GOP. It might have saved them fom themselves. Remember how they reacted after Obama won reelection? They were like a ship that came loose from its anchor. They were questioning themselves. Even a dufus like Bobby Jindal called them the party of stupid. There was talk about having to change their platform to appeal to the reality of a diverse electorate. Instead Trump won on a campaign of full bore racism and squashed any possibility of the party evolving along with a changing society. 

It took 12 years of Republican rule before Bill Clinton brought the Democratic Party closer to the middle. A dozen years of Democratic rule might have done the same for the Republicans. Instead they're now farther to the right than they've ever been and are an existential threat to democracy, and maybe their own party. 

They would've continued to hound her and with both houses, she would have had difficulty getting anything passed--including judges.  She would be lucky if they didn't try and impeach her, evidence be damned.  She's a bright woman that would've fought and taken them to the mat but Bill would also be a detractor, and they'd throw his past at her as well.   And they'd do it because they have nothing else.  When it's a Democrat, they're conservative and moral.  When it's their own, they're shitheels.     

[hobbes2702 13475]

10 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

They would've continued to hound her and with both houses, she would have had difficulty getting anything passed--including judges.  She would be lucky if they didn't try and impeach her, evidence be damned.  She's a bright woman that would've fought and taken them to the mat but Bill would also be a detractor, and they'd throw his past at her as well.   And they'd do it because they have nothing else.  When it's a Democrat, they're conservative and moral.  When it's their own, they're shitheels.

FIFY

[Mdhorn 6166]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I began to dislike her not for her performance as First Lady, but when I started getting into their history in Arkansas.  How they came to be married, how she covered for his philandering to advance his political career.

As "just a wife," that would be one thing, but her interest in advancing his career was clearly tied to advancing hers.  She never built herself much of a legal career, despite having the credentials and privilege to do so, instead taking scraps from Bill's "machine."

Once I got that into my head, everything sort of unlikeable about her became magnified.

There's an element of misogyny to it, or at least gender bias, but it's not as simple and straightforward as it may seem to a lot of people.

This would discount so many people--including the current president.  You're attacking her faith, her legal background and their relationship.  Under this microscope, there's very few in power that should be there.  Obama was a badass but Limbaugh said he would've been unemployed had he not won an office.  That was preposterous.  I grew up listening/watching William F Buckley and noticed that his genius never involved using his same microscopic lens on the Republicans.  I always found it an odd and a disingenuous dissection.  Which is now why we're watching a lower tiered  primate run the country, while hyper critical of every word, action and remote possibility that hasn't even occurred of the left.  No, she didn't claim bankruptcy half a dozen times before declaring for presidency but she has done a lot in the political arena that made her qualified, including being Bill's handler.  And she proved many a time that she could hold up to the pressure of the office by deftly handling the republican witch-hunts.  And I think she would have hired qualified people to run the government.  I'd say the same for the entire Democratic field.  

[troph 25226]

I began to dislike her not for her performance as First Lady, but when I started getting into their history in Arkansas.  How they came to be married, how she covered for his philandering to advance his political career.
As "just a wife," that would be one thing, but her interest in advancing his career was clearly tied to advancing hers.  She never built herself much of a legal career, despite having the credentials and privilege to do so, instead taking scraps from Bill's "machine."
Once I got that into my head, everything sort of unlikeable about her became magnified.
There's an element of misogyny to it, or at least gender bias, but it's not as simple and straightforward as it may seem to a lot of people.

When did you start looking into her past? She was devoted to public service for personal ambition from the get go. Before he was anything. Again not arguing with you.

[TwiceHorn 32078]

55 minutes ago, Mdhorn said:

This would discount so many people--including the current president.  You're attacking her faith, her legal background and their relationship.  Under this microscope, there's very few in power that should be there.  Obama was a badass but Limbaugh said he would've been unemployed had he not won an office.  That was preposterous.  I grew up listening/watching William F Buckley and noticed that his genius never involved using his same microscopic lens on the Republicans.  I always found it an odd and a disingenuous dissection.  Which is now why we're watching a lower tiered  primate run the country, while hyper critical of every word, action and remote possibility that hasn't even occurred of the left.  No, she didn't claim bankruptcy half a dozen times before declaring for presidency but she has done a lot in the political arena that made her qualified, including being Bill's handler.  And she proved many a time that she could hold up to the pressure of the office by deftly handling the republican witch-hunts.  And I think she would have hired qualified people to run the government.  I'd say the same for the entire Democratic field.  

Actually, no, I'm not attacking her faith.  Quite the opposite, actually.  I'm explaining why I didn't like her.

I'm not comparing her to Trump.

I haven't commented on whether I think she would be a better president than Trump,  Of course I do.

I didn't like Trump at all, either.  I had thought he was a self-aggrandizing blowhard and bully with overrated to nonexistent business accomplishments.  That said, I had no idea how fucking sick and stupid he is.

Edited July 11, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32078]

19 minutes ago, troph said:

When did you start looking into her past? She was devoted to public service for personal ambition from the get go. Before he was anything. Again not arguing with you.

I don't recall, exactly.  I'm sure it was somehow connected to the Whitewater investigation.

I seem to remember some articles in Rolling Stone about his/their early career.

Also worth noting that Bill and my father were from the same town, and my dad and McLarty's father were childhood playmates.  Vince Foster is a distant relative.  And Clinton's mother is buried feet from my grandparents.  So I had more than a passing interest in Bill.  In addition to his being mostly just a righteous dude.

Edited July 11, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[TwiceHorn 32078]

13 hours ago, WhatTheBuck said:

Hillary winning would've been the best thing that could happen to the GOP. It might have saved them fom themselves. Remember how they reacted after Obama won reelection? They were like a ship that came loose from its anchor. They were questioning themselves. Even a dufus like Bobby Jindal called them the party of stupid. There was talk about having to change their platform to appeal to the reality of a diverse electorate. Instead Trump won on a campaign of full bore racism and squashed any possibility of the party evolving along with a changing society. 

It took 12 years of Republican rule before Bill Clinton brought the Democratic Party closer to the middle. A dozen years of Democratic rule might have done the same for the Republicans. Instead they're now farther to the right than they've ever been and are an existential threat to democracy, and maybe their own party. 

That's a great point.

HOWEVER, as noted numerous times on this site, the GOP was on a glide path to a death cult one way or another.

Frankly, I think their now inevitable destruction will be an improvement.

[Mdhorn 6166]

7 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Frankly, I think their now inevitable destruction will be an improvement.

We're assuming that their inevitable destruction doesn't take a lot if not everybody down with it.  I have no idea what their destruction will look like.  I jumped off a while back and went independent until about 4 years ago.  We need a strong two party system at the very least.  

I was hoping the Republicans would adopt several Democratic talking points and rip the carpet out from underneath them: such as building on affordable healthcare, affordable education, moderate judges, etc.  Just a little on their side really would create enough good will and/or apathy to steer them into the positive of the next election cycles.  Instead they went scorched earth.  I just hope we survive for a few more months.  

[SydneyCarton 49495]

1 hour ago, Mdhorn said:

We're assuming that their inevitable destruction doesn't take a lot if not everybody down with it.  I have no idea what their destruction will look like.  I jumped off a while back and went independent until about 4 years ago.  We need a strong two party system at the very least.  

I was hoping the Republicans would adopt several Democratic talking points and rip the carpet out from underneath them: such as building on affordable healthcare, affordable education, moderate judges, etc.  Just a little on their side really would create enough good will and/or apathy to steer them into the positive of the next election cycles.  Instead they went scorched earth.  I just hope we survive for a few more months.  

As a lifetime republican till 2016, what the fuck made you think they’d behave that way? They spent 8 years screeching and still screech specifically about OBAMACARE, and you thought they’d reverse field and improve on it? The party that has removed science from textbooks and has pumped federal funds to shit ass graft driven charter schools? The party that loves sending men and women to prison for decades for marijuana charges would reverse field and appoint moderate judges?

 

I gotta ask, Whos your dealer?

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by SydneyCarton

[Satchel 6982]

7 hours ago, Sawbonz said:

65% of the country in early 2015 didn’t like Hillary Clinton

Something happened between 2013-2016. I think I know what it was:

 

Jan 17, 2013 5:00 pm ET

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leaves the post as an overwhelmingly popular figure on the national political stage.

An eye-popping 69% of Americans approve of the job she has done as the country’s top diplomat, according to the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, with a scant 25% disapproving of her performance.

These latest poll results bolster her standing as the early favorite to claim the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016 should she decide to run

[JimmyJames 12271]

On 7/10/2020 at 1:34 PM, slorch said:

some of y'all make it sound like the alternative to voting for Trump was a more Christian thing to do.

 

LOLz.    Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't; but it certainly isn't absolute like this thread makes it sound.

 

and FTR, the personal side of Trump is a big reason why I don't care for him.

You don’t care for him but you will vote for him. You are trump.

[JimmyJames 12271]

9 hours ago, slorch said:

No. I will not vote for Trump.

Yes you will. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

Just too much of a pussy to admit it on this board. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Yes you will. 

No i will not.

 

That's the thing.   For many of you motherfuckers, that's not even enough.   It doesn't convey hate and disdain, so it leaves you unsatisfied.

 

Not my fucking problem.   If you can't believe a man at his word, then go fuck yourself.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

You don’t care for him but you will vote for him. You are trump.

We have virtually nothing in common.  LOlz.

You type shit up just because it sounds good in your head?