Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[71 dB]

The typical Trump supporter who calls up talk radio station always says he/she is really scared. He/she is really scared of Mexicans, Muslims, transgenders, and above all change.

Fear is the best way to control people.

[Mirror Image]

Fear is the best way to control people.

Indeed. it's worked wonders for governments all over the world.

[zamyrabyrd]

The typical Trump supporter who calls up talk radio station always says he/she is really scared. He/she is really scared is Mexicans, Muslims, transgenders, and above all change.

What's this Mexo-phobia now? No, it is not fear of transgenders or Muslims but a legitimate concern about the effect of unchecked immigration and redefining core values derived from the Judeo-Christian. Change is not a value because it can lead to anti-values. In fact, you can "keep the change", Mr. O!

[Karl Henning]

Top left of today's Washington Post front page is the Clinton e-mail story.  That crooked "MSM": Helluva way to bury that news!

[Karl Henning]

A bit further down on the left, a link to a column about Melania pinning the hubster's problems on The Press!

[zamyrabyrd]

Top left of today's Washington Post front page is the Clinton e-mail story.  That crooked "MSM": Helluva way to bury that news!

It can't be helped. The cats are already out of the bag.

[Karl Henning]

It can't be helped. The cats are already out of the bag.

As Brian points out, it was the major newspapers who broke the story.

Meanwhile:

His indifference and/or hostility to the Constitution (why does he hate America so, we wonders, we wonders?) would make his taking the Oath of Office a putrid charade:

"Many Americans still support Trump in the belief that he will protect the Constitution. We understand that belief, but we do not share it," the group wrote. "Trump's long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution's basic features — including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and due process of law."

Conservatives understand that this goon ain't no Conservative.

[Karl Henning]

Election Day is three weeks from today.

So at least, the Countdown draweth nigh.

[zamyrabyrd]

"Many Americans still support Trump in the belief that he will protect the Constitution. We understand that belief, but we do not share it," the group wrote. "Trump's long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution's basic features — including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and due process of law."[/url][/i]
Conservatives understand that this goon ain't no Conservative.

Hate to disappoint you but at least one Christian forum has virtually NO support for Hillary, the main reason her being the doyenne of Planned Parenthood. Trump did write a letter to some ministers promising he would protect freedom of religion.
If y'all haven't noticed, freedom of conscience is observed more in the breach in the US than as a viable reason not to submit to secular correctness. This impacts freedom of expression since people are forced to self-censor, for instance, students in universities and writers for newspaper and journals.
Religion has lost its prestige in American society so much that one has to apologize for mentioning it. From what I can gather by reading some Christian opinions, a continuation of stacking the Supreme Court with liberals who will trample on traditional values by legislating from the bench, is devoutly not desired.

[Zeus]

redefining core values derived from the Judeo-Christian

stacking the Supreme Court with liberals who will trample on traditional values by legislating from the bench

If you think it's considered impolite to mention religion, try arguing for atheism for a while.

Morality pre-dates organized religion by tens of thousands of years, perhaps more. If your basic sense of moral decency tells you one thing, and your religion tells you a different thing, you're better off going with your innate sense of fairness.

Morality is not rocket science. Even monkeys and cats have a basic sense of fairness. Probably 95% of morality boils down to the golden rule, which is not particularly Judeo-Christian.  The thought that one particular religion has some sort of inside track or monopoly on morality is just absurd.

I know you won't agree with me, but you should agree with me to this extent − the majority of human religions are wrong. Even you must admit that statement is mathematically true since no single religion is believed by more than 50% of the human population (thank goodness, by the way). You may choose to believe that your religion is the exception to the rule; I don't.

Having established (I hope) that no one has any special privileged insight into morality, here's a statement which you may consider shocking: prohibiting early-stage abortions is immoral.  Women are not breeding cattle; and have the right to make major life decisions, at least before their baby is fully formed. I know you don't agree with me, but that's life. We live in a country where you can believe what you want, and I can believe what my heart tells me.

Thank goodness the religious right has not yet succeeded in stacking the Supreme Court with fanatics who will trample on the separation of church and state.  Far too many wars have been fought over religion. The US republic was founded during a period of history when its leaders were acutely aware of this problem, and sought to protect the country from further religious wars. You ought to respect their wisdom.

Pushback − there needs to be more of it.   

[Karl Henning]

Hate to disappoint you but at least one Christian forum has virtually NO support for Hillary, the main reason her being the doyenne of Planned Parenthood. Trump did write a letter to some ministers promising he would protect freedom of religion.
If y'all haven't noticed, freedom of conscience is observed more in the breach in the US than as a viable reason not to submit to secular correctness. This impacts freedom of expression since people are forced to self-censor, for instance, students in universities and writers for newspaper and journals.
Religion has lost its prestige in American society so much that one has to apologize for mentioning it. From what I can gather by reading some Christian opinions, a continuation of stacking the Supreme Court with liberals who will trample on traditional values by legislating from the bench, is devoutly not desired.

I am nothing disappointed 

El Tupé writes and says much, much that even a majority of those who will vote for him do not believe. That we even have a conversation in which either of us considers him "the religious candidate" is something of a sarcasm.

[Karl Henning]

Pushback − there needs to be more of it.   

There certainly needs to be more pushback against trying to encode religion in the Law.  That is un-Constitutional.

[Karl Henning]

At any rate, this is looking increasingly moot:

Trump's path to an electoral college victory isn't narrow. It's non-existent.

Trump is and has been a disaster as a presidential nominee, and that will not change in the campaign's final days. Nor is there any reason to believe that voters from important demographic groups will warm to him. He continues to play only to his core supporters.

There is no surge among white voters for Trump — at least not enough to offset the Republican and swing voters he will lose.

[Karl Henning]

El Tupé writes and says much, much that even a majority of those who will vote for him do not believe. That we even have a conversation in which either of us considers him "the religious candidate" is something of a sarcasm.

'Lecherous and worthless': Megachurch pastor from Trump's own evangelical council denounces him

[PerfectWagnerite]

What's this Mexo-phobia now? No, it is not fear of transgenders or Muslims but a legitimate concern about the effect of unchecked immigration and redefining core values derived from the Judeo-Christian. Change is not a value because it can lead to anti-values. In fact, you can "keep the change", Mr. O!

Mr. O? You mean Obama?

Anyway you can't deport 11 million Mexicans, it is just not possible unless you pull some SS blitz straight out of WWII. In this day and age no court is going to sanction that.
If you really want to keep them out building a wall won't do it either. What you can do is order sentries posted on borders on high lookouts and guard the boundary with machine guns. Announce to the world that if you try to come in you will be shot on sight. That will stop 99% of all attempted crossings.
Mexicans aren't the ones taking away what used to be good middle class factory jobs - those are overseas now and are never coming back. Mexicans take the jobs like 12 hrs dishwashing in a restaurant, wiping oatmeal from the chins of octogenarians in nursing homes, and whatever jobs the typical Anglo-Saxon in small town Ohio WON"T take.

[zamyrabyrd]

If you think it's considered impolite to mention religion, try arguing for atheism for a while.

Morality pre-dates organized religion by tens of thousands of years, perhaps more. If your basic sense of moral decency tells you one thing, and your religion tells you a different thing, you're better off going with your innate sense of fairness.

Morality is not rocket science. Even monkeys and cats have a basic sense of fairness. Probably 95% of morality boils down to the golden rule, which is not particularly Judeo-Christian.  The thought that one particular religion has some sort of inside track or monopoly on morality is just absurd.

I know you won't agree with me, but you should agree with me to this extent − the majority of human religions are wrong. Even you must admit that statement is mathematically true since no single religion is believed by more than 50% of the human population (thank goodness, by the way). You may choose to believe that your religion is the exception to the rule; I don't.

Having established (I hope) that no one has any special privileged insight into morality, here's a statement which you may consider shocking: prohibiting early-stage abortions is immoral.  Women are not breeding cattle; and have the right to make major life decisions, at least before their baby is fully formed. I know you don't agree with me, but that's life. We live in a country where you can believe what you want, and I can believe what my heart tells me.

Thank goodness the religious right has not yet succeeded in stacking the Supreme Court with fanatics who will trample on the separation of church and state.  Far too many wars have been fought over religion. The US republic was founded during a period of history when its leaders were acutely aware of this problem, and sought to protect the country from further religious wars. You ought to respect their wisdom.

I am not going to argue with you about an innate sense of morality that everyone carries around (OK I might buy that) and scrupulously adheres to it (hardly ever). The Founders of the US did not establish "freedom from religion" but "freedom for religion" as they were persecuted in England. They had a pessimistic view of humanity that in its natural state has as its default mode: "might makes right".

The most advanced civilizations preceding Christianity still had no time for women, children, poor, elderly and incapacitated. These had virtually no value. Slaves could be put to death. Charitable hospices were built for the first time by Christians. It was a long process over 2000 years for women to achieve equal rights but they came ultimately out of Christian ethics.
This is too long a subject to pursue but "what your heart tells you" might be diametrically opposed to another person, say a serial murderer who hears voices in his head. Who are you to tell him HE is deluded?

[zamyrabyrd]

'Lecherous and worthless': Megachurch pastor from Trump's own evangelical council denounces him

They can sneer all they want and cast the first stone but the recent accusations have been without any real evidence. I tend to believe Melania when she says:

"Melania Trump told Cooper she has seen women hand her husband pieces of paper with their phone numbers on them right in front of her, making it unlikely he would pursue women against their will."

Remember the story of Potiphar's wife, you know, the "woman scorned"?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/melania-trump-billy-bush-egged-donald-trump/2016/10/17/id/753897/#ixzz4NRUoBcX0

[drogulus]

     In Private, Clinton Split With Obama on Iran

Clinton's skepticism of Rouhani is in line with other criticisms of Obama's foreign policy she shared in her behind-closed-doors speeches. For example, at an October 2013 speech at the Goldman Sachs Builders and Innovators Summit, she was critical of Obama's decision to walk away from his "red line" on the Syrian regime's use of chemical weapons. "You can't squander your reputation and your leadership capital," she said. "You have to do what you say you're going to do. You have to be smart about executing on your strategies. And you've got to be careful not to send the wrong message to others, such as Iran."

     Yes, you have to have public and private positions. Leaders are not merely representatives. They must have the capacity to learn from experience. They have to think ahead of events.

     Whether we elect a war- or peacemonger we'll continue to fight the war we've been fighting for decades against Sunni and Shia extremists who also fight each other. How we fight it is a matter of dispute, that we fight it is not entirely up to us. In a "war of choice" we don't do all the choosing.

[drogulus]

I am not going to argue with you about an innate sense of morality that everyone carries around (OK I might buy that) and scrupulously adheres to it (hardly ever). The Founders of the US did not establish "freedom from religion" but "freedom for religion" as they were persecuted in England.

It's a package deal. Freedom for religion just changes the identity of the persecutors. The Founders didn't want any religious majority to have the power to persecute religious minorities. They didn't want "new improved" persecution, they wanted to abolish it. They wanted secular government. I agree with them that the condition of maximum freedom for all religions requires freedom from all religions.

[(poco) Sforzando]

They can sneer all they want and cast the first stone but the recent accusations have been without any real evidence. I tend to believe Melania when she says:

"Melania Trump told Cooper she has seen women hand her husband pieces of paper with their phone numbers on them right in front of her, making it unlikely he would pursue women against their will."

Remember the story of Potiphar's wife, you know, the "woman scorned"?

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/melania-trump-billy-bush-egged-donald-trump/2016/10/17/id/753897/#ixzz4NRUoBcX0

Whether Billy Bush egged The Donald on, The Donald consented to be egged. Whether women handed The Donald pieces of paper does not disprove the accusations made by numerous women against him. It's not a case of "he said, she said." It's a case of "he said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said, she said. . . . "