So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Well maybe this is a room that deserves to be cleared (it already stank before I arrived anyway). I doubt there is any concise way to demonstrate how liberating oneself from ideological prison is wonderful so I'm probably wasting my time preaching detachment. But so is everyone else when they argue back and forth without ever changing their minds about anything, which seems to be the outcome of such discussions for 99.99% of participants.

I've been following this thread since the start; A Definite Beta Guy was right to call out here (or maybe the Russia thread which is very similar?) about the red-colored shed, and then I saw theoatmeal linked about parallel themes. But you're right, this is probably not the place to question the motivations of why people hold their particular political beliefs.

So you're suggesting that Moore might still win because people have deeply held political beliefs that can't be shaken?

That would be an obvious symptom, I guess (without reading between your line).

I agree. He's got to lose almost 5 points. Some voters aren't paying attention, some won't believe the accusations, and some hate the Democrats enough to swallow their disgust. He already won the Primary and that's with his baggage of getting kicked off the bench twice (both times by his fellow Republican judges). If there's enough FUD from Moore, he'll squeak by and join Cruz in a corner.

538 had a good article about this today (here). I think they mention an estimated net 13 point swing is plausible based on research, in which case, Moore is in trouble. Funny that a Strange write-in campaign might help the cause.

[sol]

Well maybe this is a room that deserves to be cleared (it already stank before I arrived anyway). I doubt there is any concise way to demonstrate how liberating oneself from ideological prison is wonderful so I'm probably wasting my time preaching detachment. But so is everyone else when they argue back and forth without ever changing their minds about anything, which seems to be the outcome of such discussions for 99.99% of participants.

I've been following this thread since the start; A Definite Beta Guy was right to call out here (or maybe the Russia thread which is very similar?) about the red-colored shed, and then I saw theoatmeal linked about parallel themes. But you're right, this is probably not the place to question the motivations of why people hold their particular political beliefs.

So you're suggesting that Moore might still win because people have deeply held political beliefs that can't be shaken?

That would be an obvious symptom, I guess (without reading between your line).

I agree. He's got to lose almost 5 points. Some voters aren't paying attention, some won't believe the accusations, and some hate the Democrats enough to swallow their disgust. He already won the Primary and that's with his baggage of getting kicked off the bench twice (both times by his fellow Republican judges). If there's enough FUD from Moore, he'll squeak by and join Cruz in a corner.

I hope every Republican running for office in the next four years gets asked about their position on sexual abuse of minors, and whether a 32 year old should be allowed to put a 14 year old's hands on his erect penis and still be elected Senator.

I think Alabama doesn't care if their senator is a pedophile, and they'll elect him anyway.  But the rest of the country sure as hell does care, and if the GOP has strayed so far from their family values beliefs that supporting pedos in the name of Building The Wall is a worthwhile exchange, then I would expect the democrats to absolutely hammer them on this issue for the next few election cycles.  This is one of those moments that absolutely defines a party in mind of the public, and right now the GOP is defining themselves as the party of serial sexual abusers.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Well maybe this is a room that deserves to be cleared (it already stank before I arrived anyway). I doubt there is any concise way to demonstrate how liberating oneself from ideological prison is wonderful so I'm probably wasting my time preaching detachment. But so is everyone else when they argue back and forth without ever changing their minds about anything, which seems to be the outcome of such discussions for 99.99% of participants.

I've been following this thread since the start; A Definite Beta Guy was right to call out here (or maybe the Russia thread which is very similar?) about the red-colored shed, and then I saw theoatmeal linked about parallel themes. But you're right, this is probably not the place to question the motivations of why people hold their particular political beliefs.

So you're suggesting that Moore might still win because people have deeply held political beliefs that can't be shaken?

That would be an obvious symptom, I guess (without reading between your line).

I agree. He's got to lose almost 5 points. Some voters aren't paying attention, some won't believe the accusations, and some hate the Democrats enough to swallow their disgust. He already won the Primary and that's with his baggage of getting kicked off the bench twice (both times by his fellow Republican judges). If there's enough FUD from Moore, he'll squeak by and join Cruz in a corner.

I hope every Republican running for office in the next four years gets asked about their position on sexual abuse of minors, and whether a 32 year old should be allowed to put a 14 year old's hands on his erect penis and still be elected Senator.

I think Alabama doesn't care if their senator is a pedophile, and they'll elect him anyway.  But the rest of the country sure as hell does care, and if the GOP has strayed so far from their family values beliefs that supporting pedos in the name of Building The Wall is a worthwhile exchange, then I would expect the democrats to absolutely hammer them on this issue for the next few election cycles.  This is one of those moments that absolutely defines a party in mind of the public, and right now the GOP is defining themselves as the party of serial sexual abusers.

I usually agree with you, Sol, but how can you say the rest of the country will care about the allegations? 90%(?) of people outside of AL don't know who Moore is and never will, let alone the allegations against him. Look at POTUS. A work friend of mine who is very religious voted for Trump. Why? Because of her attitude towards SCOTUS on the issue of abortion. She's not an idiot either (she quoted Thomas Aquinas to me one day when I was feeling down) but the mental calculus involved in assessing politicians among the subset of individuals who do follow politics at all is often a bit more complex than: rape = bad = don't vote for him.

[bacchi]

538 had a good article about this today (here). I think they mention an estimated net 13 point swing is plausible based on research, in which case, Moore is in trouble. Funny that a Strange write-in campaign might help the cause.

From that article, Jones wins the (Trump voting) independents right now because, presumably, they can't stomach Moore. If Strange can pull the R-leaning independents and skeptical evangelicals, he could pull off a write-in. It's ultimately a matter of getting out the R vote.

[Malloy]

Once you realize political bias is a combination of environment and genetically inherited brain chemistry which you can overturn through greater detachment and rationality, the world becomes a much more amazing, open, beautiful place. I might sound like a jerk but when I read political debates on this site (which is far above average), most of the posts are not even wrong.

Eh-not a jerk. But waltzing into a political debate and telling the participants that, if only they'd be more rational (like, for example, you!), they'd have access to a more amazing world is more like a room-clearing fart.

Well maybe this is a room that deserves to be cleared (it already stank before I arrived anyway). I doubt there is any concise way to demonstrate how liberating oneself from ideological prison is wonderful so I'm probably wasting my time preaching detachment. But so is everyone else when they argue back and forth without ever changing their minds about anything, which seems to be the outcome of such discussions for 99.99% of participants.

I've been following this thread since the start; A Definite Beta Guy was right to call out here (or maybe the Russia thread which is very similar?) about the red-colored shed, and then I saw theoatmeal linked about parallel themes. But you're right, this is probably not the place to question the motivations of why people hold their particular political beliefs.
[/quote]

Or, maybe the belief that you earnestly adhere to is that your detachment makes you superior to and more rational than those who debate political ideas.  It explains why your detachment is more performative than, say, someone like MMM who both preaches AND practices detachment.  I've also found that many who have found the religion of detachment right now find it to be a convenient excuse for not being called on the carpet for their Trump support.  Were you equally detached about Hillary's emails?  When those in your circle started talking about "lock her up", did you scold them about their biases and advise them to be detached, or do you save the scolding for those on the other side? 

I don't mean to change anyone's mind. I know that many people have entrenched beliefs.  But liberals have been silent for far too long, and it has allowed conservatives to fester in their own echo chamber to such a degree that they are now contorting  themselves to defend Roy Moore.  The result is that we have people in this very thread musing about whether it's really wrong for a 32 year old to try to "bang" a 14 year old girl.  Perhaps your energy and scolding might better be directed at those whose party identity and biases run so deep that they cannot condemn Roy Moore.

[lost_in_the_endless_aisle]

Once you realize political bias is a combination of environment and genetically inherited brain chemistry which you can overturn through greater detachment and rationality, the world becomes a much more amazing, open, beautiful place. I might sound like a jerk but when I read political debates on this site (which is far above average), most of the posts are not even wrong.

Eh-not a jerk. But waltzing into a political debate and telling the participants that, if only they'd be more rational (like, for example, you!), they'd have access to a more amazing world is more like a room-clearing fart.

Well maybe this is a room that deserves to be cleared (it already stank before I arrived anyway). I doubt there is any concise way to demonstrate how liberating oneself from ideological prison is wonderful so I'm probably wasting my time preaching detachment. But so is everyone else when they argue back and forth without ever changing their minds about anything, which seems to be the outcome of such discussions for 99.99% of participants.

I've been following this thread since the start; A Definite Beta Guy was right to call out here (or maybe the Russia thread which is very similar?) about the red-colored shed, and then I saw theoatmeal linked about parallel themes. But you're right, this is probably not the place to question the motivations of why people hold their particular political beliefs.

Or, maybe the belief that you earnestly adhere to is that your detachment makes you superior to and more rational than those who debate political ideas.  It explains why your detachment is more performative than, say, someone like MMM who both preaches AND practices detachment.  I've also found that many who have found the religion of detachment right now find it to be a convenient excuse for not being called on the carpet for their Trump support.  Were you equally detached about Hillary's emails?  When those in your circle started talking about "lock her up", did you scold them about their biases and advise them to be detached, or do you save the scolding for those on the other side? 

I don't mean to change anyone's mind. I know that many people have entrenched beliefs.  But liberals have been silent for far too long, and it has allowed conservatives to fester in their own echo chamber to such a degree that they are now contorting  themselves to defend Roy Moore.  The result is that we have people in this very thread musing about whether it's really wrong for a 32 year old to try to "bang" a 14 year old girl.  Perhaps your energy and scolding might better be directed at those whose party identity and biases run so deep that they cannot condemn Roy Moore.

To clarify, I mean detachment in the sense of following the news cycle while considering issues from a more ideologically detached vantage point, rather than in the sense of a low-information diet, which I believe is MMM's approach. My point is it's both possible to be politically engaged and keep your beliefs subordinate to your intellect, rather than the other way around.

The Republican reaction to the Moore story is a symptom of the mistakes made on all sides (to be fair, retiring Republicans have been far more biting in their criticism than others in the party). It's in the environment of intense political polarization and tribal-warfare that people start excusing (alleged or verified) transgressions on the magnitude of Moore, Trump, and beyond. Sure, the red Midwest has its toxic talk-radio but the blue coasts have their assortment of smug media pundits as well. I don't think liberals have been silent at all but I do think they have been saying many of the wrong things (the ascendancy of Trump should be proof of that).

[DarkandStormy]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/13/us/politics/trump-judge-brett-talley-nomination.html?smid=tw-nytpolitics&smtyp=cur

Trump Judicial Pick Did Not Disclose He Is Married to a White House Lawyer

Uh, yeah, that's a total conflict of interest.

[DarkandStormy]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-woman-accuses-roy-moore-sexual-assault-minor-202055321.html

Another woman accuses Roy Moore of sexual assault.  She says she was 15 at the time.

[bacchi]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-woman-accuses-roy-moore-sexual-assault-minor-202055321.html

Another woman accuses Roy Moore of sexual assault.  She says she was 15 at the time.

He's done. It's getting front page coverage at foxnews, too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/13/roy-moore-fights-new-sexual-assault-accusations-as-woman-claims-abuse-at-16.html

[scottish]

I hope so.   I never thought the US would start electing pedophiles as US senators.

[sol]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-woman-accuses-roy-moore-sexual-assault-minor-202055321.html

Another woman accuses Roy Moore of sexual assault.  She says she was 15 at the time.

He's done. It's getting front page coverage at foxnews, too.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/13/roy-moore-fights-new-sexual-assault-accusations-as-woman-claims-abuse-at-16.html

The comments on that Fox News page about Roy Moore's sexual assault of a minor are pretty telling.  Some samples:

"This just reeks of conspiracy"
"Soros spending 18 billion to his terrorists organizations for this lie"
"If your signature turns up in someone's yearbook 40 years later that means you had sex with them?"
"This woman is a paid liar just like the Clinton crimfamily."
"Moores poll numbers are actually going up"
"I don't believe people that take 30 years to get around to complaining about something."
"Nancy Pelosi exposed herself to me 30 years ago when I was 9.  I vomited at the sight and ran away.   So it's time to remove her from the House."
"Secretary Clinton or her colleagues were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
"This is the same type of orchestrated attack as “collusion with the Russians."


Yep, I'm pretty sure Republicans are going to sweep Roy Moore the pedophile into office by at least fifteen points.  Trump will probably poach him for a cabinet position, though.  Is there a cabinet position responsible for children's health and well-being?

[bacchi]

Eh, article comments always attract the mouth-breathers.

From the Washington Examiner, which is also not a liberal rag:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/roy-moore-may-have-been-banned-from-local-mall-report/article/2640576

Local law enforcement also could not confirm Moore had actually been banned, but they had heard about Moore’s reputation at the mall.

Yeah, the guy used to walk the mall hitting on young teens. In his 30s.

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/11/gadsden_residents_say_moores_b.html

"As a Deputy DA in Gadsden when Roy Moore was there, it was common knowledge about Roy's propensity for teenage girls," she tweeted. "I'm appalled that these women are being skewered for the truth."

If he wins, his supporters truly are deplorables. Not only does he not understand the Constitution but he's also a major creep.

[jim555]

Hitting on under age girls is a plus in Alabama, he sweeps this thing.

[former player]

Hitting on under age girls is a plus in Alabama, he sweeps this thing.

Not yet, because none of them so far are his relatives.

[infogoon]

I hope so.   I never thought the US would start electing pedophiles as US senators.

The Hastert Rule says they should only be elected to the House.

[Gondolin]

If there was a test that checked for alcohol use within the past three weeks, you would be OK with losing your job for ever failing it?  I mean, you always have the option to grow up and stop drinking alcohol, so it would be very easy for you to avoid this problem.

If drinking was a felony offense.... Yes. I think we can all agree that Jerry the white collar professional smoking pot on the weekends is no great tragedy but, it's very hard to tell Jerry the weekend smoker from Jerry the heroin addict without being discriminatory and, until the law changes, both are committing felonies.

[DarkandStormy]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/930486395071877122

I want to be clear on something: Sessions responding to questions about Russian contacts by reading a prepared statement means he thinks he's going to be prosecuted. This *is* what a witness does to avoid speaking off the cuff in a way that can be used against them in court.

Sessions was asked to give testimony (again) today and it was a doozy.  The scumbag has selective amnesia regarding Russia, selective hearing loss on questions related to Russia, etc. etc.  Perjured himself multiple times but asserted he's never lied.

[zoltani]

I hope so.   I never thought the US would start electing pedophiles as US senators.

We have been for a long time. This is one of those instances, i dare say, when Alex Jones was onto something.....

[Davnasty]

I hope so.   I never thought the US would start electing pedophiles as US senators.

We have been for a long time. This is one of those instances, i dare say, when Alex Jones was onto something.....

Maybe we should say "known pedophiles"?

[zoltani]

I hope so.   I never thought the US would start electing pedophiles as US senators.

We have been for a long time. This is one of those instances, i dare say, when Alex Jones was onto something.....

Maybe we should say "known pedophiles"?

We still will. Just look at the love that is given to Joe Biden. I've even seen it suggest that he run in 2020. That guy is a creeper for sure.

[partgypsy]

I hope so.   I never thought the US would start electing pedophiles as US senators.

We have been for a long time. This is one of those instances, i dare say, when Alex Jones was onto something.....

Maybe we should say "known pedophiles"?

We still will. Just look at the love that is given to Joe Biden. I've even seen it suggest that he run in 2020. That guy is a creeper for sure.

I've heard people say this, because he is a big hugger. He reminds me of the kind of politician who is kissing babies and kind of touchy feely. Is there any other evidence that he is inappropriate or has forced or propositioned otherwise? 

[Malloy]

I hope so.   I never thought the US would start electing pedophiles as US senators.

We have been for a long time. This is one of those instances, i dare say, when Alex Jones was onto something.....

Maybe we should say "known pedophiles"?

We still will. Just look at the love that is given to Joe Biden. I've even seen it suggest that he run in 2020. That guy is a creeper for sure.

I've heard people say this, because he is a big hugger. He reminds me of the kind of politician who is kissing babies and kind of touchy feely. Is there any other evidence that he is inappropriate or has forced or propositioned otherwise?

Are you seriously saying that Joe Biden is a known pedophile?  I know that under the Alex Jones Rules of Evidence, all you need is a picture of him hugging an adult woman and you are well on your way to him running a pedophile ring from the basement of a pizza shop, but this is BS.  On one side, you've got Roy Moore, actual named accusers, a story gathered from 30 sources, evidence that Moore knew one of his accusers but said he didn't, etc.  On the other side, there's what?  What evidence is there?

I think that this is going too far.  Joe Biden is not Roy Moore, and there isn't any evidence that he's even Bill Clinton.  And blurring the lines from Roy Moore to "they're all creepy!" is something that the GOP would love to focus on right now to distract from the fact that they are about to elect an actual pedophile to the Senate.  In this case, there is no Chris Cilizza hack-style both sides do it hot take.

[DarkandStormy]

I hope so.   I never thought the US would start electing pedophiles as US senators.

We have been for a long time. This is one of those instances, i dare say, when Alex Jones was onto something.....

Maybe we should say "known pedophiles"?

We still will. Just look at the love that is given to Joe Biden. I've even seen it suggest that he run in 2020. That guy is a creeper for sure.

Ok?  Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?  Harassment?

Take off the tin foil hat.

[bacchi]

The only "evidence" I could find are some nutty youtube videos complete with fabricated subtitles and delusional viewing.

[paddedhat]

I hope so.   I never thought the US would start electing pedophiles as US senators.

We have been for a long time. This is one of those instances, i dare say, when Alex Jones was onto something.....

In real world interactions if anybody ever said to me, "I dare say, Alex Jones might be on to something"  my immediate reaction is WTF is wrong with you, that you have any working knowledge as to what a pathological liar, and far right extremist propaganda spewer is "on to"?  In your case, I could care less, but if you do have anything to do with sinking to the level of listening to that POS, it's never too late to stop, before your mind degrades any further.

[JLee]

If there was a test that checked for alcohol use within the past three weeks, you would be OK with losing your job for ever failing it?  I mean, you always have the option to grow up and stop drinking alcohol, so it would be very easy for you to avoid this problem.

If drinking was a felony offense.... Yes. I think we can all agree that Jerry the white collar professional smoking pot on the weekends is no great tragedy but, it's very hard to tell Jerry the weekend smoker from Jerry the heroin addict without being discriminatory and, until the law changes, both are committing felonies.

Where is smoking pot considered a felony?

[MasterStache]

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/930486395071877122

I want to be clear on something: Sessions responding to questions about Russian contacts by reading a prepared statement means he thinks he's going to be prosecuted. This *is* what a witness does to avoid speaking off the cuff in a way that can be used against them in court.

Sessions was asked to give testimony (again) today and it was a doozy.  The scumbag has selective amnesia regarding Russia, selective hearing loss on questions related to Russia, etc. etc.  Perjured himself multiple times but asserted he's never lied.

Sessions isn't lying. He just can't remember the truth ( :

[GuitarStv]

If there was a test that checked for alcohol use within the past three weeks, you would be OK with losing your job for ever failing it?  I mean, you always have the option to grow up and stop drinking alcohol, so it would be very easy for you to avoid this problem.

If drinking was a felony offense.... Yes. I think we can all agree that Jerry the white collar professional smoking pot on the weekends is no great tragedy but, it's very hard to tell Jerry the weekend smoker from Jerry the heroin addict without being discriminatory and, until the law changes, both are committing felonies.

Where is smoking pot considered a felony?

To smoke pot you need to have some . . . and having pot can be prosecuted as a felony in Arizona, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Indiana.

[JLee]

If there was a test that checked for alcohol use within the past three weeks, you would be OK with losing your job for ever failing it?  I mean, you always have the option to grow up and stop drinking alcohol, so it would be very easy for you to avoid this problem.

If drinking was a felony offense.... Yes. I think we can all agree that Jerry the white collar professional smoking pot on the weekends is no great tragedy but, it's very hard to tell Jerry the weekend smoker from Jerry the heroin addict without being discriminatory and, until the law changes, both are committing felonies.

Where is smoking pot considered a felony?

To smoke pot you need to have some . . . and having pot can be prosecuted as a felony in Arizona, Oklahoma, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Indiana.

First offense possession appears to be a misdemeanor in Oklahoma, Kansas, Wisconsin, and Indiana.

Arizona has it as a felony but they also have legal medical marijuana.

Going back to the bolded statement above...it should be pretty obvious how you can differentiate without "being discriminatory."

[NoStacheOhio]

Ok?  Has anyone accused him of sexual assault?  Harassment?

Take off the tin foil hat.

I know a female who worked on his staff and didn't mention his name when we were talking about sexual harassment, does that count?

[DarkandStormy]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/14/roy-moore-alabama-law-rape-victims-judge

"Alabama has a law generally barring defendants accused of sexual assaults from using evidence relating to their accuser’s sexual history...." Roy Moore argued to set aside this law in case of man who raped a 12-year-old"

Roy Moore is a piece of shit.

[Just Joe]

Prob out of context for the recent conversation but:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5085963/Another-US-Democrat-presses-impeachment-against-Trump.html

[EscapeVelocity2020]

John Oliver on The Trump Presidency Nov 12, 2017.

Interesting insight on how Trump uses propaganda-like techniques of discrediting the media, 'what-about-ism', and trolling to maintain focus on their message (or at least divert focus away from important questions) and re-frame the discussion.  Given all of the disgusting things going on at the highest levels of government and within the Trump administration, the fact that these techniques are spreading to other politicians gives me chills.  At least it was delivered in an entertaining way...

EDIT:  to start video at 14:40 which cuts to the chase for those who are pressed for time

[Just Joe]

That was an interesting video. i watched it last night.

[Barbaebigode]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/16/modern-air-is-too-clean-the-rise-of-air-pollution-denial

Now there are air pollution deniers. And of course some are touted to take advisory roles in the trump administration. I mean, why not?

[Glenstache]

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/16/modern-air-is-too-clean-the-rise-of-air-pollution-denial

Now there are air pollution deniers. And of course some are touted to take advisory roles in the trump administration. I mean, why not?

It worked for tobacco and climate change, why not expand the franchise? Ugh.

[jim555]

Black lung is fake news.  Open those coal mines.  MAGA

[hoping2retire35]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.33ae91ef04f3

And we wonder why evangelicals voted for trump; they have learned well.

[Malloy]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.33ae91ef04f3

And we wonder why evangelicals voted for trump; they have learned well.

Boy, that moral high ground is looking pretty barren these days.  What's the point of being an evangelical Christian if what they are learning is: if you can't beat 'em, grab 'em by the pussy.  I mean,everyone is a hypocrite, but not everyone runs around bleating about their god-given moral authority while being a hypocrite. 

[hoping2retire35]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.33ae91ef04f3

And we wonder why evangelicals voted for trump; they have learned well.

Boy, that moral high ground is looking pretty barren these days.  What's the point of being an evangelical Christian if what they are learning is: if you can't beat 'em, grab 'em by the pussy.  I mean,everyone is a hypocrite, but not everyone runs around bleating about their god-given moral authority while being a hypocrite.

Trump has been divorced twice, cheated, just not an example of christian morality to follow. However he votes/signs bills in favor of that demographic at least as they see it, evangalicals.

Franken has assaulted several women, bad person to look up to as a male feminist. However he votes for bills in favor of that demographic, at least as they see it, women's movements.

Considering all the outrage the left has had toward Christians over their vote for trump this is a little surprising to say the least.

[Kris]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2017/11/17/im-a-feminist-i-study-rape-culture-and-i-dont-want-al-franken-to-resign/?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.33ae91ef04f3

And we wonder why evangelicals voted for trump; they have learned well.

Boy, that moral high ground is looking pretty barren these days.  What's the point of being an evangelical Christian if what they are learning is: if you can't beat 'em, grab 'em by the pussy.  I mean,everyone is a hypocrite, but not everyone runs around bleating about their god-given moral authority while being a hypocrite.

Trump has been divorced twice, cheated, just not an example of christian morality to follow. However he votes/signs bills in favor of that demographic at least as they see it, evangalicals.

Franken has assaulted several women, bad person to look up to as a male feminist. However he votes for bills in favor of that demographic, at least as they see it, women's movements.

Considering all the outrage the left has had toward Christians over their vote for trump this is a little surprising to say the least.

This false equivalency is a little silly...

[A Definite Beta Guy]

Evangelicals have been voting for policy preferences over personal morals since 1980, when they voted for second-marriage Ronald Reagan over evangelical Jimmy Carter. OTOH, from what I gather, I don't think they care much, because they think the Dems voted for a serial philanderer and draft dodger over two war heroes in the 90s.

[sol]

Evangelicals have been voting for policy preferences over personal morals since 1980, when they voted for second-marriage Ronald Reagan over evangelical Jimmy Carter. OTOH, from what I gather, I don't think they care much, because they think the Dems voted for a serial philanderer and draft dodger over two war heroes in the 90s.

Then in 2016 the country voted for a man who was not an evangelical or a war hero, but IS a multiple divorcee, serial philanderer, and a draft dodger.  He combines the worst traits of every Presidential candidate from the last century.  It's almost like none of that matters, and our country's leadership is instead decided by the whims of the free press.

[GuitarStv]

Evangelicals have been voting for policy preferences over personal morals since 1980, when they voted for second-marriage Ronald Reagan over evangelical Jimmy Carter. OTOH, from what I gather, I don't think they care much, because they think the Dems voted for a serial philanderer and draft dodger over two war heroes in the 90s.

Then in 2016 the country voted for a man who was not an evangelical or a war hero, but IS a multiple divorcee, serial philanderer, and a draft dodger.  He combines the worst traits of every Presidential candidate from the last century.  It's almost like none of that matters, and our country's leadership is instead decided by the whims of the free press.

The free press wanted Trump?  My understanding is that the majority of the press wasn't too enamored of him, just like the majority of Americans.

[DarkandStormy]

https://shareblue.com/fox-news-caught-covering-up-reports-on-trumps-connection-to-russia/

Faux News halted efforts of its own reporters investigating a Trump-Russia connection.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-selling-christmas-maga-hats-and-theyre-double-price-717444

Trump is selling MAGA hats (thought you couldn't profit off the Office of the Presidency) for nearly DOUBLE the price for Christmas - all so you can let the world know you're a soldier against the War on Christmas on the back of the hat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/politics/trump-golf-course-reimbursed-president-trumps-charity-amid-ongoing-investigation-into-the-foundation/2017/11/20/5e7ff63c-ce05-11e7-81bc-c55a220c8cbe_story.html

One of President Trump's golf courses paid back more than $158,000 to Trump's charitable foundation this year, reimbursing the charity for money that had been used to settle a lawsuit against the club, according to a new tax filing.

The March 2017 payment came after New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Democrat, launched an investigation into how the Donald J. Trump Foundation collects and disburses funds. The inquiry is ongoing.

The Washington Post reported last year that Trump had used the charity for questionable purposes, including to make a political contribution, to settle legal matters involving his for-profit companies and to buy a large portrait of himself that he hung at one of his golf resorts.

[sol]

The free press wanted Trump?  My understanding is that the majority of the press wasn't too enamored of him, just like the majority of Americans.

I didn't say the free press wanted Trump, I said they helped elect him.  By giving him billions of dollars worth of free media coverage, and ceaselessly promoting him as a viable candidate despite his obvious character flaws.  Even if they were reporting on those same flaws, they put his name and his face in front of every American for a year, and he never would have won if he had just been ignored. 

Unfortunately, he was offensive enough that the press (which is still a for-profit industry) consistently gave front page coverage to his outrageousness because it drew eyeballs to their crumbling media empires.  That coverage drove sales, it earned clicks and page views, it pumped up their ad buys.  They made money by reporting on what a doofus he was, and in so doing they made him into a viable candidate.

The American press likes to play up their "fourth estate" status as a defender of American liberties, but in this case I think they really screwed us.

[A Definite Beta Guy]

They are only providing what the public wants to watch. Blame should rest with the voters.

[hoping2retire35]

They are only providing what the public wants to watch. Blame should rest with the voters.

Eh, voters want a lot of things. Clean cut politicians that don't sell them out after 18 months would be great. Voters are trying something new.

The root of the problem, if you will, is we have a highly centralized political system where there are no or very little exceptions (www.economist.com/node/2413745) with a very large population. Even China has several autonomous regions,and that country is not exactly known for its liberal democracy. You can get away with having a liberal, highly controlled welfare state when you country is only a few million rich homogeneous people; see Scandinavia.

People in this country want very disparate things. We will not get along when there so much power in one place that governs us all.

[Davnasty]

They are only providing what the public wants to watch. Blame should rest with the voters.

Blame does rest with the voters, but do you really think he had any chance without the constant free publicity? The media's coverage of him is also to blame.

The media is providing what people want to watch but people want to watch a train wreck. This applies not just to Trump but most everything you see in the news. The real news is boring, what our news does is tell stories - about murderers, rapists, corrupt politicians - and none of this is representative of our country but it's what people see. Trump is what people saw and most of them took a stance, for or against. If he wasn't a constant topic of conversation most people never would have had such strong feelings about him.

If the media doesn't talk about something then to the vast majority of the population, it doesn't exist. I have no doubt that the media elected Trump.

[former player]

You can get away with having a liberal, highly controlled welfare state when you country is only a few million rich homogeneous people; see Scandinavia.

I see this sentiment being expressed quite often.  Can you explain what is the science (political science, if you like) behind the need for a society to be small and homogeneous in order for it to provide a welfare state?  Rich I can understand (although rich is of course relative), but why homogeneous?  The UK was relatively small and very homogeneous when it set up its welfare state and has rapidly become less so on both counts over recent decades but as far as I know neither the growth in size nor the new heterogeneity have caused any problems.

We are in general I think a better governed country (more efficient and less corrupt politicians and public sector) than the USA.  Perhaps that's what you meant?  Or perhaps that there is better economic integration within the regions of the UK than in the USA, which I suppose is in some regards a factor of size.  But where does homogeneity come in?