JoeWeber

That's what is so hard to stomach. The right is so focused on creating a 1000 Year Right that any racist, incompetent, misogynistic, homophobic or kindergarten school level insult is ignorable. What a damn travesty that four up and coming female members of the United States Congress, who happen to have brown skin, are on offer for this low level bullshit from the President of the United States. And from the right leaners here: silence.

Is it possible, that as other groups have since Trumps election, they're feeling a bit more free to be their true selves? Watching others react to life is how you get to know them, right?

I mean, good googaloo, Fort McHenry wasn't built until 22 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence. He's a damn joke. Even if they favor his soul crushing world view Trump supporters should at least admit it's out of plain selfishness and not admiration for the man.

Trumpette's, I give you your President and Orator Extraordinaire: “Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over airports, it did everything it had to do and at Ft. McHenry under the rocket’s red glare had nothing but victory. When dawn came, the star-spangled banner waved defiant.” Please you guy's, for the good of the nation, stop voting.

All that has changed for me since Trump was elected is the contempt I feel for those who continue to defend him.

Umm — ever hear about Woodstock? Wendy P. Different kind of 'stoned'. Jesus, Joe, we know that.

What's wrong with a temporary appointment? What do you fear? Whitaker is a partisan hack, a nobody who rose to fame pandering to right wing crazies arguing Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted and that there was no Russian collusion with the Trump campaign and that Mueller probe was a useless expensive waste 3 months into it when nothing was yet known. And on and on and on. What do I fear? I fear for my country. And I fear you.

I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated? Come on, Max. Answering a question with a question-and an irrelevant one at that-is mas no bueno. What it shows, sadly, is that the core advantage Christians use to sell religion is false. After all, shouldn't their religious sensibilities and morality have kept them from committing political murders? Point of clarification: you are confusing me with motionscribe. I already answered your question JoeWeber. My apologies.

pretty much a victory for the president. He lost the house as was predicted and as is normal with midterms. But the games in the Senate are nearly unprecedented. one thing's for sure you won't hear all the gnashing of teeth and whining that the Democrats would have done had they not won the house[/quote Pigs are flying in flocks today. I completely agree with Marc's extremely well written and perceptive observation.

Moderating Q&A technique between posters for accuracy is a bit much, Bill. In any case it was the following point, below, to which I was hoping Max might respond. "What it shows, sadly, is that the core advantage Christians use to sell religion is false. After all, shouldn't their religious sensibilities and morality have kept them from committing political murders?"

Right, but that still doesn't support the point. Scribe is blaming the Democrats for being unable to hold onto their base. But the swing of voters away from the Dems, even in those battleground states, was fairly small. So unless you define the base as everyone who has ever voted Dem (which would make it a term so broad as to be entirely useless) you don't have any evidence that the Democrat base abandoned the party's candidate. In reality you're probably mostly looking at moderates and independents. Second, you have to remember that the Republicans ran the longest, most successful character assassination campaign there has ever been. They'd been attacking Clinton ferociously, non-stop, for nearly 3 years before the main election campaign even began. You can't purely ascribe the 3rd party votes detracting from Clinton's total to a failure of the Democrats to engage those moderates, since we know that the Republican's long running smear campaign was very effective at damaging Clinton's personal approval ratings among those moderates. You could say that Benghazi, emails, and the emergence of a populist, demagogic opponent with no morals, scruples or regard for the truth made the 2016 election a kind of perfect storm. One that makes it impossible to judge the effectiveness or popularity of the Democrats' actual platform at that time. Thanks, but I wasn't attempting to support the point. I was merely offering what I, rightly or wrongly, consider to be a significant contributing factor in Trumps victory.

No reasonable observer could look at the last election and claim that the Republicans were the unified party! If Trump hadn't won it looked like there was a real chance that you'd have seen the first genuine party split since the Southern Democrats defected. And yet they were able to overcome all that, weren't they? Do you think the democrats/liberals would've fared as well in a similar situation? Hell, they couldn't even get enough votes from their own base for one of their most qualified candidates ever, a candidate that would've bent over backwards and succumb to their every whim. Instead, they went for the libertarian or some other independent/write-in even if it meant Trump winning. And then we have to listen to those same people crying about him in forums like this. . . And yet in your first post you said that Democrats could win just by talking about normal working and middle class concerns like jobs and healthcare. Leaving aside the absurdity of the suggestion that they're not doing that already, isn't that an idealistic vision of how to counter the Republican propaganda machine? As I've already repeated nearly a half dozen times, I'm talking about the blue Midwest and eastern states, specifically Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. You could probably throw Ohio in there as well even though they tend to go 50/50. The democrats took these states for granted while the republicans double downed on their campaign efforts. Even in Hillary's new book she just blames Comey for the failure rather than admitting that they fucked up by failing to understand their voters and taking for granted the base that put both Obama and her husband in office. The dem's ability to win back those blue states is realistic, but if they can't, then the hope of ever having a democrat president again will merely become an idea of the past. I won't say the Democrats didn't do it to themselves on November 8, 2016 any more than I would say it's a certainty they won't fuck it up again today. Nonetheless, the fact is that Trumps margin of victory in those three states was less than the number of votes given to Jill Stein. Apologists argue that those votes would never have happened so they don't matter. That, we'll never know. But we can speculate with confidence that few if any would have gone to Trump.

I don't, but were their actions religious in nature, or were they more politically motivated? Come on, Max. Answering a question with a question-and an irrelevant one at that-is mas no bueno. What it shows, sadly, is that the core advantage Christians use to sell religion is false. After all, shouldn't their religious sensibilities and morality have kept them from committing political murders?

Um... when did I imply that I was defending Christians killing anybody in any century? Because that is most un-Christ-like. I follow Jesus and the bible, not any group of men who call themselves Christians. I agree with you; so-called Christians killing each other is no different than Sunnis and Shiites killing each other. (except perhaps that Sunnis/Shiites could actually find support from the Quran/Muhammad for their violence). I didn't say or suggest you defended, or implied that you defended, Christian's killing their brethren. But it is an irrefutable truth of Christian history that they have done so. I'm simply curious how a thoughtful Christian reconciles that truth. After all, they were all Christians, too.

More than that, Christians have gone after each other. Ostensibly for having slightly different theologies. But almost always over control of resources. Max, Following Ken's point, just how do you reconcile your view of Christianity with the way the Protestants and Catholics loved each other in Northern Ireland and the Catholics loved the Calvinists in the Netherlands and Calvinists loved the Protestants in France to name just a few times Christians loved to kill each other? I see it as no different than Sunni on Shia violence. Why should I? Joe

Does anyone still hold even a scintilla of hope that Ron is not who he shows? He is exactly who Trump was referring to when he said he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters." Any sane, rational person would consider the mere mention of the callous shooting of an innocent, much less actually doing it, disqualifying behavior in a Presidential candidate. For Ron that would be a Hallelujah moment. Ron is as frustrated with social progress and liberalism in America as the Taliban are in Afghanistan. He yearns for a period of chaos and ineffective government; a blessed time when he is set free to be a true Holy Warrior, armed with guns and truth, ready to do whatever it takes to set things right according to God and the one true Faith. I retract my previous advice to him. Do not leave your enclave, Ron. Stay as far away from the rest of us as possible, please. As Maya Angelou wrote: "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time."

§ 515.329 Person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; person subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The terms person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and person subject to U.S. jurisdiction include: (a) Any individual, wherever located, who is a citizen or resident of the United States; (b) Any person within the United States as defined in § 515.330; (c) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and (d) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, that is owned or controlled by persons specified in paragraphs (a) or (c) of this section. [ 50 FR 27437, July 3, 1985, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003; 80 FR 2292, Jan. 16, 2015; 81 FR 13991, Mar. 16, 2016] § 515.330 Person within the United States. (a) The term person within the United States, includes: (1) Any person, wheresoever located, who is a resident of the United States; (2) Any person actually within the United States; (3) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization organized under the laws of the United States or of any State, territory, possession, or district of the United States; and (4) Any corporation, partnership, association, or other organization, wherever organized or doing business, which is owned or controlled by any person or persons specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section. (b) [Reserved] [ 28 FR 6974, July 9, 1963, as amended at 68 FR 14145, Mar. 24, 2003] Unless you are willing to call a born human not a person you have a definitional problem.

So it's easier to become a citizen here than in Norway. Oh come on. Do you want to have a serious discussion or do you want to keep pretending to be an idiot? I know you're too smart to think that competency in language is the only requirement for citizenship in either country. So please, act like it My point is 'if it's so great there why isn't everyone going there'. Fairly certain you need to be bringing a lot to the table for Norway to take you in. The overall position is we need immigration reform. Far too difficult to become a citizen here however, until you secure the southern border reform is useless. Every time we grant amnesty to 100 we create 1,000 who want the same thing. Because it's goddamn cold there is my guess.

At your disposal, as ever. Lunatic fringe See, this is part of the problem. Liberals/democrats focus on the fringe, and then with one broad stroke alienate the rest of right leaning independents/conservatives, along with anyone else that would otherwise be inclined to give them the power. No, they're not hiding, and no, you didn't hear them coming. The Federalist Society has been around since the 80s. They are the most influential legal organization in the country and have been a breeding ground for conservative judges, lawyers, politicians, etc. . . It wasn't necessarily a bad thing, but it has been ignored and unchecked by the left for far too long. Rather than having meaningful protests and bringing attention to real racist politicians and white supremacy keynote speakers in the Federalist Society, liberals were running around acting like fools, egging on a bunch of double digit IQ redneck KKK wannabees and getting themselves killed over some stupid, god-damned fucking statue. But they're laughing at you. Liberals/Democrats need to get their shit together. Do you really think that people in the midwest and eastern states are so preoccupied with concerns about the mexicans, the border, homosexuals, etc., as if that's the first thing on their mind when they wake up in the morning? Do you really think broad-brushing them as racist, misogynistic xenophobes has any effect on them? Of course not, most are indifferent when it comes to those issues. They just care about their families, their jobs and concerns about rising costs for shittier healthcare. That's it - and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. And there's this feeling that the republicans are the only ones capable of addressing their concerns or at least care enough to acknowledge them. Most of these people have been life long democrats, it's only recently that they've jumped ship. If democrats can once again focus on their needs and whats best for the country as a whole, then they'd be more than willing to give the power back to the democrats - hell, they're practically begging for it. For the last 10 years or so, I've been putting other people's interest ahead of my own, but it's taken it's toll. And because of that, I can't help as much as I have in the past. If I end up as broken as those I'm trying to help, how long can I go on helping them? Democrats have to once again start focusing on the lives of those that can put them back in power, rather than focusing on all these emotional minority issues that will never bring them the votes needed to effect change. First things first, right? Only then will they'll actually have some power to deal with all these minority issues - that is if they really care about minorities first place, as much as they act. . . First, full disclosure. I was not in the band Red Rider nor did I write any of the song Lunatic Fringe. I am simply enormously, forever grateful that Tom Cochrane was prescient enough to realize I'd need it for my material some day and that Ron would be on offer as an opportunity. motionscribe, don't get your pants all twisted over reality. I remind you that you came out swinging with absurd claims about how those who don't agree with you often get themselves all confused understanding the sciences. Did you truly think that a Christian making such a claim wouldn't get some pushback? Were we all supposed to just silently think "Oh, the irony!" out of politeness and respect for your beliefs? Those day's are done. Eons old truths, when spoken in public squares and open internet forums, will now be measured against the truths of today. No one is any more obligated to give Christian apologists a wide and friendly berth than they are to the adherents of the Monkey God Hanuman. There is also a very critical philosophical difference here. I don't care at all what you believe if it makes you happy. Maybe you are right and I am wrong. I doubt it but it's possible. For certain, there is societal good that comes from some facets of religious belief. The problem is that you want me to believe it, too. You want me to accept that you are just being benignly helpful when you try to impose your beliefs and it's tenants on everyone and at our expense. So, now that doubters can not be jailed for disbelief, don't be surprised if you get some flack now and again. And this: Well, I've never broad brushed in that way. Quite obviously, however, there are scads of folks who can be excited to fret over distant Caravans of Invaders, hating their fellow citizens with different sexual natures, think what happens to women's bodies is open to third party interpretation, and who can also be bullshitted into believing that Republicans give a nit about their healthcare or living wage job. Enough so, it turned out, that people like Trump and McConnell can be elevated to positions quite suited to fucking them over even more. To that I also take exception.

At your disposal, as ever. Lunatic fringe I know you're out there You're in hiding And you hold your meetings I can hear you coming I know what you're after We're wise to you this time (wise to you this time) We won't let you kill the laughter Oh oh oh Oh oh oh Oh oh oh Lunatic fringe In the twilight's last gleaming But this is open season But you won't get too far 'Cause you've got to blame someone For your own confusion We're on guard this time (on guard this time) Against your final solution Oh no Oh oh oh Oh oh oh Oh oh oh We can hear you coming (we can hear you coming) No, you're not going to win this time (not gonna win) We can hear the footsteps (we can hear the footsteps) Hey, out along the walkway (out along the walkway) Lunatic fringe We all know you're out there Can you feel the resistance Can you feel the thunder Oh no Hey! …

"They say when trouble comes close ranks, so the white people did." Jean Rhys. The Wide Sargasso Sea

It depends. Are you usually a pain? Are you someone who helps out around the DZ? Did you land off on your last jump? Are you an excellent packer? Am I just generally pissed off that day? Do I need you for a Tandem on the next load? Do you run to the internet crying instead of owning it and saying you F'd up, you are totally sorry, you get it and you will fix this shit? As you can see, it can get very complicated. That said, if it was just a one off dumb ass move I'd give it to the experienced jumpers and let them sort you out.

Easy, Red Rider. Your Steam-o-meter might need recalibration. Just because something is well written and resonates deeply does not make it true. You know, like the Bible. "I know you're out there You're in hiding And you hold your meetings I can hear you coming I know what you're after We're wise to you this time (wise to you this time) We won't let you kill the laughter"

Right. I hear it a lot about how we've held back science and progress for all these hundreds of years. But it's easy to see that many are just as ignorant about science as some of the religious folks they like to scoff at, like a bunch of bird-brained parrots pecking at the keyboard trying to stick it to the Christians, or propagate some misguided scientific "fact" to bolster their own disbelief as if that's the sole purpose of science. So often they confuse cosmology with biology, and evolution with abiogenesis as if it's all just the Theory of Everything, everything but physics. They believe the big bang was an actual explosion. Most are ignorant of people like Mendel that were instrumental in cementing Darwin's evolutionary theories. Most don't realize that the Church has funded scientific work, not to mention that many, if not most scholars were religious. There is no a priori conflict between being religious and being a scientist. The schism seems to be of a more modern phenomenon which IMO is most likely connected to the rise of secularism. That sounds smart but I don't know anyone who confuses cosmology with biology or evolution with abiogenesis and then tosses it to a single bag labeled the "Theory of Everything", physics excluded. Where did you get that from?

Right. I hear it a lot about how we've held back science and progress for all these hundreds of years. But it's easy to see that many are just as ignorant about science as some of the religious folks they like to scoff at, like a bunch of bird-brained parrots pecking at the keyboard trying to stick it to the Christians, or propagate some misguided scientific "fact" to bolster their own disbelief as if that's the sole purpose of science. So often they confuse cosmology with biology, and evolution with abiogenesis as if it's all just the Theory of Everything, everything but physics. They believe the big bang was an actual explosion. Most are ignorant of people like Mendel that were instrumental in cementing Darwin's evolutionary theories. Most don't realize that the Church has funded scientific work, not to mention that many, if not most scholars were religious. There is no a priori conflict between being religious and being a scientist. The schism seems to be of a more modern phenomenon which IMO is most likely connected to the rise of secularism. The same Church that ordained Mendel tossed Galileo in the can. The reality is that until relatively recently Religion called the shots. Consequently, statements like "There is no a priori conflict between being religious and being a scientist" need to be explained in context. It does seem to me that, these days, scientists like Francis Collins are rarities compared to secular scientists. Perhaps that is because these days, as funding might come from a wide range of non-church sources, scientists are free to be secular.