Coreece

We all know that the real conspiracy on this site is that when I type the word "christian," there is no squiggly red line underneath it indicating a spelling error and prompting me to capitalize it, like it does when I type the word "muslim," or "mexican."

I think that the same frustration or whatever emotion prompted you to write this post isn't much different and serves as the catalyst for a lot of this "childish behaviour." After all, your post essentially boils down to "my country good, your county bad," or that somehow "you're better than them. But I agree that it is very sheep-like how many of us blindly follow various media outlets and political personalities that essentially keep us divided and prevent us from addressing various problems at a fundamental level.

I had a long talk with Zucks this morning about how he's getting sloppy and that people are onto him. I mean It was so obvious what he was trying to do by shutting down Facebook the very same day this damning Fox news article came out. Coincidence? I think not. Now nobody will ever know the truth.

You DO understand that there is a difference between federal law and state law, right? Right? Clinton didn't sign any STATE 3 strikes laws. The vast majority of 3 strike sentences are at the state level. Perhaps, but how sure are you about that? Stats don't seem to be easily available, but awhile back the ACLU claimed that the federal courts accounted for 63% of life-without-parole sentences for nonviolent offenses. The article didn't mention "three strikes" specifically, but noted that most of these were due to "mandatory sentencing policies, including mandatory minimums and habitual offender laws that required them to be incarcerated until they die. Regardless tho, the crime bill of 1994 put an additional 100,000 law enforcement officers on the streets, so I think you're overlooking the obvious impact that would have on a three-strike system at both the federal and state level. The only derangement would be coming from those defending Clinton/democrats as if they weren't largely responsible for the negative impact of the 1994 crime bill, especially on the African American community. Many democrats, including Biden and Clinton himself have already admitted this. Not sure why you and Jerry are having so much trouble with that?

Only if you're a member of a minority group. Because they're in MAGA country, right?  Maybe I'm missing something, but how are the cops responsible for ultimately determining the severity and amount of charges, rather than the prosecutor/grand jury?

Candace Owens a naive black woman? Hoo boy, she's anything BUT that. That seems to be the trend popping up among the far left. For some it appears that support for the advancement of minorities stops at partisan lines. If you're black and support Trump in some way, then you must be naive, or you're an uncle tom, or a house negro, or just a prop used by republicans. And that's pretty interesting considering democrats have been using blacks for their votes for over 50 years and given very little in return. I mean, the best thing to happen for blacks here in Detroit since the riots had nothing to do with policies directed at actually improving African American communities, but rather the housing crisis that basically created an opportunity for a mass exodus of blacks out of Detroit and into the surrounding suburbs. We also see this treatment against women and Hispanics that are called traitors if they support Trump. Asian women are immediately suspected of being whores or running sex trafficking brothels from their massage/nail salons. It seems at this point, the only group of people that can support Trump without any racial, political or moral conflict/criticism are perhaps white conservative atheists. oh, and definitely the nihilists - fucking amateurs.

Hi BV, Why is it that you cannot comprehend that a Republican Congress put that legislation in front of Clinton sign? No President gets to sign any legislation until Congress puts it on his desk. Try studying how these things work, Jerry Baumchen The Crime Control Act of 1994 was written by Joe Biden and passed by a Democrat Congress. The Republicans didn't win the majority until several months after Clinton signed it. Biden recently apologized for it. Maybe he's considering a bid for the presidency.

We have the best hoaxes.

This is exactly what you said: "evangelical christianity. They call themselves christians but they're no more christian than Al-Baghdadi is a Muslim. For all of them its about a political ideology that overrides the law and any commandments of christ." That's about as all inclusive as you can get. Which of those "independent sources that you quoted twenty times" supports you claim in that manner? Correct, 77% of the evangelicals that actually voted, voted for Trump. I'm not denying the significance of that. However, only 38% of ALL evangelicals in the country voted for Trump. The reason that's relevant is because you were making a blanketed statement about ALL evangelicals and suggested that for ALL of them, it's ALL about politics and overrides ANY commandment of Christ. But if only 38% of ALL evangelicals actually made it out to vote for Trump, then perhaps this religion really isn't as politically driven as you've claimed. BTW, how does 77% represent "ALL OF THEM" It's quite clear that you're the one that can't keep your representations straight.

So building a wall to try and prevent people from coming into the US without trying to understand those people would be entirely useless as well right? Correct, and I expressed that sentiment in detail within that thread.

That evangelical Christians support a nonreligious serial adulterer who practices pretty much the exact opposite of what Jesus taught. And I agree it raises a lot of legitimate questions/concerns, but many don't seem to care to look into it beyond "See, they're not christian, they approve of adultery!" Like Phil, they just run with whatever appeals to their own preconceptions in order to support a biased political/social agenda. If your aim is to influence a particular group of people, then it's probably in your best interest to put forth an honest effort to understand them. Sorry, that's a silly way to try to make your point. It was necessary because you have all these stories about how 80% of evangelicals voted for Trump - and tho that may tend to give the wrong impression, I understand why it's repeated so frequently. But then Phil comes in here and makes all theses blanketed assumptions about all evangelicals. That none of them are Christians anymore and have all basically traded their principles for an ideology that overrides the law and any commandment of Christ - It's all political now, this is the new paradigm! So if you want to talk about ALL evangelicals, then stating the fact that only 38% of them voted for Trump is relevant, and puts such biased absolutes into perspective. It gives an opportunity to pause and ask if this particular religion is as politically driven as he claims, because that number certainly suggests otherwise. Good thing that's not what I said then. No, because you'd be making a biased assumption about that number, but if you want to take that further, you could say that the only reason they couldn't vote for him was because of a moral conflict, or that they didn't want to be called anti-christian! After all, if you vote republican, then you're a xenophobic misogynist, and support men that cheat on their wives - what kind of christian are you! If you vote democrat, then you've cast your lot among the baby killers and homosexuals and a secular society that hates christians and thinks evangelicals are "special kinds of idiots," and support men that cheat on their wives - what kind of christian are you! In "The Wall" thread, you agreed with a well written post about struggling with empathy and compassion for those caught up in the border crisis, while still supporting the need for security and the rule of law. So why can't that same reasoning be extended to evangelicals? Why is it automatically anti-christian this, anti-christian that? Because according to the PRRI poll that you mentioned, evangelicals are almost evenly divided when it comes to border refugees, with 56% opposing the separation of families. . . . It's very difficult for me to understand why that number isn't higher, but it appears that where you live might play a large role in this division, just as it has for the past 150+ years between evangelicals in the north and those throughout the bible belt in the south, where a cultural/racial identity tends to be more pervasive. It should also be noted that the south has a higher concentration of evangelicals than the north, so it's unclear to me how various polls account for that disparity or any influence it may have on the numbers. Well the only way to avoid being accused of that would be to just stay home and not vote, but that's unlikely, especially since they're not eternally held accountable for Trump's personal behavior. And as we've already discovered, the struggle with supporting certain political issues isn't automatically anti-christian. There's really no question that some evangelicals support a political ideology for anti-christian reasons, but we've come a long way from the all inclusive 100% that Phil suggested when we first started this discussion.

That's kind of like saying "I know you've struggled with sex and drug addiction in the past, and I hope to Christ that you never do that stuff again, which is why I'm warning you about that 8-ball in my sock drawer next to the condoms."

It's about as misleading as saying 260 million Americans didn't vote for Trump, so he shouldn't be president. FACT is that of those who bothered to vote, far more evangelicals voted for Trump than for his opponents.  But you're forgetting how Phil stated that for all evangelicals it's about a political ideology that overrides the law and any commandments of Christ. Clearly that's not true if 62% don't even bother to vote for a political ideology that is allegedly the sole driver of their faith. For most, there are obviously more pressing issues than guns, Muslims and politics.

Wrong, as usual. Its too bad that the statistics of which you yourself quote. Make the argument for a new paradigm of political action which like a mirror stares you in the face. I've already demonstrated that there are at least 55 million evangelicals and about 21 million voted for Trump. So how am I wrong?

I am sure individual white evangelicals have wide ranging opinions on things Tell that to Phil, he still thinks they are all lawless anti-christian posers. It's inline with the same "us vs them" mentality that he speaks out against, which makes such narrow-minded comments all the more hypocritical. But I know, why waste my time with such petty nonsense when we all know the real bigot is in the other thread bashing women for their fear of spiders. . . That's most likely directly related to the fact that "Republican candidates are more popular than the Democratic candidates among white evangelical Protestants (71% vs. 20%)" And It's been that way for decades, well before Trump ever came along. So how is that a "new paradigm," since that was the original question being asked? It is fairly accurate to say that a majority of white evangelicals support a president who opposes the teachings of Jesus. Well that's not what he was saying, but I'm sure he appreciates you moving the goal posts for him instead of having to do it himself. You're both still ignoring the point that at least 62% of white evangelicals didn't vote for Trump. So while they may be giving lip service merely because he's a republican, or because of the economy, or because of his favorable stance on whatever single issue they care about, the majority clearly isn't speaking with their votes. It's laughable that the party people vote for, and the personal lives of politicians they elect have become the benchmark by which one's Christianity is measured. How convenient!

The two quotes from you that I have emboldened dispute your own point. No they don't, you just didn't take my advice and look at those numbers critically. Hell you ddn't even take your own advice to the spider guy in the "you are beautiful" thread. What you're doing is really no different than what he did. It's like looking at a study that says 90% of those that suffer from arachnophobia are women, and then translating that as "most women are afraid of spiders!" See, this is what you almost always do. You just dismiss the data and refuse to address anything that I really said. Then you just post a bunch of links in lieu of an honest and thoughtful reply using your own words. I shouldn't have to click through a bunch of links to understand the substance of your position. So to recap: You said that for all evangelical christians, it's about a political ideology that overrides the law and any commandments of christ and that they are not christians. At least the spider guy backed down from his position once he was told he was wrong about women. I've actually demonstrated how you were wrong, and yet you still deliberately refuse to acknowledge it.

They never will. I used to think that but a new paradigm has come about and its called evangelical christianity. Huh? How is evangelical Christianity a new paradigm? Evangelicals have pretty much been divided over social/political issues since before the civil war. I would like to see how you came to the conclusion that all, or most, or even a slight majority of white evangelicals voted for Trump and fit that description. You may be tempted to post links about how "80-ish% of evangelicals voted for Trump," but you'd need to look at that number a bit more critically. A wise man in this forum recently said, "you need to think beyond the superficial ideals that mix with small bits of evidence that support your conclusions." So in light of that, let's break down the numbers to provide a bit more perspective. - On the low end, white evangelicals represent 17% of the population, so about 55,000,000 evangelicals. - There was a total of about 137,500,000 people that actually voted. - White evangelicals represented 20% of that electorate, so about 27,500,000 evangelicals. - Of that portion of the electorate, 77% voted for Trump, so about 21,175,000. - So given that, about 38% of all white evangelicals actually voted for Trump. Aside from the fact that these people tend to vote republican anyway, regardless of the candidate, you have to consider that a portion of this 38% voted for Trump for the same reasons that mainline protestants or conservative atheists did, not just because they embody a mindset of anti-christian anarchy, which is basically what you said. To say that all, most, or even a slight majority of evangelicals are not christian, and that it's all about a political ideology that overrides the law and any commandments of Christ, is just wildly inaccurate and saturated with ill conceived bias. But hey, at least it's not nearly as offensive as saying that most women are afraid of spiders!

Conservatives could provide hunted game to liberals in exchange for nuts and berries and veggies and cannabis - c'mon you know there are conservatives who get high and/or use CBD's. So good! I've always said that it would take some sort of serious wide-spread disaster to ever bring this country back together again.

Correct. I would never expect a progressive liberal to hunt with a bow and arrow. For that, they could rely on local criminals with guns to provide hunted game in exchange for cannabis and/or other herbs/essential oils.

Did you mean "North American level of comfort?" As per skyb's post, I was talking about areas with a level of comfort where "we no longer have to hunt our food or fight off animal predators," and where a man's physical strength "really doesn't matter anymore." Ok, so at our current rate of consumption vs our rate of progress, it's inevitable that we will deplete our resources and no longer live the life to which we're accustomed. We're also extremely vulnerable to failing technology upon which we've become exceedingly dependent. So in these instances, it's very likely that we will have to hunt for our food and fight off animal predators, and that a man's strength will matter once again. Conservatives with guns will have to revert back to a 19th century way of life, while progressive liberals will regress to a medieval way of life with their bows and arrows. Moderates on the other hand will have conservative friends with guns and liberal friends with solar panels thus allowing them to remain in the 21st century, however, without facebook (thank God). I'd assume home networking would remain intact.

That explains a lot. We don't live in pre-history, we live in the 21st century. In the 21st century we no longer have to hunt our food or fight off animal predators so the fact that men are generally physically stronger than women really doesn't matter anymore. Obviously that's a fair point, but how sustainable is 21st century comfort given our current rate of consumption. It's scary that many don't seem to think about how dependent and vulnerable we really are. I'll never forget how chaotic it was in downtown Detroit during the north east blackout in 2003, and that was only for a couple of days. Could you imagine if something like that lasted for weeks, months, even years? I try to be optimistic, but if shit ever hits the fan, those prehistoric instincts are gonna hit us hard, and our preoccupation with beauty will be the least of our worries. At 18 he's legally a man, but if you're looking at it from a strictly biological perspective, then it's about 12-13 years old or so.

I'd say no. Because you are asking Patton for her words and opinions on the topic, not just having her stand there as a model. I agree that would've been more effective, but it seems they were improvising to mimic that effect. As I've already mentioned, they weren't given sufficient time to prepare. It's not like Meadows could just yield his 5 minutes to Patton, and it would've been even worse if he talked about her without her presence to give a nod of approval. Obviously #2, but I still don't see how #1 is sexist, especially if the rules say that they can't allow the women to talk unless they do X, Y and Z.

Right, there is still a lot more to learn and it's going to take time and persistence to implement more effective measures.

I'd have to agree with that. Most of the research I've read revolved around implicit bias within law enforcement. "we still have a lot to learn about the ways that biases influence people's decisions and behavior in the real world." "We feel like we have to do something, but sometimes the action we take proves to be merely window dressing," "There are contractors that provide [implicit bias training], but there's zero evidence that what they do has an impact," "We don't know how to lastingly change implicit biases, particularly those as robust and prevalent as race and crime—and not for lack of trying." "In two studies with more than 6,300 participants, all of the interventions reduced implicit prejudice in the short term. But none of those changes lasted more than a couple of days following the intervention—and in some cases, the effects vanished within a few hours" Continually refusing to rent to blacks because they'll damage your apartment doesn't sound like implicit/unconscious bias to me, and I don't see a problem with calling it out as "a racist act." And Rep. Rashida Tlaib is right that just because Trump hired a black women doesn't mean that Trump isn't racist. That's not my issue. Perhaps my perspective on this issue is a bit limited, and tho I find Meadows tacky stunt to be awkward and ineffective, I'm having a hard time understanding how it's a "racist act." I mean for all we know, Lynne Patton could've initiated that whole charade. Let's look at it another way. Let's say that Patton was actually called to be character witness for Trump and testify as to why she doesn't think Trump is racist. Would that be a racist act?

That's not the situation. Just because there might have been some cross communication over these two specific sticking points doesn't mean there's a deal finished and ready to sign except for those two points. If there really was some cross communications then they should be ironing out the details right now. But then again, coming to an actual agreement was probably never part of this charade to begin with.