Lets discuss the coven of left wing bullies, faking their christianity on here.

1356789

Comments

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I wish more conservative Americans would post more in the Trump threads. The person recently planked was no good. They'd never explain themselves or engage. It was very frustrating.

    dude. I'm freaking conservative and have never, nor ever will, vote for Trump. You can't dislike him more than I do. The things are not related.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Well I never. Excellent! I'm very pleased Lamb Chopped. I dislike Trump a very great deal though, because he's corrupt and corrupting. I disliked him when I first saw him because of his bravado, selfishness and greed and so many other issues. But now that he's President all that has been intensified.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    I also observe plenty of Tory voters not seeing it this way, and thinking that voting for the Tories is improving life, and that more people will die and suffer unnecessarily from Labour being in power.

    The problem is, is that really doesn't happen. The Iraq war notwithstanding (which, let's face it, lead to the slaughter of 100,000s), domestically, paying a bit more tax doesn't equate to people dying in the streets or starving to death in their homes. I find it incredibly hard to have a reasonable discussion, or even the expectation of a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks another 1p on the higher rate of income tax is somehow a gross violation of their economic autonomy, when there are actual children unable to learn in school because they're so hungry.

    I have a very good friend who voted in 2015 for the government of Gove, Raab and Johnson because he thought that Ed Milliband was 'power hungry'. He's now decided that austerity didn't stand up intellectually and plans to vote for the LDs because 'Corbyn will go too far' -- the response to pointing out that the last manifesto was a mainstream social democratic one is that Labour has some dark plan they aren't telling anyone about.

    If I bring up the crisis in social services and the public realm in general its obvious that he simply doesn't believe that they are bad as they are -- I suspect a lot of people are like this.
  • FirenzeFirenze Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Indeed. If you’ve never been on the breadline, you just don’t get it. There’s always someone who has your back - parents, connections, your education/accent/social capital. You’re never going to be the one Benefit assessors describe as a ‘lying bitch’ because you’re trying to navigate the many hoops of the system to your miserable advantage

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    OMG, I almost forgot that movie's existence, and yes, it was genius, and I'm embarrassed to admit I never realized it was Lucas's work and would never have guessed, if asked, that it was.

    Genuinely the creepiest version of punishment ever . . . that eternal empty white nothing . . .
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    I also observe plenty of Tory voters not seeing it this way, and thinking that voting for the Tories is improving life, and that more people will die and suffer unnecessarily from Labour being in power.

    The problem is, is that really doesn't happen. The Iraq war notwithstanding (which, let's face it, lead to the slaughter of 100,000s), domestically, paying a bit more tax doesn't equate to people dying in the streets or starving to death in their homes. I find it incredibly hard to have a reasonable discussion, or even the expectation of a reasonable discussion with someone who thinks another 1p on the higher rate of income tax is somehow a gross violation of their economic autonomy, when there are actual children unable to learn in school because they're so hungry.

    IME, nobody rejects Labour solely on the basis of the higher rate tax increase. They reject Labour because they think Labour policies will lead to economic collapse - either because their ideas are inherently bad or because Mr Corbyn is a nitwit - and consequently, Labour will end up in the long run making things worse for the very people they want to help.

    Now you and I would say they are wrong, and Labour's economic ideas are mostly sound, but not everyone has our incisive skill and discernment at picking through the morass of economic opinions from the Institute for This and the Foundation for That.

  • Ricardus wrote: »
    IME, nobody rejects Labour solely on the basis of the higher rate tax increase. They reject Labour because they think Labour policies will lead to economic collapse - either because their ideas are inherently bad or because Mr Corbyn is a nitwit - and consequently, Labour will end up in the long run making things worse for the very people they want to help.

    I'm absolutely fine with having that argument. They can reject Labour's policies on the grounds of fiscal prudence, or that they genuinely believe in the free market and whatnot.

    What I'm not fine with them then going on to say "so I'm voting Tory", when those policies are catastrophic for the poorest in our society (and bad for almost everyone else, almost certainly including them), and have been shown to not work. The current shower couldn't manage their way out of a wet paper bag, and are as a venal and corrupt crew as ever sailed on the ship of state.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    OMG, I almost forgot that movie's existence, and yes, it was genius, and I'm embarrassed to admit I never realized it was Lucas's work and would never have guessed, if asked, that it was.

    Genuinely the creepiest version of punishment ever . . . that eternal empty white nothing . . .

    The most dreadful punishment of all time is that meted out by the 'pathologically righteous' GSV Grey Area in Banks' awesome Excession.
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Simon Toad, I'm glad to have delighted you. May I suggest that there are a great many more like me out there, but they don't get any air time because a) the idiots scream louder, and b) our colleagues on the liberal side have forgotten we exist. I darkly suspect that some of them have willfully forgotten we exist, because it's hard to demonize a whole faction when you remember that there are reasonable people possessing hearts in it who joined that group purely because they are fiscally cautious. (Another thing Trump emphatically isn't)

    PS I suppose, also, because we have a tendency to expect the worst of human nature, and fear that our liberal friends are too easily taken in by evil-minded liars (and here I'm thinking dictators and strongmen--another case where Trump's ***kissing ways don't fit with proper conservatism). In short, we hidden conservatives are basically just cautious. Not assholes. And not intrinsically opposed (God help us) to measures that help real human beings in need. Simply concerned with the best way to carry them out.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    Gay marriage only became a campaign issue for gay people due to the HIV/AIDS crisis and people not being able to see their dying partners in hospital. Prior to that, it wasn't a priority for gay people at all and gay people weren't interested in getting married. Thatcher along with her buddy Reagan played an incalculable role in the devastation caused by HIV to gay people and other groups, and Cameron is decidedly Thatcherite in his conservatism. Bringing in gay marriage decades later (with a spousal veto which makes trans people extremely vulnerable) does not excuse causing the deaths of gay people via HIV. It was no less than genocide.

    As a history teacher by profession, and as someone who happens to be both a gay man and absolutely no fan of either Margaret Thatcher or Ronald Reagan or their respective parties, I feel confident in saying that it was, indeed, less than a genocide. By some margin, actually. Unless, of course, evidence comes to light that they actually created the human immunodeficiency viruses. In that case, yeah, "genocide" seems apposite.


    Ricardus wrote: »

    IME, nobody rejects Labour solely on the basis of the higher rate tax increase. They reject Labour because they think Labour policies will lead to economic collapse - either because their ideas are inherently bad or because Mr Corbyn is a nitwit.

    And, in fairness, he really is a nitwit, isn't he? He seems like a nice old duffer with all the best intentions in the world, but I think there is evidence to suggest beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty of political nitwittery in the first degree. He is a remarkable contortionist who is able to put his head in the sand and his foot in the mouth at the same time.

    Unfortunately, the question that seems to be facing the British people right now is whether he is an even bigger nitwit than Mrs May....

    For the record, although the relevant instruments struggle to measure nitwittery at this level, they suggest that Mrs May is approaching "very stable genius" levels of nitwittery. Mr Corbyn still lags somewhere behind that.
  • Pomona wrote: »
    (with a spousal veto which makes trans people extremely vulnerable)

    The so-called "spousal veto" does the wrong thing. It is, I think, a completely reasonable thing to consider the sex of one's partner as one of the foundation stones of a marriage. It seems reasonable to me to avoid putting someone into a marriage to someone of a sex that they didn't want, and so therefore that it is on the word of the non-transitioning spouse that either the marriage continues uninterrupted, or that the marriage is annulled.

    Yes, I use the word annulled deliberately here. I am firmly of the belief that a marriage to someone who subsequently announces that their gender is different from the gender that they claimed* at the time of their marriage should be voidable.

    But that's not what the "spousal veto" does - the spousal veto lets a spouse prevent someone from legally registering a change in gender / sex. That exceeds a spouse's reasonable competence - it shouldn't be up to a spouse whether someone can change sex, but it should be up to them whether the marriage should continue to exist.

    And no, I don't think the non-transitioning spouse's ability to issue divorce proceedings is adequate here, although it will certainly suffice for some couples.
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Simon Toad, I'm glad to have delighted you. May I suggest that there are a great many more like me out there, but they don't get any air time because a) the idiots scream louder, and b) our colleagues on the liberal side have forgotten we exist. I darkly suspect that some of them have willfully forgotten we exist ...

    Where's the evidence of "a great many more" anti-Trump conservatives? If there are so many conservatives who would never vote for him, how do you account for his election? Or his 91% approval rating among Republicans?

    Contrary to your allegations of bad faith, liberals haven't "willfully forgotten" that never-Trumpers exist - they just recognize that their numbers are vanishingly small.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Ohher wrote: »
    OMG, I almost forgot that movie's existence, and yes, it was genius, and I'm embarrassed to admit I never realized it was Lucas's work and would never have guessed, if asked, that it was.

    Genuinely the creepiest version of punishment ever . . . that eternal empty white nothing . . .

    Hmmm...I haven't seen "THX-1138", but I think the hell in the film "Ghost" is worse. Demons all over you, presumably forever.
    (shudder)
  • Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad, I'm glad to have delighted you. May I suggest that there are a great many more like me out there, but they don't get any air time because a) the idiots scream louder, and b) our colleagues on the liberal side have forgotten we exist. I darkly suspect that some of them have willfully forgotten we exist ...

    Where's the evidence of "a great many more" anti-Trump conservatives? If there are so many conservatives who would never vote for him, how do you account for his election? Or his 91% approval rating among Republicans?

    Contrary to your allegations of bad faith, liberals haven't "willfully forgotten" that never-Trumpers exist - they just recognize that their numbers are vanishingly small.

    Bullshit.

    He didn't win the popular vote. I know people besides myself who are lifelong Republicans and who swung to Clinton in a desperate attempt to stop Trump. They aren't "vanishingly small" in number. They are unfortunately located in places where the electoral college scheme causes their votes to be of little to no effect.

    As for those who did vote for him, and who were located in areas of the country that possessed an outsized-effect on the electoral college vote--any number of these are quietly regretting votes cast for reasons other than 'we think he's a good choice.' I know some of these people too. But did you really expect them to go announce it on Twitter and get crucified by both sides?

    The phenomenon of a 'protest vote' is not unknown in other places, like the UK. Some in the US did the same--they voted for Trump, not because they expected to get him, but because they were pissed off as hell with the groups Hilary Clinton was associated with. And given their history, they had reason to be.

    The phenomenon of a single issue voter is also not unknown elsewhere--or the regret that comes upon these people when they realize that buying a pig in a poke because you like its oink isn't going to make up for what you actually see when you finally get it unpacked.

    As for the fucking polls. If you're putting your estimation of reality in their hands, you might consider just how badly they stuffed up the predictions before Trump's election. Personally, I don't know anybody who would bother talking to a pollster over the phone (which is how these things are handled). I'm fairly sure the method and the timing (mid-election cycle) means they are going to skew toward the fanatics. The moderate people have better things to do right now than talk to pollsters.

    And frankly, a lot of us have either jumped ship with the Republican party or are considering it very strongly. I myself am remaining only so I can fuck up Trump's primary by voting for somebody else. But do you think that these disillusioned people are going to spend time on the phone discussing a painful subject with a poll-taking stranger right now? When the first question is "Are you a Republican?" And they say, "Well, um...." Is the pollster going to take that as "Yes" or is he going to move on?

    Frankly, I'm damned pissed off at the masses of people who believe that I, and those like me, do not exist. And you're not making it better. What I have is anecdata, yes; but what you have is not even based on that much reality.

  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    IME, nobody rejects Labour solely on the basis of the higher rate tax increase. They reject Labour because they think Labour policies will lead to economic collapse - either because their ideas are inherently bad or because Mr Corbyn is a nitwit - and consequently, Labour will end up in the long run making things worse for the very people they want to help.

    I'm absolutely fine with having that argument. They can reject Labour's policies on the grounds of fiscal prudence, or that they genuinely believe in the free market and whatnot.

    What I'm not fine with them then going on to say "so I'm voting Tory",

    Well, in practice, the government is going to be one or the other, isn't it? Possibly propped up by one of the smaller parties.
    when those policies are catastrophic for the poorest in our society

    IME, most are like chrisstiles' friend. They think the social crisis has been exaggerated, and that bad stuff is caused by bad practice at a local level rather than the policies themselves. Just as Matt Hancock isn't responsible for every NHS misdiagnosis, so Amber Rudd isn't responsible for every 'lying bitch' DWP comment.

    I think both you and I would agree that there is a line beyond which bad stuff is so prevalent that it is indeed the fault of the policies and not local practice, and that the Conservatives have crossed that line. Which raises the question: When was the line crossed? It was Labour who introduced fitness-to-work assessments and outsourced them to Atos. Did Labour cross the line, and, if so, do you also boycott from your friendship group people who voted Labour in 2005?
  • Doc TorDoc Tor Admin
    edited May 2019
    In an of itself, fitness-to-work assessments aren't a terrible thing, any more than calling in someone's accounts to make sure they're paying the right level of tax. What's wrong is the weaponising of bureaucracy - Windrush, PIP, UC (forced academisation and other privatisations, strategic infrastructure decisions...) are all examples of that.

    People make mistakes. I hope that I'm as forgiving of their mistakes and they are of mine. IRL I apologise often. But wilful, negligent, on-going cruelty is something else. The point at which UC has been shown to put people into debt and send them to food banks has long past: the government's response is to roll it out futher, knowing full well the misery it's causing and not caring that it does. And people are still voting Tory, giving generously to food banks in time and donations, and refusing to ask the obvious question as to why food banks were hardly needed at all prior to 2010. I find that a lot harder to sweep under the carpet.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Does it strike anyone as odd that the shipmate who started this thread has been banished on shore for a fortnight for abusing fellow navigators even beyond the limits of hell? Yet this thread has carried on.

    Just saying!
  • It's not odd, in that the OP doesn't control the direction of the thread, has been planked for their commandment breaking, and we're having some useful discussions in their wake. It strikes me as being the very epitome of the Ship.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    The point at which UC has been shown to put people into debt and send them to food banks has long past: the government's response is to roll it out futher, knowing full well the misery it's causing and not caring that it does. And people are still voting Tory, giving generously to food banks in time and donations, and refusing to ask the obvious question as to why food banks were hardly needed at all prior to 2010. I find that a lot harder to sweep under the carpet.

    I volunteer at my local food bank and whilst I haven't interrogated their beliefs in the same way that I have with my friend, that attitude is not unknown among the other volunteers (along with the idea that things are done properly locally, but 'out there' there's a lot of sponging undeserving poor).
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    In an of itself, fitness-to-work assessments aren't a terrible thing, any more than calling in someone's accounts to make sure they're paying the right level of tax. What's wrong is the weaponising of bureaucracy - Windrush, PIP, UC (forced academisation and other privatisations, strategic infrastructure decisions...) are all examples of that.

    People make mistakes. I hope that I'm as forgiving of their mistakes and they are of mine. IRL I apologise often. But wilful, negligent, on-going cruelty is something else. The point at which UC has been shown to put people into debt and send them to food banks has long past: the government's response is to roll it out futher, knowing full well the misery it's causing and not caring that it does. And people are still voting Tory, giving generously to food banks in time and donations, and refusing to ask the obvious question as to why food banks were hardly needed at all prior to 2010. I find that a lot harder to sweep under the carpet.

    For me the mistake is the idolisation of bureaucracy, which I think John Major really started, as an alternative to the ideological purism of Thatcher, and which Blair fastened on to and ran with to the hills and beyond, turning it into a "market" facilitating ideology as he went.

    Delegating decisions which need to be taken by skilled people using their discretion to the "system" and therefore to bureaucrats with simplistic rules is an abuse of all the people involved and an outrage. It's idolatry. The whole thing, including the panoply of "suppliers" engaged to provide these services and the interlocking layers of contracts, margins and exploitation around htem, need dismatiling, now.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Pomona wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    Pomona wrote: »
    fineline wrote: »
    A bit of that, yes, though the people who say that they are intolerant of intolerance at least have this awareness. Some people seem genuinely unaware of how they are coming across, and of the inconsistencies in what they say and what they do.

    Well, some of us see justice as the goal, not tolerance. I'm not remotely interested in tolerating injustice. I don't have Tory friends on purpose, precisely because I do believe the Tories to be complicit in murder, particularly of disabled people. I think this is a really key issue for UK churches actually, who will have many members claiming to want to include everyone but who then vote to exclude disabled people from life, either literally in the case of people who die because of being denied benefits, or who struggle to live because of the tiny amount they are expected to live on and cuts to the social services and NHS services that are supposed to help them. It is an act of enormous hypocrisy. The Tory party at prayer is not listening to God's replies.


    Thing is, if this is how the majority of people here see it, that they refuse to have Tory friends because Tory voters are complicit in murder, then realistically, we're not likely to have many Tories joining our community and staying, and so we won't be having the very kind of discussions we would need to have to create changes and influence each other.

    I see similar in autistic communities - many autistic people see all neurotypical people as the enemy, ruining their lives, and they are hostile towards these neurotypical people. And this prevents progress, because then of course neurotypical people are likely to see autistic people are rude and hostile and not want to make the accessibility changes that autistic people see as important. It prevents any bridges being built, any meaningful conversation happening. I really do think that for positive change to take place, we all need to see each other as fellow humans, rather than seeing certain groups of people as the enemy, in 'them and us' terms.

    It isn't marginalised people's job to be nice to their oppressors (as neurotypical people and the ableist world we live in are) in order to change their mind. It's the oppressor's job to listen, end of.

    But why should they, in a dog-eat-dog world? And realistically, if someone is yelling insults at you, you shut down. You don't listen. Because people are human. If you want to be understood, to have your perspective listened to and sympathised with, yelling insults doesn't tend to be effective. In theory, of course, yes, it would be great if everyone wanted to listen to everyone, but it doesn't happen like that.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    In an of itself, fitness-to-work assessments aren't a terrible thing, any more than calling in someone's accounts to make sure they're paying the right level of tax. What's wrong is the weaponising of bureaucracy - Windrush, PIP, UC (forced academisation and other privatisations, strategic infrastructure decisions...) are all examples of that.

    Indeed, and the weaponisation of fitness-to-work assessments started under Labour. They were the ones who outsourced it to Atos, and it was the Coalition who kicked Atos out, admittedly to replace them with someone equally repugnant. It was Labour who began fast-tracking asylum rejections and expanded the administrative detention of asylum-seeking children.
    People make mistakes. I hope that I'm as forgiving of their mistakes and they are of mine. IRL I apologise often. But wilful, negligent, on-going cruelty is something else.

    If 'people' refers to the government, then I agree, that's what I was saying in my second paragraph. If people refers to Conservative voters, then the reality is that people are misinformed, and they are misinformed because there is a lot of misinformation out there.
    I find that a lot harder to sweep under the carpet.

    No-one is talking about sweeping stuff under the carpet. But refusing to have Tory friends has to me an element of 'I thank the Lord I am not like those Conservatives', especially when Labour also have dirty hands.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    Firenze wrote: »
    Indeed. If you’ve never been on the breadline, you just don’t get it. There’s always someone who has your back - parents, connections, your education/accent/social capital. You’re never going to be the one Benefit assessors describe as a ‘lying bitch’ because you’re trying to navigate the many hoops of the system to your miserable advantage

    In my experience, it's often the people on the breadline who are voting Tory, and/or voting for Brexit. Because they are the people who feel most threatened by others who are getting benefits that they haven't managed to get. And so they will be deciding in their minds which people are worthy and which aren't, and thinking that the benefits system has to be stricter. It's ironic of course, because it impacts on them more than on the benefit fraudsters, who will be more adept at finding ways around the rules, but still this is how people think.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    Ohher wrote: »
    OMG, I almost forgot that movie's existence, and yes, it was genius, and I'm embarrassed to admit I never realized it was Lucas's work and would never have guessed, if asked, that it was.

    Genuinely the creepiest version of punishment ever . . . that eternal empty white nothing . . .

    Hmmm...I haven't seen "THX-1138", but I think the hell in the film "Ghost" is worse. Demons all over you, presumably forever.
    (shudder)

    Sir Ben Kinglsey's Don Logan in Sexy Beast doesn't seem to think so, right at the end.
  • @Ricardus - you make perfectly cogent points, and yes, a great deal of this was started by Labour (under Blair). There has been a sea-change, though. If people now realise that those policies mentioned above were wrongly implemented (or just plain wrong), then saying so, and wanting to right those wrongs, is a good thing. Doubling down on them and going further, is a bad thing.

    I also don't buy the 'poor misguided, ill-informed Tory voters' schtick. It takes away their agency, and they need to own their shit. A lot of them are voting Conservative because they're spiteful, resentful and selfish. And that's before I get on to calling them a lot of other names. There are obviously shades of political opinion, but is there any particular reason why I shouldn't use 'proud Tory voter' as some kind of filter for my elective, private social circle?

    But it comes down to people earning £1000/hour convincing people earning £15/hour that people earning £7/hour are the problem. I will attempt to fix that kind of stupid, even it's one person at a time, but I'm not promising that it'll be pretty.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    ISTM to me that @Lamb Chopped made some pertinent points earlier on (I've rather lost track, I'm afraid).

    'Conservative' or 'conservative' does not, of course, mean that such a self-described person is Evil™, or a Limb of Satan.

    Alas, at least in Ukland (and I suspect in Trumperica, as well), it has become something of a pejorative word, or term.

    I have no doubt at all that there are many 'conservatives' in Ukland - on my local Council, for instance - who share Lamb Chopped's cautious, and sensible, views.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I wish i had popcorn when I was reading the first page.
  • Colin SmithColin Smith Suspended
    I suppose I should take this seriously, but has anyone else noticed this egregious mixing of metaphors?
    But I sense a sea change in the air...

    In an attempt to be serious, social conservatism exists at both ends of the political spectrum with countries as diverse as Brunei, Saudi Arabia, Ghana, Cuba, and China discriminating, in some cases very severely, against homosexuals, albeit it appears Cuba is rapidly moving towards acceptance. Similarly, repressive attitudes towards women are, or were, common among the left-voting working class.
  • It is a simpler world to understand if you decide that there are two types of people: sheeps and goats. But it isn't true. It's quite possible to have socialist economic values and conservative social values. I see it all around me. These people are decidedly leftist economically and decidedly right wing with social values.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Evidence for that abounds NP. Evidence of what Lamb Chopped says is also plentiful. I can think of quite a few Americans in the media who are presumably Republican and editorialise quite strongly against Trump when the issue warrants it. Unlike a publication such as The Hill, these commentators don't seem to go after his every tweet, but pick their issues with care. I've always thought that the FBI and the intelligence services tend to both attract conservative people and are institutionally conservative themselves.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I also don't buy the 'poor misguided, ill-informed Tory voters' schtick. It takes away their agency, and they need to own their shit. A lot of them are voting Conservative because they're spiteful, resentful and selfish.

    FWIW, I agree that a fair number of Tory voters are indeed knobs. Especially the ones in the House of Commons ...
  • Dave WDave W Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    Simon Toad, I'm glad to have delighted you. May I suggest that there are a great many more like me out there, but they don't get any air time because a) the idiots scream louder, and b) our colleagues on the liberal side have forgotten we exist. I darkly suspect that some of them have willfully forgotten we exist ...

    Where's the evidence of "a great many more" anti-Trump conservatives? If there are so many conservatives who would never vote for him, how do you account for his election? Or his 91% approval rating among Republicans?

    Contrary to your allegations of bad faith, liberals haven't "willfully forgotten" that never-Trumpers exist - they just recognize that their numbers are vanishingly small.

    Bullshit.

    He didn't win the popular vote. I know people besides myself who are lifelong Republicans and who swung to Clinton in a desperate attempt to stop Trump. They aren't "vanishingly small" in number.
    In a country of more than 300 million, the people you know are, in fact, vanishingly small in number. And Trump certainly couldn't have won 46.1% of the popular vote without massive support from conservatives.
    As for the fucking polls. If you're putting your estimation of reality in their hands, you might consider just how badly they stuffed up the predictions before Trump's election.
    They did pretty well, I'd say. 538 gave Trump about a 1 in 3 chance of winning; and things with odds of 1 in 3 happen all the time. No one should have been terribly surprised.
    Frankly, I'm damned pissed off at the masses of people who believe that I, and those like me, do not exist. And you're not making it better. What I have is anecdata, yes; but what you have is not even based on that much reality.
    As I suspected, you've got nothing. (And yes, I have anecdotes too - what the hell makes you think I wouldn't? - I'm just not deluded enough to think that the small set of people I know could reasonably be expected to be representative of the entire country.)

    Yes, you exist; but sadly you are in a tiny minority. Large numbers of never-Trump conservatives would represent a promising source of votes to ambitious Republican congressmen or senators; so why do you suppose none of them dare stick their heads up and defy him? As they are highly motivated to do what needs to be done to get re-elected, I suggest it's because they know their constituents better than you do and realize that they'll get crushed in primaries because the Republican rank-and-file really do love Donald J. Trump.
  • finelinefineline Kerygmania Host, 8th Day Host
    We do all see the world to a large extent through the microcosm of people we know or encounter, which is also influenced by the microcosm of people each of these people know or encounter, and so on. I don't think that should be dismissed, because it is individuals who make up the world, and you see the various perspectives of people, as individuals, rather than just statistics.

    On FB, I'd say about 120 of my friends are American. A tiny microcosm, from a variety of settings - some I know from online communities that are unrelated to religion, and from these, some happen to be Christian, some Jewish, some atheists, etc. Politically, some are Liberal, some Conservative, and some Libertarian. And some I know from Bible groups I joined on FB, which I did discover were made up largely of American conservative Christians. So quite a variety overall.

    I have sometimes posted on my FB wall trying to express the big 'Why?' I wonder about Trump (why people voted for him, whether he's actually popular among American Christians and why, etc.) and quite a few people have said that they and many people they know are Conservative but didn't vote for Trump. I am also told that a lot of Christians voted for him because they saw him as the lesser of two evils, because to them, Clinton represented abortion, so if they are pro-life, they see it that they'd have been complicit in murder if they'd vote for her.

    I have also been surprised by some people who have told me they did vote for Trump, as they didn't seem the people I would have expected to vote for him at all - not religious or socially conservative, quite rational, intelligent people, and their reasons were about completely different things than are usually discussed. And then at the other extreme, one person from a Bible group set up a group for praying for Trump, to which I was invited - I didn't join, but took a look. Lots of people saying they liked Trump and they worried for his safety as he was so hated, so they were praying he wouldn't get killed. These are people I'd observed in the Bible groups to be simple souls, not very intelligent, some quite paranoid about the world being against Christians, and that their Bibles would be banned and such, and worrying about the potential evils of things like yoga and colouring books.

    So quite a variety within my little microcosm of American friends and acquaintances, and it has given me a bit more of a broad understanding of the kinds of influences and thinking that can underlie people's votes.

    But I actually had also previously posted the year before Trump became president, asking my American friends if they thought there was a realistic chance that Trump would be voted in, and the ones who replied said no, quite emphatically, giving the reason that Americans could be stupid but weren't that stupid. So it is easy to underestimate what the majority will vote.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    As for the fucking polls. If you're putting your estimation of reality in their hands, you might consider just how badly they stuffed up the predictions before Trump's election. Personally, I don't know anybody who would bother talking to a pollster over the phone (which is how these things are handled). I'm fairly sure the method and the timing (mid-election cycle) means they are going to skew toward the fanatics. The moderate people have better things to do right now than talk to pollsters.

    Don't be so sure. I have heard that the polls on the Dem primaries have Biden with a huge lead over the rest of the pack. (something like 40% to the next runner up, Sanders', 14%). And Biden is no fanatic. Indeed looking at his Senate voting record he's hardly a Democrat.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    Dave W wrote: »
    As for the fucking polls. If you're putting your estimation of reality in their hands, you might consider just how badly they stuffed up the predictions before Trump's election.
    They did pretty well, I'd say. 538 gave Trump about a 1 in 3 chance of winning; and things with odds of 1 in 3 happen all the time.

    Well, to be precise, about 1/3 of the time.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    I’m not sure I believe @Peaceoftheaction666’s claim to be female; that kind of violent spew is more often emitted by substance abusers with a Y chromosome, in my experience. I do wish a Host would fix the first word of the subject line: “Let’s.” Apostrophes matter.

  • Oh I don't know, I have seen similar rants by local EDF supporters who are mainly female. I'm fairly sure some of it is cut and pasted though, it sounds familiar.
  • Rossweisse wrote: »
    I do wish a Host would fix the first word of the subject line: “Let’s.” Apostrophes matter.

    Welcome to Hell.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    What is EDF? Google gives me Earth Defence Force.
  • Sorry, EDL (English Defence League). My autocorrect decided I wanted to write MDF and I only partially corrected it. They are easily confused but the EDL tend to make a lot of noise when you nail them to the wall and put books on them.
  • tbf, they're not great readers...
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Thanks Bob - I almost wish I hadn't asked. Concentrated hatred under the sign of a cross.

    I wonder who is "faking their Christianity" - to borrow some words from the thread title?
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    fineline wrote: »
    But I actually had also previously posted the year before Trump became president, asking my American friends if they thought there was a realistic chance that Trump would be voted in, and the ones who replied said no, quite emphatically, giving the reason that Americans could be stupid but weren't that stupid. So it is easy to underestimate what the majority will vote.

    Except that the majority of American voters didn't vote for Donald Trump. He didn't even get a plurality.
    Huia wrote: »
    I wonder who is "faking their Christianity" - to borrow some words from the thread title?

    For the record, I have never faked Christianity.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    As for the fucking polls. If you're putting your estimation of reality in their hands, you might consider just how badly they stuffed up the predictions before Trump's election. Personally, I don't know anybody who would bother talking to a pollster over the phone (which is how these things are handled). I'm fairly sure the method and the timing (mid-election cycle) means they are going to skew toward the fanatics. The moderate people have better things to do right now than talk to pollsters.

    Don't be so sure. I have heard that the polls on the Dem primaries have Biden with a huge lead over the rest of the pack. (something like 40% to the next runner up, Sanders', 14%). And Biden is no fanatic. Indeed looking at his Senate voting record he's hardly a Democrat.

    I was referring solely to the Republicans--the Democrats, being largely out of power right now, have a different dynamic going on. And I was referring to the ordinary folk being polled, not the candidates.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate


    From Croesus:Except that the majority of American voters didn't vote for Donald Trump. He didn't even get a plurality.

    Exactly. But to pick on a point often raised by Orfeo in the past, no-one voted for Trump, and that's how he got in. Voters instead cast their ballots for their State's members of the Electoral College. That is skewed in favour of the smaller states and so Trump got the vote in that college. For 2020, the Democrat campaign needs to target those states, probably starting now.

  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    I was referring solely to the Republicans--the Democrats, being largely out of power right now, have a different dynamic going on.

    ^^^ This part I understand.
    And I was referring to the ordinary folk being polled, not the candidates.

    ^^^ This part makes no sense to me. The polls I was referencing were ordinary folk being polled, not the candidates being polled.
  • I said the polls right now (among self-identifying Republicans) "are going to skew toward the fanatics," and you replied "And Biden is no fanatic." I said then "I was referring to the ordinary people being polled, not the candidates." Our conversation is probably cross-wise. No matter.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited May 2019
    Crœsos wrote: »
    For the record, I have never faked Christianity.

    Do tell more.
  • sionisaissionisais Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    As for the fucking polls. If you're putting your estimation of reality in their hands, you might consider just how badly they stuffed up the predictions before Trump's election. Personally, I don't know anybody who would bother talking to a pollster over the phone (which is how these things are handled). I'm fairly sure the method and the timing (mid-election cycle) means they are going to skew toward the fanatics. The moderate people have better things to do right now than talk to pollsters.

    Don't be so sure. I have heard that the polls on the Dem primaries have Biden with a huge lead over the rest of the pack. (something like 40% to the next runner up, Sanders', 14%). And Biden is no fanatic. Indeed looking at his Senate voting record he's hardly a Democrat.

    Then again, Trump is hardly a Republican. I believe he was a Democrat until he got presidential ambitions, whereupon it was pointed out that the Democrat vote wouldn't turn out for him, but the Republicans just might.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    While admitting people are free to change their political views, we have a former Labor party president now standing for a lower house seat for one of the main Conservative parties. It does make one wonder...
This discussion has been closed.