Break Glass - 2020 USA Elections

1568101123

Comments

  • Gosh, it seems like just yesterday Mittens and Paul Ryan were criticizing "takers" who don't pay federal income tax.
  • Had a chat with my local hard-core Bernie fan yesterday. She's firmly convinced that if Bernie isn't the nominee, Trump will win. She also thinks Biden won't go the distance, and that his supporters (who tend to be older blue-collar workers) also like Bernie, and would support Bernie over Harris or Buttigieg.

    I have a hunch that the people who didn't want a woman president wouldn't be that crazy about a Jewish socialist president either. Admittedly Hillary carries a lot of baggage from Clinton haters that he wouldn't have.

    Bernie's other problem in a national election is that he really, really doesn't do well with older voters of color. Millennials of color like him all right, but the most dependable and loyal base of the Democratic party - African Americans Gen-X and older - does not. (Sam Sanders of NPR wrote a really good article recently about this generational divide.)
  • NiteowlNiteowl Shipmate
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I don't see myself supporting a Socialist, unless Trump is the only alternative. I'm a moderate. That's one reason (my being a moral human being is another) I detest Trump and all his works. I'm not sure an elderly Socialist is a rational answer to the problem.
    This reflects my thoughts exactly.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    If you don't mind answering, how do you @Rossweisse and @Niteowl feel about 1. universal health care; and 2. increased taxes on the wealthy and corporations; and 3. greater powers and resources for government oversight of corporate behavior, both in how corporations run themselves and in how they deal with their customers.

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    What do people think of Ilhan Omar's comments about 9/11? I'm teetering on horrified, but trying to keep a lid on it until I can read her comments at a time when I'm not tired and therefore prone to emotive reactions. I actually can't find a reliable transcript of her full comments right now, which might give some context.
  • Niteowl wrote: »
    Rossweisse wrote: »
    I don't see myself supporting a Socialist, unless Trump is the only alternative. I'm a moderate. That's one reason (my being a moral human being is another) I detest Trump and all his works. I'm not sure an elderly Socialist is a rational answer to the problem.
    This reflects my thoughts exactly.

    Bernie's policies are more those of a social democrat than those of a democratic socialist. It's just that the term "social democracy" isn't something people in the US are very familiar with. And the Republicans started calling everything the Democrats did under Obama socialism so younger people who weren't alive during the Cold War starting thinking that socialism must not be that bad. But those young people (well, most of them) don't really want the nationalization of industry (well, of health insurance, but plenty of other countries have done that without abolishing capitalism). They just want a social welfare state like those of Europe. Socialism is just a sexy term they use for all that, but it doesn't really mean much ideologically other than building upon the post-New Deal, pre-Reagan-Revolution-and-Clinton-years Liberalism of the Democratic Party.

    All that said, the word "socialism" is still very off-putting to many people, especially those with memories of the Cold War. I don't think it's very useful in American politics. But I'm in my mid thirties and already starting to be out of touch!
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    What do people think of Ilhan Omar's comments about 9/11? I'm teetering on horrified, but trying to keep a lid on it until I can read her comments at a time when I'm not tired and therefore prone to emotive reactions. I actually can't find a reliable transcript of her full comments right now, which might give some context.


    Is this basically what she said? I condemn some of the other things she's said but, as long as what is quotes in that CNN article includes all of what this newest controversy is about, I don't think it's on par with the antisemitism she (intentionally or not) showed in her earlier comments. It seems to me that these latest comments are just flippant and insensitive - and probably just not well thought out. But maybe there's more to it so I could be wrong.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    {Passes bottle of Geritol tonic to stonespring.}
    ;)
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    edited April 12
    Golden Key wrote: »
    {Passes bottle of Geritol tonic to stonespring.}
    ;)

    Ok - I'm not that old, I get it - but "the kids these days!" Seriously, I don't get them.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    What do people think of Ilhan Omar's comments about 9/11? I'm teetering on horrified, but trying to keep a lid on it until I can read her comments at a time when I'm not tired and therefore prone to emotive reactions. I actually can't find a reliable transcript of her full comments right now, which might give some context.

    Ilhan is not running for the presidency. She does have the right of free speech. She is voicing what many Muslims think. As far as 9/11 is concerned, Republicans have taken what she actually said and used it to feed their follower's Islamophobia Listen to the full speech.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Thanks for the link Gramps. She is a wonderful speaker. In context, the words are not at all offensive or dismissive of people's loss on 9/11. It is a tip top speech.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Thanks for the link Gramps. She is a wonderful speaker. In context, the words are not at all offensive or dismissive of people's loss on 9/11. It is a tip top speech.

    You're welcome.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Read the other day on 538 that there is a significant overlap of people who consider Bernie and Biden their top two choices in some order. Considering how little those two have in common politically for Democrats, it's hard not to think that for some people "white male" is an important criterion.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Gwai wrote: »
    Read the other day on 538 that there is a significant overlap of people who consider Bernie and Biden their top two choices in some order. Considering how little those two have in common politically for Democrats, it's hard not to think that for some people "white male" is an important criterion.

    May I add "older" white male?


  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    Accurately.

    Though to be fair both have much more name recognition than the other white guy I can think of, Buttigieg, or honestly any of the other people running.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    True, and I keep seeing people on the Telly saying that polls are name recognition contests at this stage.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Might also be people think they look like friendly, wise, sometimes grumpy grandpas.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    There are also indications that the American media continues to cover female presidential candidates more negatively than male ones. It doesn't really surprise me that the candidate most associated with #MeToo seems to receive the most negative-inflected coverage.

    Over at Politico Kate Manne expands on this, with the glass-half-full observation that this kind of slanted opinion is mostly confined to presidential candidates these days and doesn't seem to appear in downticket races.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited April 14
    I'm just catching up on your conversation back in late March as to the change to "the compact system that aims to cast all its electoral votes for the winner of the national popular presidential vote", reading articles about New Mexico and Delaware I bookmarked for later reading as I was in the midst of assignments.

    Very interesting. And thanks for your comments on it -- I must confess I thought it a bit odd at first, but reading your comments, and more on this compact through news sources such as this, to me, interesting historical view from the NYT, was instructive and thought-provoking. And makes sense from a presidential-voting PoV [to me at least]; I guess "tradition" can exert a powerful resistance to change. Thank you.
  • Gwai wrote: »
    Read the other day on 538 that there is a significant overlap of people who consider Bernie and Biden their top two choices in some order. Considering how little those two have in common politically for Democrats, it's hard not to think that for some people "white male" is an important criterion.

    Apart from being old white men, they both have a folksy common-man aura about them, whereas many of the other candidates basically look and sound like shiny lawyers.

    I think I said earlier that my Bernie-supporting friend claims that Biden has a lot of support from older blue-collar workers, and that they also like Sanders. I'd be silly to try and claim that pallor and penis weren't factors, but I think personality counts here too.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Apart from being old white men, they both have a folksy common-man aura about them, whereas many of the other candidates basically look and sound like shiny lawyers.

    Which is ironic because Biden is a lawyer. There seems to be a narrative that female candidates can't be "folksy" or have a "common-man aura" about them. Women are either unlikeable or shamelessly pandering.
    Gwai wrote: »
    Read the other day on 538 that there is a significant overlap of people who consider Bernie and Biden their top two choices in some order. Considering how little those two have in common politically for Democrats, it's hard not to think that for some people "white male" is an important criterion.
    I think I said earlier that my Bernie-supporting friend claims that Biden has a lot of support from older blue-collar workers, and that they also like Sanders. I'd be silly to try and claim that pallor and penis weren't factors, but I think personality counts here too.

    Yeah, something has to be a factor when the same people claim their top two presidential picks are an avowed socialist and a notorious shill for the financial services industry.
  • HedgehogHedgehog Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Finally! A Republican with a spine! It is almost worth registering as a Republican just so I could vote for him in the primary.

  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Which is ironic because Biden is a lawyer. There seems to be a narrative that female candidates can't be "folksy" or have a "common-man aura" about them. Women are either unlikeable or shamelessly pandering.

    I don't particularly know that it's a narrative - I know some local female politicians who have the same kind of affable common-man ;) aura as Biden and Sanders - but I can't think of any viable Democratic women presidential candidates who have it. I think Tammy Duckworth has it, but she's not in the running.
    Yeah, something has to be a factor when the same people claim their top two presidential picks are an avowed socialist and a notorious shill for the financial services industry.

    You're a smart guy who is interested in politics. You investigate political candidates, and judge them on their records. You are, how can I say this, not representative of the average voter.
  • ClimacusClimacus Shipmate
    edited April 16
    Too often I hear, "He (for it is usually that gender) sounds / looks nice."*

    Does Weld have a good recognition rate across your fair land?


    * in Oz politics
  • RossweisseRossweisse Shipmate, Hell Host
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Good. I particularly liked this, from a Republican who hasn't forgotten how a Republican is supposed to behave: "(Trump) has difficulty conforming his conduct to the requirements of law. That's a ... serious matter in the Oval Office."


  • To be fair -- and speaking as somebody who is decidedly unenthusiastic about both Biden and Sanders -- they both have one other valuable thing in common: experience. Sanders first held elected office 38 years ago (and first ran a decade before that) served 15 years in the House and is now in his third term as a U.S. Senator. Biden was a two-term Vice President and before that served an astonishing 36 years in the Senate.

    This is obviously not unrelated to the fact that they are both elderly.. But none of their opponents can match that kind of experience.

    For instance, I really like Pete Buttigieg. He's probably the candidate I find most appealing as a person. But he's ludicrously inexperienced to be running for President. Julián Castro and Beto O'Rourke, both of whom I again like, are likewise very green.

    Kamala Harris is a relative newcomer. Granted, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand have more typical levels of experience for a "serious" presidential candidate.

    I don't know who I'm supporting at the moment.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Kamala Harris is a relative newcomer. Granted, Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand have more typical levels of experience for a "serious" presidential candidate.

    For the record, Kamala Harris will have about seventeen years experience in elected office on Election Day 2020, ten of them in statewide or federal office. By comparison Amy Klobuchar will have twenty-two years experience in elected office, fourteen at the federal level, and Kristen Gillibrand will have fourteen years experience in elected office, all at the federal level, on Election Day 2020. So yes, there's a difference, but I'm not seeing it as that different unless you want to argue that being Attorney General for the state of California is radically different (and less qualifying for the presidency) than being a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    Money may prove to be a big factor. Bernie tops the Democratic contender list with about 18 million in campaign funds so far.

    Compare to Trump who already has 80 million. I keep saying to conservatives that Trump is not working for you, he's only working for the 1%, and to me, this is further evidence. The West Virginia coal miners didn't give him this 80 million.

    Campaign funds graph.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    I think it was Amy Klobuchar who launched her bid in a blizzard and who made a sharp comeback to Trump. I think she at the very least has a personable common-touch about her.

    I am a long-time fan of Elizabeth Warren and I therefore don't trust my judgement on her. I think everything she does is really very very good. When I have seen her on Colbert, she owns the show, but Colbert lets her. I also think she has a warm grandma feel to her, in her way of speaking and her expression. I am often very wrong about how American pollies come across to Americans though. I think the USA could do very well under a Warren Presidency, but I fear I am a kiss of death.

    I'm suddenly coming over tired, and don't feel I can do the other women running justice. The only one I do not like is Tulsi Gabbard. I like how she presents. I think she presents well, but I don't like her backstory.

    I want to think about the idea that this primary election might well change our thinking on how female candidates present, and instead of trying to fit them into ideas of male likeability, we might in future be talking about candidates 'doing a warren' or really doing a Klobuchar on her opponent. I hope so. I'd like to see our language of democracy begin to widen.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    I'm not seeing it as that different unless you want to argue that being Attorney General for the state of California is radically different (and less qualifying for the presidency) than being a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

    "Less qualifying" seems loaded (as someone who may end up voting for Harris), but I do think that being in the House is a higher-profile position nationally than being an Attorney General of a State, even if that State is California.

    Of course, "traditionally" serious presidential candidates have been expected to have served as a Vice President, Governor, or U.S. Senator. Since Franklin Roosevelt,* there have only been two exceptions to that rule. One was a president of an Ivy League college who had previously been five-star general and commander of one of the largest military operations in history. The other is an oft-sued real estate investor turned reality tv star with a history of failed businesses and marriages.


    If it weren't for Trump's complete lack of any credible political experience, I would have said that O'Rourke, Castro, and Buttigieg are all too inexperienced to be taken seriously. Even against Trump, I feel it would be a problem (especially for Buttigieg)

    *Even before FDR, the exceptions to this rule are not numerous: Hoover (a former Secretary of Commerce), Taft (a former Secretary of War and Solicitor General), Garfield (a congressman), Grant (another victorious general from a major war), Lincoln (a congressman), Taylor (another general), and Madison (a former Secretary of State and Congressman).
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Of course, "traditionally" serious presidential candidates have been expected to have served as a Vice President, Governor, or U.S. Senator. Since Franklin Roosevelt,* there have only been two exceptions to that rule. One was a president of an Ivy League college who had previously been five-star general and commander of one of the largest military operations in history. The other is an oft-sued real estate investor turned reality tv star with a history of failed businesses and marriages.

    <snip>

    *Even before FDR, the exceptions to this rule are not numerous: Hoover (a former Secretary of Commerce), Taft (a former Secretary of War and Solicitor General), Garfield (a congressman), Grant (another victorious general from a major war), Lincoln (a congressman), Taylor (another general), and Madison (a former Secretary of State and Congressman).

    I'll just note that as a current U.S. Senator Kamala Harris seems to fulfil your requirements and yet still seems worth calling out as "a relative newcomer" to you.

    You also missed George Washington from your list of pre-FDR president who don't come up to your suggested standard. He was neither a Vice President, a Governor, nor a U.S. Senator prior to becoming president.
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    Well, he had to start *somewhere*. ;) He had to learn on the job.
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Of course, "traditionally" serious presidential candidates have been expected to have served as a Vice President, Governor, or U.S. Senator. Since Franklin Roosevelt,* there have only been two exceptions to that rule. One was a president of an Ivy League college who had previously been five-star general and commander of one of the largest military operations in history. The other is an oft-sued real estate investor turned reality tv star with a history of failed businesses and marriages.

    <snip>

    *Even before FDR, the exceptions to this rule are not numerous: Hoover (a former Secretary of Commerce), Taft (a former Secretary of War and Solicitor General), Garfield (a congressman), Grant (another victorious general from a major war), Lincoln (a congressman), Taylor (another general), and Madison (a former Secretary of State and Congressman).

    I'll just note that as a current U.S. Senator Kamala Harris seems to fulfil your requirements and yet still seems worth calling out as "a relative newcomer" to you.

    Oh dear. I wasn't trying to insult her, you know. She's a freshman senator. She is a relative newcomer. So was Barack Obama in 2008. I don't see why this is a controversial statement.

    I voted for Obama in both the primary and the election, and I think I'm quite likely to vote for Harris this time. One of the reasons I think I might vote for her is precisely because she has more relevant experience than, say, Beto O'Rourke. But, compared to Joe Biden (to whom the original comparison was drawn) she is still very much a relative newcomer. If experience were the only thing that mattered, Biden would be a shoe-in. But it isn't and he isn't.
  • GwaiGwai Epiphanies Host
    edited April 18
    It can be easy to forget women's experience because society does. That said it is important to remember that unlike some awesome politicians freshman congressperson is not her only relevant experience.
  • Plus Harris is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which Bernie Sanders, for example, has never been on. This means she has had access to a lot (though not all) of the "oh my gosh this is how things really are" information that Presidents tend to be inundated with (and changed in their outlook by) when they take office.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    So another day, another policy proposal from Elizabeth Warren. This one deals with the cancellation of a lot of student debt and cheaper public college going forward. So far that's proposals dealing with big tech, agribusiness, public land policy, government accountability, corporate profits, and child care. I probably missed a few. Warren may or may not end up with the presidential nomination, but she seems to be writing the Democratic party platform.

    In other news, yet another Democrat has entered the race. Seth Moulton is a three term congressman best known for his unsuccessful attempt to kneecap Nancy Pelosi's second Speakership.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    Yeah! Oh woah yeah yay, I love her more and more each day. I'll love her twice as much tomorrow.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    I like Elizabeth Warren's free college for everyone proposal, I think it's way past due, but something about writing off student loans doesn't sit well with me. As someone whose entire income for four years went to my son's college, so that he wouldn't graduate with debt hanging over his head, I just don't really like the idea that now some people (and only some) can sign promissory notes to pay back loans and then ... don't.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    It's been observed that Warren's proposals are "radical" only in an American political context. Mostly they'd be moving the U.S. towards where the rest of the developed world is right now. For an explanation of why the U.S. is such an outlier in terms of social programs, this comment is a good capsule summary:
    Twilight wrote: »
    I like Elizabeth Warren's free college for everyone proposal, I think it's way past due, but something about writing off student loans doesn't sit well with me. As someone whose entire income for four years went to my son's college, so that he wouldn't graduate with debt hanging over his head, I just don't really like the idea that now some people (and only some) can sign promissory notes to pay back loans and then ... don't.

    The idea that no one is allowed to get help unless I got help first is a big factor in undermining any kind of American social spending. Note that @Twilight is supportive of programs that help people like her (in this case free college for people like her son) but opposed to helping anyone who isn't like her or her relatives (e.g. anyone who got a college degree despite not having enough surplus income to pay for college out of pocket). She's also worried about the fact that the student debt forgiveness program won't help out households with an annual income above a quarter million dollars, demonstrating that most Americans don't think of themselves as workers, just temporarily embarrassed millionaires. Astute conservative politicians have been using this kind of class resentment to stymie social spending for generations now.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    So another day, another policy proposal from Elizabeth Warren. This one deals with the cancellation of a lot of student debt and cheaper public college going forward. So far that's proposals dealing with big tech, agribusiness, public land policy, government accountability, corporate profits, and child care. I probably missed a few. Warren may or may not end up with the presidential nomination, but she seems to be writing the Democratic party platform.

    I get the feeling she's proposing any idea any Democrat has ever had or is likely to have so that she can later say "I suggested that first!"

    I haven't pinpointed what it is about her that makes me uneasy. But I'm not even beginning to decide on my favorite candidate(s) until we see the full slate and I know more about all of them.
  • amyboamybo Shipmate
    edited April 23
    Twilight wrote: »
    I like Elizabeth Warren's free college for everyone proposal, I think it's way past due, but something about writing off student loans doesn't sit well with me. As someone whose entire income for four years went to my son's college, so that he wouldn't graduate with debt hanging over his head, I just don't really like the idea that now some people (and only some) can sign promissory notes to pay back loans and then ... don't.

    This just makes me think of every sermon I've heard on the Prodigal son. Now, I'm not in a position to lament that I didn't get this help, because I got out of college before predatory loan practices became the norm, but come on. We have to start fixing it somewhere.
  • I am all for writing off college debt for entirely selfish reasons. Yes, some of my investments may shrink in value, but the rest will get a huge boost from all that additional spending from young people.
  • Pigwidgeon wrote: »
    Crœsos wrote: »
    So another day, another policy proposal from Elizabeth Warren. This one deals with the cancellation of a lot of student debt and cheaper public college going forward. So far that's proposals dealing with big tech, agribusiness, public land policy, government accountability, corporate profits, and child care. I probably missed a few. Warren may or may not end up with the presidential nomination, but she seems to be writing the Democratic party platform.

    I get the feeling she's proposing any idea any Democrat has ever had or is likely to have so that she can later say "I suggested that first!"

    I haven't pinpointed what it is about her that makes me uneasy. But I'm not even beginning to decide on my favorite candidate(s) until we see the full slate and I know more about all of them.

    Part of what makes you uneasy about her might be the American media's habit of covering female candidates who put forward policy ideas as "overprepared," "bossy," "strict mom" etc. Whereas inexperienced male candidates who have refused to put forward any concrete policy ideas are covered as "inspirational," "charismatic," "a new generation."

    A number of the #MeToo harassers in the media have lost their jobs since the 2016 Clinton campaign, but the attitudes still seem to be there in the coverage.
  • Sorry for double-posting, but this article (should be no paywall) came across my Facebook feed just seconds after I hit "post" on the above. Heh.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Also potentially relevant: Elizabeth Warren Had Charisma, and Then She Ran for President.
    Charisma comes from the Greek word for “divine gift,” and back in 2015, political commentators thought Elizabeth Warren had a lot of it. Vox called the senator from Massachusetts “a more charismatic campaigner than [Hillary] Clinton.” Roll Call said Clinton couldn’t “match Warren’s charisma, intensity or passion.” The polling firm Rasmussen called Warren “Bernie Sanders with charisma.”

    That was then. Now that Warren is running for president, many journalists have decided the charisma is gone. An article last month in The Week noted that Warren “doesn’t do uplift, which is what people mean when they grumble about her lack of ‘charisma’ and ‘energy.’” In a recent story about Warren’s fundraising trouble, The New York Times suggested that she was suffering because Democrats’ “longstanding fascination with youthful charisma — along with its current, Trump-driven fixation on electability — can outweigh qualities like experience or policy expertise.”

    What happened? Warren may be a victim of what scholars of women’s leadership call the “double bind”: For female candidates, it’s difficult to come across as competent and charismatic at the same time.

    The article goes on from there.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    I am all for writing off college debt for entirely selfish reasons. Yes, some of my investments may shrink in value, but the rest will get a huge boost from all that additional spending from young people.

    And I think that is the point. Rather than having to pay something backwards young adults will be able to pay things forward by investing in new housing or starting new business or making durable purchases or even start building retirement nest eggs.

    As the current US student loan system is now, it is much like indentured servitude. No one can move forward with debt hanging over them.
  • TwilightTwilight Shipmate
    "amybo wrote: »
    This just makes me think of every sermon I've heard on the Prodigal son. Now, I'm not in a position to lament that I didn't get this help, because I got out of college before predatory loan practices became the norm, but come on. We have to start fixing it somewhere.
    Right and, as I said, I think fixing it by instituting free college for everyone ought to be a pretty good "start." But I guess free college for everyone isn't enough for some people, you also want to pick and choose who you might go backwards and surprise with get out of debt free cards.

    Don't think it's my "class," Croesos, I'm favoring. I never made more than 10,000 a year and my husband's career was enlisted Air Force, notoriously low pay. While we were paying for my son's college I worked with a woman whose husband was a well paid officer and they had decided their kids would "appreciate it" more if they put themselves through college. Just a reminder that just because a kids' parents make more than 250K doesn't mean their parents will give them a penny. That's the trouble with the government deciding who needs money and who doesn't. I, myself, could never come close to affording college. When I was in my twenties, during my first marriage, I babysat for a lot of friends while they went to college for free because they were single mothers. I had a deadbeat husband sitting in the recliner drinking beer during those years so I didn't qualify.

    My job was in credit unions. We weren't crazy about people who defaulted on loans, it meant lower earnings for the savers and higher finance chargers for the borrowers. Maybe that's why I don't like encouraging people to think the government will always bail them out and you can voluntarily take out loans and expect to not really have to pay them back.

    Having the Bible crashed down on my head with the Prodigal Son story is pretty low. It also doesn't fit too well. I'm actually the parent who was happy to pay for my son's college, even after he got sick during his final semester and never graduated, so it was all pretty much wasted. I think that makes me more like the father. I must have missed the part in the story where the father was feeling warm fuzzy forgiveness for his son so he decreed that his neighbors should give his son the equivalent of the inheritance he squandered.
  • NicoleMRNicoleMR Shipmate
    I'm not thinking of the Prodigal Son, I'm thinking more of the workers in the vineyard (I think it was a vineyard), the ones who were hired at the start of the day complaining that the ones that were hired at the end of the day got the same pay. It's a sort of "I've got mine, screw you" attitude.
  • PigwidgeonPigwidgeon Shipmate
    NicoleMR wrote: »
    I'm not thinking of the Prodigal Son, I'm thinking more of the workers in the vineyard (I think it was a vineyard), the ones who were hired at the start of the day complaining that the ones that were hired at the end of the day got the same pay. It's a sort of "I've got mine, screw you" attitude.

    Probably my least favorite Parable. Yea, I get it -- but I don't have to like it.
Sign In or Register to comment.