Some of this discussion would seem to me to fit better in Hell. Moyessa is entitled to her opinions and her vote.
She is entitled to her opinions and her vote. I am seeking any positive reasons for her vote. BTW, Purgatory is a place for debate of opinions. That what the intro to Purgatory says
Pull up a chair, get your brain in gear, and prepare for some serious time in Purgatory. This is our proper debate space for theology, ethics, politics, science, tech and culture.
Kevin Roberts, the chief organizer of Project 2025, has a book coming out this September explaining the broad outlines of his plan to re-order the federal government along Führerprinzip lines and why it is necessary. The title is Dawn's Early Light: Burning Down* Taking Back Washington to Save America. We all know that Donald Trump says he knows nothing about Project 2025. Unfortunately we also know that he doesn't read either, so this 300 page monstrosity isn't going to change that. Fortunately the Foreword of the book was written by JD Vance.
Never before has a figure with Roberts’s depth and stature within the American Right tried to articulate a genuinely new future for conservatism... We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lie ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon. - JD Vance
With luck Vance will have a few moments to explain the plan to Donald Trump.
This has been today's installment of the JD Vance literature report.
* The original title was suddenly and very quietly replaced by Harper Collins, probably when someone pointed out that "Dawn's Early Light" is a line from the American national anthem about the War of 1812, a war in which foreign troops literally burned down Washington, DC. I guess they wanted to leave their intentions as subtext, not subtitle.
Some of this discussion would seem to me to fit better in Hell. Moyessa is entitled to her opinions and her vote.
She is entitled to her opinions and her vote. I am seeking any positive reasons for her vote. BTW, Purgatory is a place for debate of opinions. That what the intro to Purgatory says
Why should she have to give ANYONE reasons? Democracy is what it is and the advantage of it is that you can change a government without a war.
If you restrict votes to folk who can lay out an abstract for their choice then that ain’t democracy; that is government by an elite..slippery slope coming up. …wheeee!
I am from NZ and we had an election last year. I voted for the lot I hated least but at least I voted.
@ Gramps49..
Why should she have to give ANYONE reasons? Democracy is what it is and the advantage of it is that you can change a government without a war.
If you restrict votes to folk who can lay out an abstract for their choice then that ain’t democracy; that is government by an elite..slippery slope coming up. …wheeee!
I am from NZ and we had an election last year. I voted for the lot I hated least but at least I voted
Why should she have to give ANYONE reasons? Democracy is what it is and the advantage of it is that you can change a government without a war.
If you restrict votes to folk who can lay out an abstract for their choice then that ain’t democracy; that is government by an elite..slippery slope coming up. …wheeee!
No one has said she or anyone else has to give anyone reasons, nor has anyone said anything approaching that the vote should be restricted to folks who can lay out an abstract for their choice.
What do you do then with Trump’s lies, including his continuing claim—for which he’s never produced any evidence, and which was rejected in all of the 60+ lawsuits he or his campaign filed—that he actually won the 2020 election
Trump didn’t censor his beliefs. He’s entitled to them.
No one has said she or anyone else has to give anyone reasons, nor has anyone said anything approaching that the vote should be restricted to folks who can lay out an abstract for their choice.
Well, JD Vance has made that claim, except instead of an abstract he believes a woman should lay out proof she's carried at least one pregnancy to term.
What do you do then with Trump’s lies, including his continuing claim—for which he’s never produced any evidence, and which was rejected in all of the 60+ lawsuits he or his campaign filed—that he actually won the 2020 election?
Trump didn’t censor his beliefs. He’s entitled to them.
He may be entitled to his own beliefs. He's not entitled to his own facts.
@ Gramps49..
Why should she have to give ANYONE reasons? Democracy is what it is and the advantage of it is that you can change a government without a war.
If you restrict votes to folk who can lay out an abstract for their choice then that ain’t democracy; that is government by an elite..slippery slope coming up. …wheeee!
I am from NZ and we had an election last year. I voted for the lot I hated least but at least I voted
Not restricting her right to vote. Just challenging her to state her reasons for voting for him.
And she has every right to challenge me to explain why I am planning to vote doe Harris and Co.
1. She will be a strong advocate for women's reproductive choice.
2. She will continue the Biden economic plan. Lowest unemployment since WWII. The Doubling of the stock market (which I have seen in my retirement account). Inflation at 2.8%.
3. Strong law enforcement background.
4. Maintaining and strengthening international alliances and agreements.
5. Pledging not to raise taxes on middle class workers.
6. Pledging to make all Americans pay into the retirement system
7. Continuing to improve the American Health Care System
8. Strong educational support.
9. Continuing to rebuild the American Infrastructure
10. Working to mitigate climate change
11. Improve American Housing problems
12. Encouraging more innovation.
13. Has a border plan waiting for approval by Congress
Where does Trump stand on these issues?
1. Named the Supreme Court that did away with women's reproductive rights
2. Says he has a better economic plan than Biden's (have not seen any such plan)
3. How many felonies has he been convicted of? How many civil suits has he lost? He says he will use the justice department to go after his opponents.
4. His motto: America First scares the bejabbers out of our international friends.
5. Pledging to have a ten percent tariff on imported goods will affect middle class taxpayers more than anyone else. Pledges to decrease taxes on the rich.
6. Wants to do away with Social Security
7. Had already tried to do away with the American Health Care System, failed by one vote.
8. Wants to eliminate the Department of Education--and a few other agencies.
9. No plans for American Infrastructure that I know of.
10. For Trump, climate change is not real.
11. No plans for housing.
12. Innovation is really not his thing either.
13. Blocking the proposed border plan. Says he will immediately deport millions of illegals.
Now, if anyone wants to challenge why I will vote for Harris, feel free. I am willing to discuss those differences.
And if anyone wants to tell me where I am wrong about Trump, I will consider their points.
No one HAS to give reasons, but this is a board for discussion, so asking for reasons for someone’s position does seem - well - reasonable.
You could just as reasonably discuss why you shouldn’t have to justify your choices… I like that candidate and I don’t like the other or I don’t like either but I have to live with the one who wins.
@Nick Tamen
You are wrong about that. There is a lot of presumptive discussion here and entrenchment of opinion that suggest a different view is bad, wrong, evil, misguided..whatever you like; which preempt any expression of contrary opinions to the prevailing climate because of fear of a dogpile.
@Nick Tamen
You are wrong about that. There is a lot of presumptive discussion here and entrenchment of opinion that suggest a different view is bad, wrong, evil, misguided..whatever you like; which preempt any expression of contrary opinions to the prevailing climate because of fear of a dogpile.
This seems like what's known as first speaker bias; placing rules of decorum or civility on any response to a statement that wasn't imposed on the initial statement. In other words, initial statements are unrestricted but responses have to be "respectful" (whatever that means) of the initial statement.
No one has said she or anyone else has to give anyone reasons, nor has anyone said anything approaching that the vote should be restricted to folks who can lay out an abstract for their choice.
Well, JD Vance has made that claim, except instead of an abstract he believes a woman should lay out proof she's carried at least one pregnancy to term.
No one in this thread has made that demand of another in this thread. I thought context made that clear.
No one has said she or anyone else has to give anyone reasons, nor has anyone said anything approaching that the vote should be restricted to folks who can lay out an abstract for their choice.
Well, JD Vance has made that claim, except instead of an abstract he believes a woman should lay out proof she's carried at least one pregnancy to term.
No one in this thread has made that demand of another in this thread. I thought context made that clear.
You did, but I thought it a good opportunity to remind people that JD Vance is horrible.
Now no one is allowed say that this view is wrong, according to @MPaul.
From Gramps:
…you still have yet to give us a POSITIVE reason why you plan to vote for Trump. What has he said that gets you excited to vote for him.
My response:
It was mainly the over-reactions of people, when I said I couldn’t in good conscience, vote for either candidate. AND, this was NOT in response to me going around praising Trump.
Many people, mainly family, needed to express to me how much they hated Trump, and wanted to know that I agreed with them.
Without exception, they found it impossible to deal with my stance and would hang up on me or yell at me, or look at me with not just confusion, but as if they now hated me and never wanted to talk with me again.
In all my years of being very left-wing, I have never been subjected to such hysterical hatred.
@ Gramps49..
Why should she have to give ANYONE reasons? Democracy is what it is and the advantage of it is that you can change a government without a war.
If you restrict votes to folk who can lay out an abstract for their choice then that ain’t democracy; that is government by an elite..slippery slope coming up. …wheeee!
I am from NZ and we had an election last year. I voted for the lot I hated least but at least I voted
One of the reasons I stayed away from the Ship for a while was that I got so tired of non-Americans talking confidently about the US and getting it wrong. If you're not steeped in American culture, you probably don't have the context it takes to interpret a statement like this one of Clinton's and the reaction to it.
Many people, mainly family, needed to express to me how much they hated Trump, and wanted to know that I agreed with them.
Without exception, they found it impossible to deal with my stance and would hang up on me or yell at me, or look at me with not just confusion, but as if they now hated me and never wanted to talk with me again.
Well, I am not family. I promise I will not yell at you. I cannot hang up on you. I will never hate you.
All I want you to do is explain why you favor Trump, and I would hope we could civilly debate the differences of opinion. It really does not have to get personal.
In any case, I have laid out my reasons why I am voting for Harris, and why I am against Trump. I invite you to respond to any of the 13 points for or the 13 points against.
Anytime you want to talk, the ball is in your court.
I'd think the beginning of that position would be (1) finding the current Democratic Party too conservative, and (2) believing that Bernie Sanders is on to something if he'll just be brave enough to keep going. (I realize this is an answer to a question for someone else.)
Here's what bothers me. I sent you a PM. You made the contents public, not that I'm ashamed of them, but still, that isn't a thing we do, as far as I'm aware. And you never answered me, until you did it here.
I did not know you intended to vote for Trump. I never said that all Trump voters are racist, which seems to be what you are blaming me for. Could you quote me, please?
My own father is voting for Trump. So is my old professor. So are several people I know and love.
I am not happy about that, but I have not cut off ties with them.
What am I supposed to do with a candidate who openly calls immigrants (like my husband) "animals," who refers to the countries they came from as "shithole countries," who proposes stripping birthright citizenship from children born to immigrants (like my son) and the naturalized (like my husband), and who refers to the disabled as "losers"? That last, of course, is me.
I'm not ashamed of what I am, or what my family is. But I am afraid for them. And I DO take several sources of news to confirm what I'm hearing, and I do double-check things, and I know who to do research. I have a doctorate, for gosh sake. They teach you that stuff.
And right now I'm very scared. Because Jesus said if you want to know the nature of a tree, you look at the fruit: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit." (and the rest of the passage is instructive, too, when it comes to political leaders). Matthew 12:33
This is a man whose fruit includes separating families from their children at the border, some of those children only a year old. Some of them have never been re-united with their parents. Who could justify that cruelty before God?
Do you see why, if my family is ordered into the camps, I'm going with them?
Because regular people like me don’t like to be labeled “racist” or “anti-semite” when we don’t have public evidence out there to disprove it. Also, despite his voice issues, he expresses himself much more clearly than I.
I missed something. Who here has called you "racist" or "anti-semite"?
I, and millions of others, will vote for Trump if he survives.
So far 2 ShipofFools members have stated their certainty that, by virtue of that, we are all evil, and/or racist. I guess you missed that, but I did not.
I might be missing something, but why does his VP pick alter his risk ? (It was a massive fuck up from a security perspective - but I don’t see how Vance alters the chances of that happening again,)
Vance has not been selected by the same machine/deep state. He may be selected by a different swamp, but that will take a while to see.
Fixed quoting code. BroJames, Purgatory Host
Er… deep state? Is there evidence you can point you from reliable sources even proving that exists? And that the VP candidates are selected by it?
You’re moving the goalposts, @MPaul. What you originally said was:
Why should she have to give ANYONE reasons? Democracy is what it is and the advantage of it is that you can change a government without a war.
If you restrict votes to folk who can lay out an abstract for their choice then that ain’t democracy; that is government by an elite..slippery slope coming up. …wheeee!
I pointed out that no one has said she had to say anything, nor had anyone said only those who explain their vote should be able to vote.
Now you’ve switched to
There is a lot of presumptive discussion here and entrenchment of opinion that suggest a different view is bad, wrong, evil, misguided..whatever you like; which preempt any expression of contrary opinions to the prevailing climate because of fear of a dogpile.
Even if that’s true, it’s simply not what you first said that I responded to.
If you believe that there is a real moral right and wrong, then certain views are going to be bad, wrong, evil, and/or misguided. People can also be wrong and misguided without being bad or evil.
Here's what bothers me. I sent you a PM. You made the contents public, not that I'm ashamed of them, but still, that isn't a thing we do, as far as I'm aware. And you never answered me, until you did it here.
I did not know you intended to vote for Trump. I never said that all Trump voters are racist, which seems to be what you are blaming me for. Could you quote me, please?
My own father is voting for Trump. So is my old professor. So are several people I know and love.
I am not happy about that, but I have not cut off ties with them.
What am I supposed to do with a candidate who openly calls immigrants (like my husband) "animals," who refers to the countries they came from as "shithole countries," who proposes stripping birthright citizenship from children born to immigrants (like my son) and the naturalized (like my husband), and who refers to the disabled as "losers"? That last, of course, is me.
I'm not ashamed of what I am, or what my family is. But I am afraid for them. And I DO take several sources of news to confirm what I'm hearing, and I do double-check things, and I know who to do research. I have a doctorate, for gosh sake. They teach you that stuff.
And right now I'm very scared. Because Jesus said if you want to know the nature of a tree, you look at the fruit: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit." (and the rest of the passage is instructive, too, when it comes to political leaders). Matthew 12:33
This is a man whose fruit includes separating families from their children at the border, some of those children only a year old. Some of them have never been re-united with their parents. Who could justify that cruelty before God?
Do you see why, if my family is ordered into the camps, I'm going with them?
In truth, my family and I spent a lot of time and money keeping our former son in law from being deported and helping him get his citizenship. He is still the father of our granddaughter. We still include him in family gatherings. If they try to deport him, we will continue to support him to the best of our ability.
While I am at it, same granddaughter had a Mexican boyfriend. He got deported overnight. Talk about the trauma she went through. It is really not an easy idea. I would bet for every person deported up to ten people will be affected (my estimate, no facts to support it.)
So on this one stance, I am with you Lamb Chopped.
One of the reasons I stayed away from the Ship for a while was that I got so tired of non-Americans talking confidently about the US and getting it wrong. If you're not steeped in American culture, you probably don't have the context it takes to interpret a statement like this one of Clinton's and the reaction to it.
Well, it is a U.K.- based community.
I’m sure Ruth is well aware of that considering she’s been around since the 1990s and until relatively recently was one of the Admins on this site
One of the reasons I stayed away from the Ship for a while was that I got so tired of non-Americans talking confidently about the US and getting it wrong. If you're not steeped in American culture, you probably don't have the context it takes to interpret a statement like this one of Clinton's and the reaction to it.
I'm not surprised it was interpreted the way it was, I just don't think the words themselves lead to that conclusion. You're right that culture and context matter and they will naturally inform how something is interpreted.
What I find interesting is that Obama's not dissimilar analysis didn't seem to provoke the same heat:
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Maybe that's to do with McCain not being Trump, maybe it's to do with the point in the election cycle. Maybe it's that in 8 years social media became more febrile and toxic.
One of the reasons I stayed away from the Ship for a while was that I got so tired of non-Americans talking confidently about the US and getting it wrong. If you're not steeped in American culture, you probably don't have the context it takes to interpret a statement like this one of Clinton's and the reaction to it.
Well, it is a U.K.- based community.
However. The US is so powerful that what happens politically and financially over there affects us over here. We cannot vote in the US, fair enough. However, if the outcome of the election affects us in the way it does why should we not have an opinion? If we don’t understand the subject properly you are free to correct us. The actions of the US government have far reaching consequences outside of the US. Some US shipmates seem not to be aware of this.
News from the US features in most UK news outlets, sometimes in more detail than at other times, but one has to search for it - unless a really important or dramatic event warrants a prominent headline! Here's the Guardian's US page today:
@Hugal is right in saying that what happens in America can affect us all, for better or for worse, but we Brits are sometimes so preoccupied with our own (and European) events that we fail to really come to grips with what is happening across the Pond.
I notice from this thread that US Shipmates often show great patience with those non-Americans who find their politics confusing.
FWIW, there does seem to be some rejoicing (not sure if that's quite the right word!) in this country at the prospect of Kamala Harris becoming President. Only a few of our less *ahem* respected politicians (Johnson/Truss/Farage, for example) support Trump II.
(NB - I know a few Shipmates don't like being linked to the Guardian website, but AFAIK it is at least free-to-view. I'm a subscriber, so I don't get asked for £££ or $$$. I always make sure that the name of the paper is included in the link, so that people can easily avoid it, if they wish).
What I find interesting is that Obama's not dissimilar analysis didn't seem to provoke the same heat:
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Maybe that's to do with McCain not being Trump, maybe it's to do with the point in the election cycle. Maybe it's that in 8 years social media became more febrile and toxic.
It's actually a very different statement. Writing off a big chunk of people as deplorable or as takers is a lot worse than saying you can see why people would be bitter and cling to guns and religion when all the good jobs in your town disappeared decades ago. It didn't provoke quite the same level of heat because it wasn't a clear cut "those people are awful" statement. But Obama caught hell for it and the campaign spent a lot of time dealing with the fallout.
Also, this happened during the primaries, not the general election. In the spring, it was Clinton who was making hay out of this. By the time the general election campaign was in full swing the economy was going into free fall and McCain wasn't going to get much traction bringing up a statement from 6 months earlier. Not when Lehmann Brothers was going under, thousands of people were losing their jobs and their homes, and McCain had picked Sarah Palin as his VP candidate. Clinging to gun and religion was nothing when Tina Fey was on SNL saying, "I can see Russia from my house!"
However, if the outcome of the election affects us in the way it does why should we not have an opinion? If we don’t understand the subject properly you are free to correct us.
Good, because many of you get a lot of things wrong. For instance, US shipmates are very well aware that what happens in the US has worldwide consequences. We take that for granted. We don't talk about it a lot, for the same reason that US elections usually turn on domestic policy rather than foreign policy - domestic issues are far more present in our daily lives.
One of the reasons I stayed away from the Ship for a while was that I got so tired of non-Americans talking confidently about the US and getting it wrong. If you're not steeped in American culture, you probably don't have the context it takes to interpret a statement like this one of Clinton's and the reaction to it.
Well, it is a U.K.- based community.
U.K.-based, but with people who post and read from many parts of the world.
What do you do then with Trump’s lies, including his continuing claim—for which he’s never produced any evidence, and which was rejected in all of the 60+ lawsuits he or his campaign filed—that he actually won the 2020 election
Trump didn’t censor his beliefs. He’s entitled to them.
Perhaps I misunderstood. In response to the question “why vote for Trump?,” you said:
I don’t appreciate censorship of true things.
Hunter laptop truth not available to voters before election.
Hillary’s campaign paid for the Steele dossier.
Longterm Russiagate deception by the other side
I interpreted that to mean that you value honesty from candidates and campaigns in making your decision, which is why I asked about Trump’s well-documented dishonesty. If I read something into your post other than what you intended, I apologize.
And just to be clear, I am not suggesting now that you don’t value honesty; I’m acknowledging that maybe that’s not actually what you were talking about, and I got it wrong thinking you were talking about it. I’m really not trying to play a game of “gotcha.” I’m trying to make sure I understand your perspective.
So Donald Trump addressed the Believer's Summit at Turning Point Action last night. He rambled on for over an hour, and towards the end he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections, presumably with himself as dictator for life.
And again, Christians get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it any more. Four more years you know what? It'll be fixed, it'll be fine, you won't have to vote any more. My beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I'm not Christian. I love you. Get out. You gotta get out and vote. In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.
For those who think this video clip is out of context the whole speech is available on C-SPAN. The bit quoted above starts around the one hour and three minute mark.
So Donald Trump addressed the Believer's Summit at Turning Point Action last night. He rambled on for over an hour, and towards the end he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections, presumably with himself as dictator for life.
And again, Christians get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it any more. Four more years you know what? It'll be fixed, it'll be fine, you won't have to vote any more. My beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I'm not Christian. I love you. Get out. You gotta get out and vote. In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.
For those who think this video clip is out of context the whole speech is available on C-SPAN. The bit quoted above starts around the one hour and three minute mark.
I mean, religious beliefs and affiliations can certainly change, sometimes quickly, but I wonder if the Trump Bible folks are aware of this latest.
Yeah, I thought that was a weird thing for him to just throw into the middle of an unrelated bit of speech, but apparently he felt moved to confess his apostasy in that moment. From the way he said it I got the impression he meant "I'm not a sucker", but it's hard to definitively read intent in such situations.
So Donald Trump addressed the Believer's Summit at Turning Point Action last night. He rambled on for over an hour, and towards the end he told his followers that if elected he would end American elections, presumably with himself as dictator for life.
And again, Christians get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it any more. Four more years you know what? It'll be fixed, it'll be fine, you won't have to vote any more. My beautiful Christians. I love you Christians. I'm not Christian. I love you. Get out. You gotta get out and vote. In four years you don't have to vote again, we'll have it fixed so good you're not going to have to vote.
For those who think this video clip is out of context the whole speech is available on C-SPAN. The bit quoted above starts around the one hour and three minute mark.
I mean, religious beliefs and affiliations can certainly change, sometimes quickly, but I wonder if the Trump Bible folks are aware of this latest.
Trump clearly has no understanding of Christianity(*), but I doubt he would publically state he's not Christian, especially when addressing Christians. I'm inclined to agree with someone else I saw saying he just slurred his words for a sec.
(*) By which I don't mean "If he was a Christian, he would show compassion and tolerance", since that's No True Scotsman. I mean, eg. based on his remarks about the bible, he doesn't even appear to know what makes the New Testament different from the Old Testament.
I read that quote this morning. Quite shocking. I would like to hear a pro Trump explanation of it.
No wonder the key word for Harris is: FREEDOM.
New word I read this morning: Kamalalove.
Going to JD Vance. He said that people who have had no children are not as invested in the nation as much as people who are parents. He feels parents should have more say than cat people. (This is very similar to what Christian Nationalists are saying about Christians should have more say than none Christians.)
My question, though, is what does he say about George Washington? He was childless too.
I mean, religious beliefs and affiliations can certainly change, sometimes quickly, but I wonder if the Trump Bible folks are aware of this latest.
As I stated on my thread about that "bible", I think it was largely aimed not at devout Christians, but at MAGA, who are just drawn into the cult of personality around Trump, and don't worry too much about whether he's got the right ideas theologically.
I doubt he would publically state he's not Christian, especially when addressing Christians. I'm inclined to agree with someone else I saw saying he just slurred his words for a sec.
This is veering into "who are you going to believe, me or your lying ears?" territory. We have the video and Trump is not slurring his words at that point. My question is why @stetson is "inclined to agree" with an obviously self-serving explanation rather than the easily available evidence of his own ears. This has been one of the most frustrating (and sometimes infuriating) things about Donald Trump in public life; the reflexive desire so many people seem to have to make excuses for him. It's not raining. Donald Trump is peeing on your leg.
Going to JD Vance. He said that people who have had no children are not as invested in the nation as much as people who are parents. He feels parents should have more say than cat people. (This is very similar to what Christian Nationalists are saying about Christians should have more say than none Christians.)
My question, though, is what does he say about George Washington? He was childless too.
He also claims that adoptive and step-parents aren't "real" parents because they're raising someone else's kids. Leaving aside George Washington, I'd like some reporter to ask Vance about Chief Justice John Roberts, whose children are adopted, and whether Roberts can be trusted in a position of authority.
None of it really matters. This is about white male-dominated supremacy. Christianity is just a convenient fig leaf or shorthand for that.
Exactly. The important part is not what he said about Christianity but that he promised that if they vote for him in November he'll fix it so they never have to vote again.
I doubt he would publically state he's not Christian, especially when addressing Christians. I'm inclined to agree with someone else I saw saying he just slurred his words for a sec.
This is veering into "who are you going to believe, me or your lying ears?" territory. We have the video and Trump is not slurring his words at that point. My question is why @stetson is "inclined to agree" with an obviously self-serving explanation rather than the easily available evidence of his own ears. This has been one of the most frustrating (and sometimes infuriating) things about Donald Trump in public life; the reflexive desire so many people seem to have to make excuses for him.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. "Making excuses" implies that Trump might have done something morally wrong in this instance, and I'm trying to defend him from the accusation.
But, as a non-Christian myself, I certainly don't think it would be morally wrong for a non-Christian to state that he is a non-Christian. I just think it less likely that Trump, as a self-interested politician making a speech encouraging Christians to vote, would take that specific moment to announce himself a non-Christian.
But I could probably be convinced that he actually meant to say he wasn't Christian. It would neither improve nor worsen my opinion of Trump's morality.
He also claims that adoptive and step-parents aren't "real" parents because they're raising someone else's kids. Leaving aside George Washington, I'd like some reporter to ask Vance about Chief Justice John Roberts, whose children are adopted, and whether Roberts can be trusted in a position of authority.
I made the John Roberts comparison a couple of days ago with a couple of Tr*mpist acquaintances. Their response was, incredibly enough, that because John Roberts was a man, he would have had an appropriate, comprehensive plan laid out in advance on how to raise adopted children "the right way." Apparently *a man* can do that.
I assume George Washington falls under the same (ir-)rationale.
None of it really matters. This is about white male-dominated supremacy. Christianity is just a convenient fig leaf or shorthand for that.
Exactly. The important part is not what he said about Christianity but that he promised that if they vote for him in November he'll fix it so they never have to vote again.
As if to"have to vote" is some kind of unseemly burden, or inappropriate have-to any more. Chilling.
What could they say that is really any worse than what he is? It would be the shit equivalent of 'gilding the lily' - putting manure icing on the dog turd?
Comments
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. But everyone else is entitled to have opinions about those opinions.
She is entitled to her opinions and her vote. I am seeking any positive reasons for her vote. BTW, Purgatory is a place for debate of opinions. That what the intro to Purgatory says
With luck Vance will have a few moments to explain the plan to Donald Trump.
This has been today's installment of the JD Vance literature report.
* The original title was suddenly and very quietly replaced by Harper Collins, probably when someone pointed out that "Dawn's Early Light" is a line from the American national anthem about the War of 1812, a war in which foreign troops literally burned down Washington, DC. I guess they wanted to leave their intentions as subtext, not subtitle.
The Guardian has an article on him this week, detailing his ties to Opus Dei:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/jul/26/kevin-roberts-project-2025-opus-dei
Why should she have to give ANYONE reasons? Democracy is what it is and the advantage of it is that you can change a government without a war.
If you restrict votes to folk who can lay out an abstract for their choice then that ain’t democracy; that is government by an elite..slippery slope coming up. …wheeee!
I am from NZ and we had an election last year. I voted for the lot I hated least but at least I voted
Trump didn’t censor his beliefs. He’s entitled to them.
Well, JD Vance has made that claim, except instead of an abstract he believes a woman should lay out proof she's carried at least one pregnancy to term.
He may be entitled to his own beliefs. He's not entitled to his own facts.
Not restricting her right to vote. Just challenging her to state her reasons for voting for him.
And she has every right to challenge me to explain why I am planning to vote doe Harris and Co.
1. She will be a strong advocate for women's reproductive choice.
2. She will continue the Biden economic plan. Lowest unemployment since WWII. The Doubling of the stock market (which I have seen in my retirement account). Inflation at 2.8%.
3. Strong law enforcement background.
4. Maintaining and strengthening international alliances and agreements.
5. Pledging not to raise taxes on middle class workers.
6. Pledging to make all Americans pay into the retirement system
7. Continuing to improve the American Health Care System
8. Strong educational support.
9. Continuing to rebuild the American Infrastructure
10. Working to mitigate climate change
11. Improve American Housing problems
12. Encouraging more innovation.
13. Has a border plan waiting for approval by Congress
Where does Trump stand on these issues?
1. Named the Supreme Court that did away with women's reproductive rights
2. Says he has a better economic plan than Biden's (have not seen any such plan)
3. How many felonies has he been convicted of? How many civil suits has he lost? He says he will use the justice department to go after his opponents.
4. His motto: America First scares the bejabbers out of our international friends.
5. Pledging to have a ten percent tariff on imported goods will affect middle class taxpayers more than anyone else. Pledges to decrease taxes on the rich.
6. Wants to do away with Social Security
7. Had already tried to do away with the American Health Care System, failed by one vote.
8. Wants to eliminate the Department of Education--and a few other agencies.
9. No plans for American Infrastructure that I know of.
10. For Trump, climate change is not real.
11. No plans for housing.
12. Innovation is really not his thing either.
13. Blocking the proposed border plan. Says he will immediately deport millions of illegals.
Now, if anyone wants to challenge why I will vote for Harris, feel free. I am willing to discuss those differences.
And if anyone wants to tell me where I am wrong about Trump, I will consider their points.
Full stop.
You could just as reasonably discuss why you shouldn’t have to justify your choices… I like that candidate and I don’t like the other or I don’t like either but I have to live with the one who wins.
@Nick Tamen
You are wrong about that. There is a lot of presumptive discussion here and entrenchment of opinion that suggest a different view is bad, wrong, evil, misguided..whatever you like; which preempt any expression of contrary opinions to the prevailing climate because of fear of a dogpile.
This seems like what's known as first speaker bias; placing rules of decorum or civility on any response to a statement that wasn't imposed on the initial statement. In other words, initial statements are unrestricted but responses have to be "respectful" (whatever that means) of the initial statement.
You did, but I thought it a good opportunity to remind people that JD Vance is horrible.
Now no one is allowed say that this view is wrong, according to @MPaul.
…you still have yet to give us a POSITIVE reason why you plan to vote for Trump. What has he said that gets you excited to vote for him.
My response:
It was mainly the over-reactions of people, when I said I couldn’t in good conscience, vote for either candidate. AND, this was NOT in response to me going around praising Trump.
Many people, mainly family, needed to express to me how much they hated Trump, and wanted to know that I agreed with them.
Without exception, they found it impossible to deal with my stance and would hang up on me or yell at me, or look at me with not just confusion, but as if they now hated me and never wanted to talk with me again.
In all my years of being very left-wing, I have never been subjected to such hysterical hatred.
Thank you.
Well, it is a U.K.- based community.
@Moyessa You said
Well, I am not family. I promise I will not yell at you. I cannot hang up on you. I will never hate you.
All I want you to do is explain why you favor Trump, and I would hope we could civilly debate the differences of opinion. It really does not have to get personal.
In any case, I have laid out my reasons why I am voting for Harris, and why I am against Trump. I invite you to respond to any of the 13 points for or the 13 points against.
Anytime you want to talk, the ball is in your court.
How do you define being 'very left-wing'?
I did not know you intended to vote for Trump. I never said that all Trump voters are racist, which seems to be what you are blaming me for. Could you quote me, please?
My own father is voting for Trump. So is my old professor. So are several people I know and love.
I am not happy about that, but I have not cut off ties with them.
What am I supposed to do with a candidate who openly calls immigrants (like my husband) "animals," who refers to the countries they came from as "shithole countries," who proposes stripping birthright citizenship from children born to immigrants (like my son) and the naturalized (like my husband), and who refers to the disabled as "losers"? That last, of course, is me.
I'm not ashamed of what I am, or what my family is. But I am afraid for them. And I DO take several sources of news to confirm what I'm hearing, and I do double-check things, and I know who to do research. I have a doctorate, for gosh sake. They teach you that stuff.
And right now I'm very scared. Because Jesus said if you want to know the nature of a tree, you look at the fruit: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit." (and the rest of the passage is instructive, too, when it comes to political leaders). Matthew 12:33
This is a man whose fruit includes separating families from their children at the border, some of those children only a year old. Some of them have never been re-united with their parents. Who could justify that cruelty before God?
Do you see why, if my family is ordered into the camps, I'm going with them?
Just following up here…
Now you’ve switched to Even if that’s true, it’s simply not what you first said that I responded to.
In truth, my family and I spent a lot of time and money keeping our former son in law from being deported and helping him get his citizenship. He is still the father of our granddaughter. We still include him in family gatherings. If they try to deport him, we will continue to support him to the best of our ability.
While I am at it, same granddaughter had a Mexican boyfriend. He got deported overnight. Talk about the trauma she went through. It is really not an easy idea. I would bet for every person deported up to ten people will be affected (my estimate, no facts to support it.)
So on this one stance, I am with you Lamb Chopped.
Lots is said non explicitly
But yeah fair enough.
I’m sure Ruth is well aware of that considering she’s been around since the 1990s and until relatively recently was one of the Admins on this site
I'm not surprised it was interpreted the way it was, I just don't think the words themselves lead to that conclusion. You're right that culture and context matter and they will naturally inform how something is interpreted.
What I find interesting is that Obama's not dissimilar analysis didn't seem to provoke the same heat:
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
Maybe that's to do with McCain not being Trump, maybe it's to do with the point in the election cycle. Maybe it's that in 8 years social media became more febrile and toxic.
However. The US is so powerful that what happens politically and financially over there affects us over here. We cannot vote in the US, fair enough. However, if the outcome of the election affects us in the way it does why should we not have an opinion? If we don’t understand the subject properly you are free to correct us. The actions of the US government have far reaching consequences outside of the US. Some US shipmates seem not to be aware of this.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news
@Hugal is right in saying that what happens in America can affect us all, for better or for worse, but we Brits are sometimes so preoccupied with our own (and European) events that we fail to really come to grips with what is happening across the Pond.
I notice from this thread that US Shipmates often show great patience with those non-Americans who find their politics confusing.
FWIW, there does seem to be some rejoicing (not sure if that's quite the right word!) in this country at the prospect of Kamala Harris becoming President. Only a few of our less *ahem* respected politicians (Johnson/Truss/Farage, for example) support Trump II.
(NB - I know a few Shipmates don't like being linked to the Guardian website, but AFAIK it is at least free-to-view. I'm a subscriber, so I don't get asked for £££ or $$$. I always make sure that the name of the paper is included in the link, so that people can easily avoid it, if they wish).
It's actually a very different statement. Writing off a big chunk of people as deplorable or as takers is a lot worse than saying you can see why people would be bitter and cling to guns and religion when all the good jobs in your town disappeared decades ago. It didn't provoke quite the same level of heat because it wasn't a clear cut "those people are awful" statement. But Obama caught hell for it and the campaign spent a lot of time dealing with the fallout.
Also, this happened during the primaries, not the general election. In the spring, it was Clinton who was making hay out of this. By the time the general election campaign was in full swing the economy was going into free fall and McCain wasn't going to get much traction bringing up a statement from 6 months earlier. Not when Lehmann Brothers was going under, thousands of people were losing their jobs and their homes, and McCain had picked Sarah Palin as his VP candidate. Clinging to gun and religion was nothing when Tina Fey was on SNL saying, "I can see Russia from my house!"
Good, because many of you get a lot of things wrong. For instance, US shipmates are very well aware that what happens in the US has worldwide consequences. We take that for granted. We don't talk about it a lot, for the same reason that US elections usually turn on domestic policy rather than foreign policy - domestic issues are far more present in our daily lives.
Perhaps I misunderstood. In response to the question “why vote for Trump?,” you said: I interpreted that to mean that you value honesty from candidates and campaigns in making your decision, which is why I asked about Trump’s well-documented dishonesty. If I read something into your post other than what you intended, I apologize.
And just to be clear, I am not suggesting now that you don’t value honesty; I’m acknowledging that maybe that’s not actually what you were talking about, and I got it wrong thinking you were talking about it. I’m really not trying to play a game of “gotcha.” I’m trying to make sure I understand your perspective.
For those who think this video clip is out of context the whole speech is available on C-SPAN. The bit quoted above starts around the one hour and three minute mark.
I mean, religious beliefs and affiliations can certainly change, sometimes quickly, but I wonder if the Trump Bible folks are aware of this latest.
Yeah, I thought that was a weird thing for him to just throw into the middle of an unrelated bit of speech, but apparently he felt moved to confess his apostasy in that moment. From the way he said it I got the impression he meant "I'm not a sucker", but it's hard to definitively read intent in such situations.
Trump clearly has no understanding of Christianity(*), but I doubt he would publically state he's not Christian, especially when addressing Christians. I'm inclined to agree with someone else I saw saying he just slurred his words for a sec.
(*) By which I don't mean "If he was a Christian, he would show compassion and tolerance", since that's No True Scotsman. I mean, eg. based on his remarks about the bible, he doesn't even appear to know what makes the New Testament different from the Old Testament.
No wonder the key word for Harris is: FREEDOM.
New word I read this morning: Kamalalove.
Going to JD Vance. He said that people who have had no children are not as invested in the nation as much as people who are parents. He feels parents should have more say than cat people. (This is very similar to what Christian Nationalists are saying about Christians should have more say than none Christians.)
My question, though, is what does he say about George Washington? He was childless too.
As I stated on my thread about that "bible", I think it was largely aimed not at devout Christians, but at MAGA, who are just drawn into the cult of personality around Trump, and don't worry too much about whether he's got the right ideas theologically.
This is veering into "who are you going to believe, me or your lying ears?" territory. We have the video and Trump is not slurring his words at that point. My question is why @stetson is "inclined to agree" with an obviously self-serving explanation rather than the easily available evidence of his own ears. This has been one of the most frustrating (and sometimes infuriating) things about Donald Trump in public life; the reflexive desire so many people seem to have to make excuses for him. It's not raining. Donald Trump is peeing on your leg.
He also claims that adoptive and step-parents aren't "real" parents because they're raising someone else's kids. Leaving aside George Washington, I'd like some reporter to ask Vance about Chief Justice John Roberts, whose children are adopted, and whether Roberts can be trusted in a position of authority.
Yes, indeed - but Trump seems to get more scary by the day...
And more unhinged. He'll implode. Hopefully soon. 🙏
Exactly. The important part is not what he said about Christianity but that he promised that if they vote for him in November he'll fix it so they never have to vote again.
I think you're misunderstanding my point. "Making excuses" implies that Trump might have done something morally wrong in this instance, and I'm trying to defend him from the accusation.
But, as a non-Christian myself, I certainly don't think it would be morally wrong for a non-Christian to state that he is a non-Christian. I just think it less likely that Trump, as a self-interested politician making a speech encouraging Christians to vote, would take that specific moment to announce himself a non-Christian.
But I could probably be convinced that he actually meant to say he wasn't Christian. It would neither improve nor worsen my opinion of Trump's morality.
I made the John Roberts comparison a couple of days ago with a couple of Tr*mpist acquaintances. Their response was, incredibly enough, that because John Roberts was a man, he would have had an appropriate, comprehensive plan laid out in advance on how to raise adopted children "the right way." Apparently *a man* can do that.
I assume George Washington falls under the same (ir-)rationale.
As if to"have to vote" is some kind of unseemly burden, or inappropriate have-to any more. Chilling.
The left wing press, of course, are scrupulously fair and honest when it comes to opinion pieces about Trump.