Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 106 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: Thu May 22, 2014, 07:45 PM
Number of posts: 7,214

Journal Archives

Has Trump made agnostics and atheists electable?

That would be a great service to the country. Trump isn't a churchgoer and (best I can tell from googling) never has been. He occasionally invokes the word "God," but that doesn't mean much coming from a guy who lies with every other breath. He's clearly not afraid of lightning bolts or nose enlargement effects. He worships money, is fairly constantly unkind to others, routinely broke his marriage vows, cheats others in business...

If an avowed atheist ran against Trump in 2020, it would be essentially impossible for Trump's supporters to take a position against the atheist on the basis of religion. Trump may have opened the door. And that's fine with me.

In fact, Trump's service is two-fold. He makes it possible for those who profess agnosticism or atheism to run, and he also exposes those of his supporters who profess belief as less than fully committed to it. We could all do with a little less fake faith in politics. Trump, a demagogue's demagogue may have (counterintuitively) rid the country of one of its worst vulnerabilities to demagoguery, fake Christianity. If someone will vote for Trump, an atheist/agnostic in all but lip service, that person is telling us we've gotten past the churchgoer requirement. We've gotten past politicians manipulating people by thumping a Bible they don't really believe in.

That's a good thing even though its inception (the Trump presidency) is not.

Republican wealthy produce Trumps and Dubyas. Dem wealthy, Roosevelts and Kennedys.

What's wrong with the Republican wealthy?

Saudi wealthy produce "Prince" MBS and Osama Bin Laden.

Putin is a first generation self-made criminal capo de tutti capi. I wonder what his kids are going to be like.

As U.S. fertility rates collapse, finger-pointing and blame follow

As 2017 drew to a close, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) urged Americans to have more children. To keep the country great, he said, we’re “going to need more people.”

“I did my part,” the father of three declared.

Ryan’s remarks drew some eye rolls at the time, but as new data about the country’s collapsing fertility rates has emerged, concern has deepened over what’s causing the changes, whether it constitutes a crisis that will fundamentally change the demographic trajectory of the country — and what should be done about it.

Women are now having fewer babies and at older ages than in the past three decades, a change that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) reported this year, and which was confirmed this week with the release of additional data that shows that the trend holds across races and for urban and rural areas.

Those of our membership who follow Republicanism might want to heed Ryan's words and think of them in terms of their stance against immigration. This is one of the cases where Ryan ain't lyin. He doesn't note the irony of the effects of Republicanism, but he's on point. We need more people.

The left-leaning majority is winning so much that they don't see the damage of Republicanism.

Liberalism has triumphed over conservatism to such an extent that conservatism has essentially disappeared. The tectonic plates of civilization keep moving rapidly leftward. They will continue to do so as far as I can see. The problem is that liberalism doesn't proceed nearly as cleanly or sensibly as it could if it were counterbalanced by conservatism. Unfortunately, viral Republicanism has displaced conservatism. Liberalism needs conservatism, but conservatism is on its deathbed, deep in a fever from which it may not recover.

It's hard to motivate the left-leaning majority to vote when they don't see the damage of Republicanism. Republicanism is a warped form of conservatism. If you picture the country as being composed of liberal and conservative "tissues," then Republicanism is a breakdown in the conservative tissue. Conservatism's function in the overall social process was to preserve good ideas and moderate the effect of bad ideas. Conservatism, when it was healthy, moderated liberalism. That, in turn made liberalism more healthy.

Once Republicanism took over conservatism, the conservative function disappeared. It could no longer function as a bastion of Western civilization. The wave of liberalism could have been processed and enhanced by a functioning conservatism. Unfortunately, those who held to conservatism were not emotionally, intellectually, or spiritually strong enough to maintain it under a heavy load. They got lazy and angry instead of busy.

Too bad, because we could use a bit more respect for old ideas. They actually work, so they shouldn't be tossed aside. But those who now follow Republicanism are their worst enemy. You can't stand for a big idea if you are small. If you do, you make the idea look small.

But liberals don't fully appreciate what a loss it is to them to have lost conservatism and to have Republicanism in its place. Global warming, a giant red flashing light and ear-splitting siren all in one may finally wake them up. Seeing a lying, "keep-the-baby-at-a-safe-distance terrier" nimrod like Kavanaugh elevated to the Supreme Court might wake them up. I guess we'll see.

Can people who are more virtuous every really "lose" to those who are less?

Considering traditional virtues like honesty, maturity, respect, fair-mindedness, modesty, emotional stability, self-control, empathy, moral courage, etc., is it ever possible for those who have those characteristics to "lose" to those who don't have them?

What on Earth would give "prince" MBS the idea he could order someone killed?

Some rat-faced, sneaky-assed, mobster-like tyrant ordering someone rubbed out? He would have to be shaking in his boots that the United States would...would...

What did we ever get from the Saudis besides the 9/11 hijackers and oil price gouging?

Why is it that followers of Republicanism put out the red light on America's door for the Saudis? We don't need their money. And they are probably just sending examples of all the weapons we sell them to Russia to copy and use against American soldiers. How can followers of Republicanism tolerate tha...oh, wait.


How do we know what Daniels was referring to when she called Trump "Tiny?"

So much about him is so miniscule. We might be jumping to conclusions thinking she was just only talking about his character. She might have been talking about his manhood or even, of course, his penis.

Will Trump pull a Judge Smails on the $1M?

So it looks like Trump and the Trumpies are wrong followed by wronger.

They doubted Warren's word that she had Native American ancestry. So there's wrong. And then, of course, far far wronger, not admitting to the first wrong. Losing and losing and losing.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 106 Next »