Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 thekingofkings wrote:
Exactly, there was massive manipulation of both candidates words. Clinton just didn't do enough damage control (again her campaign manager has a lot to answer for here too) I also think the distrust of the media overall worked against Hilary far more than it did Trump. He was able to look like "the victim" which helped him, while she looked like the "arrogant bully" which hurt her. there was media bias on both sides, but the reality tv star overwhelmed the politician in that arena.

Gotta crash soon, should be able to continue tomorrow. thanks!

I definitely agree, Clinton's distrust and poor relationship with the media meant the coverage she got was rarely positive. And when she did set up pleasant media interviews, they came across as really weird. About the only one that worked was the Between Two Ferns one, and that's saying something.

Meanwhile Trump fluctuated between friendly media and outright attacks. This managed to perform a double duty where Trump was presented as likable in some of his coverage, while the other coverage reinforced how the media was against him. It's a bit of double think, but this is partisan politics, so there's nothing wrong with some double think.

That said, I still am not sure if any of this matters. I mean, at the end of the day Trump showed repeatedly through the campaign that he is miles short of the knowledge needed to handle the presidency. And he got caught telling easily disproven lies about two dozen times a day. If stuff like the subleties of media management had mattered, then Trump's hopeless candidacy would have mattered an order of magnitude more. But it all got swamped by loyalist Republican voting, and a Democratic base that lost enthusiasm after 8 years of holding the presidency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Why is that bad? At least they should be honest about it in plain sunlight.

There is a difference between wanting the beliefs and values formed by Christian belief to be reflected by government's laws, and Christian dominionism. What is happening in the Republican party is the latter.

For the life of me, I don't understand how the evangelicals voted enmassed for Cheeto Jesus.

Abortion, plus a couple of generations of indoctrination that Democrats are awful. Oh, and Mike Pence. I have a cousin who moved to the US about 10 years ago to expand his business in to the US market. Lovely guy, great family, his wife is probably the nicest person I've ever met. They're very Christian, and since moving to the US its taken on a very conservative bent. The stuff they post on facebook is amazing.

That answer is that, HRC was such a horrible candidate.

That's a cop out. Republicans decided she was a horrible candidate, and they decided it was true on the basis of reasons that are meaningless (like the emails). Then they marched out in numbers to vote for the idiot liar. And now they've got their idiot liar, they're blaming that on Clinton too.

I'm going to play this game. Please don't ignore the hysteria pushed by liberal pundits and media outlets. The SJW-isms has gone way overboard that lead to the rise of Operation Wallstreet, BLM, shutting down a pizza parlor over a fething hypothetical, the vultures in the aftermath of Michael Brown, etc...

I'm not sure how we can combat this other than to call out their bs and don't back down.

As I've pointed out a whole bunch of times before, the difference is that BLM, SJWs and the rest are on the fringes of the Democratic party, if they are even connected to it at all. Where as the crazy on the right wing is a central part of the Republican party, and possibly after this election may be the second largest faction, behind the evangelicals.

Indeed. The Democrats need some new blood and fast.

Even if Clinton won the Dems needed some new blood. There's really been no new, major player in Democratic politics since 2008.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No... I recognize that. I'm simply stating that I don't really see the right being pulled WAY more to the right, than the left being yanked to Bernie-land.

Sure, the right probably won't go any further. They're so hard right now, there just isn't much more space to move in to.

But the left could very easily move to a more populist, radicalised faction. Its telling that you think Bernie Sanders is as far as it could go. Sanders certainly puts populist ideology ahead of stuff that will actually work, but there's nothing saying that a radicalised DNC would stop there. Think something more like Jill Stein. Then you'll probably get some kind of parity with two extremist parties.

And yes, this would be terrible. It's hard enough with one crazy party, the solution isn't two crazy parties.

And arguments that the GOP want to turn this country into a theocracy is laughable. We're way too contrarian to allow that to happen.

Whether it will work is a different issue to what major elements of the Republican party would like. That a faction of the party wants it should be sufficient cause for concern.

Erm... my thought process is that the Democrats took the white working voting bloc for granted... and focused primarily with minority groups & issues. I'm not saying they should drop it, but simply throw their old constituents a bone.

Dude, raising the minimum wage, pushes the tax burden to the top end of town, and healthcare reform were all about the working class. It's a rough figure, but probably somewhere around 4 million white voters gained healthcare coverage through ACA, and then voted for Trump.

Of course, that kind of government support is nice, but it's got nothing on the promise of jobs. Trump promised jobs. Of course, Trump was telling an obvious lie, but people believed it anyway. Democrats can't match that lie, afterall if they had a magic spell that could create manufacturing jobs then they would have cast it in the last 8 years. So Trump was the only one walking around pretending he had a magic job creating spell.

You should see the problem here - actually doing something for people doesn't matter, when the other side can just make up ludicrous promises that they have no ability and no intention of keeping.

Or maybe, American politics makes it structurally difficult to maintain a 3rd term of the same party. (don't know how to explain Congress... convential wisdom need a reboot).

It isn't a structural issue. It's a gullibility issue. After 8 years of a Democrat in power, Republicans get really gullible about what their guy is promising, this allows him to promise some stupid nonsense and ride in to power. Similarly, after 8 years of a Republican in power, Democrats get really gullible, allowing their candidate to promise some really crazy stuff and get in to power (remember Obama the gitmo closing, Iraq withdrawing candidate of 2008?).

This will only change when people stop with the pretend cynicism, and develop real critical judgement. Saying 'oh they're all bad' lets people feel like they're being hard edged, but its nonsense unless they actually do the work of figuring out who's policies are actually true. People don't do that, instead they just feign at rejection of both sides, fall in loyally behind their team, and get really excited when they've lacked power for a couple of terms and this lets them sweep their guy in to power.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Why is that bad? At least they should be honest about it in plain sunlight.

There is a difference between wanting the beliefs and values formed by Christian belief to be reflected by government's laws, and Christian dominionism. What is happening in the Republican party is the latter.

No... the GOP is not pushing dominionism. Stop taking your cue from the likes of Vox, Talking Points Memo or even punditries that expouses 'ickyness' towards religion.

For the life of me, I don't understand how the evangelicals voted enmassed for Cheeto Jesus.

Abortion, plus a couple of generations of indoctrination that Democrats are awful. Oh, and Mike Pence. I have a cousin who moved to the US about 10 years ago to expand his business in to the US market. Lovely guy, great family, his wife is probably the nicest person I've ever met. They're very Christian, and since moving to the US its taken on a very conservative bent. The stuff they post on facebook is amazing.

Sure seb... nothing at all about what the Democrats has done.
:rolls eyes:
You act as if there's no free thinking here... only brainwashing, indoctrination.

That answer is that, HRC was such a horrible candidate.

That's a cop out. Republicans decided she was a horrible candidate, and they decided it was true on the basis of reasons that are meaningless (like the emails). Then they marched out in numbers to vote for the idiot liar. And now they've got their idiot liar, they're blaming that on Clinton too.

Not a cop out... she truly was a horrible and compromised candidate.

I'm going to play this game. Please don't ignore the hysteria pushed by liberal pundits and media outlets. The SJW-isms has gone way overboard that lead to the rise of Operation Wallstreet, BLM, shutting down a pizza parlor over a fething hypothetical, the vultures in the aftermath of Michael Brown, etc...

I'm not sure how we can combat this other than to call out their bs and don't back down.

As I've pointed out a whole bunch of times before, the difference is that BLM, SJWs and the rest are on the fringes of the Democratic party, if they are even connected to it at all. Where as the crazy on the right wing is a central part of the Republican party, and possibly after this election may be the second largest faction, behind the evangelicals.

BS. The likes of BLM and Operation Wallstreet were central to mainstream Democrats. That's all they were talking about. The issues of the day.

Indeed. The Democrats need some new blood and fast.

Even if Clinton won the Dems needed some new blood. There's really been no new, major player in Democratic politics since 2008.

True. Maybe there will be a "Tea Party-like" movement for the democrats, like for the GOP in 2008-2010.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
IMO, we had populist and based in facts with Bernie... Yeah, some of his solutions may have been crazy and unobtainable, but he had a very vocal base.... Obviously, that "base" was the one that traditionally doesn't vote in primaries.

That's the challenge. Sanders raised some key issues and proposed solutions that I generally agreed with in principle, but underpinning it all was a rejection of any fact that didn't suit his campaign. For instance, he proposed a high growth rate that would swallow the cost of his college scheme, and when it was pointed out that he'd lowballed the cost of his scheme, he just upped the growth rate to cover the new cost. That's a very Republican way of modelling.

It wasn't enough to make him a true crazy, his campaign and policies were still more steeped in reality than any of the Republican candidates, but the issue is once you open the door, and allow a little unreality, you start inviting more and more unreality each time. That's really what happened in the Republican party. GW Bush's tax cut was sold on growth rates that were very unlikely given demographics and historical precedent. By 2016 the establishment candidates like his brother were selling their new tax cuts based on growth rates that were utterly impossible given history and demographics... and then Trump came over the top of them, offering even bigger tax cuts covered by an even more ridiculous tax rate.

I'm not saying the Democrats don't need to change. Clinton's version, reality driven, nuanced policies that people can go and read about on her website, that is just a hopeless disaster. Obama wasn't much different in this regard - he was better on the podium and sold a better overall vision, but at the end of the day there was a big gap between disconnect between his vision and his actual policy agenda. We all know hope and change, but how many people even now actually understand ACA? I think to a large extent ACA has been an easy target for Republicans because Democrats did a terrible job explaining what it did, and why some parts like the mandate were necessary.

So I can see the need for Democrats to change tack - to move to more populist policies with more intuitive appeal to their base. The risk is in getting that populist appeal, while making sure they also stick to reality.

 sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
No... I recognize that. I'm simply stating that I don't really see the right being pulled WAY more to the right, than the left being yanked to Bernie-land.

Sure, the right probably won't go any further. They're so hard right now, there just isn't much more space to move in to.

But the left could very easily move to a more populist, radicalised faction. Its telling that you think Bernie Sanders is as far as it could go. Sanders certainly puts populist ideology ahead of stuff that will actually work, but there's nothing saying that a radicalised DNC would stop there. Think something more like Jill Stein. Then you'll probably get some kind of parity with two extremist parties.

And yes, this would be terrible. It's hard enough with one crazy party, the solution isn't two crazy parties.

If you believe that the GOP is too extreme... and the Democrats are still getting their asses kicked.

What does that tell you?

And arguments that the GOP want to turn this country into a theocracy is laughable. We're way too contrarian to allow that to happen.

Whether it will work is a different issue to what major elements of the Republican party would like. That a faction of the party wants it should be sufficient cause for concern.

That faction you're describing is in extreme minority.

It's not a thing.

Erm... my thought process is that the Democrats took the white working voting bloc for granted... and focused primarily with minority groups & issues. I'm not saying they should drop it, but simply throw their old constituents a bone.

Dude, raising the minimum wage, pushes the tax burden to the top end of town, and healthcare reform were all about the working class. It's a rough figure, but probably somewhere around 4 million white voters gained healthcare coverage through ACA, and then voted for Trump.

Maybe it's because those things in a vacuum don't help/encourage jobs. Kinda hard to advocate for min wage, tax rate changes or healthcare reform when you can't get a job (or the one you want).

Also, being forced to buy gakky healthcare plans will NOT garner much goodwill. Democrats fethed up big here and are really reaping what they've sowed.

Of course, that kind of government support is nice, but it's got nothing on the promise of jobs. Trump promised jobs. Of course, Trump was telling an obvious lie, but people believed it anyway. Democrats can't match that lie, afterall if they had a magic spell that could create manufacturing jobs then they would have cast it in the last 8 years. So Trump was the only one walking around pretending he had a magic job creating spell.

You should see the problem here - actually doing something for people doesn't matter, when the other side can just make up ludicrous promises that they have no ability and no intention of keeping.

That maybe true. I think Trump is fething clueless as President... but, I'm willing to at least give him a chance since he's proven me wrong at every step up to this point.

:shrug:

Or maybe, American politics makes it structurally difficult to maintain a 3rd term of the same party. (don't know how to explain Congress... convential wisdom need a reboot).

It isn't a structural issue. It's a gullibility issue. After 8 years of a Democrat in power, Republicans get really gullible about what their guy is promising, this allows him to promise some stupid nonsense and ride in to power. Similarly, after 8 years of a Republican in power, Democrats get really gullible, allowing their candidate to promise some really crazy stuff and get in to power (remember Obama the gitmo closing, Iraq withdrawing candidate of 2008?).

This will only change when people stop with the pretend cynicism, and develop real critical judgement. Saying 'oh they're all bad' lets people feel like they're being hard edged, but its nonsense unless they actually do the work of figuring out who's policies are actually true. People don't do that, instead they just feign at rejection of both sides, fall in loyally behind their team, and get really excited when they've lacked power for a couple of terms and this lets them sweep their guy in to power.

... I don't think it's that simple. Well... there's a case of "Party Fatigue™", I'll give you that.

However, we saw, probably for the first time in a long time that "insurgent" candidate (ie, Trump and Sander) can make some serious noises and can even win (in Trump's case).

 LoneLictor wrote:
He seems too young and doesn't have enough political experience or connections to get nominated. Plus, he just isn't well known enough. It could happen, but it seems unlikely.

The democrats definitely need someone new.

It seems a bit strange to complain that Booker isn't well known, while stating the need for someone new. New people tend to not be well known, you know

We need someone new, who isn't tainted by political scandals like Hillary, and who is moderate enough to appeal to more white people.

I can't say who Democrats will nominate in 2020, but I can guarantee you that Republicans will convince themselves that some scandal about them is true, and really major.

The Republican primaries at least had a few good eggs, like Marco Rubio and John Kasich. Even if they didn't win, at least they were present and publicized.

Rubio and Kasich were no better known in 2012 than Booker is right now. That said, both Rubio and Kasich seemed a little underdone in their 2016 runs for the presidency, something that will probably hurt Booker in a 2020 run.

Then again, Obama went from a 2004 speech at the DNC convention to the presidency in 4 years.

And Trump went from national joke in 2012 to... national joke and also president in 2016.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sourclams wrote:
In my opinion identity politics are beginning to have the same effect on the Left that abortion did on the Right in the late 90s and early 2000s; a broad non-issue to most that increasingly shrill proponents use as a wedge issue to mobilize their base at the cost of the center. Were there an actual rottweiler in the democratic message (something imposing, aggressive, with real mass to it) it may have done better.

I think there's merit in your analogy, although I think the base for abortion is much, much bigger.

Trump wouldn't have taken Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida if abortion, taxes, etc were the only topic du jour.

Okay, to take Wisconsin as an example. In 2016 Trump won 1,404,000. In 2012 Romney won 1,408,000 votes. There was no big swell in new votes for Trump there, he got the same vote that Romney got.

That said, I didn't mean to imply that the Republican party is just a collection of single issue voters. And even those that bought in to the party on a single issue have now taken on most other positions of their party. This is how partisan, tribal politics works.

And it does mean that at the end of the day, Republicans can bank on about 60 million votes turning up whether they put up Romney or Trump.

Obama was very good for the Democratic platform tactically, but we're also seeing that over-reliance on him as an individual has taken root in poor strategic execution; there is virtually no bench within the party, little up-and-coming talent, no one for party leadership to hand the reins to.

Sure, but I don't think this is because the Democrats decided to leave everything up to Obama. It's politics, you get your own name out there. The issue is that few Democrats have managed to do that, probably because there really is a shortage of talent on the bench. Sometimes that happens.

I mean, does everyone remember the 2012 Republican offerings. Egad. Newt Gingrich got dragged back out of the grave, just because there was so little else. They ended up with Romney, another 'strange un-person' as you put it, even though most of his own party hated him.

Had Democrats run Bernie, Wisconsin and Michigan at the very least are far less likely to have swung.

Michigan certainly. Other than that, who knows?

'Inevitability' is kind of a funny reason to attribute Hillary's loss to given that it was more or less her entire platform.

I don't think I said inevitability, and if I implied it my bad. Nothing is ever inevitable. Donald fething Trump is about to be president, things are unpredictable and bordering on completely bonkers, they certainly aren't inevitable.

But people keep talking about this election as being Trump vs Clinton, and saying therefore Clinton is bad because she lost to Trump. As if the candidates were the only things that mattered. In truth, the candidates probably only matter a little, what really matters is the enthusiasm of the base, and that is driven largely by how long the party has been out of power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 cuda1179 wrote:
Yes, yes they do.
http://www.carbonoffsetsdaily.com/news-channels/global/the-major-sources-for-carbon-dioxide-emissions-40831.htm

Your own site notes that most volcanic activity is underwater, and almost all emitted CO2 is then trapped by the ocean.

Anyhow, this whole line of argument is nonsense. No-one is claiming that there is no natural rate of CO2 emissions. The model is one of emission and capture. The issue comes when the rate of emission increases, while the rate of capture remains constant. Then you get a steady increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That the new form of emission might be only 1 or 2% of total emissions, but when this increases emissions to 102%, while capture remains at 100%, it isn't hard to see the destabilising effect.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
The United States doesn't have an official language, and it should stay that way. We're free to speak whatever language we please.

Obviously the US doesn't have an official language. When one poster is arguing for English to become, in some way or another, a national language, then it should be understood by everyone involved that there isn't currently an official language.

The second part of your argument, "it should stay that way", doesn't actually advance the conversation at all. cuda1179 said English should be made the official language, I asked why, and then you responded with 'no it shouldn't'. First of all, why respond to me with that comment and not cuda1179? And second up, why not let cuda1179 give an answer for what he thinks making english an official language will achieve?

Me posting my opinion doesn't prevent cuda1179 from answering your question himself. I was making more of a general statement rather than a specific response to your post. My point is, we're free to speak whatever language we want, and making English an official language could potentially hinder that (and send the wrong message as well). English is already the de facto official language, there is no benefit to making it official, and there could potentially be problems as well. It wouldn't be worth the trouble. I'm not sure why some people seem to be so concerned about having a country in which multiple languages are openly spoken. If you're an English native speaker, you already have an advantage on a global scale - I'm not sure what further benefit could be eked out by making it the officially official language of the USA.

 whembly wrote:

 sebster wrote:

And arguments that the GOP want to turn this country into a theocracy is laughable. We're way too contrarian to allow that to happen.

Whether it will work is a different issue to what major elements of the Republican party would like. That a faction of the party wants it should be sufficient cause for concern.

That faction you're describing is in extreme minority.

It's not a thing.

It really wasn't that long ago that leading members of the GOP were falling all over each other in their race to support Kim Davis and to try to pass laws to allow more like her to happen. So, yes, it's "a thing" that needs to be watched out for.

While the use of the word theocracy is generally hyperbole (and I've been guilty of using it, too), it is a genuine concern when lawmakers/government employees try to force their religious beliefs on others through law or the power of their position (heck, didn't one of the early candidates actually want to create a government body to promote Judeo-Christian values?)

 whembly wrote:
No... the GOP is not pushing dominionism. Stop taking your cue from the likes of Vox, Talking Points Memo or even punditries that expouses 'ickyness' towards religion.

I don't read Vox, and I'm not actually all that sure what Talking Points Memo is.

I do read Republican statements a lot though.

Sure seb... nothing at all about what the Democrats has done.
:rolls eyes:
You act as if there's no free thinking here... only brainwashing, indoctrination.

In deciding to vote for Trump, free thinking cannot be part of the process. Certainly not any kind of rational, free thinking.

BS. The likes of BLM and Operation Wallstreet were central to mainstream Democrats. That's all they were talking about. The issues of the day.

They got a lot of media coverage, like the alt-right got lots of coverage. But as you should know by now media coverage is not related to size. What we are talking about here is who makes up the roughly 60 million people who turned up to vote for each party.

True. Maybe there will be a "Tea Party-like" movement for the democrats, like for the GOP in 2008-2010.

It's likely. I hope not, because the last thing the US needs is a new injection of crazy, even if this batch of crazy comes from the left for a change. But I can see it happening, and I can see Democrats giving even less of a fight than Republicans gave either the Tea Party or Trump.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
If you believe that the GOP is too extreme... and the Democrats are still getting their asses kicked.

What does that tell you?

See, now you're falling back on your old assumption that democracy is about winning

The problem with extremism isn't that you become electorally non-viable (although that may still happen to the Republicans, unless they do something to fix their demographic profile, the gerrymander won't save them forever). The problem is that extreme politics leave you incapable of governing when you do win power. I mean, is Trump going to tear up NAFTA and build that wall, is he going to pass his tax cut and just sit there honestly believing it will produce the 6% growth he needs to fund it? And then start handing out a trillion in tax incentives for infrastructure, and then look surprised as the deficit explodes?

Cancelling any of that stupidity will be a betrayal of his campaign promises. Doing any of it will be a disaster. This is the situation extremist politics lands you in.

That faction you're describing is in extreme minority.

It's not a thing.

That faction put Ted Cruz second in the primary, behind Trump. It's the second largest faction. The former presumed power bloc of the party, the establishment, got Kasich and his almost double figures score.

Maybe it's because those things in a vacuum don't help/encourage jobs. Kinda hard to advocate for min wage, tax rate changes or healthcare reform when you can't get a job (or the one you want).

Absolutely. Getting a good job will be better than government support any day of the week. You'll note I recognised that in my answer, in which I said Trump's promise of jobs was stronger than the Democrats record of legislation that actually helped the working poor.

The problem, though, is that Trump was lying. There's nothing he can do to create manufacturing jobs, even if he wanted to. There is simply no way to overcome the fact that manufacturing is able to produce more each year with the same or fewer people.



People chose the obvious lie over the unfortunate reality.

That maybe true. I think Trump is fething clueless as President... but, I'm willing to at least give him a chance since he's proven me wrong at every step up to this point.

This isn't the Care Bears. Trump won't succeed if only we believe

We're just a bunch of nattering no-ones on the internet, if we give Trump the benefit of the doubt or not, it won't change one thing about whether he succeeds or fails.

... I don't think it's that simple. Well... there's a case of "Party Fatigue™", I'll give you that.

It isn't as simple as just that. There's a lot of other factors in play. But this was the major factor, I believe.

However, we saw, probably for the first time in a long time that "insurgent" candidate (ie, Trump and Sander) can make some serious noises and can even win (in Trump's case).

Sanders run is overrated. He was beat by Super Tuesday, and was only really noticeable for how he took it right to the end. And he managed that insurgent run by going against Clinton, who was mediocre on the podium and in the media throughout the campaign. Remember, Clinton also ran against an upstart in 2008, because Obama's policies turned out to be very mainstream Democratic, we forget that he was acting way out of turn against the more credentialed insider. The difference of course, was that Obama beat Clinton, unlike Sanders.

Trump's win was pretty amazing, though, I'll give you that. That did show a weakness in party establishments that we hadn't seen before (particularly not in the Republican party).

Maybe the real lesson is that there are no lessons. gak happens. Crazy, ridiculous, birther idiot tells ridiculous lies daily, mocks a war vet, mocks the disabled, misquotes the bible, gets caught bragging about molesting women, and still wins kind of gak happens.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hordini wrote:
Me posting my opinion doesn't prevent cuda1179 from answering your question himself.

The point wasn't that it would somehow stop cuda1179 from responding. The point is that it made it seem like you were responding to me, when really you were responding to cuda1179. It it was a general statement then qhy quote anyone?

Anyhow, that's all just pedantics about forum posting. I agree with your general point and think you argued it clearly, I don't want to distract from that.

Well, here's something to chew on:

https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/com_hate_incidents_report_final.pdf

I've heard the white nationalism bit about 'professors are lying to you' before, it was in a script for a call center under contract with the Young Republicans. They were calling people urging them not to allow their children to go to college lest they become Democrats. Seems the Ayrian nation isn't above plagiarism.

 whembly wrote:
That faction you're describing is in extreme minority.

It's not a thing.

We are the party of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government is to operate with the consent of the governed. We are also the party of the Constitution, the greatest political document ever written. It is the solemn compact built upon principles of the Declaration that enshrines our God-given individual rights and ensures that all Americans stand equal before the law, defines the purposes and limits of government, and is the blueprint for ordered liberty that makes the United States the world’s freest and most prosperous nation.
-Republican Party platform for 2016

Sure seems like an awful lot of talk of how important God is for a party where the theocrats are an extreme minority...

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That faction you're describing is in extreme minority.

It's not a thing.

We are the party of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The Declaration sets forth the fundamental precepts of American government: That God bestows certain inalienable rights on every individual, thus producing human equality; that government exists first and foremost to protect those inalienable rights; that man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”; and that American government is to operate with the consent of the governed. We are also the party of the Constitution, the greatest political document ever written. It is the solemn compact built upon principles of the Declaration that enshrines our God-given individual rights and ensures that all Americans stand equal before the law, defines the purposes and limits of government, and is the blueprint for ordered liberty that makes the United States the world’s freest and most prosperous nation.
-Republican Party platform for 2016

Sure seems like an awful lot of talk of how important God is for a party where the theocrats are an extreme minority...

That's not advocating theocratic governance.

 whembly wrote:

That's not advocating theocratic governance.

If saying "if the laws of God and the laws of government conflict then the laws of God must win" isn't advocating theocracy then what is?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:

That's not advocating theocratic governance.

If saying "if the laws of God and the laws of government conflict then the laws of God must win" isn't advocating theocracy then what is?

No. A theocracy is when religious positions (ie priests, imam, etc...) rule the country in the name of God or a god.

It's a far cry from regular joe/jane schmoes who runs for office, who also happens to be religious.

And I'm not even religious!

Tolerance used to be something...

 whembly wrote:
No. A theocracy is when religious positions (ie priests, imam, etc...) rule the country in the name of God or a god.

It's a far cry from regular joe/jane schmoes who runs for office, who also happens to be religious.

And I'm not even religious!

Tolerance used to be something...

So if the pope resigns his position (while still obviously keeping his religious beliefs) and becomes head of state, promising to enact Christian doctrine as law, you don't think that's a theocracy because the head of state technically doesn't have a formal religious title?

And let's be clear here, this is not a case of a politician who happens to be religious in their private life running for office. Obviously there is nothing wrong with that, in fact it would be very clearly unconstitutional to prevent a religious person from running for office. But that is not what we're talking about here. The quote is a clear example of the republican party, in their own words, stating that the guiding principle of their vision for America is that the law of God takes priority over the law of the state. That is rule by Christian doctrine, not secular government.

 whembly wrote:
That's not advocating theocratic governance.

You've moved the goalposts, trying to shift this to being about an actual theocracy. This started with my comment on Christian Dominionism, which you claimed was a minor part of the Republican party. Except that quote from the 2016 Republican platform that Peregrine posted; "man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”"...

Dude, that's what dominionism is.

Let me put it this way - if a Christian Dominionst party was to start up tomorrow, then that party would write a platform stating that there is a natural law given by God, and that any human law must be consistent with God's law, and if there is any conflict then it is God's law that must prevail. This is exactly what the above quote says.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
No. A theocracy is when religious positions (ie priests, imam, etc...) rule the country in the name of God or a god.

It's a far cry from regular joe/jane schmoes who runs for office, who also happens to be religious.

And I'm not even religious!

Tolerance used to be something...

So if the pope resigns his position (while still obviously keeping his religious beliefs) and becomes head of state, promising to enact Christian doctrine as law, you don't think that's a theocracy because the head of state technically doesn't have a formal religious title?

Has to be a US citizen Pope!

But to answer your question... no, one person isn't going to install theocratic doctrine without help from not only from Congress and the Courts, but he'd have to deal with his massive executive branch.

Good luck!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
That's not advocating theocratic governance.

You've moved the goalposts. This started with my comment on Christian Dominionism, which you claimed was a minor part of the Republican party. Except that quote from the 2016 Rupblican platform; "man-made law must be consistent with God-given, natural rights; and that if God-given, natural, inalienable rights come in conflict with government, court, or human-granted rights, God-given, natural, inalienable rights always prevail; that there is a moral law recognized as “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”"...

Dude, that's what dominionism is.

O.o

I thought that was referring to Christian Reconstructionism... which is definitely a radical proposition.

 whembly wrote:
Has to be a US citizen Pope!

I didn't say head of state in the US. But this is just pointless nitpicking, do you have a response to the substance of the argument, that one can have a "theocracy" as people commonly understand it even if government officials don't technically have formal religious titles?

But to answer your question... no, one person isn't going to install theocratic doctrine without help from not only from Congress and the Courts, but he'd have to deal with his massive executive branch.

That would be a comforting thought if not for the fact that the quote promising theocracy is from the republican party platform, not Trump's twitter feed. And guess which party has full control of congress and a soon-to-be majority of the supreme court?

Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

 whembly wrote:
O.o

I thought that was referring to Christian Reconstructionism... which is definitely a radical proposition.

No, Reconstructionism is an (even more) extreme faction of dominionism. They have an outsized effect by influencing the rest of the Christian right, but their ideas ain't happening, as you say. What we're seeing instead a generic dominionism, which is influenced (even subconciously) by Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism. This form is a kind of christian nationalism or tribalism, in which they believe they are needed to take over from a sinful, secular society, that their religion alone is right and true and worthy of protection, and that the law should be a mirror of Christian values.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
O.o

I thought that was referring to Christian Reconstructionism... which is definitely a radical proposition.

No, Reconstructionism is an (even more) extreme faction of dominionism. They have an outsized effect by influencing the rest of the Christian right, but their ideas ain't happening, as you say. What we're seeing instead a generic dominionism, which is influenced (even subconciously) by Dominion Theology and Reconstructionism. This form is a kind of christian nationalism or tribalism, in which they believe they are needed to take over from a sinful, secular society, that their religion alone is right and true and worthy of protection, and that the law should be a mirror of Christian values.

Ah... okay.

I can see that then.

I'm not sure I'd agree with it or if its even possible, because Americans are contrarians by nature. Plus, you have to have other aspects of the government to assent to that kind of direction (local government, courts, bureaucracy in general)... such that, I'd argue it'd damn near impossible.

EDIT: quit re-writing your post! I had a response ready and you've removed it.

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

Oathkeepers, the 3%. I can go on

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

Oathkeepers, the 3%. I can go on

I'm looking at my window now... can't be sure if I should be terrified or not.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

Oathkeepers, the 3%. I can go on

I'm looking at my window now... can't be sure if I should be terrified or not.

You said you will be on the lookout for religious goon squads sarcastictly. I named two of the more famous ones ergo I answered your question before you moved goalposts

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

And this is why right-wing politics is broken. Why do you have to jump all the way to "religious goon squads" as the thing to fear (with the obvious conclusion that if we don't see them then there's no theocracy problem) and ignore all of the other threats of a theocratic government?

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

Oathkeepers, the 3%. I can go on

I'm looking at my window now... can't be sure if I should be terrified or not.

You said you will be on the lookout for religious goon squads sarcastictly. I named two of the more famous ones ergo I answered your question before you moved goalposts

I'm being sarcastic because they're in extreme minority. I put them in the same buckets as the Westboro Baptists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

And this is why right-wing politics is broken. Why do you have to jump all the way to "religious goon squads" as the thing to fear (with the obvious conclusion that if we don't see them then there's no theocracy problem) and ignore all of the other threats of a theocratic government?

Because I'm mocking the idea that we'd see a theocracy.

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

Oathkeepers, the 3%. I can go on

I'm looking at my window now... can't be sure if I should be terrified or not.

You said you will be on the lookout for religious goon squads sarcastictly. I named two of the more famous ones ergo I answered your question before you moved goalposts

I'm being sarcastic because they're in extreme minority. I put them in the same buckets as the Westboro Baptists.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Well... then I'll be on the lookout for those Religious Goon squads then.

And this is why right-wing politics is broken. Why do you have to jump all the way to "religious goon squads" as the thing to fear (with the obvious conclusion that if we don't see them then there's no theocracy problem) and ignore all of the other threats of a theocratic government?

Because I'm mocking the idea that we'd see a theocracy.

No really these militias have been exploding exponentially since 2008 (wonder why?) and all of them tend to have religious undertones

 whembly wrote:
I'm not sure I'd agree with it or if its even possible, because Americans are contrarians by nature.

Again, this is the national republican party platform making promises of theocracy. Being "contrarians by nature" didn't stop them from coming together to start on an openly theocratic agenda at the highest level of politics.

 whembly wrote:
Ah... okay.

I can see that then.

I'm not sure I'd agree with it or if its even possible, because Americans are contrarians by nature. Plus, you have to have other aspects of the government to assent to that kind of direction (local government, courts, bureaucracy in general)... such that, I'd argue it'd damn near impossible.

This isn't about fearing some kind of takeover, its about the harm done each small piece of their agenda that they manage to put in place. And it's about the harm done to the idea of an open, tolerant society when one major political party accepts a religious nationalist group in to its ranks.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
EDIT: quit re-writing your post! I had a response ready and you've removed it.

Am I editing too slow, or are you posting too fast?


Nah, this ones on me, my bad. I've got in a bad habit of posting ASAP, then going back and editing a bunch of times.

 whembly wrote:
Because I'm mocking the idea that we'd see a theocracy.

Again, this is why right-wing politics is fundamentally broken. The republican party says "theocracy is our guiding principle", millions of people vote for the people promising a theocracy, and you're sitting here with your head in the sand mocking the idea that we could possibly see a theocracy. It's like how every awful thing Trump said was inevitably followed by "don't worry, he won't actually do any of the things he promises". And yet somehow, despite Trump and the republican party apparently lying about everything they stand for, here they are with full control of the government. And we're still supposed to believe that it was just an accident that all these people voted for them, the awful beliefs are just a fringe minority with no power.

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I'm not sure I'd agree with it or if its even possible, because Americans are contrarians by nature.

Again, this is the national republican party platform making promises of theocracy. Being "contrarians by nature" didn't stop them from coming together to start on an openly theocratic agenda at the highest level of politics.

We're not going to look like the Christian equivalent of Iran.

God forbid (swidt?) we have have religious people in our elective offices and use the word "God".

That's some creepy jeepers stuff man.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Because I'm mocking the idea that we'd see a theocracy.

Again, this is why right-wing politics is fundamentally broken. The republican party says "theocracy is our guiding principle", millions of people vote for the people promising a theocracy, and you're sitting here with your head in the sand mocking the idea that we could possibly see a theocracy. It's like how every awful thing Trump said was inevitably followed by "don't worry, he won't actually do any of the things he promises". And yet somehow, despite Trump and the republican party apparently lying about everything they stand for, here they are with full control of the government. And we're still supposed to believe that it was just an accident that all these people voted for them, the awful beliefs are just a fringe minority with no power.

"God-given rights" is not a "Theocracy".