Donald Trump elected as America's 45th President.

[Allusio]

^ The more I read the more I think that people are misinformed about a lot of things. It appears that Trump was talking about illegal immigrants... To deport them for legal coming back.
Time will tell but it can be a good chance for illegal immigrants to become American citizens.

 

[Psychoniff]

And that's why I've been saying that Pence is much more worrying than Trump could ever be. My own state has been run by far right evangelistical Christians since Bush left to be President, and I personally think it's been run in the ground. Maybe 20 million people now have insurance and Medicaid with subsidies given by the federal government-but not in my state. No adults have Medicaid here-children do and their mothers get annual pap smears. Whoop de do. They've been fighting every single thing about gay marriage and transgender restrooms. Texas government has such a fear of the government that they actually sent the Texas National Guard to keep a "watchful eye" on our OWN military personnel when they recently were practicing military maneuvers. Our OWN military. They have absolutely no concept of the separation of church and state. (Ted Cruz is from here among others).

I have to admit that I thought this would be the outcome of the election-even though all my Republican friends thought the opposite. I really felt it when Brexit happened. Only Trump and Bernie had populist messages and paid much attention to the big issues that were hitting the disappearing middle class-jobs-Trump blamed the immigrants and Bernie blamed the corporations and the 1% (which is correct, and has been happening since the 80's Reagan years). Trickle down economics never did and never will work.

Hillary's team did her a disservice by not going and connecting with the rust belt states like President Clinton did years before. And the fact that a LOT of people disliked both candidates intensely didn't help-

50% of the registered voters didn't even go and vote. Thousands abstained from voting for anybody for president even while voting for senators, representatives and judges and thousands more wrote in names of unknown people or animals.

People that voted for Trump have been unhappy with the government for years and blame them for their dwindling finances-lack of jobs-lack opportunity-and lack of common social services and fell for his slogan "drain the swamp."

His list of people on his transition team alone is enough to strike terror in everybody's hearts. I read yesterday that he's "filling the swamp with gators" and that's true.

"People that voted for Trump have been unhappy with the government for years and blame them for their dwindling finances-lack of jobs-lack opportunity-and lack of common social services and fell for his slogan "drain the swamp.""

But wasn't Obama who cut unemployment down to pre-Great Recession numbers? Wasn't Obama who got Affordable Care Act passed? Wasn't it Obama who save the auto industry? Wasn't it Obama who got Bin Laden? I swear rush belt working class people are some of the most schizophrenic m'fers ever! The irony of voting for a humanoid like that is, it was that individual and people like that that shipped those manufacturing jobs over seas. It was the Republicans under Bush that got the economy to a near stand still because of it.

 

[Psychoniff]

Donald Trump has named former Breitbart News CEO Stephen Bannon as his chief strategist and senior counselor. For those not familiar with Breitbart, here's a sample of their headlines under Bannon's tenure: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/08/17/breitbart-news-worst-headlines/212467. But it's all about the economy -_-

As for Girl's post regarding the polls: how would the polls showing a decisive win for Hillary work in her favour? If anything, I think it's one of the main reasons she lost because a lot of Democratic base voters who weren't too enthusiatic about her (the Bernie-or-bust types) either stayed home or voted third party, under the assumption that Hillary had this in the bag anyway. I don't think it's some grand conspiracy, it's just the result of outdated polling methods and people not wanting to admit to pollsters that they were going to vote for Trump (called the Bradley-effect). I do think that the media relies on polls too much and places too much importance on them. I hope this election at least taught them a lesson in that regard.

And as for biased media reporting, Donald Trump received over a billion dollars worth of free advertising from the mainstream media. He would just call into morning shows on major stations like CNN and say his piece. The media handled him with kid gloves for the most part in order to keep access to him. If the media reported more on Trump's scandals, it's just because there was that much more to report on. There's no equivalence there. Just now, three of Trump's children are on his transition team while they are also in charge of handling his business afairs. His children will keep managing his business while Trump is President. This kind of conflict of interest is on a level usually only found in third world countries but there's nary a beep about it from the mainstream media. Imagine if Hillary Clinton did something like this, the outcry of "Corruption!! Nepotism!!" would be all over.

Exactly, It's like did people not see how they gave him a pass on what he meant about "Make America Great Again"?

Like when was it great the further back you go for anyone BUT straight white men?

If the media had just kept pressing him and is supporters on what they actually meant by that campaign slogan, maybe things would have been different, but maybe not.

 

[Bubs]

Trump claimed to “drain the swamp”, but seemingly he hired them into his own team.

I truly hope there is a way Trump doesn't become president because those swamp people will do irrevesible or long lasting damage to many issues in US.

 

[LindavG]

Had they done some proper recognition, perhaps the next graph wouldn't have been quite as dramatic in its apparent reversal. I know Linda already mentioned that at the beginning of election night the New York Times had Hillary Clinton at an 85% chance of winning. But here is the graphical expression of this most flagrant gulf between liberal expectations and election results.

To be fair, there's a very good scientific explanation for this though.

[youtube]GzlebECUOIg[/youtube]

 

[ItsSomething]

You guys do realize nobody's forcing you all to stay, right?

I don't naturally support Trump, but seriously, complaining isn't going to do much shit.

 

[HIStoric]

"I know words, I have the best words"

Interesting video that dissects Trump's rather basic vocabulary and speech patterns.

 

[barbee0715]

To be fair, there's a very good scientific explanation for this though.

[youtube]GzlebECUOIg[/youtube]

Hahaha-I thought this was going to be some serious political pundit thing until I saw Michele Bachmann's name on it-that's hilarious. Power of prayer-yup. That did it. And I KNOW people just like this too.

"People that voted for Trump have been unhappy with the government for years and blame them for their dwindling finances-lack of jobs-lack opportunity-and lack of common social services and fell for his slogan "drain the swamp.""

But wasn't Obama who cut unemployment down to pre-Great Recession numbers? Wasn't Obama who got Affordable Care Act passed? Wasn't it Obama who save the auto industry? Wasn't it Obama who got Bin Laden? I swear rush belt working class people are some of the most schizophrenic m'fers ever! The irony of voting for a humanoid like that is, it was that individual and people like that that shipped those manufacturing jobs over seas. It was the Republicans under Bush that got the economy to a near stand still because of it.

It's also ironic that the evangelical right still to this day think Obama is a muslim while at the same time trounce his attending the church of Jeremiah Wright, who I'm pretty sure is a Christian preacher.

The "affordable care act" is not the single payer system we were told we would have-we have an "unaffordable health care act" and premiums are going up an average of 52% this year. WITH subsidies from the government. It's designed to make sure the medical and pharmaceuticals still make big profits. I don't blame Obama for that-he was trying to compromise with an unyielding Republican Congress and this is what we got. Unemployment numbers mean nothing-look how many people used to have decent full time jobs with benefits now have two or three part time jobs. That's not just shipping jobs overseas-that's also because deregulation allows more acquisitions and mergers-and ultimately less places to work for.

I remember economists saying that "Reaganomics" was going to be the end of the middle class-and we are seeing the rapid descent. You can't squeeze more and more money out of people-you eventually are going to have a Marie Antoinette situation.

People don't always understand what they are voting for. Trump went out and "wooed" these people-Hilary didn't and this is where the Democrats screwed up-Bill Clinton reached out and won those very people in the rust belt and advised that they needed to do this again and point this kind of crap out. BUT Hilary's advisors figured they had them in the bag and didn't do it.
BIG FAT MISTAKE.
Here's Bernie (actually the first candidate in 16 years that I whole heartedly and passionately wanted for Pres) explaining the problem far better than I ever could.
There's nothing that can be done now-I'm for the peaceful transition of power. But I do believe that we should all be active when we elect our leaders and make our voices heard if changes are detrimental to civil rights and our well being.

 

[LindavG]

It's also ironic that the evangelical right still to this day think Obama is a muslim while at the same time trounce his attending the church of Jeremiah Wright, who I'm pretty sure is a Christian preacher.

Yeah, logical reasoning is not their forte but I think it's kind of amusing how they tie themselves into knots holding all kinds of contradictory positions at once. "The immigrants are taking our jobs!" "No wait, immigrants are lazy and are leeching off our welfare system!" With Trump it's even more obvious. The Evangelicals have convinced themselves that God handpicked Trump to lead the nation, a thrice-married casino mogul who brags about sexual assault, can't name his favourite verse from the Bible (because he's never read it), has billions of dollars but manages to avoid paying income taxes, wants to forcefully deport 11 million (mostly) fellow Christians, lives in a goldplated mansion, uses money from his charity foundation to buy portraits of himself, tries to sleep with married women... I'm sure Trump has a close personal relationship with the Lord (a long-distance one though, you just can't tell with those refugees from the Middle East).

The "affordable care act" is not the single payer system we were told we would have-we have an "unaffordable health care act" and premiums are going up an average of 52% this year. WITH subsidies from the government. It's designed to make sure the medical and pharmaceuticals still make big profits. I don't blame Obama for that-he was trying to compromise with an unyielding Republican Congress and this is what we got. Unemployment numbers mean nothing-look how many people used to have decent full time jobs with benefits now have two or three part time jobs. That's not just shipping jobs overseas-that's also because deregulation allows more acquisitions and mergers-and ultimately less places to work for.

It's estimated that the premiums would have gone up even more without the ACA though. But I agree, the law as it is now still needs major improvements. I actually doubt Trump would repeal and replace the ACA like he promised to. I heard him say the other day that he wants to keep insurance for pre-existing conditions and allow young people to stay on their parents' plan. I suspect he's going to amend a few small things and call it Trumpcare.

I remember economists saying that "Reaganomics" was going to be the end of the middle class-and we are seeing the rapid descent. You can't squeeze more and more money out of people-you eventually are going to have a Marie Antoinette situation.

That's another thing. For some reason, Republicans are seen as the party of fiscal responsibility but the economy does WAY worse under their government than under the Democrats. They've managed to turn huge surpluses into huge deficits on more than one occasion (and Reagan was one of them).

People don't always understand what they are voting for. Trump went out and "wooed" these people-Hilary didn't and this is where the Democrats screwed up-Bill Clinton reached out and won those very people in the rust belt and advised that they needed to do this again and point this kind of crap out. BUT Hilary's advisors figured they had them in the bag and didn't do it.

I don't understand that though. I'm not even American and I seem to know more about Trump & Clinton's policy proposals than a lot of their constituents do. How hard is it to look this stuff up?

BIG FAT MISTAKE.
Here's Bernie (actually the first candidate in 16 years that I whole heartedly and passionately wanted for Pres) explaining the problem far better than I ever could.
There's nothing that can be done now-I'm for the peaceful transition of power. But I do believe that we should all be active when we elect our leaders and make our voices heard if changes are detrimental to civil rights and our well being.

I still don't get why Hillary didn't pick Bernie as VP instead of that bland Tim Kaine. Bernie could have done the rallies for her while she does fundraisers and debates. He could have won some of those anti-establishment Rust Belt votes.

 

[Antwort]

The "affordable care act" is not the single payer system we were told we would have-we have an "unaffordable health care act" and premiums are going up an average of 52% this year. WITH subsidies from the government. It's designed to make sure the medical and pharmaceuticals still make big profits. I don't blame Obama for that-he was trying to compromise with an unyielding Republican Congress and this is what we got. Unemployment numbers mean nothing-look how many people used to have decent full time jobs with benefits now have two or three part time jobs. That's not just shipping jobs overseas-that's also because deregulation allows more acquisitions and mergers-and ultimately less places to work for.

Indeed, I've read a few things about that. Thanks for bringing the issue up barbee.

It's estimated that the premiums would have gone up even more without the ACA though. But I agree, the law as it is now still needs major improvements. I actually doubt Trump would repeal and replace the ACA like he promised to. I heard him say the other day that he wants to keep insurance for pre-existing conditions and allow young people to stay on their parents' plan. I suspect he's going to amend a few small things and call it Trumpcare.

And that isn't such a bad thing, is it? I also remember other declarations of his on the subject which I thought were quite illuminating and downright positive.

"You can't let the people in this country that are the poor people, the people without the money and resources go without healthcare," Trump told the MSNBC program. "I just can't even imagine. You're sick and you can't even go to a doctor. I say one thing, can you not let 25 percent of the people of the country because they have no money go without something?" http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/trump-healthcare-obamacare-mccain/2015/07/17/id/657674/

Universal coverage is a fact of life in most of Europe. That is why I was so bewildered to see people on the right accuse President Obama of imposing “Marxist” ideologies on America. If President-Elect Trump will modify the current legislation in such ways to make it truly affordable yet again, then I see no real issue here. I've never been able to fully comprehend the hostile attitude of the American right towards social programs and state intervention in assisting the most vulnerable members of society. I consider those things to be quite in line with Christian teachings and traditions.

To be fair, there's a very good scientific explanation for this though.

[youtube]GzlebECUOIg[/youtube]

Unfortunately, this is the kind of attitude and message which I believe is a great disservice to the Christian cause. I would dare guess that the shift in numbers came because the polling stations had closed and the votes were being actually counted, as opposed to mere initial estimates. Also, people had voted throughout the day, so to claim that the moment a certain group started to pray was pivotal and a sign of divine intervention is, of course, quite outlandish. As a fellow Christian, I've always been very weary and had great trouble understanding those who were claimed to be so certain of God's will. There are other points of contention, but I am however sensitive to some of the goals of the Christian right which I believe are worthwhile. Which actually brings me to this............

You have it exactly backwards. The US is supposed to be a secular country. There is nothing "extreme left" about granting equal rights and protections to the LGBT community, for example. Why is it that the Christian right finds itself under siege when they can't impose their morals on everyone else? I've never understood this. If you believe gay marriage is immoral, that's fine, don't marry someone of the same sex then. If you want to talk about arrogance, this is the epitome of arrogance to me. This sense that the country belongs to you and when others aren't living by your particular moral code, even if they're not harming anyone else, they are evil and deserve to be punished and shamed.

The arrogance to proclaim yourselves as the party of "family values" while being just as flawed as everyone else. Refusing to sign marriage licenses for gay couples because traditional marriage is sacred while being married four times yourself. Lecturing people about the sancity of life while worshipping guns, militarism and the death penalty. Cherrypicking the parts of the Bible that are convenient while ignoring the vast bulk of it that doesn't suit your political needs. Pretending to be the protectors of the Constitution except when the Constitution gives power to the opposition (like when it's time to nominate a Supreme Court justice). Not even hiding the fact that you're suppressing the right to vote for large sections of the population that don't vote your way, as if their voice is worth less. Dismissing the overwhelming scientific consensus on a whole range of issues when it doesn't fit your preferred view of the world. All this talk of "taking our country back" as if you've been stripped of its ownership. Yet it's the left that is arrogant and condescending? Give me a break.

I'm guessing that whoever wrote the post you quoted is not part of a marginalised community herself otherwise she wouldn't be so cavalier about relegating social justice to "secondary objectives". It's not an either/or thing for me, there's no reason we can't do both.

As both a Christian and a believer in pluralism, separation of Church and state I can understand the point of view of those who say that Christians ought not to impose their values on the society at large. Personally, I am against both contraception and especially abortion and I consider the sacrament of marriage to be the life-long union between a man and a woman. Since I believe these to be private issues and choices, I don't have any particular need to see legislation which obliges other people to feel the same way.

However, I can also understand the worries of those on the right who see many troubling signs in governmental actions. When I mentioned extreme left issues in an earlier post I meant certain trends which have caused great concern among Christians. I wasn't necessarily thinking in terms of gay marriage or an overturn of Roe vs. Wade. My ideas were centered mostly on federal and party initiatives which sought to attack religious liberty. I understand that Christians cannot impose their values on others, but is it equally legitimate to expect states and international bodies not to interfere with the freedom of practice of Christians.

Unfortunately, religious freedom is suffocated when Catholic organizations are being threatened with the $70 million fine by the federal government and obliged to provide contraceptive and abortion costs in the medical insurance for their staff, all of which is contrary to Catholic teachings.

When small businesses are accused of “hate” crimes and sued into almost bankruptcy because they will not bake cakes and take photographs at gay unions, something is terribly wrong with the notion of real tolerance. I remember writing extensively last year in a thread and condemning ER people who refused to assist gay folks. Obviously, there cannot be any objection of conscience when it comes to offering medical assistance. But I don't think a similar case can be made in non life-threatening situations.

When members of a political party create front “Catholic” organizations which are aimed at changing Catholic doctrine from within the Church by inciting a “spring”/ revolution something is not just wrong, but deeply disturbing (here) Is it any wonder such an initiative from the Clinton campaign would be more than troublesome for many Catholics?

For some it seems that the separation of Church and state is one-directional. The Church is not allowed to raise its voice in the public sphere, but authorities are free to intervene in its teachings and dealings. I'd say that's a rather unbalanced and most improper process. Christians ought to enjoy the same freedom from interference in practicing their values as the one expected from them when being reproached they try to impose those values on the world.

And these things happen not only in the U.S., but also on the international level. When UN agencies and the U.S. condition aid on the acceptance of issues which traditionally Christian societies in Africa or Latin America do not embrace, something is terribly wrong. (here)Just as conversions to Christianity shouldn't have been made by the sword in the past or imposed in the present, nor should the liberal and “tolerant” agenda be financially blackmailed into vulnerable countries. In a conflict of ideas and values neither violence, nor financial incentives have any real place. People should be neither coerced nor bought into any particular lifestyle, set of values or world view. I believe that is what genuine freedom is all about. And freedom is at the heart of liberalism, isn't it? Or at least it ought to be.

I realize that for many people these may highly irrelevant issues, but for many others they are not. That is why I understand some of the worries of Trump supporters. Calling them “bigots” and “fundamentalists” simply for upholding their values doesn't help in creating a truly inclusive society based on dialogue.

(Just to be clear, I'm not talking about you personally but about the Christian right. You seem perfectly fine by me ;D)

Thank you for giving me the benefit of doubt Linda. Although I do subscribe to some of the themes of the right, I cannot do to all of them. And that is not because I want to claim some sort of contrived superiority or the need to please all sides. It is simply out of sheer love of truth and my understanding of Christian theology which makes me adhere to issues and people on both sides of the political aisle. Thankfully, I am not the only one who feels this way. I recently found a quote which I've enjoyed tremendously.

True Catholicism cannot be tamed by any political party or interest group. True Catholicism will comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. It will annoy both the right and the left, and will also affirm them, it has no permanent allies or opponents. As it was with Christ, most every one will have reason to hate the Church, and some will come to love the her. We are destined to be, with Christ, a sign of contradiction (Luke 2:34) that will often be opposed, for we do not simply fit into any one world agenda or party. - Msgr. Charles Pope

Indeed, I believe it is not only the right, but also the duty of any real Christian to remind the left that life begins at conception, but also to remind the right that an authentic pro-life culture extends beyond being pro-birth and goes into carrying for children of all ages, the poor and the environment as well. And an authentic Christian ought to remind all American politicians that the death penalty is also problematic. And since Catholic means "universal", I also happen to believe in international cooperation, European identity and the common global good.

And on that more or less personal note, I'll wrap up this seemingly unending post. Apologies everyone for writing so much and perhaps veering off-topic a bit too much.

 

[LindavG]

And that isn't such a bad thing, is it? I also remember other declarations of his on the subject which I thought were quite illuminating and downright positive.

It's not a bad thing at all, although it does bother me that a major achievement of the first black President will be stripped of his name and the white guy will get the credit - and suddenly the law will become that much more palatable to his Republican supporters.

You also have to keep in mind that Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare 60 times over the past 8 years so it remains to be seen if Trump can get away with amending it a bit.

Universal coverage is a fact of life in most of Europe. That is why I was so bewildered to see people on the right accuse President Obama of imposing “Marxist” ideologies on America. If President-Elect Trump will modify the current legislation in such ways to make it truly affordable yet again, then I see no real issue here. I've never been able to fully comprehend the hostile attitude of the American right towards social programs and state intervention in assisting the most vulnerable members of society. I consider those things to be quite in line with Christian teachings and traditions.

This may be a controversial opinion but I have personally always seen much of the "Christian Right" as a front for bigotry and intolerance. They pick and choose the parts of the Bible they agree with but completely ignore others which imo are more fundamental to Jesus' message, such as caring for the sick and poor, being welcoming to immigrants (or sejourners as they are called in the Bible), refraining from judgment, being good stewards of the environment, sharing your wealth with the less fortunate, pacifism, etc. Whenever I see them frothing at the mouth at the mention of gay marriage, I wonder why they're not half as passionate about divorce, which Jesus clearly spoke out against.

While I believe in the separation of church and state, I can at least respect Christians who are consistent in their beliefs and oppose abortion, contraception and LGBT rights for theological reasons while at the same time caring for the poor, sick and foreign among us. And to be fair, there are plenty of political parties like that in Europe and South America. In my country we have the Christian Union, for example.

However, I can also understand the worries of those on the right who see many troubling signs in governmental actions. When I mentioned extreme left issues in an earlier post I meant certain trends which have caused great concern among Christians. I wasn't necessarily thinking in terms of gay marriage or an overturn of Roe vs. Wade. My ideas were centered mostly on federal and party initiatives which sought to attack religious liberty. I understand that Christians cannot impose their values on others, but is it equally legitimate to expect states and international bodies not to interfere with the freedom of practice of Christians.

Unfortunately, religious freedom is suffocated when Catholic organizations are being threatened with the $70 million fine by the federal government and obliged to provide contraceptive and abortion costs in the medical insurance for their staff, all of which is contrary to Catholic teachings.

This is what the law says (source):

[FONT=&amp]Under the new policy to be announced today, women will have free preventive care that includes contraceptive services no matter where she works. The policy also ensures that if a woman works for a religious employer with objections to providing contraceptive services as part of its health plan, the religious employer will not be required to provide, pay for or refer for contraception coverage, but her insurance company will be required to directly offer her contraceptive care free of charge.

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]The new policy ensures women can get contraception without paying a co-pay and fully accomodates important concerns raised by religious groups by ensuring that objecting non-profit religious employers will not have to provide contraceptive coverage or refer women to organizations that provide contraception.[/FONT]

[FONT=&amp]

How does this interfere with the freedom of practice of Christians? Just because a private insurance company gives people, regardless of religion, the option of contraceptive care does not mean Christians are forced to take it. They are free to decline if they believe it violates their religious beliefs. They just can't forbid other people who don't share their beliefs from pursuing legal and common ways of family planning - and not all Christians believe birth control or abortion (in certain cases) is a sin.

When small businesses are accused of “hate” crimes and sued into almost bankruptcy because they will not bake cakes and take photographs at gay unions, something is terribly wrong with the notion of real tolerance. I remember writing extensively last year in a thread and condemning ER people who refused to assist gay folks. Obviously, there cannot be any objection of conscience when it comes to offering medical assistance. But I don't think a similar case can be made in non life-threatening situations.

[/FONT]

It's not that black and white though. A few decades ago, the exact same reasoning was used to support segregation and laws against miscegenation. Would you be alright with a restaurant owner refusing to serve an interracial couple because he believes race mixing is sinful? What if a Muslim gas station owner refuses to fill the tank for a young couple because he notices they're not wearing a wedding band? What if a Hindu business owner declines to interact with disabled customers because he believes they're cursed?

In general, my position would be that private businesses are free to discriminate against any group of people they like, provided they post a sign outside the door and on their website that clearly announces which people they refuse to serve. That way, the business owner can keep a clear conscience, the "unacceptable" customers are spared the embarrassment of being refused service, and other customers can decide for themselves whether they wish to patronise businesses that discriminate against people based on race, sexual orientation or disability. That doesn't always work in practice though because the US has many areas that are sparsely populated and there may not be an alternative business for miles. What if that gas station owner is the only one in the middle of nowhere, do you leave people stranded?

When members of a political party create front “Catholic” organizations which are aimed at changing Catholic doctrine from within the Church by inciting a “spring”/ revolution something is not just wrong, but deeply disturbing (here) Is it any wonder such an initiative from the Clinton campaign would be more than troublesome for many Catholics?

I have read the article you linked to. Even though it comes from a conservative Catholic website and is obviously slanted, I don't find the quote that is alleged to be from Podesta troubling at all. The assumption is that more progressive Catholics who believe in things like the ordination of women and access to birth control are not "real" Catholics, which is of course patently ridiculous. Podesta said that "Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up" meaning there needs to be enough grass roots support from Catholics to effect change in the Church.

Most Catholics don't have views that are perfectly aligned with the Church. Just consider these findings about American Catholics, for example (source):

Isn't it perfectly reasonable that someone like Podesta, who is a Catholic himself, strives for a "bottom up revolution" to make the Church better reflect the views of most Catholics? It's not like the Catholic Church hasn't reformed itself many times in the past. The current Pope is somewhat of a reformer himself and yet he's incredibly popular among Catholics.

And these things happen not only in the U.S., but also on the international level. When UN agencies and the U.S. condition aid on the acceptance of issues which traditionally Christian societies in Africa or Latin America do not embrace, something is terribly wrong. (here)Just as conversions to Christianity shouldn't have been made by the sword in the past or imposed in the present, nor should the liberal and “tolerant” agenda be financially blackmailed into vulnerable countries. In a conflict of ideas and values neither violence, nor financial incentives have any real place. People should be neither coerced nor bought into any particular lifestyle, set of values or world view. I believe that is what genuine freedom is all about. And freedom is at the heart of liberalism, isn't it? Or at least it ought to be.

I believe that LGBT rights are human rights rather than privileges for those who happened to be born in the West. I don't want my government to provide financial support to regimes that imprison or murder people based on sexual orientation. Again, you put religious freedom above all else. At the end of the day, religion is a choice whereas sexual orientation is not (although you imply that it is when you equate it with lifestyle, set of values and world view). What about the freedom of LGBT people to live without fear of persecution?

Genuine freedom for me is letting people live their lives the way they see fit as long as they're not harming anyone else. Locking people up in a cage for life because they happened to fall in love with someone from the same gender does not meet that description and there is no justification for it.

 

[KOPV]

With all the polls - yes it gives you an idea of demographic but really what put Trump into office was relatability and his use of the media.. As much as many do not agree with him, lets not forget he is a salesman first.. Salesmen first job is relatability, getting specific thoughts into peoples minds (the way he repeated words, used punch lines) When someone sees something as too complicated they shut down, Donald definitely dumbed sh** down..

You take that, plus the timing of a need for a change from untrusted traditional politics (having a candidate -Hillar that is dealing with trust issues) gave enough window for trump to get in.. The democrats lost faith in there candidate!

Lets still not forget that Hillary received more votes.. If we took solely of what the population wanted - Hillary would be the next president.. which speaks a lot considering the drama around her.. he still got less # of votes.

 

[Antwort]

How does this interfere with the freedom of practice of Christians? Just because a private insurance company gives people, regardless of religion, the*option*of contraceptive care does not mean Christians are forced to take it. They are free to decline if they believe it violates their religious beliefs.*

The case was not about individual Christians being forced to take contraceptives. That would be highly illogical considering the fact that nuns were the ones bringing the case. (Although a few headlines from across Europe can contain notorious exceptions.) The problem was the religious order was being forced to provide its employees coverage for services which Catholic doctrine considers sin.

A 2014 decision from the Supreme Court held that profit making companies couldn't be obliged to do so. Please excuse the blatantly Christian source for the article, but it was the quickest link I could find.

"The Supreme Court holds government can’t require closely held corporations with religious owners to provide contraception coverage". "HHS’s contraception mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion,” the decision reads, adding that the “decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to mean that all insurance mandates.” The opinion said the “plain terms of Religious Freedom Restoration Act” are “perfectly clear.”

“If the owners comply with the HHS mandate, they believe they will be facilitating abortions, and if they do not comply, they will pay a very heavy price — as much as $1.3 million per day, or about $475 million per year, in the case of one of the companies,” the opinion reads. “If these consequences do not amount to a substantial burden, it is hard to see what would.”

If that argument can be made for a profit-making company, I would say it is even more valid for a non-profit entity. What I think though is beyond irrelevant. The case of the Little Sisters of the Poor remains to be settled by the Supreme Court in due time.

At the end of the day, religion is a choice whereas sexual orientation is not (although you imply that it is when you equate it with lifestyle, set of values and world view).

Indeed you sense right – I do believe sexual orientation to be a choice, therefore I will not venture any further into a debate about the definition of discrimination because it would take the thread into an even more O/T territory than it may already seem to many. Let us simply agree to disagree on this particular issue, ok? I will make a couple of other observations though.

With regards to the views of certain American Catholics and the chart you posted and the so-called “grassroots” origin of the Podesta intent – I am well aware of the views of some Catholics that do not agree with the teachings of the Church. Borrowing a phrase from you, I would say that they fit very well into the archetype of those who pick and choose which parts of doctrine they are comfortable with. And same as some people turn a blind eye to social justice and environmental issues, the 'progressives' tend to ignore the thorny issues surrounding the theology of the body. Being aware of these opinions is exactly why I said “many” and not all Catholics would be bothered by such a campaign.

This may be a controversial opinion but I have personally always seen much of the "Christian Right" as a front for bigotry and intolerance. They pick and choose the parts of the Bible they agree with but completely ignore others which imo are more fundamental to Jesus' message, such as caring for the sick and poor, being welcoming to immigrants (or sejourners as they are called in the Bible), refraining from judgment, being good stewards of the environment, sharing your wealth with the less fortunate, pacifism, etc. Whenever I see them frothing at the mouth at the mention of gay marriage, I wonder why they're not half as passionate about divorce, which Jesus clearly spoke out against.*

While I believe in the separation of church and state, I can at least respect Christians who are consistent in their beliefs and oppose abortion, contraception and LGBT rights for theological reasons while at the same time caring for the poor, sick and foreign among us. And to be fair, there are plenty of political parties like that in Europe and South America. In my country we have the*Christian Union, for example.*

I'm not sure if I agree with you about your premise, but I most definitely am in agreement with all else. As you already know from the Atheist thread, I've already made my opinion more than clear about all the ills plaguing Christian families, including divorce. Those many issues including domestic violence, child abuse and adultery ought to be addressed first before panicking about gay marriage. And, as I already stated yesterday, I believe all life-related issues to be essential to Christianity. And that is why I want to end my intervention on this note - around the things we do agree on. Focusing on differences and disagreements obviously makes for some interesting debates and conversations, but at times it is equally important to focus on the things we do concur on, such as the ones above

Sorry again everyone for taking the thread a bit too far away from the election results!

 

[KOPV]

sexual orientation IS a choice no one can debate that.....


Sexual preference is not.. Those are two different things, but just like a straight person would not chose to orientate themselves sexually with someone of the same sex would be the same way person that is gay would chose not to be with someone of a different sex..

Those who think choosing attraction is something can turned on and off obviously has not studied scientifically in this matter.. It's as backward thinking as those who don't believe that global warming Is real..

While environment does effect what he/she likes/dislikes.. A lot of chemistry is involved heavily. I don't understand how people smart enough to acknowledge (For example that a human chromosomes can have someone bornas literally both sexes cannot wrap their minds around how chemically and neurologicallysomeone can be born to be attacked to types/sexes..

Sexual preference scientifically is NOT a choice! there is nothing to debate, it's simply science.

 

[Amaya]

You guys do realize nobody's forcing you all to stay, right?

I don't naturally support Trump, but seriously, complaining isn't going to do much shit.

Moving out of the country isn't that simple for most people. There's a lot of factors involved: how to legally enter the country, how citizenship is obtained, how the laws vary from your home country's laws, employment opportunities, housing opportunities, what services are available, exiting from one's current job (if employed), the cost of moving, the cost of living in where you're going, the fact that you may never see your friends or family ever again, or at least less often than usual... that can be very taxing on people. So taxing that they may just decide it's not worth it. In some cases, it may not be an option at all.

And complaining = freedom of speech. I know people don't like it when some complain but unless they make it illegal to speak ill of Trump and the government, it's not going to stop.

 

[KOPV]

ItsSomething - this JUST happened, let people vent.. jeez!! This is a big deal and we are all so very shocked. It is clear you are not directly effected by Trump being elected. If lets say your family was going to be split apart because of this YOU would have something to say too.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

I was just thinking.....now, I know that many of us here dislike/hate Trump (including myself), BUT do y'all think he would posthumously award MJ The Presidential Medal Of Freedom?

Here's the criteria for getting the award.

"The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the Nation's highest civilian honor, presented to individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors.

Any thoughts?

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Oh, and just to give y'all an idea of the type of people that can win the award, here are this years winners, and with some of the people on this list nobody can tell me MJ isn't OVERDUE for winning this award (although Obama obviously wasn't going to do it).
Heck, going by some of the things Obama himself said in the statement below (which I bolded for y'all) MJ without a doubt deserves this award, yet for TWO terms he tap danced around giving it to him.:no:

The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate ReleaseNovember 16, 2016
President Obama Names Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama named 21 recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom. The Presidential Medal of Freedom is the Nation’s highest civilian honor, presented to individuals who have made especially meritorious contributions to the security or national interests of the United States, to world peace, or to cultural or other significant public or private endeavors. The awards will be presented at the White House on November 22nd.

President Obama said, "The Presidential Medal of Freedom is not just our nation's highest civilian honor - it's a tribute to the idea that all of us, no matter where we come from, have the opportunity to change this country for the better. From scientists, philanthropists, and public servants to activists, athletes, and artists, these 21 individuals have helped push America forward, inspiring millions of people around the world along the way."

This event will be streamed live at: www.whitehouse.gov/live.

The following individuals will be awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom:

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is the National Basketball Association’s all-time leading scorer who helped lead the Los Angeles Lakers to five championships and the Milwaukee Bucks to another. During his career, Abdul-Jabbar was a six-time NBA Most Valuable Player and a 19-time NBA All-Star. Before joining the NBA, he was a star player at UCLA, leading the Bruins to three consecutive championships. In addition to his legendary basketball career, Abdul-Jabbar has been an outspoken advocate for social justice.

Elouise Cobell (posthumous)

Elouise Cobell was a Blackfeet Tribal community leader and an advocate for Native American self-determination and financial independence. She used her expertise in accounting to champion a lawsuit that resulted in a historic settlement, restoring tribal homelands to her beloved Blackfeet Nation and many other tribes, and in so doing, inspired a new generation of Native Americans to fight for the rights of others. Cobell helped found the Native American Bank, served as director of the Native American Community Development Corporation, and inspired Native American women to seek leadership roles in their communities.

Ellen DeGeneres

Ellen DeGeneres is an award-winning comedian who has hosted her popular daytime talk show, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, since 2003 with her trademarked humor, humility, and optimism. In 2003 Ellen lent her voice to a forgetful but unforgettable little fish named Dory in Finding Nemo. She reprised her role again in 2016 with the hugely successful Finding Dory. Ellen also hosted the Academy Awards twice, in 2007 and 2014. In 1997, after coming out herself, DeGeneres made TV history when her character on Ellen revealed she was a lesbian. In her work and in her life, she has been a passionate advocate for equality and fairness.

Robert De Niro

Robert De Niro has brought to life some of the most memorable roles in American film during a career that spans five decades. His first major film roles were in the sports drama Bang the Drum Slowly and Martin Scorsese's crime film Mean Streets. He is a seven-time Academy Award nominee and two-time Oscar winner, and is also a Kennedy Center honoree.

Richard Garwin

Richard Garwin is a polymath physicist who earned a Ph.D. under Enrico Fermi at age 21 and subsequently made pioneering contributions to U.S. defense and intelligence technologies, low-temperature and nuclear physics, detection of gravitational radiation, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computer systems, laser printing, and nuclear arms control and nonproliferation. He directed Applied Research at IBM’s Thomas J. Watson Research Center and taught at the University of Chicago, Columbia University, and Harvard University. The author of 500 technical papers and a winner of the National Medal of Science, Garwin holds 47 U.S. patents, and has advised numerous administrations.

Bill and Melinda Gates

Bill and Melinda Gates established the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in 2000 to help all people lead healthy, productive lives. In developing countries, the foundation focuses on improving people's health and giving them the chance to lift themselves out of hunger and extreme poverty. In the United States, the mission is to ensure that all people—especially those with the fewest resources—have access to the opportunities they need to succeed in school and life. The Gates Foundation has provided more than $36 billion in grants since its inception.

Frank Gehry

Frank Gehry is one of the world’s leading architects, whose works have helped define contemporary architecture. His best-known buildings include the Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, the Dancing House in Prague, and the Guggenheim Museum building in Bilbao, Spain.

Margaret H. Hamilton

Margaret H. Hamilton led the team that created the on-board flight software for NASA's Apollo command modules and lunar modules. A mathematician and computer scientist who started her own software company, Hamilton contributed to concepts of asynchronous software, priority scheduling and priority displays, and human-in-the-loop decision capability, which set the foundation for modern, ultra-reliable software design and engineering.

Tom Hanks

Tom Hanks is one of the Nation’s finest actors and filmmakers. He has been nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor in a Leading Role five times, and received the award for his work in Philadelphia and Forrest Gump. Those roles and countless others, including in Apollo 13, Saving Private Ryan, and Cast Away, have left an indelible mark on American film. Off screen, as an advocate, Hanks has advocated for social and environmental justice, and for our veterans and their families.

Grace Hopper (posthumous)

Rear Admiral Grace Hopper, known as “Amazing Grace” and “the first lady of software,” was at the forefront of computers and programming development from the 1940s through the 1980s. Hopper’s work helped make coding languages more practical and accessible, and she created the first compiler, which translates source code from one language into another. She taught mathematics as an associate professor at Vassar College before joining the United States Naval Reserve as a lieutenant (junior grade) during World War II, where she became one of the first programmers of the Harvard Mark I computer and began her lifelong leadership role in the field of computer science.

Michael Jordan

Michael Jordan is one of the greatest athletes of all time. Jordan played 15 seasons in the NBA for the Chicago Bulls and Washington Wizards; he is currently a principal owner and chairman of the Charlotte Hornets. During his career, he won six championships, five Most Valuable Player awards, and appeared in 14 All-Star games.

Maya Lin

Maya Lin is an artist and designer who is known for her work in sculpture and landscape art. She designed the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington D.C. and since then has pursued a celebrated career in both art and architecture. A committed environmentalist, Lin is currently working on a multi-sited artwork/memorial, What is Missing? bringing awareness to the planet's loss of habitat and biodiversity.

Lorne Michaels

Lorne Michaels is a producer and screenwriter, best known for creating and producing Saturday Night Live, which has run continuously for more than 40 years. In addition, Michaels has also produced The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, Late Night with Seth Meyers, and 30 Rock, among other popular, award-winning shows. He has won 13 Emmy Awards over the course of his lengthy career.

Newt Minow

Newt Minow is an attorney with a long and distinguished career in public life. After serving in the U.S. Army during World War II, Minow served as a Supreme Court clerk and counsel to the Governor of Illinois. In 1961, President Kennedy selected Minow, then 34, to serve as Chairman of the Federal Communications Committee (FCC), where he helped shape the future of American television and was a vigorous advocate for broadcasting that promoted the public interest. In the five decades since leaving the FCC, Minow has maintained a prominent private law practice while devoting himself to numerous public and charitable causes.

Eduardo Padrón

Eduardo Padrón is the President of Miami Dade College (MDC), one of the largest institutions of higher education in the United States. During his more than four decade career, President Padrón has been a national voice for access and inclusion. He has worked to ensure all students have access to high quality, affordable education. He has championed innovative teaching and learning strategies making MDC a national model of excellence.

Robert Redford

Robert Redford is an actor, director, producer, businessman, and environmentalist. In 1981, he founded the Sundance Institute to advance the work of independent filmmakers and storytellers throughout the world, including through its annual Sundance Film Festival. He has received an Academy Award for Best Director and for Lifetime Achievement. Redford has directed or starred in numerous motion pictures, including The Candidate, All the President's Men, Quiz Show, and A River Runs Through It.

Diana Ross

Diana Ross has had an iconic career spanning more than 50 years within the entertainment industry in music, film, television, theater, and fashion. Diana Ross is an Academy Award nominee, inductee into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, and recipient of the Grammy Awards highest honor, the Lifetime Achievement Award. Ross was a recipient of the 2007 Kennedy Center Honors. Diana Ross’s greatest legacy is her five wonderful children.

Vin Scully

Vin Scully is a broadcaster who, for 67 seasons, was the voice of the Brooklyn and Los Angeles Dodgers. In Southern California, where generations of fans have grown up listening to Dodger baseball, Scully's voice is known as the "soundtrack to summer." In 1988, he was inducted into the National Baseball Hall of Fame. Scully's signature voice brought to life key moments in baseball history, including perfect games by Sandy Koufax and Don Larsen, Kirk Gibson's home run in the 1988 World Series, and Hank Aaron's record-breaking 715th home run.

Bruce Springsteen

Bruce Springsteen is a singer, songwriter, and bandleader. More than five decades ago, he bought a guitar and learned how to make it talk. Since then, the stories he has told, in lyrics and epic live concert performances, have helped shape American music and have challenged us to realize the American dream. Springsteen is a Kennedy Center honoree and he and the E Street Band he leads have each been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Cicely Tyson

Cicely Tyson has performed on the stage, on television, and on the silver screen. She has won two Emmy Awards and a Tony Award, and is known for her performances in Sounder, The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pittman, and The Help. In 2013, she returned to the stage with The Trip to the Bountiful, and was awarded the Tony Award for best leading actress. Tyson received the Kennedy Center Honors in 2015.

 

[LindavG]

It would have been better if Michael was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom when he was still alive.

 

[Miel]

I think so, too.

But, it will also be great to award, even posthumously, Michael for all his contributions to the Pop culture and humanitarian causes. He worked so hard. His contributions deserve to be more well known.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

It would have been better if Michael was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom when he was still alive.

Well yeah, obviously, I definitely agree with you.:yes:
I think that's what we all wish would've happened, but there's literally zero chance of that happening now, so we've gotta look at what CAN be done, and Michael CAN be given the award posthumously. :yes:

I think so, too.

But, it will also be great to award, even posthumously, Michael for all his contributions to the Pop culture and humanitarian causes. He worked so hard. His contributions deserve to be more well known.

Yep!

 

[KOPV]

Trump would only give that award to Michael IF it helped his own celebrity.. The same way he used Michaels name as a 'friend'.. All for publicity and fame..

 

[Annita]

Trump would only give that award to Michael IF it helped his own celebrity.. The same way he used Michaels name as a 'friend'.. All for publicity and fame..

I am sure not someone who would support Trump but I do not see this. In direcection to Michael I appreciate his statements and he did not change it over the years and said clearly in the trial-time he will stick to Michael and does not believe the allagations.

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

Trump would only give that award to Michael IF it helped his own celebrity.. The same way he used Michaels name as a 'friend'.. All for publicity and fame..

True, Trump does like to name drop MJ, and has said negative things about him before, but it's still better then MJ not getting the award at all.
For me, MJ getting the award isn't about Trump as a person or as a celebrity, it's about MJ getting the award, and by default I'm sure we have a better chance of Trump giving him the award then with Obama who we probably had zero chance with.

 

[barbee0715]

Some people here were working on a letter about this last year. I'll try to find that thread. I didn't see it going through with Obama in office, but I do see it with Trump. He's talked about Michael several times-talking about that opening to Taj Mahal and going to Ryan White's house; his wife talked about him too-in good ways.

I didn't realize Diana Ross didn't have one already-

 

[HIStoric]

True, Trump does like to name drop MJ, and has said negative things about him before, but it's still better then MJ not getting the award at all.

What did that misogynist oompa-loompa say about MJ?

 

[h0opman31]

**** trump, waiting for his racist, sexist, mysogynist, xenephobe, homophobe, islamophobe ass to be impeached.

 

[h0opman31]

I was just thinking.....now, I know that many of us here dislike/hate Trump (including myself), BUT do y'all think he would posthumously award MJ The Presidential Medal Of Freedom?

Here's the criteria for getting the award.


Any thoughts?

I think hes awarding Kareem Abdul JabBar and Michael Jordan (the other MJ)

 

[KOPV]

The fact that the 'hope' we have for trump is to possibly/maybe give MJ an award is F'ing sad.. That's so minor to the issues out there!

 

[Ms. BlueGangsta]

What did that misogynist oompa-loompa say about MJ?

If I can remember correctly he said something like Michael "had bad surgery" and that he had "lost confidence."
I legit have no idea why he felt the need to say this.
I might post the video if I can find it.

The fact that the 'hope' we have for trump is to possibly/maybe give MJ an award is F'ing sad.. That's so minor to the issues out there!

Agreed, but eventually I'm guessing he will give out the award, and why not have one of them go to Michael?