Fear of the Left . . .

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

But we might argue that it was at the cost of their moral credibility.

I find it incredibly hard to believe you believe in moral credibility when it comes to politics, especially given your professional background where politics serve an end, either personal or policy wise. If you believe an EV gives two craps what a 'godless, baby-killing, homosexual loving, Christian hating' Liberal thinks I'm gobsmacked. Also, God works in mysterious ways and God uses imperfect people to further His ends. It's akin to a Mormon caring what an 'antimormon' thinks of Governor Herbert or Mike Lee. It works both ways, and the bridge building people talk about is a fantasy.

- Doc

[_Kishkumen]

I watched a brief clip of Rubin talking about this with Joe Rogan. It was pretty funny to watch Rogan tell him, dude, without regulation, building construction quality would go to crap.

"Regulations" is one of those scare words on the right which they seem to equate with squashing freedom. They don't seem to understand how much of it is consumer protection. When I go to the gas station, for instance, I can feel good that the amount of gas it says I'm buying actually ends up in my tank, because there are regulations surrounding the accuracy of gas pumps.

I've run small businesses, so I know what people are complaining about with respect to regulations, but again, this isn't a bad thing just because. Some regulations are good, some aren't.

Large companies will support regulations that make it difficult for small businesses to compete. In certain areas, like minimum wage, I think it would be better to have a tiered system of laws and regulations. Once a business passes a certain threshold of size and/or revenue, it would be required to follow tougher rules. Of course, in other critical areas regulations should apply the same to all.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I just wanted to add to the thread that this morning I saw a spider that looked kind of like Ted Kennedy. That was pretty terrifying.

[_Kishkumen]

I find it incredibly hard to believe you believe in moral credibility when it comes to politics, especially given your professional background where politics serve an end, either personal or policy wise. If you believe an EV gives two craps what a 'godless, baby-killing, homosexual loving, Christian hating' Liberal thinks I'm gobsmacked. Also, God works in mysterious ways and God uses imperfect people to further His ends. It's akin to a Mormon caring what an 'antimormon' thinks of Governor Herbert or Mike Lee. It works both ways, and the bridge building people talk about is a fantasy.

Actually, I believe in moral credibility when it comes to politics BECAUSE of my historical knowledge, not in spite of it. People trade in moral accusations because they work. If they did not work, there would be no point and people would not do it.

In the year 64 there was a conspiracy against Nero. When the emperor’s men interrogated a military officer regarding why he participated in the plot, he inveighed against the emperor’s morality, starting with the fact that Nero killed his mother.

[Guest]

.

[_Kishkumen]

Here’s the thing, Ceeboo. We were mistaken. I was not aware that you did not vote. Now we know. If you were to argue in favor of Trump, then people would assume you voted for him. That’s easily corrected. I told you I did not like the way the question was framed. But I would suppose that as a Christian you would be concerned about the morality of a politician. Maybe you are not. Again, all that is required is clarification.

Yes, it is true that political conversations are increasingly difficult, and maybe the returns have diminished too far. My primary worry is that you would just leave and we would not see you here again.

[Guest]

.

[_Some Schmo]

1. It infers that I voted for Trump
2. It infers that Trump's values is what I based my vote on.
3. It not only infers that Trump earned my vote, it infers that it was his values that earned it.

Please learn what "infer" means. It is not interchangeable with "imply."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Actually, I believe in moral credibility when it comes to politics BECAUSE of my historical knowledge, not in spite of it. People trade in moral accusations because they work. If they did not work, there would be no point and people would not do it.

Sheesh, outside of Jimmy Carter you may never find what you're looking for. Obviously you're not naïve, but this idea we can elect a moral leader to guide an immoral or amoral electorate is, I dunno, fantastically & wantonly ignorant of reality.

I'd prefer a pragmatic leader whose ethics lead to a secure and prosperous state. Given a choice, would you choose a morally impeccable politician who leads us to ruin, or an imperfect one, who beats his wife on occasion and "F"s chickens (like Some Schmo), but provides a secure and prosperous life?

I think that is how EVs viewed this election. A woman who would lead the nation into further decline, or a detestable men who would turn things around. When Liberal hypocrites complain about EV morality they forget the most depraved members of society are Leftists in their view. It's a gulf too wide to bridge.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

I think EV's mostly genuinely believed that moral character matters a lot in a president, but hypocritically changed their mind when it went against their voter preferences and would change it right back again if another Bill Clinton were elected.

I also think what people are taking for granted as true about Trump many EV's are skeptical about, and their assessment of just how bad it really is creates an impasse. There's a difference between Trump's character problems being that he uses crude language or it being that he's a sociopathic grifter who treats people like they are disposable.