Anyone Watch the Latest Democrat Debate? Anyone care?

[_EAllusion]

It's not that complicated. It's why Trump won the last election. It means putting the economic interests of American citizens first. It's why Trump trounced Jeb Bush in the Republican primary. It's why Trump broke the blue wall in a way no other Republican could have done. And this is why Trump is being impeached. The left knows they can't beat him in an election.

Every single politician thinks they are "putting the economic interests of American citizens first." That description has zero content.

You'd think Trump won a Nixon or Reagan style landslide rather than a super narrow victory in dubious circumstances with the way you talk. Trump is not some juggernaut candidate. He under-performed fundamentals models. He's never been popular. I get that you like him. We all know why. But you don't have to pretend that means he can win elections no Republicans can. Trump lucked his way into a narrow victory at the right time. He may win again, but there's zero reason to think it's because he's a great candidate.

[_Some Schmo]

And this is why Trump is being impeached. The left knows they can't beat him in an election.

Are there any outrageous talking points you aren't willing to repeat?

I haven't met a single left-winger who thinks the Democrats can't beat Trump in an election. If anything, they are overconfident.

The reason he is being impeached is that he's a clear and obvious damned crook who admitted his crimes on TV. Quit lying to yourself. You aren't fooling anyone else.

[_honorentheos]

And this is why Trump is being impeached. The left knows they can't beat him in an election.

Are there any outrageous talking points you aren't willing to repeat?

I haven't met a single left-winger who thinks the Democrats can't beat Trump in an election. If anything, they are overconfident.

The reason he is being impeached is that he's a clear and obvious damned crook who admitted his crimes on TV. Quit lying to yourself. You aren't fooling anyone else.

ajax noted he listens to Mark Levin regularly. I'll occasionally tune in at night for a change of pace and to hear what's going on among the far right talk radio crowd. Last week as the House heard testimony from multiple, credible witnesses that backed up the original whistleblower's complaint Mark Levin was railing about how liberals are pro death while conservatives are pro life, liberals take and conservatives earn, conservatives are patriots who love our country while liberals think the US has never been great, etc., etc. And then he'd say that's why liberals have to try and get rid of Trump through closed door hearing because they can't do it any other way. Trump represents being for life, being able to earn an honest wage and do well from hard work, and all true patriots. So the Democrats in the House are pro death, taking from people who are hard working, and hate America. There's no discussion about the facts, no attempt to frame the news in any other context than Liberals=bad.

That's what that is, I guess, and ajax represents how it manifests in attempts to carry on discourse with people who don't get their "news" from Mark Levin.

[_ajax18]

Did you or did you not participate in a white supremacist message board in which you took sides in a debate over whether "slavs" count as white in which you displayed having given a lot of thought to who counts as white?

Yes or no?

(It's one thing to disavow things you used to think. It's another thing entirely to pretend you never thought them.)

Yeah, I did. For me Slavs count as white if that's what your asking. For me stormfront is a white nationalist board, not supremacist. But yeah, that was 10 years ago. My thinking on things continues to change based on my experiences.

I've shared some information. Can you share as well? How did you ever get involved with Mormonism?

[_ajax18]

Every single politician thinks they are "putting the economic interests of American citizens first.

I disagree. I think many see economic nationalism as deplorable. We're "citizens of the world." We belong to GHWB's new world order. An American citizen has no more birthright to this country and what it has to offer than anyone born anywhere else in the world. That's why having borders is "immoral," to most of them.

[_ajax18]

ajax noted he listens to Mark Levin regularly. I'll occasionally tune in at night for a change of pace and to hear what's going on among the far right talk radio crowd. Last week as the House heard testimony from multiple, credible witnesses that backed up the original whistleblower's complaint Mark Levin was railing about how liberals are pro death while conservatives are pro life, liberals take and conservatives earn, conservatives are patriots who love our country while liberals think the US has never been great, etc., etc. And then he'd say that's why liberals have to try and get rid of Trump through closed door hearing because they can't do it any other way. Trump represents being for life, being able to earn an honest wage and do well from hard work, and all true patriots. So the Democrats in the House are pro death, taking from people who are hard working, and hate America. There's no discussion about the facts, no attempt to frame the news in any other context than Liberals=bad.

Well I'll grant Mark can be abrasive to liberals. Why would Mark hold these kind of opinions if conservatives hate Jews as much they claim?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Doubting Thomas, I do not know the percentage but there are people myself included who read a value the Bible. True there are many who do not. I think inspiration of God means that God pushes people to think and will point a direction. People thinking is the example we need even if the thinking is limited to the natural knowledge human authors have. I realize there are people who believe that God is giving the words so they represent the actual inerrant knowledge that God has.I think it is overwhelmingly obvious that the Bible is not that. I believe that the belief in inerrancy of scripture is an error which injures the health of Christianity, It blocks thought, encourages blindness in service of pointless conformity.

It makes sense, but your version of god is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exists. Are you following Pascal's wager?

[Guest]

Would you like a list? I'm serious. I can list them.

Hey I cheated a little and did a search starting with what we think of as the Golden Rule. Here's a list from kingjamesbibleonline.org.

This should be a good start at meeting your request.

Does the Golden Rule forbid suicide or child marriage?

Okay, how about "Thou shall not commit suicide" or "Thou shall not have child brides"? Child marriage was common in the ancient world and God never bothered to clarify that it is wrong.

Isaac loved his 10 year old spouse Rebecca, but God didn't care.

39 And they all blessed the Lord who brought this thing about, and they gave him Rebecca, the daughter of Bethuel, for a wife for Isaac.

40 And the young woman was of very comely appearance, she was a virgin, and Rebecca was ten years old in those days

https://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/apo/jasher/24.htm

[_DoubtingThomas]

I know of no evidence that God has tried to clarify our moral puzzles for us. We are supposed to figure that stuff out ourselves.

Humanity really needs some guidance in many topics. Abortion for example. Is abortion murder? Only a god would have a definitive answer on that question.

[_Chap]

I know of no evidence that God has tried to clarify our moral puzzles for us. We are supposed to figure that stuff out ourselves.

Humanity really needs some guidance in many topics. Abortion for example. Is abortion murder? Only a god would have a definitive answer on that question.

Stop and think a while, and you may see that it is not reasonable to expect a definitive answer to that question from any source, human or divine.

Look: if you ask 'Is A B', then you have to be sure what A is, and you also have to be sure what B is. Only then can you be sure whether or not A is a subset or an instance of B.

So if you ask 'Is abortion murder', the question as posed only has a definitive answer (yes or no) if you are quite sure what abortion is, and what murder is.

Leaving aside whether you can be quite sure what counts as 'abortion', let's think about 'murder'. Can you think of a hard and fast way of telling us what kind of killing (or allowing death to occur) should count as this thing you call 'murder'? And we are not just talking legal definitions here, thought lord knows those vary quite widely from time to time and place to place, and are subject to endless dispute by lawyers, but about ethics.

Ill-defined questions do not become well-defined simply by asking a deity to answer them.