US Politics - All He Wants for Christmas Was His Two Dead Sheep

[Ormond]

19 hours ago, Paladin of Ice said:

It might help to know the history that is at play. Southern Baptists are the largest group among Evangelicals, (and the single largest protestant group in the US) and the reason that Southern always appears in their name is because before the US Civil War, the Southern Baptists and the Northern ones split over the issue of slavery. Baptists in the north were strongly for the release and freeing of slaves, Baptists in the south had gotten their way into the favor of the southern ruling class by giving up all that talk, and they weren't about to give up all the sweet influence and power they got as a result.

So the Southern Baptists became a branch of Christianity tailored for the (then future) Confederacy, and were tied to the specific culture and power structure of the South for a generation before the Civil War. After the War the Baptist Church and the centers of power in the South were more or less one and the same. It's no accident that Southern Baptist Churches were some of the biggest pushers for Jim Crow laws and segregation, or that fundamentalist Christian schools like Bob Jones University or Jerry Falwell's Liberty University were founded as "Segregation Academies", schools that opened as whites only private schools in response to the Supreme Court decision that public schools had to desegregate. (In fact in the 50s and 60s Falwell was specifically fighting against civil rights and MLK in particular, and the modern religious right movement got started when first Ford and then Carter threatened to crack down on and strip the tax free status from schools that didn't integrate or churches that continued to preach against integration.)

Now to be fair, (probably more fair than I'd like to be, as I have a metric fuckton of loathing for the religious right in the U.S.) there has been a split between the Conservative old timer and wannabe Confederacy and more moderate leaders within the Southern Baptist Convention that has emerged within the last few years, with their most notable victory probably being the official SBC resolution they gave condemning the alt-right in 2017, although that only came after a bitter and protracted fight with the old guard, who are now clinging to power all the more jealously for it.

Hopefully that's helpful when it comes to understanding the leadership of the U.S. religious right, and what they've been preaching/where they've been leading their followers.

Thanks for the informative post. I'd like to add two points:

Baptists of all stripes have a "congregational" polity or governing structure, giving the most power to individual local churches, so there is the possibility of even greater variation between individual congregations and state associations than in other Protestant denominations.

For the last 12 years membership in the SBC has been declining. Though it's still the largest Protestant denomination in the USA, its share of both the overall population and among self-identified "Evangelicals" is going down, not up as some still seem to think. That's relevant because SBC members tend to be even more politically conservative than other Evangelicals.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/07/7-facts-about-southern-baptists/

[Fragile Bird]

14 hours ago, mcbigski said:

It's not like that's an original idea.  I know it's conservative to uphold the norms, but when democrat controlled areas promote sanctuary cities to inflate their ballot count, the norms will be trashed eventually.

Am I missing something about sanctuary cities? Aren’t they sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, who can’t vote? How does this inflate ballot count?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

20 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Am I missing something about sanctuary cities? Aren’t they sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, who can’t vote? How does this inflate ballot count?

Larger populations lead to more congressional seats. That said, I’m guessing it’s pretty marginal statistically and it doesn’t really address the countless errors in the post you quoted.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On 12/22/2019 at 12:07 PM, mormont said:

Washington State rep Matt Shea 'participated in domestic terrorism', according to an official report:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/20/matt-shea-domestic-terrorism-washington-state-report

But of course Shea is refusing to resign: citing Trump, he's denouncing the investigation as unfair, a conspiracy, etc.

Matt Shea should be expelled from the Washington State Legislature.  He should be investigated for his activities and if warranted he should be tried for any crimes he committed.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

16 hours ago, mcbigski said:

This guy is probably an asshole, but maybe not engaging in unfair conspiratorial witch hunts would prevent these sorts of claims.

It's not like that's an original idea.  I know it's conservative to uphold the norms, but when democrat controlled areas promote sanctuary cities to inflate their ballot count, the norms will be trashed eventually.

He admits to spreading a pamphlet that calls for the execution of any men who will not submit to their version of theocratic rule.  He is literally fomenting a Christian/American version of the Taliban except he's also explicitly advocating genocide against any males who disagree with him.  

How again is this a "nothing to see here" moment where we should be focused on Trump's persecution complex?

[Kalbear]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

He admits to spreading a pamphlet that calls for the execution of any men who will not submit to their version of theocratic rule.  He is literally fomenting a Christian/American version of the Taliban except he's also explicitly advocating genocide against any males who disagree with him.  

How again is this a "nothing to see here" moment where we should be focused on Trump's persecution complex?

Because it's free speech, no?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

Because it's free speech, no?

It is speech that makes an explicit threat.  Shea, I think you will agree, is, at a minimum, unworthy of the office he holds and the Washington House of Representatives has every reason to expel him from that body.  

If he has gone beyond mere pamphleteering and actually engaged in illegal actions in support of his advocacy of Dominionism he should be investigated, charged with his crimes, and imprisoned if convicted.  

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It is speech that makes an explicit threat. 

Sorry, how does it make an explicit threat? Calling for some people to die at some point is not remotely explicit - it does not name any specific people, any specific place or any specific time. 

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Shea, I think you will agree, is, at a minimum, unworthy of the office he holds and the Washington House of Representatives has every reason to expel him from that body.  

Sure, but not for this. He should be expelled because he helped orchestrate an act of domestic terrorism. His horrifying views are not disqualifying by themselves. 

 

[Fragile Bird]

The Saudis have announced 5 men will be executed for their roles in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. 
 

The Crown Prince, his executive assistant who apparently supervised the execution, the head of security, and the consul in the embassy in Turkey are not among them.
 

The names of the chosen goats were not announced.

[maarsen]

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

The Saudis have announced 5 men will be executed for their roles in the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. 
 

The Crown Prince, his executive assistant who apparently supervised the execution, the head of security, and the consul in the embassy in Turkey are not among them.
 

The names of the chosen goats were not announced.

"Round up the usual suspects."

[Jace, Extat]

10 minutes ago, maarsen said:

"Round up the usual suspects."

"Excellent news sir, I have a number in custody right now who will do nicely."

[IheartIheartTesla]

Looks like Warren has slipped to 3rd place since her high watermark in mid-October in the national primary polls. There is a scenario where Pete and Sanders may get IA and NH in their pockets, and then Biden would begin his run. Unless she finds a way to pick up some wins her road and the pressure on her may become tougher.

Not to beat the same drum over and over again, but I loathe the primary calendar where someone like her could be forced to drop out earlier than Mayor Pete.

National approval polls for Trump remain in the same narrow band. The 2020 elections are still on a knife-edge, in my opinion.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

10 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

National approval polls for Trump remain in the same narrow band. The 2020 elections are still on a knife-edge, in my opinion. 

It won't move. Faux News Propaganda Network, and the Zuckerberg habitat for online trolls will make sure of that (a part of me is really curious how many folks here have deleted their account there, but that's another story).

Those two factors are almost all the difference between Trump and Nixon. And the stockmarkets are still on their sugar rush. But I am not sure that hoping for the economy to come down is the way to go. Anyway...

14 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

Looks like Warren has slipped to 3rd place since her high watermark in mid-October in the national primary polls. There is a scenario where Pete and Sanders may get IA and NH in their pockets, and then Biden would begin his run. Unless she finds a way to pick up some wins her road and the pressure on her may become tougher. 

Is her campaign doing that badly financially?

With the GE coming nearer, I am not so sure I want Warren (or Bernie for that matter) to be around for too long. I think the valuable votes there lie in suburbs, with the college educated Republicans just being utterly disillusioned and disgusted with the Orange one. Fighting for the lost working class votes in Erie might be a tougher ask. And I am not sure how Warren is polling in either group.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Has anyone ever seen an old man tilting at windmills about actual windmills?

That's meta.

[Altherion]

20 hours ago, Triskele said:

I think that there has been a stated reason for why this is or at least a partial explanation which is that they were genuinely terrified that the financial system was close to collapse and that the situation was very delicate.   

But that doesn't do much to explain why they were not so great on other things like mortgages.

It's a stated reason, but I don't know how many people bought it after the finance industry came out of the crisis better off than it was before within a few years whereas many ordinary people either took 2-3 times longer to recover or never recovered at all.

17 hours ago, DMC said:

And if it has changed since, how?  Or if not, why focus on Obama?

It was not I who first brought up Obama -- I was merely replying to other posts in the thread. As to the reason for focusing on him, he came to power in a time of crisis. In ordinary times, it requires a truly extraordinary leader and/or a great deal of luck to effect major changes, but in the middle of the worst recession in many decades, it's considerably easier. Obama had a chance that only comes around a few times a century and we can all see the outcome.

[DireWolfSpirit]

5 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Has anyone ever seen an old man tilting at windmills about actual windmills?

That's meta.

Don Quixote is the CIC.

7 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

It won't move. Faux News Propaganda Network, and the Zuckerberg habitat for online trolls will make sure of that (a part of me is really curious how many folks here have deleted their account there, but that's another story).

Currently maintaining a lifetime ban against both Faux News Propaganda and FB and having no intention of lifting either in at least the next decade.

[DireWolfSpirit]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

Obama had a chance that only comes around a few times a century and we can all see the outcome.

The outcome being a two term Presidency that displayed extraordinary leadership, wisdom and grace, the likes of which we have fallen so far from, that we can only dream that our ship could be righted to again.

Where we WERE and where we ARE.

[maarsen]

8 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

The outcome being a two term Presidency that displayed extraordinary leadership, wisdom and grace, the likes of which we have fallen so far from, that we can only dream that our ship could be righted to again.

Where we WERE and where we ARE.

There are few times in history indeed where one can see where the course has been changed for the better by a simple act. 

One more example on this continent is the decision by Quebec to guarantee child care for women who want to work for the price of 9 dollars per day. At the time pundits were sure that this would be another nail in the coffin of a struggling economy. The results are in and  female participation in the workforce has shot up and Quebec has the strongest economy in Canada now, after being a perennial have not. 

There are those on this board who complain about the right not being taken seriously. Show me evidence where your theories lift people out of poverty. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

14 hours ago, Altherion said:

It's a stated reason, but I don't know how many people bought it after the finance industry came out of the crisis better off than it was before within a few years whereas many ordinary people either took 2-3 times longer to recover or never recovered at all.

It was not I who first brought up Obama -- I was merely replying to other posts in the thread. As to the reason for focusing on him, he came to power in a time of crisis. In ordinary times, it requires a truly extraordinary leader and/or a great deal of luck to effect major changes, but in the middle of the worst recession in many decades, it's considerably easier. Obama had a chance that only comes around a few times a century and we can all see the outcome.

This is true, but keep in mind Obama had an extremely partisan Congress with a majority for only about a year and a half, and a sliver of a majority at that.  We haven't seen a Congress that unwilling to work across the aisle since ????

On the other hand, Obama seems to have been a technocrat-centrist in progressive clothing in hindsight.  He didn't have the kind of legislative support needed to tackle the finance industry in any meaningful way*, whether he wanted to or not.  There being no possibly of working with Congress, he was essentially forced to punt on financial regulation, immigration, climate change, and reining in the expansion of executive power.

I will say that had McCain or Romney won we'd be in an even shittier situation, so thanks, Obama.  May have avoided Trump but him or someone like him gaining the WH would have been inevitable the way the GOP had been banging the racism/racism/yeeehawwww ignorance/fuck-the-poor gong for 40+ years.  

*Meaningful reforms being unlikely under any neoliberal government.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 hours ago, maarsen said:

 There are those on this board who complain about the right not being taken seriously. Show me evidence where your theories lift people out of poverty. 

It's called freedumb, silly.