Yikes, that's some video reference. If you know quite a number of gay Republicans, then I think we can cede you the expertise in familiarity with delusion.
I am really enjoying your postings here as quite the example of an individual's evolution, which of course is a common thread for you.
@CL - Bruce can call me an idiot if he wants. As long as I'm a PRECIOUS idiot.
@BL - Once again, you and I have different way of looking at the world, so we will see different things from our different perspectives. I still respect your experience and convictions, even when I disagree with them. And even when you don't respect mine.
However, calling someone delusional, is different than saying they are deluded. The first is technically a medical diagnosis related to cognitive functioning, while the latter is a common and pretty much universal human foible. The objection is to an incorrect medical term, not a desire that you see me any particular way or another. I couldn't care less, really.
As to what worlds we each live in, mine has quite a number of gay Republicans in it, actually. I can't vouch for yours. Things are much, much different now than they were even 15 years ago. It's not a very uncommon thing. Particularly in academia.
I have noticed over the years, that sometimes those who have been the victims of unreasonable persecution and discrimination, will tend to reflexively keep their defenses up, long after the necessity for those defensive postures has passed. I wouldn't dream of suggesting that you do anything other than whatever makes you comfortable. But I think the culture wars are very nearly over. Those prosecuting them are passing out of power, or passing away. I could point you to sociological papers on the subject describing that change, but you don't need them. If you wanted to read about it in the journals, you already would have done so.
Believe what you want to believe. But please use the words correctly at least.
@oak, know this before I even dive in, I'm no fan of Hillary, that said suggesting therre's no difference between her in donald just doesn't hold water.
Hillary is for raising the minimum wage, Donald is for opening doors to lowering it
Hilary is for ACA which insures tens of millions, Donald is for eliminating it
Hilary is for making college more affording for working families, Trump is indifferent to the current situation
Donald has suggested we might not defend some NATO allies
Donald has suggested having a trade war with China and others
I'm sorry, those are very meaningful differences, meaningful to working class families, meaningful to the least among us and meaningful to us all if he instituted a trade war
Whatever you may think of or lack of differences in character - those policy differences are immense
OakTree, this isn't an apology, but an observation. Someone so well-versed as you in religious matters surely knows that greed, hatred, and delusion are common to most human beings. Maybe you're objecting to my using the term "delusion" because you're wanting me to acknowledge you as an enlightened individual. Sorry, I don't recognize that. I don't recognize enlightenment, as I've said before. You are as prone to a deluded opinion as I am or anyone else is. It's a word -- a common word. And it's a state of mind -- a common state of mind. I know for a fact that you consider me deluded to a degree, and you've not been shy about saying so. I can't fault you for it because I know myself that in some respects, I am deluded. Most people are.
OakTree, the fact is that Theil and other rich gay men vote Republican to protect their wealth from taxes. They aren't making inroads in the Republican party, and I find it laughable that you would talk-up the Log Cabin Republicans to me. Rich gay men live in a different world than the rest of us, and social issues are secondary to financial concerns that afford them the luxury of being Republican.
I really like this movie, moreso than this reviewer. But this review is fair and balanced. Mr. McCoy seems to weigh the film against the source material and not the Tarzan films of past decades. One correction: 1. Edgar Rice Burroughs was not an Englishman. He was an American, born and raised in Chicago. Having read many of the pulp magazines of the early part of the last century, he felt he could write stories as good, or bad, as those he was reading. Thus, John Carter of Mars and Tarzan of the Apes were conceived.
Mr. McCoy is a bit critical of the flashbacks stretching into the 2nd half of the movie, but one of them, the killing of Kala, Tarzan's ape mother, by Chief Mbonga's son and followed by Tarzan killing the young warrior in a vengeful rage, is an important point in this story. It shows us why Chief Mbonga wants to kill Tarzan.
Bruce et al,
"Don't be a precious, entitled idiot." A little inflamed, what? And what about the children?
Cooler minds might wait and see how things develop. If we live in a state staunchly Blue or Red, voting for the Libertarians or Greens (whichever is the stronger) might help shift the political focus.
LBJ was a New Dealer from the get go. Hillary started out Republican and has scarcely drifted beyond self serving issues.
@PR - As always, I find your opinions enlightening and valuable. It is unusual that we disagree substantively, but when we do, we can do so in a civil manner. I value that. Thank you.
"Besides, I am happy with the Second Amendment just as it sits, in contradistinction to the both of you."
Oh, I'm fine with the 2nd Amendment, you shouldn't assume otherwise. I own a bunch of rifles and shotguns. I just think the NRA forgets that it includes the words "well-regulated."
If Trump wins, and the GOP retains the Senate, it's not a shibboleth to say liberal ideals are in for some dark days. Your argument is that Trump won't be any worse than Third Way Republican Lite Clinton. I get it, much of her career has been an exercise in corporate sucking up. But I think it will be far worse with a Trump presidency. Hillary may be compromised, but she's still better than him. By a long shot. Besides, before he became POTUS, LBJ was a Southern segregationist and lapdog for Brown & Root. Then he championed the civil rights legislation, something Kennedy couldn't and likely wouldn't have done. Not to mention created Medicare, which along with SS, has kept more seniors out of poverty than any other factors in history. Before he became POTUS, who would have ever believed LBJ would have done those things? So it's certainly possible that Hillary would make a very good progressive president. (On the down side, there's Vietnam, but the blame for that should rightly be spread out to Kennedy, DDE and HST as well.)
Thanks for the debate.
Let's keep in mind that TN is not in one of the swing states that will actually decide the election.
Ditto to what Bruce said! Which, when you cut to the chase, is not much different than what respected right-wingers like George Will, John Kasich and many others have said or implied. C'mon folks, the stakes are much too high this time around to make a "statement" by voting for someone as reckless and ill-prepared as Trump or voting for a third-party candidate who will likely pull many votes away from Hillary than from Trump. C'mon.
So the NBA now allows teams to play 6 preseason games? Used to be 8 but teams would schedule touring international teams that even in preseason, wasn't much of a game. Good for the NBA to reduce the preseason schedule. NFL.......you're next.
@PR,BVW - I don't think I ever said there was a 'silver lining' anywhere, Packrat. You're misreading me. And I don't think either of you can KNOW what Trump would do as President on most of these issues for which you seem to have an inordinate level of certitude, simply because he IS so impulsive and narcissistic, that he hasn't even thought them through yet. I am completely in disagreement with you about the SCOTUS appointments anyway. We weathered Scalia just fine, and Trump is unlikely to appoint anyone nearly as reactionary as he was. Trump is likely to do as he usually does in business, and find some experts, legal experts not Christian Taliban, then vet the recommended personnel. So what?
Besides, I am happy with the Second Amendment just as it sits, in contradistinction to the both of you. And I don't agree with your assessment of Clinton as having less potential to damage our nation. In fact, with the direction that our government is taking in surveillance and opaque monitoring of the average citizen, I am more fearful of someone who is organized, covert, and in the pocket of the corporatists. While the nationalistic fervor that Trump uses to whip up his base echoes bald fascism as you say, it is the globalist policies of the last forty years -for which Clinton is in no small part responsible- which even allow them purchase in the mind of the US electorate to begin with. So don't act like Clinton is any better. Failure to create a fair social contract will cause people to do awful things. And nobody has fixed the international banking system that is causing all this to begin with. Clinton just glad-hands her way through that crowd, hoping to suck up and get their approval. The chickens, as they say, are coming home to roost.
No, I thoroughly and entirely reject both of your conclusions here. None of us in this comment thread can 'stop an impulsive, narcissistic, know-nothing fascist' from becoming president.
While I appreciate your sense of alarm, I think it is unrealistic to think that it matters one way or another what you do here and now. No moderating force can take the simmering anger out of the largest part of an ignored middle America which allows Trump to exists. That is way too long in the making for a few happy words here to have any effect whatsoever.
I remain just as opposed to Clinton as I am to Trump. And I refuse to endorse either.
The Democrats shouldn't have gamed the system to put Clinton at the head of the column. They should have let Sanders do what he was supposed to do, and start the process of slowly fixing all the damage that has been done to the middle class over that last few decades.
Instead, Clinton is going to lose, and we will get to see whether or not the shibboleth of all your accumulated fears comes to pass.
This isn't a vote about "the lesser of two evils," for god's sake. It's about stopping an impulsive, narcissistic, know-nothing,neo-fascist from being president of your country. The level of damage that could be done by one of these candidates far outweighs the other. Eyes on the prize, people. Don't be a precious, entitled idiot.
"Let's be clear about the moral imperative, because you're trying to cloud it."
No, I'm not trying to cloud it, I'm clarifying it. Vote for whomever your conscience dictates. If that means Gary Johnson or Jill Stein, go for it. Just know that if Trump wins, no matter what his personal attitude toward certain social issues, it will mean the sclerotic heart of social conservatism gets a defibrillator implant with the Court appointments. Trump will owe the religious nuts and there is no reason to believe he won't pay off. Because while you're probably right that he doesn't care about gay marriage.....the upshot is, he doesn't care about gay marriage. Or abortion rights. Or voting rights. Or much of anything else besides self-aggrandizement.
The idea that the election of Trump will have "silver lining" of destroying the corrupt 2 party system is ludicrous. It will only strengthen the GOP and give that party completely over to white nationalism.
@PR - They have that plank for the same reason that Clinton has the plank about the minimum wage. To satisfy a certain constituency within the party, not because the standard bearer believes in it. Both Clinton and Trump are placating their base. They aren't doing any of this stuff because they believe in it. From what I've seen, Trump doesn't care one whit about that social crap. He's from NYC. All he wants, is a chance to adjust policy to make lots of money, and to do that, he's going to set things up to benefit himself and people like him.
Now about that swing state thing. Let's be clear about the moral imperative, because you're trying to cloud it. If you vote your conscience, as is your constitutional duty, and vote for a Libertarian or a Green, you are NOT voting for Trump. You are still voting for who you vote for.
If there are more other people in your state who want Trump than Clinton, then it is THOSE PEOPLE who are voting for Trump. You are not responsible for their vote. If that's their conscience, then that is how our system is designed to record their vote.
My argument, is that if more people joined other parties, we will eventually get to a more representative form of government. So my counter argument to yours, is that holding your nose and voting for 'the lesser of two evils' assures that the evils get worse and worse.
It's time to stop that.
Oak, then why do they still have the party plank that pledges to overturn gay marriage?
"..As for OakTree's delusion that Trump won't appoint social conservatives to SCOTUS -- he has done nothing but pander to religious conservatives, and it is illogical to believe he will change that if elected president..."
Nothing but pander to social conservatives? I beg to differ:
This is the definition of delusion:
de·lu·sion - dəˈlo͞oZHən/
an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.
synonyms: misapprehension, misconception, misunderstanding, mistake, error, misinterpretation, misconstruction, misbelief
The reality is, Theil demonstrates a shift in the importance of the social conservative agenda in the Republican Party. So perhaps if you want to use pejorative language, you are the one who is 'delusional'. Because Theil is our reality.
I think it's fairly obvious that younger conservatives don't care about the dog-whistle social issues that dominated most of your adult life. Log Cabin Republicans have more and more influence in the party. And for fiscal conservatives, the Libertarian Party is an alternative, here and now, with staying power.
"And Social conservatism is dying anyway. Trump has no dog in that fight. He won't be inclined to put an ideologue on the bench. So that's a false flag designed to stir people up who are nominally social liberals, and scare them into voting for Clinton."
I agree with your first sentence here, but have to respectfully disagree with the rest of it. Yes, social conservatism is dying, but they can do an enormous amount of damage on their way to the morgue. It's not a false flag to suggest making sure the SCOTUS trends liberal for the next 20 years is unimportant. Because if that douchebag Trump wins, he most certainly WILL put ideologues on the bench, why would he not? What would stop him? A debt to liberals who didn't support him and made fun of him? If it's one thing we know about that jackass coward, it's that he never forgets a slight. And he would look to screw liberals any chance he got as POTUS. What better way than appointing another Clarence Thomas clone to overturn gay marriage and abortion rights?
In Tennessee, it doesn't matter, but in a swing state, if you vote against Clinton, you're voting against gay rights, against abortion rights, and for theocracy. Just be honest with yourself about it.
By Jackson Baker
download this issue
click here to see more »