So, what happened?

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > So, what happened?

Lacrosse: Jun 16, 2010; >:V

I'm still waiting on an independent news source to verify this, but holy poo poo if it's true.

http://www.jill2016.com/wendy_st_croix_county

quote:

Five of the nine machines being used in the recount have tampered seals. Photos of two are attached. Photo of seal, followed by photo of serial number.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 05:30

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 18:50

Pollyanna: Mar 5, 2005; Milk's on them.

Lacrosse posted:

I'm still waiting on an independent news source to verify this, but holy poo poo if it's true.

http://www.jill2016.com/wendy_st_croix_county

Oh, hooray. I was hoping something crazy would come of the recount. I just want everything to get even more insane.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 05:32

HannibalBarca: Sep 11, 2016; History shows, again and again, how nature points out the folly of man.

Lacrosse posted:

I'm still waiting on an independent news source to verify this, but holy poo poo if it's true.

http://www.jill2016.com/wendy_st_croix_county

lol they could catch republicans redhanded manipulating vote totals (which won't happen) but it won't change anything because the only possible resolution is bloodshed.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 05:34

Lacrosse: Jun 16, 2010; >:V

RE: WI recount: oh yeah, this was also an article posted today before the voting machine tampering post. Trump supporters filed a lawsuit to stop the recount on Thursday.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/breaking-trump-supporters-file-lawsuit-to-stop-wisconsin-recount/

LawNewz.com posted:

Several groups of Donald Trump supporters filed a federal lawsuit late Thursday that seeks to block the ongoing recount of the election results in Wisconsin.

LawNewz.com obtained a copy of the lawsuit that was filed by Great America PAC, the Stop Hillary PAC and Wisconsin individual Wisconsin voter Ronald R. Johnson.

The Wisconsin recount effort was initiated after a lawsuit filed by Jill Stein�s campaign challenged the election results. Hillary Clinton�s campaign filed court documents earlier this week to intervene and participate in that lawsuit.

The group of Trump supporters filed a separate lawsuit on Thursday to block the recount, alleging it threatens the due process rights of Johnson and other individuals who voted for Trump. The lawsuit also contends the recount is likely to result in a number of errors because local jurisdictions are rushing at �quadruple the rate� of other recount efforts in order to meet a December 13th completion deadline

There's a copy of the lawsuit documents on their webpage if you're into that sort of thing.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 06:00

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

They'll protect their right to due process by... The judge shutting down due process? :raise:

# ? Dec 3, 2016 06:13

Hobologist: May 4, 2007; We'll have one entire section labelled "for degenerates"

Crowsbeak posted:

Not all Christians are fygm republicans.

They just vote like them. 80% of the evangelicals went for the Pussygrabber in Chief.

You know what's really :psyduck:

about cnn's exit polls. Of the 17% who thought the President should be more liberal, 23% of them went for Trump.

Hobologist fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Dec 3, 2016

# ? Dec 3, 2016 07:02

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Hobologist posted:

They just vote like them. 80% of the evangelicals went for the Pussygrabber in Chief.

You know what's really about cnn's exit polls. Of the 17% who thought the President should be more liberal, 23% of them went for Trump.

Look at the pew article. It's only white evangelicals who do.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 07:36

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Hobologist posted:

They just vote like them. 80% of the evangelicals went for the Pussygrabber in Chief.

You know what's really about cnn's exit polls. Of the 17% who thought the President should be more liberal, 23% of them went for Trump.

Eh, I could see that. I mean, Trump was doing things like calling out the abject brokenness of wealthy interests straight up buying politicians and talking about how the system doesn't serve the common people. I can see 1/5 people who wanted a more liberal president somehow arriving at Trump for that reason.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 07:41

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

white evangelicals are very bad - I do not like them, and I blame them for bad things which have happened

# ? Dec 3, 2016 07:41

Aisha: Sep 25, 2009; I've heard of households where the boys have to do equal amounts of laundry/cooking/cleaning/babysitting etc. but I have never seen one in real life.

Hobologist posted:

They just vote like them. 80% of the evangelicals went for the Pussygrabber in Chief.

Evangelicals are only about a third of the Christian population of the US, and even then you need to specify white evangelicals only if you want the 80% number. Clinton herself is a much bigger Christian than Trump is, and 75% of the overall electorate is Christian, so you need Christians to win. Its true that the Democrats lost some with Christian voters compared to 2012, but the same is true with every other religious group (including unaffiliated) aside from Jewish and Mormons. (Catholics are the only group which switched from supporting Obama to supporting Trump though).

If anything, I think there are a good amount of Christians who might otherwise want to vote Democrat but who dislike the higher ups "pro-choice" stance on abortion, and the empty Supreme Court seat I think put it into focus this election, at least for some:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/why-women-and-christians-backed-trump/507176/

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/02/pro-life-voters-vote-for-donald-trump-to-get-supreme-court-justices-who-will-fight-abortion/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/donlad-trump-gets-pro-life-voters-support-begrudgi/

# ? Dec 3, 2016 07:53

Acid Haze: Feb 16, 2009

Crowsbeak posted:

Look at the pew article. It's only white evangelicals who do.

So you want people to stop screaming at Christians for their beliefs. Have you been harassed in this way?

# ? Dec 3, 2016 08:08

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Acid Haze posted:

So you want people to stop screaming at Christians for their beliefs. Have you been harassed in this way?

I'm suggesting it loses votes.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 08:19

Die Sexmonster!: Nov 30, 2005

Crowsbeak posted:

Yeah and think of all the poor that will be hosed. Because your pride demands that you scream at people for their belief in a book.

What does this have to do with votes? I was talking about myself. I'm sure plenty of atheist politicians walk the Christian walk to pander, no doubt.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 08:25

Hobologist: May 4, 2007; We'll have one entire section labelled "for degenerates"

Crowsbeak posted:

I'm suggesting it loses votes.

The Atlantic article above said that 21% of voters, and 23% of pro-life voters if you check the link, would refuse to vote for the Archbishop of Nashville or whatever the head Evangelist is, if he didn't share their views on abortion. It loses the votes of people who don't vote Democrat anyway.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 08:35

Acid Haze: Feb 16, 2009

Crowsbeak posted:

I'm suggesting it loses votes.

I would like to know where and how white Christians are being screamed at specifically for being Christian. I mean I was raised Catholic, but I'm an atheist now so I guess I'm just not very aware of any religious discrimination coming from the left that you might be referring to.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 08:37

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Acid Haze posted:

I would like to know where and how white Christians are being screamed at specifically for being Christian. I mean I was raised Catholic, but I'm an atheist now so I guess I'm just not very aware of any religious discrimination coming from the left that you might be referring to.

I said doing as some advocate and I do not doubt you want will not actually any good except maybe some narcissistic satisfaction at getting back at daddy.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 08:49

Anime Schoolgirl: Nov 28, 2002

KomradeX posted:

No yeah, you're right we don't need to change anything the Democrats are doing loving great with them controlling state houses and governorships across the country. Oh what's that the Democrats have been in full retreat for over 6 years.

I remember 2008-9 when we all thought that was it we've made the Republicans a Rump party for a generation. Only for them to turn it around and gut us like we were the loving VRA.

Acting like the Democratic party actually advances any of it's supposed left wing ideas is pure loving madness. Christ it took Gay Republicans to make gay marriage a national thing because Democrats didn't actually want to push to hard for gay rights, in case that alienated some "moderates." That really should be the biggest shame that Democrats couldn't even be the ones behind that law suit. That's all Democrats see their minority and few white working class voters that are left as, assholes that have to vote for them so they can go back to serving their real constitutes, the wealthy. Why haven't the Democrats been hammering that Flint still doesn't have clean loving water! Why are they not out there hammering that, why aren't they hammering on that through out the election, why did they hammer on the fact that Mike loving Pence caused a massive HIV outbreak in his state! The Democrats can't even new loving bothered to campaign against the undeniable Republican gently caress ups

Or now people talking about how Bernie really is the racist because he said he would work with Trump on things that we all know Trump had no intention of actually loving doing. But the silence from these same people about how Chuck Schumer couldn't wait to get in front of a mic and tell everyone that he couldn't wait to work with Senate Republicans to make life easier on Wall Street was loving deafening.

So yeah everyone from that poo poo rear end bootlicking end of the party can bitch about Bernie all they want. But where the gently caress are your guys? Why is it Bernie out there fighting for the Democratic base? Why is it him trying to reform how people see the Party in the public eye. Where are your guys, where's Chuck Schumer, where's loving Hilliary, yeah her career is loving dead but you would think that she would still be out they're trying to assure people that everything isn't lost, where is Cory loving Booker? Where are these people, why are they not out there trying to rally the base? This whole election season I was told Bernie and his base didn't even count as real Democrats, so why the gently caress is he the one that had to save the party after the Clinton's, the Schumer's and Obama hosed it all up

idpol has always been an easy "out" for corporatist neoliberals, it's the same thing the elites did in the 1920s while they helped their friends loot the country

also i don't think bernie was ever really inducted into the democratic party to begin with which makes it more hilarious

# ? Dec 3, 2016 08:51

Acid Haze: Feb 16, 2009

Crowsbeak posted:

I said doing as some advocate and I do not doubt you want will not actually any good except maybe some narcissistic satisfaction at getting back at daddy.

You were trying to be an advocate, and but it will not do any good? I don't understand.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 08:55

Business Gorillas: Mar 11, 2009

Crowsbeak posted:

I'm suggesting it loses votes.

i'm kind of curious how you sell leftism to people who have bought prosperity gospel hook, line, and sinker, especially when they just unified to vote someone who is the most morally bankrupt person we've ever seen take the presidency.

this election finally dispelled the illusion that the evangelical wing actually votes with any sort of conscience and the truth is they just use their religion to justify their own version of FYGM.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 08:57

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Business Gorillas posted:

i'm kind of curious how you sell leftism to people who have bought prosperity gospel hook, line, and sinker, especially when they just unified to vote someone who is the most morally bankrupt person we've ever seen take the presidency.

this election finally dispelled the illusion that the evangelical wing actually votes with any sort of conscience and the truth is they just use their religion to justify their own version of FYGM.

Those people are unreachable as long as they practice their vile heresy. Also yes they are vile hypocrites.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 09:00

Business Gorillas: Mar 11, 2009

Crowsbeak posted:

Those people are unreachable as long as they practice their vile heresy. Also yes they are vile hypocrites.

ps its very late and i just scrolled up a little bit.

yeah, there needs to be a distinction to be made between "christians" and people that actually follow the word of christ. lol if you think you're going to win elections by trying to shame the entirety of christianity

# ? Dec 3, 2016 09:03

Aisha: Sep 25, 2009; I've heard of households where the boys have to do equal amounts of laundry/cooking/cleaning/babysitting etc. but I have never seen one in real life.

Business Gorillas posted:

i'm kind of curious how you sell leftism to people who have bought prosperity gospel hook, line, and sinker, especially when they just unified to vote someone who is the most morally bankrupt person we've ever seen take the presidency.

this election finally dispelled the illusion that the evangelical wing actually votes with any sort of conscience and the truth is they just use their religion to justify their own version of FYGM.

Prosperity gospel is a minority view among Evangelicals overall and is actually much more popular with Black/Hispanic Evangelicals, afaict, not the white Evangelicals who would have voted Trump 80/20 (see Question 3)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dxmhuwj6r1/tabs_OPI_Televangelists_20150826.pdf

Prosperity gospel in general is more popular among lower income, younger people, and ethnic minorities. I think you talk to them the same way you'd talk to anybody else. They aren't "vile heretics". I don't understand prosperity gospel myself but I think the only way to find out is to talk to people. Prosperity gospel followers certainly aren't particularly Republican.

White evangelicals who voted Trump were mostly voting against Clinton (and vice versa for the minority of white evangelicals who chose Clinton) (Q6), and you are right, the majority of white Evangelicals no longer care about a candidate's personal life or personal beliefs (Q10 and 11):

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/november/top-10-stats-explaining-evangelical-vote-trump-clinton-2016.html

# ? Dec 3, 2016 09:42

Jizz Festival: Oct 30, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Aisha posted:

Evangelicals are only about a third of the Christian population of the US, and even then you need to specify white evangelicals only if you want the 80% number. Clinton herself is a much bigger Christian than Trump is, and 75% of the overall electorate is Christian, so you need Christians to win. Its true that the Democrats lost some with Christian voters compared to 2012, but the same is true with every other religious group (including unaffiliated) aside from Jewish and Mormons. (Catholics are the only group which switched from supporting Obama to supporting Trump though).

If anything, I think there are a good amount of Christians who might otherwise want to vote Democrat but who dislike the higher ups "pro-choice" stance on abortion, and the empty Supreme Court seat I think put it into focus this election, at least for some:

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2016/11/why-women-and-christians-backed-trump/507176/

http://www.lifenews.com/2016/11/02/pro-life-voters-vote-for-donald-trump-to-get-supreme-court-justices-who-will-fight-abortion/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/donlad-trump-gets-pro-life-voters-support-begrudgi/

What's the deal with the scare quotes around pro-choice?

# ? Dec 3, 2016 09:52

Acid Haze: Feb 16, 2009

Crowsbeak posted:

Those people are unreachable as long as they practice their vile heresy. Also yes they are vile hypocrites.

OK, I can see other dude was saying, and I'm just paraphrasing, that Christians are bigots because of the anti-abortion/anti-LBGT sentiment in the community, and because they tend to lean conservative. But I don't believe a lot of people feel that way; I mean I don't remember what percentage of the country is Christian but it's very high*.

I believe religion is part of our cultural evolution as a species and a large part of that was instilling a baseline of morality that supersedes law. It tries to give hope when there is none, and a will to keep going whether you're a slave who prays for freedom or a poor man who prays he can find a better life for his family in a new place. Christianity is woven into the fabric of our society much like how Islam is in the middle east, or Hinduism in India. I don't know what the net worth of good or bad religion has but I do know that religion is here to stay for as long as I'll be alive, and probably for a long time after.

I don't judge people based on their religion as that's a terrible metric to go by. I got all excited during the election and went to meet Ryan Solen, the Democrat running against Paul Ryan, got a picture with him, got to talk with him for a while, and he's a Mormon. There's plenty of religious Democrats, and there are not a lot of atheist politicians in general and there's a reason for that: it's really unpopular to say you don't believe in god. I know that I don't tell people I'm an atheist unless we're close friends. If I added that into a lot of my conversations I'd be really unpopular around where I live.

I guess what I'm trying to say is just treat each other like human beings. However, those who are religious, and conservative/hated Clinton have to reckon with the fact that they voted for a man who openly threatened religious freedom. Proposing to have the federal government target one religious group for scrutiny should have drawn condemnation from Christians on both sides of the isle. I guess sometimes fear of the other, or perhaps hate of the other, can cloud people's religious conviction.

Edit: *83% according to Google

Acid Haze fucked around with this message at 10:30 on Dec 3, 2016

# ? Dec 3, 2016 10:20

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Calibanibal posted:

is there a name for when two goons simultaneously and sarcastically adopt strawmen of each other's perceived positions? its like some weirdo hosed up internet square dance

it's called primary chat and it's a probatable offense

# ? Dec 3, 2016 10:20

Kilroy: Oct 1, 2000

Calibanibal posted:

white evangelicals are very bad - I do not like them, and I blame them for bad things which have happened

On the other hand, what if we just outlawed abortion? Just straight up said "no abortions, ever, no matter what"? Perhaps with a Constitutional amendment, even.

If that suppresses the evangelical vote enough that we can get some otherwise leftist representation in government, it should be pretty straightforward to pass some other legislation that would deal with, you know, all the unwanted children in such a way that they aren't brought up as violent sociopaths. Not to mention, all the other poo poo we could get done after throwing up our hands and saying "okay fine, gently caress it, have it your way you loving thugs". I mean, it's a gross violation of human rights of course, but for as long as the evangelicals are in thrall to the Republicans (or vice-versa, really) we're probably going to have a lot of those anyway.

In fact I'm pretty sure they'd just latch on to the next thing about people's bodies they want to control, but assuming they didn't: could you tolerate completely outlawing abortion if it meant breaking the religious right's strangehold on the Republican party and on US politics in general, and the strengthening of leftist politics in America as a result?

# ? Dec 3, 2016 10:33

Aisha: Sep 25, 2009; I've heard of households where the boys have to do equal amounts of laundry/cooking/cleaning/babysitting etc. but I have never seen one in real life.

Jizz Festival posted:

What's the deal with the scare quotes around pro-choice?

I apologize. I'm a [non-Trump voting] pro-life Catholic woman surrounded by like-minded friends and family and I'm used to distancing myself from the term "pro-choice", since for many people I know it comes across as a euphemism for being pro-abortion and can sidetrack discussions on an already extremely contentious and ugly subject.

Of the pro-life people I know, plenty still voted Clinton, either because Trump is that vile or because they honestly believe the best way to combat abortion is to strengthen the security net and Clinton is going to do that. Others held their nose and voted Trump because there is an empty Supreme Court seat they want filled by a pro-lifer (and Trump did get supported by pro-life groups for this reason), or because they just dislike the Clintons that much more.

I thought I could expand that pathetic personal anecdote to white evangelicals as well, but abortion is relatively low on their concerns. 52% think abortion is very important vs. 89% for terrorism, 87% economy and 78% for both immigration and foreign policy. And while terrorism can certainly be a concern, its very often linked with Islamophobia, especially when it comes to Trump. It's very worrisome.

Aisha fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Dec 3, 2016

# ? Dec 3, 2016 10:44

Jizz Festival: Oct 30, 2012; Lipstick Apathy

Aisha posted:

I apologize. I'm a [non-Trump voting] pro-life Catholic woman surrounded by like-minded friends and family and I'm used to distancing myself from the term "pro-choice", since for many people I know it comes across as a euphemism for being pro-abortion and can sidetrack discussions on an already extremely contentious and ugly subject.

Okay, I was just curious to see if the scare quotes meant you were pro-life and it looks like that's the case. I find it interesting how the way we talk about things can reveal more about our opinions than we intended.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 10:59

thrakkorzog: Nov 16, 2007

Aisha posted:

Prosperity gospel is a minority view among Evangelicals overall and is actually much more popular with Black/Hispanic Evangelicals, afaict, not the white Evangelicals who would have voted Trump 80/20 (see Question 3)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dxmhuwj6r1/tabs_OPI_Televangelists_20150826.pdf

Prosperity gospel in general is more popular among lower income, younger people, and ethnic minorities. I think you talk to them the same way you'd talk to anybody else. They aren't "vile heretics". I don't understand prosperity gospel myself but I think the only way to find out is to talk to people. Prosperity gospel followers certainly aren't particularly Republican.

White evangelicals who voted Trump were mostly voting against Clinton (and vice versa for the minority of white evangelicals who chose Clinton) (Q6), and you are right, the majority of white Evangelicals no longer care about a candidate's personal life or personal beliefs (Q10 and 11):

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/november/top-10-stats-explaining-evangelical-vote-trump-clinton-2016.html

From my own anecdotal experience, talking to evangelical relatives of mine, the Gay wedding cakes were a kind of a big issue.

So if some family pizza joint refuses to cater a gay wedding, then they should be fined out of business. And let's disregard the whole question about what kind of gay wedding is serving pizza at a wedding. Liberals were trying to hunt down evangelicals and ruin their livelihood.

All Trump had to do was not be actively hostile to evangelicals, and he won their votes.

thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 11:38 on Dec 3, 2016

# ? Dec 3, 2016 11:16

Die Sexmonster!: Nov 30, 2005

Kilroy posted:

On the other hand, what if we just outlawed abortion? Just straight up said "no abortions, ever, no matter what"? Perhaps with a Constitutional amendment, even.

Is this A Modest Proposal? Like, do you think these insane power-hungry God warriors won't latch onto another arbitrary aspect of the culture war to scream about?

# ? Dec 3, 2016 11:55

CheeseSpawn: Sep 15, 2004; Doctor Rope

Aisha posted:

Of the pro-life people I know, plenty still voted Clinton, either because Trump is that vile or because they honestly believe the best way to combat abortion is to strengthen the security net and Clinton is going to do that. Others held their nose and voted Trump because there is an empty Supreme Court seat they want filled by a pro-lifer (and Trump did get supported by pro-life groups for this reason), or because they just dislike the Clintons that much more

How conservative do you consider your family or parents to be? My parents and probably my cousins voted for Trump because he is the default republican like Romney that "supports" pro-life . As devout catholics, they follow the marching orders from the church hierarchy as it is interpreted as God's will/law.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 12:13

Euphoriaphone: Aug 10, 2006

Business Gorillas posted:

i'm kind of curious how you sell leftism to people who have bought prosperity gospel hook, line, and sinker, especially when they just unified to vote someone who is the most morally bankrupt person we've ever seen take the presidency.

this election finally dispelled the illusion that the evangelical wing actually votes with any sort of conscience and the truth is they just use their religion to justify their own version of FYGM.

While I don't disagree that the moral right voting for Trump is hypocritical, and primarily uses their "faith" as a justification for enforcing their will, there's an easily understandable argument for why a deeply convicted theist would vote Trump: he'll obviously sign more laws into effect that align with their worldview, even if he's more immoral than Clinton. The devil that you know, in a way. Plus, a lot of those people likely genuinely believe that Clinton has ordered innocent people to be murdered, and while Trump has done some shady stuff, he's never sent a hitman to kill anyone.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 12:19

Sethex: Jun 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Ardennes posted:

Yeah, at this point it is more about rebuilding than stopping the train. It is going to be a train-wreck but it is going to stay that way as long as the only option is third-way centrism.

Also, I think the spin the Economist may take is that Fillon may be "a little to the right" but maybe that is what Europe really needs and craves.

That said, I think the actual Left needs to be a bit more canny as well. I think Corbyn's fault (for example) is he isn't that great of a politician and certainly isn't a firebrand, and the opposite is necessary. Also, Syriza is a good example of what happens when a left-wing party is put in power and then is slowly crushed by a situation it really can't change.

Edit:

Also, how is it not an embarrassment that Tony Blair, who was a public official 9 years ago is now wealthy enough to throw money at pet projects like he is some type of oligarch?

If i recall correctly Yanis Varoufakis (Greece ' s finance minister at the time of Syriza) blames the failure of the Syriza showdown with Berlin on the elite of the left bailing on the idea of leaving the EU and defaulting because those elites were largely worried that it would destroy their personal wealth.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 15:28

Xander77: Apr 6, 2009; Fuck it then. For another pit sandwich and some 'tater salad, I'll post a few more.

Euphoriaphone posted:

Plus, a lot of those people likely genuinely believe that Clinton has ordered innocent people to be murdered, and while Trump has done some shady stuff, he's never sent a hitman to kill anyone.

The question of how many people "genuinely believe" that versus the amount of people who genuinely want to believe that has always interested me. Probably a hard issue to measure.

Wonder if "political psychology" has any decent research associated with it, besides highly scattered factoids a-la "left-wingers are more motivated by hope, right-wingers are more motivated by fear".

# ? Dec 3, 2016 15:40

MiddleOne: Feb 17, 2011

Sethex posted:

If i recall correctly Yanis Varoufakis (Greece ' s finance minister at the time of Syriza) blames the failure of the Syriza showdown with Berlin on the elite of the left bailing on the idea of leaving the EU and defaulting because those elites were largely worried that it would destroy their personal wealth.

Are you going to claim that he was wrong? Varoufakis, when he realized that the negotiations were going nowhere, spent almost the entire spring of 2015 fruitlessly urging Tsipras to take preventive measures that would stop the Eurogroup from being able to blow up what remained of Greece's banking sector. Instead, Tsipras did none of that and pushed through on the, before Brexit, dumbest referendum in EU history which was virtually just one big prayer to Schauble and the rest of the Eurogroup to give Greece a break. Schauble called his bluff, the banks almost went underwater and the rest is history. Tsipras then got rid of Varoufakis and has since then be loyally wagging his tail whenever the EU pretends to care.

Now would Varoufakis plans of bank control and IOU's have worked out in the end? Who knows, but fact of the matter is that Tsipras either through incompetence or malice sabotaged any real chances of Greece coming out of their predicament on their own.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 16:18

Accretionist: Nov 7, 2012; I BELIEVE IN STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIES

Xander77 posted:

The question of how many people "genuinely believe" that versus the amount of people who genuinely want to believe that has always interested me. Probably a hard issue to measure.

Wonder if "political psychology" has any decent research associated with it, besides highly scattered factoids a-la "left-wingers are more motivated by hope, right-wingers are more motivated by fear".

# ? Dec 3, 2016 16:20

Sethex: Jun 2, 2008; by FactsAreUseless

Aisha posted:

Prosperity gospel is a minority view among Evangelicals overall and is actually much more popular with Black/Hispanic Evangelicals, afaict, not the white Evangelicals who would have voted Trump 80/20 (see Question 3)

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/dxmhuwj6r1/tabs_OPI_Televangelists_20150826.pdf

Prosperity gospel in general is more popular among lower income, younger people, and ethnic minorities. I think you talk to them the same way you'd talk to anybody else. They aren't "vile heretics". I don't understand prosperity gospel myself but I think the only way to find out is to talk to people. Prosperity gospel followers certainly aren't particularly Republican.

White evangelicals who voted Trump were mostly voting against Clinton (and vice versa for the minority of white evangelicals who chose Clinton) (Q6), and you are right, the majority of white Evangelicals no longer care about a candidate's personal life or personal beliefs (Q10 and 11):

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2016/november/top-10-stats-explaining-evangelical-vote-trump-clinton-2016.html

I think the "ideas" podcast on cbc does a good analysis on the prosperity gospel. Mostly confirms what you're saying.

# ? Dec 3, 2016 16:50

Calibanibal: Aug 25, 2015

I think when most goons rant about prosperity gospel they're not thinking of actual, formal prosperity churches, but more broadly a distinctly American trend in evangelicalism about the supposed attributes and virtues of the born-again Christian. He's robust, confidant, powerful, successful etc. Its not so much the explicit quid pro quo (faith=money) you see in out-and-out prosperity churches but a sort of rugged, capitalist concept of Sainthood - where health and success are not really the goal of Christian conduct, but a firm indicator of it. Less televangelist and more The Man Nobody Knows

Actually kind of similar to the Jewish Orthodox icon of the Hasid, but the prosperous Born-Again wears suits instead of funky hats

Calibanibal fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Dec 3, 2016

# ? Dec 3, 2016 17:25

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

I hate myself for reposting a "Tweet storm" but this guy seems like he's onto something:

https://t.co/QJGhCYRlb9

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Dec 3, 2016

# ? Dec 3, 2016 17:58

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 18:50

Business Gorillas: Mar 11, 2009

Euphoriaphone posted:

While I don't disagree that the moral right voting for Trump is hypocritical, and primarily uses their "faith" as a justification for enforcing their will, there's an easily understandable argument for why a deeply convicted theist would vote Trump: he'll obviously sign more laws into effect that align with their worldview, even if he's more immoral than Clinton. The devil that you know, in a way. Plus, a lot of those people likely genuinely believe that Clinton has ordered innocent people to be murdered, and while Trump has done some shady stuff, he's never sent a hitman to kill anyone.

I mean that's totally acceptable. I just think that they should be held up to a higher standard because, you know, they're supposed to be devout Christians. The Greater Good is supposed to be their whole shtick

# ? Dec 3, 2016 18:04

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > So, what happened?

«‹›111 »