https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mments-wrapper

It made national news. Lots of enthusiasm for voting. 2 people I know waited in line for an hour (each at different locations). I dropped of my absentee ballot last week (and it was accepted).

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

There are LOTS of BIden signs in the suburbs where there were no clinton signs.

Dunno

Granted there are lots of rednecks here. Also lots of old people foxnewsers.

This is cincy. I expect Cleveland to go more biden. Not sure on COlumbus

Remember when John Roberts claimed in his Supreme Court decision that this stuff wouldn't happen? Was he lying or just remarkably stupid?

This has been one of his pet issues for years. He really, really, really, really believes that states should do whatever they want regarding voting.

I have no idea why he cares so much. But it's probably the issue that animates him the most.

Right-wing judges love states having the right so suppress. But as we saw in Bush v Gore, they are only for it when it benefits a certain party.

Joe is running for the senate now? If so, this is shocking news. I haven't heard this confirmed by a reliable source yet.

User Clip: Biden says he is running for US Senate | C-SPAN.org

and this is the problem.

Trump has desensitized us to all the horrible shit he says and does that when Biden make a gaffe people on the right are going to magnify it to the Nth degree when in reality Trump has done more horrible shit in the last week then Biden would likely do his whole presidency.

I mean, Trump literally said getting Covid was a blessing from god, but, the Senate...

Yep. Clearly so much worse than calling something that has killed 200,000+ Americans a hoax.

Yeah Biden isn't the ideal candidate, but holy shit focusing on his gaffes and claiming he's declining cognitively ignores the shit Trump does and the fact that the man has, on camera, struggled to lift a glass of water, walk down steps, regularly slurred his speech, said Yo-semite, claimed he had never heard of a CAT5 hurricane 4 months after visiting the damage of a CAT5 hurricane, doctored weather map with a sharpie, and his vocabulary has diminished noticeably over the past 10-15 years.

Biden is a piss poor candidate, but I just laugh when anyone tries to point stuff out that supposedly makes him so much worse than trump. It's funny shit.

"What? The democrat misspoke once? That's it. I am voting for the White Supremacist!"

Such a spot on tweet:

When politicians use faith as an excuse to pass and uphold laws that seize control of people’s bodies but not guarantee them healthcare, feed the poor, shelter the homeless, or welcome the stranger, you have to wonder if it’s really about faith at all.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) October 12, 2020

From an NBC story on wait times:

Biden does have some good people working his social media

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1315768958742491136

SMH. No, not spot on at all. Simply illustrates AOC doesn't know or understand the faith she's criticizing. And stereotyping, miscasting, and red-herring shaming people of "faith" without even knowing what that specific faith teaches ... it's really a form of bigotry.

So how is she wrong? Are all those things not principals referenced in the Bible?

Well, she's wrong, first of all, in that she is judging the authenticity of people's faith without first understanding that faith. She's implying that because these people's faith is inconsistent with her values and worldview that their faith is somehow inconsistent or invalid. Her criticism itself is wrong.

That's the point I'm making.

But given the rest of your question, I suspect that's not really what you're asking, Lathum.

AOC is misguided on several points. The first is the most obvious - "seizing control of people's bodies." I assume she's talking about abortion? Isn't that the clear intent of that line? But, c'mon, now. That's a propaganda line purposefully designed to disparage the pro-life position by recasting it in a negative light, the same kind of uncivil namecalling as pro-lifers who call pro-choice people "bloodthirsty baby killers." Neither line has any justification in civil discussion of the issue. The vast majority of prochoice people aren't interested in killing, but in protecting women, and the vast majority of pro-life people aren't interested in control, but in protecting preborn lives.

But that's still not what I think Lathum is asking. I believe you're questioning how opposing abortion but resisting, say, government-guaranteed health care (two points I think AOC was alluding to in her tweet) is consistent biblically.

Within conservative Christianity, there is a foundational belief about government (based on Romans 13 and specifically 1 Peter 2:14) that God established governments among humanity for two specific reasons: to punish evildoing (i.e. police power and military, courts and justice) and to commend well-doing (i.e. statesmanship and honors, some would say tax breaks). And if you also hold that abortion is the unjust taking of human life, it would be the government's job to illegalize the practice.

But the arena of caring for the poor, the homeless, those with inadequate health insurance - under this belief - is the responsibility first of the family (and their are several verses that support that idea), then the church (and several more that support that), and finally of the individual as a neighbor and community member (lots to support that idea).

In other words, the Bible clearly teaches us to care for the poor, feed the hungry, etc. etc. You're absolutely right about that, Lathum. But the Bible also teaches that's my job, my family's job, my church's job.

When AOC presumes that Christians must also believe that to be the government's job in order to be consistent with their faith, however, she demonstrates that she doesn't understand a very common, Bible-based belief among many conservative Christians.

Can I just say regardless of what side you are on, that was a very well thought out and thorough response. Well done.

What I'd be curious about and where I guess I fall into "liberal" Christianity (ELCA is pretty liberal - I only use the quotes to distinguish from you using conservative vs me using liberal) and why I advocate for these things within government is: How does "neighbor/community member" does not equate to government?

Also, realistically, I would argue it's naive to say that only family members and the church can care for needs when there are so many who are poor or hungry in this world or even just in the United States, a wealthy country by any measure.

SI

+1

.@SenFeinstein: Does the constitution give the president the authority to unilaterally delay a general election under any circumstances?

Judge Barrett: If I give off the cuff answers, I would basically be a "legal pundit." I would need to consult colleagues, clerks & arguments.

— Yamiche Alcindor (@Yamiche) October 13, 2020

The glue that holds the GOP together is voter supression.

I would go a bit further and say that the "neighbors/community" piece is not inconsistent with a desire for the government to step in where there is an insufficiency in caring for those needs. Presumably, if families/churches/neighbors/communities were enough, the need would not exist (or be extremely limited).

As a lawyer, what she just said is, "Give me enough time and I can make a well-reasoned argument for either side."

That's what I think is so pointless about all of this. These are lawyers. Making some grandiose point about applying the law or Constitution is meaningless when there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of every litigated issue. One person's "plain meaning" is another's over-reach. These confirmation hearings are simply theater. Whoever is fortunate enough to be President when an opening occurs gets to choose the person to fill the vacancy, absent some obviously disqualifying matter. End of story.

This whole thing is one side being mad conservatives chose a conservative judge and the other side reveling in it.

There can literally be no free market without a government providing the rules for fre exchanges of goods and services. In making those rules, the government is partially determing who will get resources and who will not. The government is so intimately involved in creating an economic system that it's impossible to then divorce the government from the consequences of that system. Charity has never been enough to overcome imperfections in the economic system. You either accpet that the government will also play a role in how resources are distributed to those with the least, or you accept that people will suffer through no fault of their own.

I agree with Pope John Paul, justice comes before charity.

I accept that on a lot of issues, but it would be much more comforting to hear her defend the electoral process. It would be the fringiest of fringe ideas to argue the President can postpone the election. Putting it in context with what Trump has said and with the GOP argument that she should be seated ASAP to rule on election issues and it's frightening.

yes. I appreciate it and very thought provoking.

This shit goes over my head.

Trump is POTUS. The POTUS appoints judges to the Supreme Court. There's an opening and Trump is filling it.

I understand that the Senate prevented Obama from filling a spot, but should we stop this one just because of that?

Just because Lincoln didn't fill a spot once means Trump shouldn't?

I think a lot of it comes from it being Trump.

So why does contemporary conservative Christianity in America do such a piss poor job at all of these things? I totally agree that the teaching is there, but I would argue that a lot of churches out there are just fear-mongering to try to keep people in the faith rather than encouraging them to do good works. There is a reason people are driven away from the church and it's not because they are generally doing a great job within their communities, though some are.

So the many conservatives that came out during the last election (Clinton v. Trump) and said that a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn't be filled during "election season" that all of the sudden flip-flopped and said "yeah, this one should be filled" mostly just because now they are the ones doing the filling has no impact on you? Or are you just not aware of that subtext?

Yes.

No, I see the hypocrisy. When does it end? I think it was mentioned around here some where. At some point, this BS has to end and the politicians need to work together.

100% spot on. I liked and shared. It reminds me when my Church's Presiding Bishop (I'm ECLA, so Presiding Bishop Elizabeth Eaton) posts about the government taking care of the poor or homeless or immigrants (which are issues explicitly in Scripture) and people come out of the woodwork to say "Stop bringing politics into it" or "What about abortion" (not realizing the ELCA has had a Social Statement on Abortion for a couple decades now).

Which is why I tend to respect Catholics (esp the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, and not just liberal Catholics like AOC) a lot. Because they are very much against abortion, but also speak up for programs for the homeless, more welcoming immigration policies, and better access to healthcare.

I'd agree to term limits and an appointment every two years right now and I'd do that accepting great deference to the President regarding who they appoint.

But in the current system, the norms matter and breaking those norms should have consequences. If it's just about raw power, there should be no problems with expanding the court.

For a longer response, it's not just that the Senate prevented Obama from filling a spot (by not even giving a hearing!), it's that they did it based on a standard that they no longer want to follow. If Trump won in November and then filled the seat, I'd agree that there isn't reason to oppose the nomination.

It's all a moot point, though. The GOP has the votes and they will confirm Barrett. It doesn't matter what Democrats argue.

I've long argued that justices should only be opposed for being unqualified in a pretty strict sense. So I would normally argue that Barrett should be let in because she definitelly fits the definition of a qualified judge. But the Garland fiasco has completely changed my mind on that.

She does understand it; she just doesn't think its Christian (I agree). I don't know why conservative Christians think liberal Christians doesn't understand the core of their beliefs. We just don't think it's theologically justified. The same way that conservative Christians think our position on gay marriage is theologically justified - but of course they believe we don't read or understand the Bible without even once considering we interpret Scripture very, very differently than they do.

We liberal Christians understand conservative Christians view on this quite well - conservative Christians like to overly explain it when we talk about how the government need to be a part of carrying out God's aims.


The Old Testament, for one, is very clear that these requirements apply to the State. It was really in reading the Old Testament, where I was opened to the idea that it was good and proper and pleasing to God that out Governments are responsible to do these things.

I think it mostly comes down to conservatives wanting conservatives judges and liberals wanting liberal judges.

If the Democrats controlled the senate and presidency they would be trying to rush Ginsburg 2.0 through the senate right now.

I'm fine with POTUS nominating up until the election, but that's not the rule that the GOP instituted, so, yeah, I see this as a major violation of norms. I also don't think there's anything Dems can do about Barrett, so the answer is to use their power to expand the court as soon as they are able.

If the GOP wants to stop that by agreeing to a term limits system, I'd take that.

The approach seems to be "This is our domain."

Well, what if others don't cede that domain? Or don't recognize their (some might argue self-granted) sole authority to it?

I think the split between how rev approaches these questions and how you (and I) approach them is one of the hidden differences that account for whether a person is a Christian who votes Democrat or one who votes Republican. I see valid and defensible points in both directions, so it doesn't bother me which side of the equation folks end up on, because I think either way can be an out-working of legitimate faith. Practicing their faith in good faith, if that makes sense.

I've been irritated recently by guys like John Macarthur coming out and flat saying things like Democrats should be excommunicated. I'm usually of fan of Macarthur's Reformed positions, but I think he's dead wrong here and dangerously so. At the very least, he's adding to the gospel by suggesting that Christians must hold certain political stances or weigh political issues in a certain way. (He's more than welcome to feel that way personally, but preaching it from the pulpit is wrong-headed at the very least.)

I agree, but I have run into a LOT of John Macarthur types from the conservative Christian sphere. This especially has been the case after the ECLA came out in favor of LGBTQ+ Pastors in committed relationships. My Synod has a gay Bishop. You should hear how conservative Christians talk about how we don't understand or follow the Bible. You should see the Facebook and Twitter comments to the Presiding Bishop's posts. It's constant.

So I have little issues with a liberal Christian, like AOC, turning it around and pointing out that to liberal Christians these conservative Christians seem to not be following the Gospel at all.

Of course, as Catholic, AOC has a different view of these things than conservative Protestants in that the Catholic faith and state action have been linked far more in the past (that's not to say there haven't been Protestant and state linkages - Cromwell's England, Calvin's Geneva, etc). Popes consistently speak to what states should be doing - conservative as well as liberal (Pope Benedict XVI, FWIW, was not a fan of laissez-faire capitalism as well).

This battle between collective and individual action is at the heart of the revulsion for the GOP seen in polling of under 30 people. A lot of young people look at economic problems and climate change and wonder how individual action will do anything other than worsen the problems. I'm not an evangelical, but from what I've read these attitudes are starting to show up in evangelical congregations with larger young populations.

She'll get the founding fathers to say whatever she needs them to say to push the conservative cause, just as her mentor did.

SI

I will mostly say "yeah, what they said". I could get nit-picky about a couple other points of rev's statement (like taxes being "evil" and a tax cut being "upholding good." Jesus said "render into Casear what is Caesar's."). Instead, I will thank Rev for what was a well thought out response. I came from a strongly conservative Christian background, and I have studied most of those arguments. I personally found them lacking, and ignoring a large portion of Gospels message.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

For what it's worth, I don't think Christianity was designed to function in a democracy. I'd go so far as to argue that democracy is anti-thetical to Christianity as it's presented in the New Testament. How doctrines play out in a sphere where we get a vote and an interpretation of social/spiritual responsibility that corresponds to a vote in how the "kingdom" is run just isn't very well explicated.

Which isn't to say that you can't build arguments for how Christians should function in a democracy, but they're going to be based on reason and tradition and inference rather than
commands. And that's where we're inevitably going to (and historically have) run into problems.

The fact is that the Kingdom of Heaven isn't a democracy...and I think American Christianity has sort of assumed that it will function like one, only an idealized version where everyone makes the right moral decisions all the time so there isn't any disagreement.

There's a long history of democracy in certain portions of the Christian church. The Dominicans have been largely democratic since their inception.

100% agree, this is extremely well-put. My discussions of how a Christian should interact with politics always start with it shouldn't be a major priority, relatively speaking, and the responsibility to submit to whatever government is in place (Romans, Peter, etc).

Large sections of American Christianity definitely have this very wrong IMO.

This is me as well. I think MacArthur is probably the best preacher alive today, but this is really over the line.

Yes, because it's important that such tactics not become normal and accepted and rewarded. Since Garland happened, my position has been the Democrats should refuse to consider any other candidate - or given how long it's been now, any candidate that isn't similar to Garland. Right that wrong first, and then we can move on.

I don't have a problem with the Barrett nomination in a vacuum. We aren't in a vacuum. As important as SCOTUS justices are, they aren't as important as the integrity of governmental institutions as a whole - and most people here know that there aren't many people more conservative than me on Constitutional matters. It's a massive important issue, but this is even more fundamental than that.

It ends when the GOP agrees that there are rules that need to be abided by, not just bent to their will when they're in power and strictly followed when they're not. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp. This is the literal definition of there being a complete and utter lack of checks and balances, because one side that basically owns all 3 branches of government is trying to orchestrate an undermining of all democratic (small d) processes that the Constitution put in place to prevent this kind of stuff from going on in the first place.

From my POV, it's because most liberal Christians don't. I except you from this based on past conversations, but whether it's anecdotal with the liberal Christians I've met personally, well-known books on various subjects including soteriology and biblical interpretation by regarded liberal scholars, etc., my experience is a near-universal disregard of the basic Reformation arguments relating to the authority and interpretation of the Bible. Over and over and over again I see them bypassed with no serious attempt to engage with them, so the conclusion I've regularly drawn is that they either don't care or don't have a good answer to them.

As an example, a lot of the rhetoric takes the form of this, which I think a very close paraphrase of a well-known author: "At the end the day, that kind of God isn't worthy of being believed, much less worshipped." This isn't a one-off, that's the thrust of the 'argument' from this author and many other widely-read ones. To which my response is basically: "That's a great humanistic argument. Do you have anything to say that might be recognizable as Christian - as in, of or pertaining to Christ or the Word in which he is revealed, if he is revealed anywhere?".

Paul and Peter, of course, famously did not submit to whatever government was in place. Which is why they were both crucified ;).

I think you know what I meant, but to clarify for any others who might not; the general principle of submission of respect is still there even while disobeying. I don't see any grounds for disobedience except as it concerns governmental commands conflicting with commands of God for the behavior of the individual believer(Daniel, apostles in Acts, etc). As I've said before, I carry this to the point (and beyond) that the American colonies were not justified in their revolution against England.

So my absentee ballot didn't get put in a dumpster, dropped in a ditch, or put in a ballot box placed by the Republican party, thank the gods.

This is part of what I'm talking about, to be honest. There is a notion that if one does not start from a fundamentalist principle, theological underpinnings aren't serious. Even the most liberal theologians, von Harnack, Borg, even Spong, know Scripture very well - their interpretations are simply very different - and even farther left than my own. They wrote quite massive works of theology where they grapple with these ideas and come to different ends.

Liberal Christians, as a vast majority if not entirely, believe one should realize that Scripture was written by flawed men. They may have been inspired by God, but that does not mean God put pen in their hands and possessed them. Therefore their biases are important to consider. Which also means what is important is the grand themes of Scripture and living into the Spirit of God's will. Meaning that the questions of whether a God cognizant with of 'worthy to be worshipped' is very important - if God is Love and God does something that does not make sense with the axiom then the default is go back to God's nature over a story which may be flawed.

And that's the thing. Republicans are muttering about precedent and how THIS precedent is different from THAT precedent while pointedly ignoring the Lincoln precedent - the ONE precedent that's remotely applicable here - because it's all about power games.

But in playing those power games, if the other side isn't willing to play right back, the institution is undermined.

Mutually Assured Destruction as a deterrent doesn't deter if one side unilaterally disarms, and that's kind of where we're at. Republicans have shown that they're willing to do whatever it takes, counting on Democrats to roll over and take it. If Democrats prove 'em right, they'll do it again, and again, and again, and that's the end of the institution. If they show a spine, then maybe - maybe - Republicans won't be quite so blatant about undermining 220 year old institutions in the name of political power.

I just checked and my ballot shows as received as well.

I'm registered Republican in a Republican state, so I guess I wasn't targeted. ;)

Heh

Even taking your last sentence, I still have yet to encounter a cogent interpretive framework that really does that from the kinds of people you describe however. What will typically happen is they'll base many arguments on one or two verses, and then you point out that the New Testament says something different a dozen or 20 times, and the response is 'that's not what God is like'.

Maybe they're right about God, but I've never been able to discover anything resembling a consistent hermeneutic. It doesn't have to be a fundamentalist one, but there have to some sort of principles aside from 'I like God this way' governing it. It always reads a lot more like fitting Scripture into a predetermined doctrine of God than the other way around.

What evidence is there of this when we've seen nothing but escalation for almost 40 years? I don't see any realistic way this happens. The only realistic solution, and it's still a long shot, IMO is the electorate deciding to vote for responsibility more often than it doesn't. In order for them to do that, somebody has to be available to vote for who plans on being responsible.

I agree with you completely here. The fact that we have an ability to dissent and even have a voice in government under modern democracies open things up quit a bit, but under standard rule Christians should be the best citizens of whatever government they live.


Agree again. When I was in school through my years in ministry, I used the MacArthur Study Bible as my every day Bible.

I can see where you get that opinion, but I strongly disagree. I do think there is a strong conflict in the Christian faith in how we look at the Bible (our hermeneutic so to speak), but to suggest one is less studious than the other is simply not true. I can follow with anecdotal evidence of conservative Christians who "proof text" everything, and wouldn't begin to know how to really break-down and study scripture. I don't want to get to insulting, but there is quite a bit of conservative teaching that is just directly anti-scholarly.



Yes, that would be a logical conclusion to follow that belief to the extreme. Of course, the counter would be that there was imposition on free Christian worship that could have been used as justification. The colonies were full of Christian groups that had faced prosecution from England, and a strong England could continue such persecution in the Colonies at any time. Of course all of that is neither here nor there in this discussion.

I'm with you on this as well. I'm far from an apologist for all conservative Biblical scholarship. I do though see a difference when you compare the better aspects of the respective schools of thought.

:banghead:

When you come for the political talk and get a bunch of religious discussion.

Sort of touches on what I was typing while you were typing this :)
I think the approach is much more that they do a hard study on what is "kernel" for the lack of a better vocabulary (you having me drawing on things a studied 20-30 years ago) and use it to illuminate the rest of scripture. Less "I like God that way" and more "find the true essence of God, study the nature and society of men at the time, and sift out the man to find truth." Probably a butchered way of explaining it, but something like.

Good point Kodos. I'll cease and desist this tangent. I apologize, I shouldn't have let it get this far.

Sorry, we did begin to chase a rabbit there.

"Trump bad. Biden good."
Better?

That we can agree on. Trump bad. Trump very, very, bad.

I am worried all the good (seemingly daily) polling news re: large margins etc. for Biden on MSM may cause complacency.

Perfect! Maybe a Lincoln Project vid link to really sell it?! :cool:

I would hope nobody gets complacent after what happened last time and what we have had to endure for the last 4 years.

It's certainly possible.

I know anecdotes don't equal data but I was enthused by what I saw this morning.

Early voting started in Texas today and lines were as long as I've ever seen them for our local polling place. Lines were longer than an hour in suburban Houston whereas I can usually get in and out in a few minutes. There's an extra week of early voting but people were out there in droves today. We'll be going next week when it dies down a bit but it's a crazy high level of turnout at first blush.

SI

You can definitely see the enthusiasm in the long wait times. I still don't get people waiting as long as they did yesterday here (in Georgia) when I imagine by Thursday there will be probably be next to no lines in most places. We have three weeks of early voting. Are they afraid of a shut-down? Was it just because of the bank holiday?

I guarantee you it was due to the holiday. No need to call off work (for some jobs) or pull the kids out of school.

I think it might be peace of mind. I'm voting now so I can be sure I voted and it was counted, who knows what's going to happen the closer we get to E-day, etc. Kind of like how you feel when you check off an item from your to-do list that you could have done anytime - you still feel better having done it.

Exactly my argument as well.

Partly the holiday but I also think a lot of people are worried about fuckery down the line. So get in your vote as early as possible before they shut down early voting sites or whatever.

Agreed

Our plan is to go next week but I would not wait until Election Day at all this year, if I can help it (and I know some cannot)

SI

It appears the sexting scandals had little to no impact on the NC Senate race:

RealClearPolitics - Election 2020 - North Carolina Senate - Tillis vs. Cunningham

I was waiting for that to move the needle but I didn't see it in the most recent polling. I'm shocked, honestly.

SI

I guess he lost support among women but gained support among men.

One of the polls being +10 for Cunningham made me laugh out loud. I guess no one cares about sexting other people while married anymore! Anthony Weiner was a decade too late!

The President was having an affair with a pornstar while his wife was home nursing their child. Pretty sure you're going to have to be much more lurid to make a mark in the electorate.

Weiner texted underage girls. That will never fly.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Just wait a few years.

Well unless you're half the Alabama electorate.

He did it the old fashioned way, in person. That texting stuff is the Devil.

Thanks Trump!

I saw a couple stories that some in the GOP are just hoping to keep it 51-49 D's, and that some folks are projecting a swing of SEVEN seats to the D's. Which is just nuts. Nice. But nuts.

I want to believe - but don't really - that people are just so committed to voting against Trump that they are temporarily disregarding other factors.

I would believe it.

538 has Dems ending with 55 seats at 55%. It is totally crazy feeling, but in the realm if quite possible. I would guess 52-53 is where it will end up.
Btw, there are polls showing now that it is possible that both Georgia Senate seats could go to a run-off in January. They gave the libertarian polling at 4% in the Perdue-Ossoff race.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I'm not confident about the Dems if both GA races go to runoffs, especially if the likely scenario is that Biden has won big and Dems may already have 50+ seats, Dem turnout may be low.

I doubt the 55 number includes either Georgia Senate seat. I think 538 predicts both to go GOP.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Wait, did you mean 5.5% or 55%? Right now, it shows 5.2% at 55 seats, but you''d want to include the totals above 55. So the odds of Dems getting 55 seats or more would be 11.4% right now.

I don't see how they get to 55 seats without at least one of the GA seats. Right now, 538 has Dems picking up 5 seats and losing 1. This is a gain of 4, which would them at 51.

Whatever it takes to put Mitch in the backseat of the car.

Not that it matters much long-term politically or possibly at all, but from what I have watched of the ACB hearing (about 90 minutes this evening), it seems a little odd how much they are focusing on her family/motherhood. I’d be interested to see how it plays out in focus groups, as I can understand wanting to champion how impressive it is to have seven kids while having such an impressive career, but it also feels a little sexist to keep focusing on that rather than her accomplishments and judgments.

I guess these hearings have gotten progressively more personal like that, but I absolutely could not tell you how many children any other present or past justice have/had or really even if they are/were married, aside from RBG (only after she died, saw mentions of her husband and daughter) and maybe Kavanaugh (think he’s married and has daughters because I believe I heard he coached girls’ basketball).

Sharing this here, but it could very well fit in the trump thread too. We've talked about the mindset behind what drives some of this, and here we have some empirical data that ties authoritarian beliefs with religion and support for trump. The psychologist in me is mesmerized and terrified all the same.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...rian-research/

Not surprising. In their heart, they’re racist cowards wanting white American exceptionalism. And they keep voting for the message and not the substance behind it. Stupid fuckers.

"My Opponent is so pathetic that he's just like all of you losers" is an . . . interesting closing pitch to the Florida 65+ community:

pic.twitter.com/wJN4zv0y8O

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 14, 2020

I swear he said on the podcast 55%.