A few years ago evangelicals went crazy over the Left Behind series. Its premise was a person would become the president of the United States and assume dictatorial powers. He would be supported by an apostate church. You know the rest of the story line. Well, we have a person you wants to assume dictatorial powers. What does that say about the evangelicals?
That they're playing into his hands? That he can "deceive the very elect"?
Ironic. There's a Jack Chick tract about end-times stuff that shows leaders from the World Council Of Churches (IIRC) gathered together (unsaved, of course (eyeroll)), smoking, drinking, planning.
Here's an article from The American Conservative on Roseanne Barr. It attempts to map the ebbs and flows of politics since the Clinton era through popular entertainment. It reads like rubbish but it moves so fast that my head is spinning.
I think it might contain something like a truth that Ruth tried to bash into my head about a year ago. A bloke called McCarthy was interviewed by leftie Radio Host and big giant brain Philip Adams last week, and he is an editor at large of this publication. I've been looking for sensible conservatives for a while now, so I looked him up.
I'd be interested to hear what the Americans think of the article and the publication.
Hmmmm. I skimmed the article. Very little actually about Roseanne (her show or herself). The point seems to be "'this' is nothing new, and it's coming back strong, and we've got to deal with it". They used a long list of TV shows to illustrate that.
I'm not sure what "this" is. It's a conservative publication, so it's not Trump. Probably the great divide in the nation.
Oh I got the point of the linked article. I was reflecting the other day on the impact of 'The Deer Hunter", with its portrait of an immigrant community in a small steel town, and the impact of the Vietnam War. Plus a similar feel to Season 2 of "The Wire"; come to think of it, all 5 seasons of "The Wire". And of course there was " Erin Brokovich".
And asking myself whether there are TV series or movies today portraying 'what it's like to be us'. A struggling community, going under as a result of political indifference or international global economic and political forces. Are there modern examples?
It relates tangentially to this thread because of the relationship to some of Trump's core support, particularly in the rust belt states. The sense of being left out in the cold; ignored.
You have indeed hit on something. Sympathetic portrayals of the US working class (white or nonwhite) as more than just the punchline of a joke have become rarer and rarer in TV and movies stateside.
You have indeed hit on something. Sympathetic portrayals of the US working class (white or nonwhite) as more than just the punchline of a joke have become rarer and rarer in TV and movies stateside.
We get heaps of repeats of American sitcoms from days gone by on our free-to-air telly. You certainly don't see shows like Good Times or even Everybody Loves Raymond on. Tim Allen has a family sit-com I think that is reasonably current. Is it working class though?
Anyway, this is now a tangent that could get messy. Thanks for the comments everyone. I shall continue exploring.
Tim Allen's "Last Man Standing" was canceled a year or two ago, despite its generally good ratings. Depending on who you ask, it was either (a) because Allen portrayed a conservative every-man hero, or (b) because it wasn't produced by ABC, the network that aired it, so it was too costly to continue.
I would say that his character on that show is pretty emblematic of how many white male Trump voters see themselves. He's a man who has gotten by just fine without all of the hand-wringing about feelings and other fluffy stuff, and doesn't see why everyone is trying to force him to change. It's the story that Bill O'Reilly was the master of telling, and the story that you hear on conservative talk radio all the time. Think Archie Bunker with more tact, only this time he's the voice of reason rather than the clown.
Tim Allen's "Last Man Standing" was canceled a year or two ago, despite its generally good ratings. Depending on who you ask, it was either (a) because Allen portrayed a conservative every-man hero, or (b) because it wasn't produced by ABC, the network that aired it, so it was too costly to continue.
I would say that his character on that show is pretty emblematic of how many white male Trump voters see themselves. He's a man who has gotten by just fine without all of the hand-wringing about feelings and other fluffy stuff, and doesn't see why everyone is trying to force him to change. It's the story that Bill O'Reilly was the master of telling, and the story that you hear on conservative talk radio all the time. Think Archie Bunker with more tact, only this time he's the voice of reason rather than the clown.
Was the character in Last Man Standing working class in an income sense or just in terms of culture and in terms of an occupation that “made” things? I’m Home Improvement his family was definitely upper middle class if not affluent given their spacious house and his job on television.
Same with Everybody Loves Raymond. Yes, he wrote a sports column, his brother was a policeman, and his father was Archie Bunker-esque, but Raymond, his wife, and children were definitely upper middle class.
After Roseanne, Most shows about white families in middle America, the South, the Great Lakes Rust belt, or the northeastern ethnic white suburbs depict families with working class culture but an upper middle class lifestyle. And Most shows are set in and around affluent coastal cities anyway.
I think the character actually worked in the corporate office of an outdoor retail store. I've only watched a few times. He made enough money to support three kids in a decent sized home, including one adult child who came home with her son. Probably about the same economic bracket as the Tailors on Home Improvement? And definitely not a Rosanne kind of economic situation. (The show was actually supposed to take place here in Colorado, but I don't think it was actually ever filmed here.)
There seems to be some debate about how the Post Office allocates its overheads between the parcel and letter services, and depending on what assumptions you make, you can decide that parcel delivery is profitable, or is run at a loss.
I'm not familiar enough with the figures to know who is closer to the truth in this particular discussion, but the general subject is one I've heard on and off over the years, long before Trump got involved.
Apparently the underlying problem could well be due more to his lack of involvement...
There seems to be some debate about how the Post Office allocates its overheads between the parcel and letter services, and depending on what assumptions you make, you can decide that parcel delivery is profitable, or is run at a loss.
I'm not familiar enough with the figures to know who is closer to the truth in this particular discussion, but the general subject is one I've heard on and off over the years, long before Trump got involved.
In every business, there are centralized departments — factories, billing, computer services, etc. — that are used by lots of different product lines. The cost of these common services has to be allocated across different products, and the post office is no different. It has lots of costs — trucks, planes, distribution centers — that are used by all their product lines: first class mail, priority mail, packages, etc. The question is: are they allocating these costs properly to their package business? If their allocation is low, they can charge less for package delivery while still making it look like they’re turning a profit.
Drum goes on to note that "[t]he Postal Regulatory Commission believes the current allocations are OK" and that others with a profit motive to find otherwise have found otherwise. He also notes that the probability that Trump is well versed in (and cares deeply about) the minutiæ of postal cost accounting is probably nil and that he's just looking to bash Jeff Bezos over something.
The idea that Post Office accounting practices are one of the most critical issues facing the United States ranks right up there with the idea that e-mail server best practices is the most important issue facing the United States, which it was until suddenly it wasn't.
If this isn't a digression from Mr T's assaults on Amazon and USPS (well, it obviously is a digression, but that's the nature of a single thread on a broad topic), he's gonna be deposed, sisters and brothers, on a civil matter which predates his ascendancy (descendancy?) to office. Strong precedent holds that he can't wriggle out of it just because he's, like, you know, POTUS.
There is both political and legal jeopardy for the poor chap. And Michael Cohen is going to join a long list of Trump's friends and family who will have to choose between their liberty (and, in Cohen's case, his practising license) and their old mate.
$100 Billion and counting. Let the trade war begin! The ones who will lose are the very same people who voted for Drump. I would hope Congress takes back its constitutional obligation to set tariffs. It has previously delegated that right to the Executive branch.
$100 Billion and counting. Let the trade war begin! The ones who will lose are the very same people who voted for Drump.
Unfortunately, cause and effect are easy to obscure. The GOP will simply spin it as the immigrants/ blacks/ Mexicans/ gays/ women/ liberals/ Muslims/ marginalized group du jour took your jobs. Their pain will only fire up the base
I'm not sure how you get from your link to "he's gonna be deposed".
“Deposed” as in he will have to make a deposition, a statement or reply to questions, under oath. That carries enormous legal and political hazard for him.
I understood that, but I still don't see how you get there from your link. The accusation is against the Trump campaign, not Trump, and I would think he could easily argue, probably truthfully, that he is not aware of all campaign finance expenditure.
Avenatti is fishing for the suspicious activity report, believing that may provide him with a basis for deposing Cohen and Trump. Whether he will net Trump (a notoriously bad witness) immediately, he ought to be given permission to depose Cohen. Cohen's claimed behaviour is suspicious by any reasonable colloquial, never mind legal, use of that word.
It's the Mueller equation in a different setting. Maybe the price of loyalty will be too high for Cohen? However you look at it, it's a smart move by Avenatti.
So here's my brief takeaway from The Faith of Donald J Trump.
The authors pointedly refrain (just in case?) from answering the question as to whether Trump is a Christian, whilst giving every indication they believe he is.
As reported, they switch between this "Trump is a Christian really" stance to "God uses any lump of clay how he wishes" almost between paragraphs.
Much of the book is based on "holiness by association", be it the supposedly holy countries of origin of Trump's ancestors or his contacts (in one of many, many examples, Franklin Graham is described as having a "family connection" because Trump's father used to watch Billy Graham on TV. Seriously).
The vote-winning issues are "religious liberty" (which seems to mean "repealing the Johnson amendment"), Israel, and abortion, with, as I suspected, abortion coming out as the single deciding issue. In the words of the authors:
as long as the Democratic party is unreservedly pro-choice, then there's nothing to be ashamed of when Bible-reading, Jesus-loving Christians vote for the Republican candidate in every election
It seems to me that Trump realised that simply getting out the evangelical vote (without even needing to be partisan about it) would make a significant difference to his election chances.
I cannot believe how "Judaeo-Christian values" can be boiled down to this single issue in ignorance of all others, but there you have it.
Despite being leading evangelical journalists, the authors are pathetically and blindingly obviously put off balance and overawed by Trump and opulent surroundings. They genuinely think dinner with Trump and Melania at a top restaurant where Oprah Winfrey is at the next table and comes to say hi (and many similar examples) somehow proves what a personable man Trump is.
Searching desperately for something to balance all this, much is made of Trump's "straight talking" and willingness to chat to anybody. I have little doubt his common touch and ability to get the man in the street identifying with him ("he talks like we do") helped him a lot against the more distant Hillary.
And finally, for the bizarre and toe-curlingly bad (for which there is much to choose from), the book approvingly quotes Lance Wallnau as explaining that when Trump married Melania
he decided that he was going to judge the one area of his life that was out of control. The guy doesn’t drink, he doesn’t smoke — but he was a womanizer billionaire. And he ended that. He got committed to Melania, and he’s been dedicated to her and to having a rebranded family image ever since then
(although perhaps "image" will turn out to be the operative word there); in the same quote, Wallnau further explains that the "grab them by the pussy" video got leaked because
the Lord wanted to circumcise him. He wanted to cut away from him any basis for boasting that it was his own strength
That pretty much sums the level of argument here up nicely. Coming to other countries with a suitably large evangelical population to have political clout soon.
Forget the above post I could not edit it in time. But I found a reason that helps explain why White Evangelicals still support Drump. It is called Christian Nationalism
The authors are pathetically and blindingly obviously put off balance and overawed by Trump and opulent surroundings. They genuinely think dinner with Trump and Melania at a top restaurant where Oprah Winfrey is at the next table and comes to say hi (and many similar examples) somehow proves what a personable man Trump is.
Oprah should have asked to be seated at a different table.
The BBC has a piece this morning entitled Inside the White House Bible study group, which is apparently being led by the equivalent of John Piper. Drollinger's Bible studies are available online (although it's not clear whether any of these are the ones used by the group). Gems such as God's design for a societal safety net are sure to leave many Shipmates foaming at the mouth.
Well, it's a little early in the day where I am to get into the GIN, but Mr. Drollinger appears not to have noticed that the "institution" of "work" has undergone a few changes since the Industrial Revolution.
In a traditional agrarian society, the tender of a patch of fertile soil and/or a flock of livestock can, I suppose, neglect his responsibilities and earn opprobrium along with his starvation (though people in this situation can still quite blamelessly be wiped out by the vagaries of drought, locusts, plant diseases, etc.). But when the means of securing and/or maintaining a livelihood belongs to the HR department of a bank or insurance agency or IT start-up (and we can go on filling in blanks ad infinitum), "idleness" is a condition not necessarily within a worker's control. Mr. Drollinger appears to overlook this drastic change in societal structure since the first century AD.
I cannot believe how "Judaeo-Christian values" can be boiled down to this single issue in ignorance of all others, but there you have it.
There's a stripe of people who call themselves Christian who don't know that the 10 Commandments were of Moses. They don't know about the Beatitudes. And that Jesus disapproved of pseudo-pious rich people, though piety isn't much in evidence from this guy, I just threw that in because you were commenting about a trump-faith-barf book.
Does he have any actual friends? Or just people he discards: one of them needs to do a John Dean on him, who rolled over on Nixon, another product of the same party's bowels. Do we think trumpy knows what he is?
The BBC has a piece this morning entitled Inside the White House Bible study group, which is apparently being led by the equivalent of John Piper. Drollinger's Bible studies are available online (although it's not clear whether any of these are the ones used by the group). Gems such as God's design for a societal safety net are sure to leave many Shipmates foaming at the mouth.
Apparently, Amos and the sermon on the mount are conspicuously absent from their Bibles...
Apparently, Amos and the sermon on the mount are conspicuously absent from their Bibles...
"Then answered Amos, and said to Amaziah, I was no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son; but I was an herdman, and a gatherer of sycomore fruit" (Amos 7:14)
I should have used "sick of more fruit" as my ship name.
The intro to Section II, with its devious take on Matthew 22:21, ingeniously rules out the OT prophets and histories as relevant sources because the US is not a theocracy. Essentially, the whole study is a defence of the privatised gospel. Which no doubt is the take on the sermon on the mount.
That disgraceful intro was the cause of my foaming! It reminded me of Jim Wallis's story of the defaced bible, from which all verses demonstrating God's heart for the poor and marginalised had been removed. He used to wave this tattered bible in front of conservative congregations and ask 'is this your bible?'. That article is a rationalisation and justification of a similarly defaced scripture.
No idea, but I will note that today is John Bolton's first day as National Security Advisor so something involving a lot of high explosives is a distinct possibility.
Bolton's recommendation would more likely be a full-scale invasion . . . of Iran! It doesn't matter what problem he's asked about, for Bolton the correct solution is always "invade Iran".
In other news. Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen's office just got raided by the FBI. Apparently they were looking for what happened with Stormy Daniels and communications between Trump and his lawyer. It was requested by Mueller, but the search warrant was signed by a judge.
In other news. Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen's office just got raided by the FBI. Apparently they were looking for what happened with Stormy Daniels and communications between Trump and his lawyer. It was requested by Mueller, but the search warrant was signed by a judge.
Well, it was in response to information Mueller passed along. There's no indication that this is part of Mueller's investigation, which is how it's supposed to be. Unrelated potential criminal violations are usually passed along to the relevant authorities.
The intro to Section II, with its devious take on Matthew 22:21, ingeniously rules out the OT prophets and histories as relevant sources because the US is not a theocracy. Essentially, the whole study is a defence of the privatised gospel. Which no doubt is the take on the sermon on the mount.
My response? (after I join you in the puking):
Yep, there are some key differences between the ancient world and ours. Another is that neither the OT and certainly not the NT were democracies (or even imagined such). So it makes sense for Paul, say, to accept the system of slavery as "the way things are", even as he gives tantalizing hints that it's immoral-- because if Ceasar wants slaves, there isn't much that Christians can do about it. So, to their point-- should Paul talk of the government providing health care or social security? Have you met Nero???
But in a democracy, we have say about what sort of country we want to live in. And with choice comes consequences.
Yes, the US is not a theocracy (yet) or at least not officially-- yet this very same group seems to want to highjack the Almighty to endorse their cause, which sounds an awful lot like a theocracy. It's just a Moloch-racy rather than a Yahweh-ocracy.
Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen's office just got raided by the FBI.
Hallelujah! You've got to know something is very wrong when your lawyer has his own lawyer. Please, dear God, let this be the beginning of the end, and let it come swiftly.
Comments
Ironic. There's a Jack Chick tract about end-times stuff that shows leaders from the World Council Of Churches (IIRC) gathered together (unsaved, of course (eyeroll)), smoking, drinking, planning.
Looks like Jack got the wrong church leaders!
I think it might contain something like a truth that Ruth tried to bash into my head about a year ago. A bloke called McCarthy was interviewed by leftie Radio Host and big giant brain Philip Adams last week, and he is an editor at large of this publication. I've been looking for sensible conservatives for a while now, so I looked him up.
I'd be interested to hear what the Americans think of the article and the publication.
Hmmmm. I skimmed the article. Very little actually about Roseanne (her show or herself). The point seems to be "'this' is nothing new, and it's coming back strong, and we've got to deal with it". They used a long list of TV shows to illustrate that.
I'm not sure what "this" is. It's a conservative publication, so it's not Trump. Probably the great divide in the nation.
And asking myself whether there are TV series or movies today portraying 'what it's like to be us'. A struggling community, going under as a result of political indifference or international global economic and political forces. Are there modern examples?
It relates tangentially to this thread because of the relationship to some of Trump's core support, particularly in the rust belt states. The sense of being left out in the cold; ignored.
Maybe the dramas aren't crossing the pond?
You have indeed hit on something. Sympathetic portrayals of the US working class (white or nonwhite) as more than just the punchline of a joke have become rarer and rarer in TV and movies stateside.
For the record, no one knows what that "$500 Billion" figure refers to and the White House has so far not clarified anything.
We get heaps of repeats of American sitcoms from days gone by on our free-to-air telly. You certainly don't see shows like Good Times or even Everybody Loves Raymond on. Tim Allen has a family sit-com I think that is reasonably current. Is it working class though?
Anyway, this is now a tangent that could get messy. Thanks for the comments everyone. I shall continue exploring.
I would say that his character on that show is pretty emblematic of how many white male Trump voters see themselves. He's a man who has gotten by just fine without all of the hand-wringing about feelings and other fluffy stuff, and doesn't see why everyone is trying to force him to change. It's the story that Bill O'Reilly was the master of telling, and the story that you hear on conservative talk radio all the time. Think Archie Bunker with more tact, only this time he's the voice of reason rather than the clown.
Was the character in Last Man Standing working class in an income sense or just in terms of culture and in terms of an occupation that “made” things? I’m Home Improvement his family was definitely upper middle class if not affluent given their spacious house and his job on television.
Same with Everybody Loves Raymond. Yes, he wrote a sports column, his brother was a policeman, and his father was Archie Bunker-esque, but Raymond, his wife, and children were definitely upper middle class.
After Roseanne, Most shows about white families in middle America, the South, the Great Lakes Rust belt, or the northeastern ethnic white suburbs depict families with working class culture but an upper middle class lifestyle. And Most shows are set in and around affluent coastal cities anyway.
Apparently the underlying problem could well be due more to his lack of involvement...
Kevin Drum summarizes the "controversy" in exactly one hundred words.
Drum goes on to note that "[t]he Postal Regulatory Commission believes the current allocations are OK" and that others with a profit motive to find otherwise have found otherwise. He also notes that the probability that Trump is well versed in (and cares deeply about) the minutiæ of postal cost accounting is probably nil and that he's just looking to bash Jeff Bezos over something.
The idea that Post Office accounting practices are one of the most critical issues facing the United States ranks right up there with the idea that e-mail server best practices is the most important issue facing the United States, which it was until suddenly it wasn't.
There is both political and legal jeopardy for the poor chap. And Michael Cohen is going to join a long list of Trump's friends and family who will have to choose between their liberty (and, in Cohen's case, his practising license) and their old mate.
Unfortunately, cause and effect are easy to obscure. The GOP will simply spin it as the immigrants/ blacks/ Mexicans/ gays/ women/ liberals/ Muslims/ marginalized group du jour took your jobs. Their pain will only fire up the base
“Deposed” as in he will have to make a deposition, a statement or reply to questions, under oath. That carries enormous legal and political hazard for him.
Since Drump acknowledged that he had sex with Stormy Daniels (admitted it yesterday) but denied knowing anything about a
It seems to me that Trump realised that simply getting out the evangelical vote (without even needing to be partisan about it) would make a significant difference to his election chances.
I cannot believe how "Judaeo-Christian values" can be boiled down to this single issue in ignorance of all others, but there you have it.
That pretty much sums the level of argument here up nicely. Coming to other countries with a suitably large evangelical population to have political clout soon.
[fixed link]
Oprah should have asked to be seated at a different table.
They are GIN, the 'off' button', or WHISKY.
IJ
In a traditional agrarian society, the tender of a patch of fertile soil and/or a flock of livestock can, I suppose, neglect his responsibilities and earn opprobrium along with his starvation (though people in this situation can still quite blamelessly be wiped out by the vagaries of drought, locusts, plant diseases, etc.). But when the means of securing and/or maintaining a livelihood belongs to the HR department of a bank or insurance agency or IT start-up (and we can go on filling in blanks ad infinitum), "idleness" is a condition not necessarily within a worker's control. Mr. Drollinger appears to overlook this drastic change in societal structure since the first century AD.
bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-43691291
What price Armageddon within the next six months?
'A big price to pay' is a big threat to offer.....
IJ
Does he have any actual friends? Or just people he discards: one of them needs to do a John Dean on him, who rolled over on Nixon, another product of the same party's bowels. Do we think trumpy knows what he is?
Apparently, Amos and the sermon on the mount are conspicuously absent from their Bibles...
I should have used "sick of more fruit" as my ship name.
The intro to Section II, with its devious take on Matthew 22:21, ingeniously rules out the OT prophets and histories as relevant sources because the US is not a theocracy. Essentially, the whole study is a defence of the privatised gospel. Which no doubt is the take on the sermon on the mount.
That disgraceful intro was the cause of my foaming! It reminded me of Jim Wallis's story of the defaced bible, from which all verses demonstrating God's heart for the poor and marginalised had been removed. He used to wave this tattered bible in front of conservative congregations and ask 'is this your bible?'. That article is a rationalisation and justification of a similarly defaced scripture.
Any suggestions as to what he might do?
IJ
No idea, but I will note that today is John Bolton's first day as National Security Advisor so something involving a lot of high explosives is a distinct possibility.
IJ
News about the raid
Well, it was in response to information Mueller passed along. There's no indication that this is part of Mueller's investigation, which is how it's supposed to be. Unrelated potential criminal violations are usually passed along to the relevant authorities.
My response? (after I join you in the puking):
Yep, there are some key differences between the ancient world and ours. Another is that neither the OT and certainly not the NT were democracies (or even imagined such). So it makes sense for Paul, say, to accept the system of slavery as "the way things are", even as he gives tantalizing hints that it's immoral-- because if Ceasar wants slaves, there isn't much that Christians can do about it. So, to their point-- should Paul talk of the government providing health care or social security? Have you met Nero???
But in a democracy, we have say about what sort of country we want to live in. And with choice comes consequences.
Yes, the US is not a theocracy (yet) or at least not officially-- yet this very same group seems to want to highjack the Almighty to endorse their cause, which sounds an awful lot like a theocracy. It's just a Moloch-racy rather than a Yahweh-ocracy.