Furthermore… You are certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. Come Jan 20th, Trump will be the legitimate president of the USA. That is a fact. You can come up with any number of reasons that you won’t support him (and I’ll probably agree with most of them), but you won’t be able to make the factual claim that his in not the legitimate president of the country.
For what definition of “legitimate”? Because this looks to me like a really ridiculous semantic argument, with people meaning definition 6 (or whatever) and you insisting on interpreting their statements as definition 1.
Well, he’s certainly a bastard, even if he is not a bastard.
LOL, no need to point me to any threads. I’m a busy girl with little time to pursue every single word uttered on this message board. I read what I can when I can and respond to what’s in front of me, as I suspect most of us do.
Also, you can dispense with the Aldous Huxley impersonation. I’m well aware that Mr. Trump will be sworn in as our next President on Friday, having obtained his bonafide Electoral College results through what is in my opinion, illegitimate means. To me, it follows thus that his presidency is also illegitimate.
I realize my definition of “legitimate” has a few more steps in it than yours, but I’m confident you can get there with some focused effort. Your definition essentially espouses the view that the end justifies the means. Mine does not. And that is a difference of opinion, not fact.
I am also of the opinion that Mr. Trump is unfit to be President. But that is a distinction with another difference. Perhaps one upon which we can agree… or not, depending on how narrowly you define “unfit.”
Krugman’s article on why Trump is illegitimate. Might help those who are confused.
Meanwhile, if being in the “tiny handful of extremists” who think Trump is illegitimate seats me next to Krugman and Lewis instead of next to Pence and Ryan, I’m pretty good with the company.
Illegitimate or not, opposing a bad politician is surely patriotic?
Today is MLK Day. King was not a great man because he just accepted how things were. He was a great man because he raised a big goddamn fuss about how things should be different.
He’s not “the anti-Christ,” as there is no such thing in Scripture. He is “an anti-Christ,” because pretty much everything he stands for is the opposite of what Christ stands for. And he is oddly appealing to supposed “Christians,” which fits the Biblical idea that we’d have to watch out for him.
Someone who is against everything Christianity is supposed to stand for, but is somehow appealing to way too many Christians. I can’t think of a better term.
I don’t know if you consider yourself a Christian or not, but for a lot of Christians, abortion is something close to murder of an unborn child, and they oppose it strenuously. Trump has promised to appoint pro-life judges who presumably would also oppose our currently-mostly-unrestricted access to abortions. Isn’t that at least one thing that (many) Christians’ values and Trump’s stated policy align?
It’s funny that the thread started with people denying that there are “any serious efforts to rule Trump’s election illegitimate” - and has devolved into people trying to one-up each other on just how illegitimate Trump’s election is.
Lee Marvin, The Professionals, 1966
Yes, but that’s not what I said.
I’m aware that some Christians have taken their own interpretation about abortion and turned it into holy Scripture. However, the fact is that it’s not mentioned in the Bible at all, let alone being mentioned by Christ.
Jesus’s teachings were about how the poor and destitute were valuable. He taught a message of loving your fellow man. He taught forgiveness and altruism. When you see someone who is hurt, you help them. He taught humility,that the last shall be first and the first last. He said “fear not.” He preached against putting your faith in money. And he said “love your neighbor as yourself.”
Trump considers poor people beneath him. He ran his entire campaign on hatred. He holds grudges and tries to get even, to a pathological degree. When he sees someone hurt, he calls them losers (like John McCain). He lacks the ability to be humble, always being prideful. He used fear as his primary motivation. He puts his entire value in how much money he has. And he loves himself and no one else.
What it seems to me is that the 80% of White Evangelicals who voted for Trump have elevated their own personal interpretation about abortion above the God they are supposed to serve.
(The 60% of White Catholics have the extra excuse of a pseudo-Scriptural catechism which condemns abortion. It’s still wrong that they elevate it above everything else so that no other sin matters.)
I agree with this point but I would add a few more.
Bush2 wanted to implement safeties into Fannie Mae loans and Frank resisted. BUT the real issue was people financing more homes than they could afford. The only people I know that lost houses were those that kept refinancing to pull out more money, basically looking at their mortgage as an income-producer rather than a loan. We can talk about predatory lending but ultimately it is up to a person to know how much they can afford in a mortgage and not go over that. Do you know why I didn’t lose my house? I never bought one because I couldn’t afford a $2500 mortgage bringing home $4000 per month along with a car payment, child support, food and utilities.
OK, you’re smart. Good, that’s handy. But the predators here didn’t prey on smart educated people. They fed upon people who didn’t know any better. Often, in America, its seems we deplore people who rob people with violence and fear. But if you can outsmart them, hey! more power to you. Go get 'em!
And you would have a point IF it was all about amortization formulas, 30% net = housing, etc. But if someone cannot figure out that with buying a house all of their expenses would be more than they make then that is on them. When I talk about mortgaging more home than you can afford I’m not talking esoteric concepts here. I’m talking not paying bills and refi-ing for a bigger loan.
ETA: If someone could not afford to flush $500 down the toilet every month but they did it anyways and were living beyond their means because of it - whose fault would it be? The water/sewage company?