Should Trump Resign Over "Hellhole" Comment?

[Sparko]

Mickiel yawns at your surprise.

Over 5000 page views!!!

[carpedm9587]

The surprise was 30 pages in just a couple of days.

...and nothing accomplished.

I'm surprised THAT came as a surprise!

[carpedm9587]

I think you're wasting your time overthinking that one - just abolish it.

Frankly, I would not mind seeing the electoral college disapper altogether. However, that would require a constitutional amendment, and those are difficult and relatively rare. The adjustment I propose requires no such adjustment and gets us closer to the popular vote, while preserving the electoral structure. It's not the ideal, but it's a significant improvement. That is, of course, if the practice of gerrymandering is put to rest. I believe the layout of congressional districts should be turned over to a bipartisan panel with representation from both major parties co-chaired by a member of each party.

I would love to see involvement by other, smaller parties, but not sure how to do that without disproportionately weighting them.

[Adrift]

IS or WAS?

Is. It's not like he became a changed person just because he got elected president. The guy's been married three times, cheated on his first wife with his mistress, openly admitted to being a player between marriages, has a long history with Playboy and Hugh Hefner (including appearing on one of the covers), over a dozen sexual harassment allegations, was caught on tape saying disgusting things about how he hits on married women, and gets away with grabbing women because he's a wealthy celebrity. I've seen absolutely no indication that he sincerely regrets that long sordid history, or has become some champion for sexual morality.

[Mountain Man]

Frankly, I would not mind seeing the electoral college disapper altogether. However, that would require a constitutional amendment, and those are difficult and relatively rare. The adjustment I propose requires no such adjustment and gets us closer to the popular vote, while preserving the electoral structure. It's not the ideal, but it's a significant improvement. That is, of course, if the practice of gerrymandering is put to rest. I believe the layout of congressional districts should be turned over to a bipartisan panel with representation from both major parties co-chaired by a member of each party.

I would love to see involvement by other, smaller parties, but not sure how to do that without disproportionately weighting them.

Why do people think a straight popular vote is somehow superior to the electoral college? Liberals are only complaining about it because they think Hillary was cheated out of a win when there's no guarantee she would have won if she and Trump were both campaigning for the popular vote. They both played by the same rules, and she lost. It's long past time to suck it up.

[carpedm9587]

I have to admit that I too have struggled with the candidates being put forward by the Republican party, and the support they are receiving from evangelicals and the Christian right. I understand the arguments about selecting from the lesser of two evils, but what is happening seems to me to be more than that. Not only are Republicans voting for these people to avoid having a pro-choice supporter and pro-LBGTQ supporter in office, after the election they are vigorously defending them against any and all claims, even when there is significant evidence of malfeasance. It stops looking like "grudging acceptance" and begins to look like "enthusiastic support." In so doing, I think the Christian right is trading short-term gain for long-term problems. I work extensively with young people in our community, and I hear a LOT of voices saying what Tass and others here have been saying. I think the right has seriously harmed its credibility with these young people on a massive scale, and it will likely accelerate the movement away from religions.

Don't get me wrong - the left does the same thing with their candidates. The difference is the bar that has been set. Evangelicals and the Christian right have put themselves forward as the defenders of moral rectitude to a degree that the left has not. The "family values" theme is much more associated with the right than the left, for example. It is that disconnect that I am hearing young people reject.

[Adrift]

I have to admit that I too have struggled with the candidates being put forward by the Republican party, and the support they are receiving from evangelicals and the Christian right. I understand the arguments about selecting from the lesser of two evils, but what is happening seems to me to be more than that. Not only are Republicans voting for these people to avoid having a pro-choice supporter and pro-LBGTQ supporter in office, after the election they are vigorously defending them against any and all claims, even when there is significant evidence of malfeasance. It stops looking like "grudging acceptance" and begins to look like "enthusiastic support." In so doing, I think the Christian right is trading short-term gain for long-term problems. I work extensively with young people in our community, and I hear a LOT of voices saying what Tass and others here have been saying. I think the right has seriously harmed its credibility with these young people on a massive scale, and it will likely accelerate the movement away from religions.

Don't get me wrong - the left does the same thing with their candidates. The difference is the bar that has been set. Evangelicals and the Christian right have put themselves forward as the defenders of moral rectitude to a degree that the left has not. The "family values" theme is much more associated with the right than the left, for example. It is that disconnect that I am hearing young people reject.

I find it a bit...odd...that people are fine with seeing the left as having no stance on morality. Like, if you're complete immoral scum, you're supposed to have a better chance with Democrats than Republicans, and Republicans are hypocrites for electing that sort of person, but Democrats aren't. I mean, even if you're not religious, who would want to be a part of a party that's seen as having no ethics?

[JimL]

IS or WAS?

He just payed $130,000 in hush money to a woman he had an affair with just after he married his current wife. I would say IS! And why, after hearing him during the campaign would you assume WAS?

[carpedm9587]

No we think that Trump is not sexually immoral, or racist, or a liar. That's all made up by you guys.

Sparko...really? The man was recorded on audio bragging about sexual exploitation. He's been married three times (which isn't a problem for me - but usually is for the Christian right). He has been recorded saying some outrageous things about his own daughter. He bragged about being able to go backstage and "inspect" beauty pageant candidates as they were dressing. And there is a long line of people claiming he sexually harassed them. You can ignore ALL of that and say he is not "sexually immoral?"

He has been caught twisting fact after fact after fact, setting records for flat-out-wrong statements when he speaks, and clinging to his statement even in the face of audio, video, and or evidence that he was not correct. He tells us, in his book, that lying is perfectly acceptable in negotiations if it gets you what you want. He explicitly TELLS us that he is a liar, and you reject that and say he is not?

As for racist, I have heard his words, seen his actions, and heard too many attestations to things he has said. Apparently, there are reels and reels of excised footage from The Apprentice with him saying outrageously racial things, and these will never see the light of day because Trump is still executive producer and controls the content. If this man is SO innocent, can someone explain to me why we still have not seen his tax returns, cannot see that excised footage, and so forth?

I'm sorry - but the lengths to which the right goes to defend this horrendous man (and others like him) is one of the main reasons that much of the nation increasingly sees the religious right as having lost its claim to moral righteousness. There are more and more of this kind of article from other religious groups as well as from moderates and the left. These are the very groups from which the religious right needs to recruit - because you cannot recruit from yourself. This is what I meant, in another post, about the long-term harm I think the religious right is doing to its own objectives. It is increasingly being seen as an immoral group, rather than a moral one.

[carpedm9587]

Why do people think a straight popular vote is somehow superior to the electoral college? Liberals are only complaining about it because they think Hillary was cheated out of a win when there's no guarantee she would have won if she and Trump were both campaigning for the popular vote. They both played by the same rules, and she lost. It's long past time to suck it up.

I think a straight popular vote is better because it captures the will of the majority of the population. Many of the purposes of the electoral college, as I understand them, simply no longer exists. However, I think it is unlikely to happen because of the need for a constitutional amendment. However, it would NOT require a constitutional amendment to fix the major problem with the electoral college: the disproportionate power it gives to different citizens in different states. If the votes were apportioned for the presidential election in the same way they are for Congress (which a small number of states are already doing), that would be fixed. It depends, of course, on ending the practice of gerrymandering by both parties.

[JimL]

I find it a bit...odd...that people are fine with seeing the left as having no stance on morality. Like, if you're complete immoral scum, you're supposed to have a better chance with Democrats than Republicans, and Republicans are hypocrites for electing that sort of person, but Democrats aren't. I mean, even if you're not religious, who would want to be a part of a party that's seen as having no ethics?

Except for the fact that that is nonsense. We on the left do not have "no stance on morality" as you suggest, we don't vote for complete immoral scum, as apparently Evangelicals will. Do you seriously believe that liberals in general are immoral? Then why do you say it?

[carpedm9587]

I find it a bit...odd...that people are fine with seeing the left as having no stance on morality. Like, if you're complete immoral scum, you're supposed to have a better chance with Democrats than Republicans, and Republicans are hypocrites for electing that sort of person, but Democrats aren't. I mean, even if you're not religious, who would want to be a part of a party that's seen as having no ethics?

I never said I was fine with it, Adrift, and I don't think the left positions itself as a party with no ethics. The left simply doesn't make "ethics" and "family values" and "morality" a core part of its identity and messaging; the Christian right does. As a consequence, the right has set itself a higher moral bar by explicitly making that a focus of its message. The problem is one of messaging. From the perspective of many, the right is appearing to be a group that preaches morality, then ignores it when it politically suites them, leaving the impression of incredible hypocrisy.

I'm not saying the situation is right, wrong, desireable, undesirable, etc. I'm simply noting that the situation exists, and I think it will eventually give the right some serious heartburn.

The left, on the other hand, focuses on the individual issues (e.g., gay rights, pro-choice, etc.) as individually desirable (without usually using the language of moral/ethical), creeating a lower bar on that front.

[carpedm9587]

Except for the fact that that is nonsense. We on the left do not have "no stance on morality" as you suggest, we don't vote for complete immoral scum, as apparently Evangelicals will. Do you seriously believe that liberals in general are immoral? Then why do you say it?

Ummm... I'm not sure the left is any more innocent of electing "moral scum" than the right. I think that would be a hard case to make, especially with the wide array of what constitutes "moral scum."

[JimL]

Ummm... I'm not sure the left is any more innocent of electing "moral scum" than the right. I think that would be a hard case to make, especially with the wide array of what constitutes "moral scum."

After getting to know him, they elected Trump. nough said!

[Adrift]

Except for the fact that that is nonsense. We on the left do not have "no stance on morality" as you suggest, we don't vote for complete immoral scum, as apparently Evangelicals will. Do you seriously believe that liberals in general are immoral? Then why do you say it?

I didn't say that I think people on the left have no stance on morality. I said that it's odd that people are fine with seeing the left as having no stance on morality. I'm saying that precisely because I know plenty of people on the left who DO have a firm stance on morality.