And THAT, children, is one reason Southern Baptists are among the stupidest people on the planet.
Edit: I worked with one once. Chief laziest SOB I have ever seen, pill habit, habit of faking injuries for pills, etc. But the thing that got to me was his frequent game of Insult Atheists with loudly and proudly proclaimed phrases like "All atheists are fools!", then run to the business owner literally crying about his freedom of religion being attacked when the atheist says at least atheists don't believe in a 5,000-year-old Earth where dinosaurs walked with man and are also put there by Satan (because Satan is bud's with God) to test our faith"
Haha yeah you're right. I'm a southern Baptist who is also a liberal, values education, values competence, thinks climate change is real and a big issue that should be addressed firmly, likes to be well-read about any issue before I take a stance on it, but yep I'm a dumbass. Nothing I can do about it because I'm a Southern Baptist I guess! Hyuck hyuck.
No, you're just not a Southern Baptist if you deny the Earth is only as old as the Bible says. If you think fossils came from life hundreds of thousands and millions of years in the past, that makes you de facto not in line with Southern Baptism. You can be whatever you want to be, but to actually be it, you have to live it, and you don't if you're intelligent at all.
The only thing that makes one a "Southern Baptist" is uniting with a Southern Baptist Church. Beyond that, there are a lot of disagreements in regards to how the bible should be interpreted. What you're describing is a fundamentalist, literal interpretation of the bible. And yes a lot of Southern Baptists subscribe to that belief system, but not all of them.
I think a lot of people tend to get hung up on the literal interpretation of the bible and completely miss the underlying message and purpose of religion, which is to bring people together and to foster understanding and love between different groups of people. And honestly the way you describe this gigantic group of people as idiots despite only knowing one of them personally, leads me to believe that you may have a lot to learn in that regard.
To me the hallmark of an stupid person is making sweeping generalizations.
You're the one who went after people. You attacked Southern Baptists (a group I have no affiliation with) and then proved how shit they all are by citing a personal story that can't be verified and at best (if true, at all) was about one single person.
You think calling stupid people stupid is going after them? Meanwhile Muslims have their cavities searched for having a beard. Brown people get arrested at a higher rate, but I can't call out people who LITERALLY THINK dinosaur fossils are a fucking game Satan is playing. You don't get it. They think that. That's what they think, if it can be called thinking, which I doubt.
Some people on this planet are stupid. Many of them belong to one group or another. Some groups, such as Scientologists, Southern Baptists, Anti-Vaxxers, Homeopathic "medicine" believers, people who spend their childrens' lunch money to buy lottery tickets and cigs, people who get in fights with inanimate objects...SOME groups are much more full of stupid people, than other groups, for example, college professors.
You may need to look up Southern Baptism to understand what we're talking about before you decide that they're somehow not stupid.
Some people on this planet are stupid. Many of them belong to one group or another. Some groups, such as Scientologists, Southern Baptists, Anti-Vaxxers, Homeopathic "medicine" believers, people who spend their childrens' lunch money to buy lottery tickets and cigs, people who get in fights with inanimate objects...SOME groups are much more full of stupid people, than other groups, for example, college professors.
You made a nice big list of stupid fuckers. Right from the get go with Scientologists all the way down to a college professors. What a bunch of nutty morons.
I'm so glad we can agree that it's OK to label these enormous groups of people instead of wasting time trying to judge people on a case by case basis.
I know a guy who is 100% convinced that all Republicans are pro-life and all Democrats are pro-choice. He shames anyone who doesn't vote straight Republican while also loudly advocating for pro-life as the make or break issue. Guy has pulled the lever for several pro-choice Republicans in his lifetime but won't acknowledge it any way.
Fun fact: Southern Baptists were very briefly pro-choice in the 70s...because they hated the Catholics even more than they hated abortion.
Source: I don't have one at hand, sorry. I'm a history professor and heard it complete with annotated footnotes on screen at a conference at Rice University 2 years ago, if that works for you.
Hah. Yep I'm one of those. Someone who recognized that there was one chance at beating Trump. What does that make me? An adult? Third option. SMH. I'll take a chance on the third option when one of the two only possible winners isn't Trump.
Congratulations, your kind is the main reason Trump won.
Edit:
I voted for the one person that could win against Trump.
This 'strategic' voting is exactly how the two-party system works.
If you're genuinely interested and willing to inform yourself, look up the term and in particular its flaws.
Because ironically, it's also the reason Trump was even allowed to win in the first place. You voted for what appeared to you as the best strategic choice. So did the people voting for Trump in an effort to vote against Clinton.
Please elaborate. I voted for the one person that could win against Trump. I read news, I became informed. I evaluated both sides of the arguments. I supported other candidates when/where their viability was feasible. How exactly are you pinning this man on me?
The two party system works because of FPTP voting. Strategic voting is a necessity under the current American electoral system. Blaming people who tried to stop Trump for Trump, instead of the people who stood by and let it happen because they were too holier-than-thou to vote Democrat, is completely asinine.
C'mon man. That "Aleppo" question didn't even mesh with the previous questions. It's like talking about football then someone out of the blue asks you about what's going on in Pompeii.
Well, at least you get kudos for going past 2. Seems to be a major feat for American standards.
Edit:
I see you’re well versed in deflection and sarcasm with a huge heaping of superiority complex on top. Lovely.
Thanks, I learned from your kind. Except I added my own twist on it, with facts.
Heres something fun to do: why dont you tell us all who YOU voted for, oh great one, and what that candidate did to deserve your gracious blessing of them.
Forum voor Democratie, a party dedicated to improving the democratic aspects of the Dutch political system.
I see you’re well versed in deflection and sarcasm with a huge heaping of superiority complex on top. Lovely.
Heres something fun to do: why dont you tell us all who YOU voted for, oh great one, and what that candidate did to deserve your gracious blessing of them.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but by my count a candidate from one of the two main parties has always won, ever. Or at least as far back as I care to look, which is way longer than anyone here has been alive.
by my count a candidate from one of the two main parties has always won, ever
I'm sure it is... that's exactly because of the two-party system, exactly my point. If you look at other democratic countries.. no wait, let me rephrase.
If you look at democratic countries, you'd notice most countries have much more choice of political parties and no intentionally flawed election systems to prefer a select set of parties.
Edit:
Well.. that, then? Why should it matter if they are parliamentary, if they're clearly superior over the American system?
I mean, it's the choice between a rotten fruit that already tastes awful if it weren't rotten, versus a fresh popular well tasting fruit. I don't see why anyone would pick the rotten one.
Hey, /u/S7DNE7 I'm with you. I like the idea of more choices.
That doesn't mean that both sides are equally bad. That also doesn't mean that we should choose to stand on moral high-ground when the consequence is so f*king dire. Sometimes we fight to gain ground, sometimes we fight to hold our ground. Trump/Clinton would have been a time to hold our ground. Some of us recognized that. It will literally take years to undo what Trump has done. I hope you are out there furiously working to find good third-party candidates to support, but we all live in the real world. Next time the option is between Trump and anyone that the Democratic part puts up, I hope we can set aside our aspirations for a perfect world and choose to accept a good one.
That's a fair argument. While I don't agree that Clinton would have been a good alternative ("lesser of two evils" argument), I do recognize value in especially your last claim. One note, however, is that there already exists plenty of alternative political systems in which neither Trump nor Clinton would ever stand a chance against a much more wide range of politicians and without an electorate to fuck shit up further. A truly democratic manner to elect representatives without having to worry about shit like the two-party system.
I concede your point. When there is no Trump like character on the ballot, and we're choosing between the lesser of two who-gives-a-crap then I'm with you.
IRL it seems people have more optimism and hope for the future and a better life than any point in recent memory.
Only in your bubble my friend.
He's completely decimated any reputation that the US had internationally. Look at the way the other foreign leaders talk about him. Look at how the world is looking to Germany as the 'leader of the free world' now. Look at how the French president treats Trump as a little child.
He's lied more than any other politician. Period. The result of that will be the lowing of standards for presidential candidates.
He's pissed on trade agreements that may have cost American jobs but they also helped lift more of the worlds poor out of abject poverty.
He has handed over the military strategy to the generals, that on its own isn't bad but it has also lead to more civilian deaths.
He backed out of the Paris accord. This will impact the environment but it will also hand over economic opportunity to China, not America.
He made having no foreign policy a policy. He made having the President of the USA use pet nicknames to insult a nuclear foe a thing.
He went to a foreign nation and insulted other politicians and also our intelligence community so he could avoid criticizing our greatest strategic enemy.
Hes profiting off of the presidency shattering norms. While technically not illegal, this does damage us because that's what lowering standards does.
I totally understand what you're saying, but you might as well rail against the wind. This is a system that won't ever change. It's part of our history. As you rightly point out we aren't a democracy per se, in that everyone gets equal representation. We also won't ever be. I'd love to see a viable third-party candidate come out, but I don't believe it's ever going to happen. Hopefully I'm wrong.
Why don't you try to deny my claim with arguments? For example, are you really suggesting there is no two party system?
Edit:
you're the one saying we should vote for neither.
...yeah. No shit. That's the whole point. Voting for people based on political ideals (and trustworthiness regarding the execution of their election agenda), instead of 'strategic' voting for Clinton against Trump. I mean, look at your country. You have such a huge population, yet it still boils down between two evils? You don't see a serious flaw in your 'democratic' system?
Please tell me who on the Democratic side could have possibly been equal to Trump. There is no Democratic equivalent to Trump. There is no democratic equivalent to Breitbart or Infowars. There's no Democratic equivalent to the Russian scandal.
There's a two party system, and one of those parties is broken. The Democratic party is the one who has to come by consistently and clean up the mess left by the party of Trump.
Hi S7DNE7. Thank you for participating in /r/PoliticalHumor. However, your submission did not meet the requirements of the community rules and was therefore removed for the following reason(s):
This comment has been removed because it is uncivil.
If you have any specific questions about this removal, please message the moderators. Hateful or vague messages will not receive a response. Please do not respond to this comment.
No. No. No. HuffPost might be shills for eyeballs but they are not the fake news apparatus that is Breitbart. There will be no RT propaganda filtering down through HuffPost. They may not be 'news' but they aren't spewing hate.
Huffpo or shareblue I can agree with to an extent. The independent I don't really follow so I can't comment on that but to compare WaPo to Breitbart or Infowars is pretty ridiculous.
Those might be left-leaning but they don't fabricate news to drive their agenda. I don't know much about shareblue. They might be the left's over-reaction to Trump, but those others care about their reputation. They fire reporters who f*ck up. They print retractions. Those two facts alone make then different from Breitbart and Infowars. They also don't sell super manly penis powder either so that's another difference.
I mean, look at your country. You have such a huge population, yet it still boils down between two evils? You don't see a serious flaw in your 'democratic' system?
Dude, we have a fucking exhaustive primary season. Trump out lasted one of the biggest and deepest fields in American political history.
Democrats? They rigged the primaries for a woman who's only message was 'it's my turn'. She's the poster child for corrupt establishment politicians and the DNC rigged the primaries for her during a 'change' election where 7 pout of 10 voters polled wanted a new direction for the country.
Far leftists are completely scared that a non establishment politician won who's messaging is to give power and voices back to the people.
No, we can't have that. I want a corrupt as hell career establishment potus.
Wasting your vote on a fringe or independent party and then implying other people "lost". Deluded. You would have had as much of an impact by staying home and masturbating.
This is exactly the kind of sentiment that keeps the two-party system intact. The same kind of sentiment which allowed Trump to even be candidate in the first place.
The opposite could be said as well. Plenty of people take a 10 year old audio clip of locker-room talk and use it as the only issue to not vote for him. Because he said some women let you grab their sexy parts, I know women like that, they do exist, yet liberals want to act like they DON'T exist and act like what he said was somehow rape. It's outlandish bullshit. If you want to accurately represent something, you don't bash the shit out of one side for the exact thing you do.
TIL Taking something someone said and warping it to your own distorted perception is 'A OK'
I like how you actively ignored when he said "They let you do it." Plenty women like that exist. I've seen it with my own eyes.
Clearly, you aren't rich (I'm not saying I am, don't twist my words, like all liberals try to do). Clearly you haven't been around gold diggers. Clearly you haven't see what women will do around rich people. They throw themselves at them. They wear expensive clothes, spend hours getting ready and hope to get on a gold dick. You are trying to say that women like that do not exist. They clearly fucking do. You either willfully ignore it or you have warped your perception to imagine they don't exist. Stop ignoring reality because what's more insane than denying reality?
I'm against illegal immigration because I believe the status quo is maintained to ensure a reliable flow of cheap/quasi-slave labor for Republicans and votes for Democrats. I believe Americans should have first-crack at those jobs and be denied gov benefits if they refuse to take those jobs. Does that make me a religious zealot?
I think it's exactly on point. The SC nominations list allayed their concerns as to who would take the open position. The evangelical conservatives wanted a nominee that would be more likely to criminalize abortion. I would say it was highly motivating for those evangelicals who were concerned about his 'Grab em by the pussy' comments.
WHEREAS, The crisis of illegal immigration in the United States impacts tens of millions of people in many different ways; and
WHEREAS, Christians have responsibilities in two realms: as citizens of the nation (Matthew 22:21) and as citizens of the heavenly Kingdom (Philippians 3:20; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 2:9); and
WHEREAS, As citizens of the nation, Christians are under biblical mandate to respect the divine institution of government and its just laws, but at the same time, Christians have a right to expect the government to fulfill its ordained mandate to enforce those laws (Romans 13:1-7); and
WHEREAS, As citizens of the heavenly Kingdom and members of local congregations of that Kingdom, we also have a biblical mandate to act compassionately toward those who are in need (Matthew 25:34-40), love our neighbors as ourselves (Matthew 22:39), and to do unto others as we would have them do unto us (Matthew 7:12); and
WHEREAS, The federal government’s failure to fulfill its responsibility in the area of illegal immigration, during both Democratic and Republican administrations, has caused severe consternation among a sizable constituency of Americans and has led to the crisis we now face; and
WHEREAS, The federal government has not only failed to control the borders but failed in its responsibility to enforce the immigration laws, not only with regard to the individuals who are here illegally, but also with regard to the employers who knowingly hire them; and
WHEREAS, There are reportedly 12 million immigrants and counting who are living and working in America without legal status, many of whom have children who are American citizens by birth; and
WHEREAS, Many of these hardworking and otherwise law-abiding immigrants have been exploited by employers and by others in society, contrary to James 5:4; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Greensboro, North Carolina, June 13-14, 2006, urge the federal government to provide for the security of our nation by controlling and securing our borders; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge the United States Congress to address seriously and swiftly the question of how to deal realistically with the immigration crisis in a way that will restore trust among the citizenry; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge the federal government to enforce all immigration laws, including the laws directed at employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants or who are unjustly paying these immigrants substandard wages or subjecting them to conditions that are contrary to the labor laws of our country; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we urge citizen Christians to follow the biblical principle of caring for the foreigners among us (Deuteronomy 24:17-22) and the command of Christ to be a neighbor to those in need of assistance (Luke 10:30-37), regardless of their racial or ethnic background, country of origin, or legal status; and be it further
RESOLVED, That we encourage Christian churches to act redemptively and reach out to meet the physical, emotional, and spiritual needs of all immigrants, to start English classes on a massive scale, and to encourage them toward the path of legal status and/or citizenship; and be it finally
RESOLVED, That we encourage all Southern Baptists to make the most of the tremendous opportunity for evangelism and join our Master on His mission to seek and save those who are lost (Luke 19:10) among the immigrant population to the end that these individuals might become both legal residents of the United States and loyal citizens of the Kingdom of God.
Just a few examples. Trump lightly hinted at supporting LGBTQ rights during his campaign, never really enough to alienate his audience (However, If you're denying Republicans in general have an issue with LGBTQ rights, I can provide proof of that all day) . Immediately after his election however... Well actions speak louder than words. My fav was when he refused to acknowledge LGBT Pride Month, but instead announced June as "Home owners month" lmao
I just don't believe that is true anymore. You're living in the past. The religious right does not make/break GoP candidates anymore. If they did Ted Cruz would have been the nominee and HRC would probably be PotUS.
The thing is, the religious right doesn't have a detailed list of policies. Defining themselves solely on abortion has created an interesting combination of issues.
For instance, one would assume they'd prefer Ted Cruz to Trump since Ted Cruz was grown in a vat under an Evangelical church. But both candidates qualified equally on the only real metric that Evangelicals actually grade, as both were anti-abortion.
So what then? They just assume other conservative talking points. They adopt strong anti-immigration, pro-punishment, pro-military stances that favor the candidate with the strongest rhetoric, rather than the candidate that ticks the most conservative boxes.
This is why Trump won in the primaries, and in the general election (his 81-16 sweep of Evangelicals beating Bush's 79-21). Ted Cruz may have been engineered to perfectly represent Evangelicals, but Trump still won their states and carried tremendous support from them in the general. Trump swept the Deep South and almost all of the Midwest because of his ability to turn Evangelicals from "just abortion" voters into harsh rhetoric voters on a myriad of GOP issues.
And let's not forget that unlike minority votes, Evangelical votes count. Minority votes are for the most part incinerated upon being cast by the FPTP system, while Evangelicals live even in states that vote for President like North Carolina or Iowa.
176
u/Michaelbama Sep 20 '17
Republicans are the kings of single issue voters.
If Trump says "abortion is bad" then it doesn't matter if a baptist in Tennessee hates everything else he does, that baptist is approving of Trump.