Windseeker

None of which alters its taste.   (PS: It could disappear off the planet and I wouldn't know it - the only soda I've bought for ages is Henry Weinhard's Root Beer, and even that only gets purchased once a year.)

I've actually had the chance to meet President Uchdorf and he's such a great guy. The fact he does not come across as perfect makes him endearing. Something to keep in mind is that it was more of a light confession of a human weakness, so people would be remiss to assume it's an endorsement of any sorts.

Is there a term for schadenfreude inspired mainly by someone else's failed attempt at schadenfreude?

Congratulations is too soon, I think.  Everything he has done since post-election is promising.  Even his tweets.  I believe he is who I think he is... especially after pulling blue states to red against both the Dems and the Repubs plus the media trying to bring him down.  But we won't really know until we really see what he does.
We went through the same "angst" with President Duterte.  6 weeks into his Presidency and I was assured he'd deliver on the things I voted for.  But even then, it's still too soon to see if what I hope would happen will... especially as he is gearing up to deliver on the things he promised that I wasn't too keen on.  But, the interesting thing... he appointed my uncle to deliver that promise that I'm most worried about, so at least, I have a way to hammer what my concerns are into its design. 
Like Duterte, I don't care if  Trump changes his language or not.  I would rather hear your natural speech than listen to your manufactured politically correct speech that tries to offend nobody so it doesn't really say much of anything.  I mean, Pres. Obama just gave a speech in Greece that was a very well politically crafted blow at the President-elect.  But, because it is so politically correct, we can argue all day long about what he really meant to say.  Duterte, on the other hand, says it plain and simple, "if he thinks that, then he's a son of a b...".  No question there.  But yeah, he is Bisaya and so Bisaya people can understand him.  He sucks at communicating in Pilipino or English so I find myself having to explain to people what he said... I tell my kids all the time, "pay attention in language arts children!  I give you case #1 - Pres. Duterte would be so much better if he paid attention to language arts".  I might have a case #2 with Trump if he goes back to his early days as a politician.  My kids love Nigel Farage... scathing but well-spoken.  Or might just sound well-spoken because he has such an elegant accent.  Hah!

Your guy won. I did not vote for him, but I must admit I had a Schadenfreude-inspired smile on my face when I went online Tuesday evening last week to check out the results. If he abandons his absurdly offensive language and turns out to govern well, I will morph into an enthusiastic (well, at least dedicated) supporter.

I've actually had the chance to meet President Uchdorf and he's such a great guy. The fact he does not come across as perfect makes him endearing. Something to keep in mind is that it was more of a light confession of a human weakness, so people would be remiss to assume it's an endorsement of any sorts.

I am inline with other specifying that the drink was caffeinated soda, otherwise why would he say "that shall remain nameless." The only reason why to leave a soda pop "nameless" is because it was a caffeinated soda. That is why a good number of people laughed (chuckled to themselves).

I heard this as well. I think it's safe to assume he was drinking a caffeinated soda. I makes sense that he was drinking it to help maintain focus and counter the tedium of having to learn something so boring.
In my opinion I think diet anything, has way worse chemicals then caffeine.   (Diet Pepsi drinker here, just started my second day of giving up soda).

As much as I never liked Bill Clinton and never understood the charm and charisma he obviously had over many, I must admit that he was perhaps the most politically effective president of my lifetime, for good and for bad. He understood coalition-building, something Obama not only never understood but actively turned his nose up at. Had Bill's wife been willing to shut her trap, listen to her husband (whom she may dislike, but that wasn't her focus), and really put what he said into action, we'd be looking at President-elect Hillary Clinton today. She simply refused to grab the brass ring, insisting that it be brought to her on a velvet pillow.

I see two reasons for this...  When dealing with concerns of others people generally fall into two categories.  Empathizes or Fixers.  You are clearly an empathizer and chances are the people you are talking to are fixers.  And there is a long standing disconnect between the groups because each group assumes that the other sees things exact the same way. We have discussed this before... but no one really learns.
The second reason is veiled attacks while laying out the case you want to make.  Human nature priorities responding to attacks over empathy or nurturing..  While you might not have intended for it to be an attack but it is nonetheless viewed that way and responded to accordingly.
Let me give an example.  "I am afraid of what a Trump presidency might mean for me and my family"  That is a concern that a whole lot of people can empathize with including fixers.  Fixers are going to share empathy and concern... by (not surprisingly) by sharing how to fix, minimize, reduce, and/or do to deal with the problem.  This comes from a place of empathy and concern from the heart of the Fixers, but because it is not what empathizes would do or expect they become alienated.  In addition while the persons problem might be caused by other people, fixers understand that people can't fix other people.  People can only fix themselves and only if they are willing to do so. So fixers focus on what the individual who express their concerns can/might/should do.  Because hopefully they are open to doing something about it.  Sadly this is often misunderstood as victim blaming, because the empathy and concern is also being misunderstood.
That was an example of the first case... here is an example of the second.
"I am afraid of what a Trump presidency might mean for me and my family, because it shows that half the country is racist, sexist, bigots."  The only difference is the last half of the statement, and that for many changes a request for empathy and understanding... into an attack.  And as such gets responded to as such. Defensiveness, counter-attacks etc.  And even if people (like non trump voters) can ignore the attack if they are fixers are going to focus on that latter part, because comes off as the more important part.
So to summarize. LiterateParakeet is a empathizer, I am a fixer.  Asking me to be a empathizer is kind of like asking her to be a fixer...  Not very likely to happen.  As a fixer I expressed my empathy and understanding with LiterateParakeet's concern by sharing how to fix/deal with it.  I can't fix the world or the people in it.  I can't even fix LiterateParakeet. But since she posted I can hope she is open to listening and changing herself.  So my comments and suggestions are directed toward her.  Since it is unlikely that she we get that I am acting from empathy and attempts at understanding she will most likely take my comments as victim blaming.  Which I am not.  But we will continue to go round and round.

One reason I don't take them seriously is because I have yet to identify a crime wherein the perpetrator acted out of love (or even like) for the victim.

I remember when George W. Bush was talking about this once way back around 2002... He was critical of the idea of a "hate crime" because "any time you kill somebody.. that's hate." 
And to put an Orwellian spin on the notion of "hate crime,"  let's keep in mind that it's essentially saying that one's motive somehow makes it worse.  In other words, your thoughts.  "Hate crime" is only one step away from the idea of "thought crime."

This is nothing new about Trump.  This has been displayed over and over and over on the campaign trail.  The issue with Megyn Kelly, for example.  When Kelly was new at Fox, Trump has been very supportive of her and helped her rise above the fray.  Kelly, in a stunning display of arrogance, paid him back by being a DEBATER instead of a moderator in the very first Republican debates debating Trump on national TV.  He fired back at Kelly.  Hard.  YET... even after all that, Trump honored Kelly when she launched her own show as her very first interview in her very first show to guarantee a high audience rating and instant success.  Ted Cruz vs Trump was a bloodbath.  Yet, Trump honored Cruz with a prime speaking spot at the RNC convention without needing assurances of an endorsement.
Many more incidences like this in the past 15 months.
 

Well I like to think I'm one of those people.  Have I given the impression that I"m deaf to one side or the other?  I have my point of view, but it doesn't mean I can't see the other side.
I agree with everything @Carborendum said above and I'd add to that by saying that being mindlessly called a racist as a tactic is one of the factors that led us right to where we are now.  People on both sides generally agree that using racist epithets is bad, but only one side delights in shutting down discussion by hurling labels.  Yes, conservatives often use terms like 'liberal,' 'hippie,' 'commie,' and my personal favorite 'moonbat,' but as Carb said, that's an epithet used to refer to refer to them as they are an dis "accurate" insofar as it's targeting the person for who they actually are, just like when liberals call conservatives 'wingnut.'  And the biggest nasty of it all is that when you run around slamming labels like a mantra, it suddenly becomes very difficult not to anymore.  As I have mentioned recently in this and other threads, my own father called me racist for supporting border security and one of my best friends insinuated that my family and friends are mysoginists for voting Trump.  If they were the types of people to use racial epithets then we wouldn't have been friends in the first place, but this is worse, because being called a label like that by someone you love comes right through your shielding and explodes against your heart.
I'd much rather be called a racist epithet than a "racist" because at least the epithet isn't likely to ever come from a friend.

Glad to hear it, though I suspect folks around here know you didn't feel that way
The problem is this narrative is being run with like a football on Superbowl Sunday.  A close friend of mine and I very nearly had a falling out because he was making exactly that claim, which would mean members of my family and other friends are racist, by that accusation.  (Actually, in his case it was sexism, but the same logic, or lack thereof, applies.)  He did soften his stance to acknowledge that exceptions exist, but I still think he, like most who are pushing that narrative, are missing the point.
Think about where the accusations of racism, sexism, etc. are coming from... By and large, they're coming from mainstream media sources like CNN, MSNBC, etc... sources who have completely blown away what remained of their objectivity and credibility in the eyes of most conservatives.  So CNN says Trump is a racist and a misogynist?  Why should the average Republican give a fig about that?  They say that about every single Republican candidate anyway.  Did Trump make it ridiculously easy?  Well... yes... yes he did, let's be fair.  But where one side sees a misogynist and bigot, the other side sees an aspiring shock jock who should have ended everything he said one sentence early.  One side is looking to exaggerate the nature of everything Trump says, the other side mostly ignored it. 
The problem is liberals are judging conservatives as though the conservatives saw and heard it the same way liberals did.  In that light, NO WONDER they think Trump voters are all so evil... liberals are projecting their own bias onto conservatives and then judging them on that basis.
And that's where the liberals are missing the point.

LP, Don't you think there is a difference between race insensitive and racist? I believe Trump is the former but I don't believe he's racist. We need to stop supporting those who can't see the difference. People are tired of the lies.  
And when it comes to race insensitive, everyone fails at some point because some people are overly sensitive. Those who inject race into everything whether they realize or not are feeding racism and division.
For the last eight years the left has successfully turned, any opposition to Obama, any concern about our national security, any concern about education, any concern about the strength of families, any concern about the safety of children, any concern about the economy and any concern about crime into allegations of racism, sexism, homophobia and religious bigotry. 

The concerns people had the last 50 years about religion being intolerant, divisive, dogmatic and repressive of free thought are how I feel about the left in this country. 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtlzPUtyBnI
These protests and incessant displays of glassy eyed ignorance have convinced me I was wrong not to vote for Trump. He's simply an equal opportunity offender of people, not a racist, bigot homophobe.

I've always paid. I always will pay it.
The blessings that come from paying tithing come from our Father in Heaven.
If my Bishop were to steal all my tithing and go play poker, the blessings between myself and our Father in Heaven remain the same.
By not paying tithing, and finding reasons/doubts not to, I'm the only one drawing the short stick in the end.

Count me as another fan of The God who Weeps (text version).  Heard Fiona Givens interviewed by Doug Fabrizio of KUER (Utah NPR affiliate) a couple of years ago in connection with the Givenses' The Crucible of Doubt, which had just been released (and is another goodie)--and, yeah; I'll cop to having a total crush on her voice.  (She and Terryl also have an interview on the Maxwell Institute's podcast.)
I just today finished Terryl Givens' Wrestling the Angel via Audible.  The narration was kind of "meh".  Substantively it was great but very much like trying to stand in front of a tsunami and take a sip of water.  I think that's the sort of book that you just have to get the print version. 

For church books, my favorite is 'A God Who Weeps'. It sounds like it's read by Mary Poppins (Sister Givens).

I agree that Dune (Macmillan Audio with Scott Brick, etc,....) is amazing. One of the best because they use different actors for the voices. My next favorite is Harry Potter by Jim Dale (amazing, he does all the voices from the move) followed by The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy narrated by Stephen Fry.
 

I agree that Dune (Macmillan Audio with Scott Brick, etc,....) is amazing. One of the best because they use different actors for the voices. My next favorite is Harry Potter by Jim Dale (amazing, he does all the voices from the move) followed by The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy narrated by Stephen Fry.
 

I listen to quite a few audio books, mostly while commuting to and from work.
I don't know that I have favorites. Orson Scott Card, in commenting on some of his audio books, has commented that his writing style is with the intent that his books would be read aloud. For the most part, I have enjoyed many of his books read aloud.
Frank Herbert's Dune was a good listen.
I have enjoyed several children's books, such as The Wizard of Oz, Alice in Wonderland, Chitty Chitty Bang Bang and others.
I wrote a post about the audio book version of The African Queen here 5 years ago.
And so on and so forth, some memorable and some not so memorable.
As I have gotten older, I find that I don't like to listen to music as much as I used to. Talk radio can be more interesting, but political talk gets tiresome quickly and sports radio doesn't always hold my attention. I find audio books a nice diversion while driving.

I have a great respect for the Stratfor organization as a source of legitimate news and trends.  They make money by being correct, not by forwarding agendas.  So when they talk about the possibility of increased violence in the U.S., I listen, whereas I take everyone else and their links with a grain of salt.  Here's what Stratfor has to say about the Post-Election Threat Environment:
They specifically mention the Service Employee International Union (good at organizing scores of protests around minimum wage), pro-immigration groups (like the National Council of La Raza), BLM, Black Blocs, anarchists, and various right-wing groups.
 
 

Unfortunate headline (or article title). Perhaps many people aren't looking for a "true" church, mostly because they don't believe such an animal exists. But the objective truthfulness of the Church is 100% vital to its existence. Without that, we are a weaker version of the Community of Christ, with a pronounced Unitarian bent -- in short, a waste of resources.

As an outsider, I struggle with this approach. Many Christian churches--particularly some of the mega-ones--are adopting this "post-modern" line--that ultimate truth, or absolutist claims, just don't work. So long as I am mostly good, and can reconcile my faith and practices in a way that works for me ...
The Father commands that we worship no other gods.  Jesus said he was THE way, truth and life.  Then there is this:  if "the church" is really just a pretty good one, why would Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, or Pentecostal prisonchaplains even look your way?