Best Post-Election Reaction

[yjacket]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Telling/reinforcing to your kid that half the country hates them is a total lie.   And it only shows that for all your claims of empathy, tolerance, and understanding that their are large number people you personally refuse to treat with the same level human dignity and respect, that you ask/demand that they treat you with.

Bingo.

[estradling75]

Also note that it is a matter of historical trend that the Office of the President alternates between political parties since 1885.  See here (scroll down) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

The idea of a Republican taking power after a Democratic has been happening for over 100 years and is nothing new.  The idea that this historical trend is somehow a personal offense is over the top histrionics.

Instead of teaching your child fear... teach them some history, teach them that things don't always go the way they want or hope... But that it is highly likely that the democrats will regain the White House in either 4 or 8 years

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

Perhaps also worth noting that at the time of the RNC convention we were warned of riots in the streets if the winner of the popular vote weren't made the Republican nominee.  

Given that Trump failed to gain even a plurality of the popular vote on Tuesday, can we really blame the Other Guys for doing precisely what we knew Our Side was prepared to do?  Are we sure that the rioters-in-waiting among us--the existence of whom we were quite willing to acknowledge back when the threat they posed was politically useful, even if we choose to deny it now--have been paragons of grace and magnanimity over the last four days?

Edited November 13, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

I know liberals are furious about Trump, but it wouldn't surprise me if a Trump presidency winds up being, in practice, ridiculously middle of the political road (as in John McCain style middle of the road).  After all, Trump himself was a liberal until fairly recently, and he already apparently wants to keep some or even much of Obamacare already, and it has only been four days since he won the election.

I am not judging whether this is good or bad.  I am just saying that, if you get past Trump's publicity stunts and antics, he does not strike me as being a Michele Bachmann-style far right kind of guy who would truly be the left's worst nightmare.  Maybe I am wrong on this?  I am just saying that maybe the left will like Trump more than they think.

Edited November 13, 2016 by DoctorLemon

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@yjacket  I think the core of the difference we are having is that you don't think there is a real basis for fear.  We can't possibly agree on how to deal with it if we can't agree on what the issue is.  

@DoctorLemon I hope that you are right.  Don't forget it's not just the Liberals that don't like Trump, many in his own party turned against him and for good reasons.  I hope he will surprise us all.  I did read that he has already changed his position on Obamacare.  I had to smile at that.  He's nothing if not unpredictable.  

Edited November 13, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest MormonGator]

15 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

@DoctorLemon I hope that you are right.  Don't forget it's not just the Liberals that don't like Trump, many in his own party turned against him and for good reasons. 

Amen. For basically the first time in my life people call me liberal because I don't drink the Trump Kool-aid. As @LiterateParakeet can tell you I'm hardly a lockstep liberal. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@yjacket  I think the core of the difference we are having is that you don't think there is a real basis for fear.  We can't possibly agree on how to deal with it if we can't agree on what the issue is.  

@DoctorLemon I hope that you are right.  Don't forget it's not just the Liberals that don't like Trump, many in his own party turned against him and for good reasons.  I hope he will surprise us all.  I did read that he has already changed his position on Obamacare.  I had to smile at that.  He's nothing if not unpredictable.  

To be honest, maybe we should be nervous that Trump is actually too liberal and will continue some of the mistakes of the Obama administration.  For example, will Trump and his congress have the courage to curb our one trillion dollar deficits?  Or will he compromise to the point that the unsustainable spending continues?  (Regardless of whether you are a Republican or Democrat, I think we can all agree that one of Obama's failures, with Congress getting plenty of blame, was a failure to get the budget under control, and I don' think that Hilary would have done much better if she had been elected).  

Of course, it remains to be seen if Tea Party ideas could actually fix the economy and the budget without raising taxes... the Tea Party's ideas have never really been widely implemented, but they could be either mad... or mad genius.  I don't know that Trump is going to let the Tea Party's ideas get a shot, though...

Same goes for North Korea... will Trump have the courage to try something different, or will he just continue doing what Obama did, strategic patience, which clearly did not work?

[Guest MormonGator]

19 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

To be honest, maybe we should be nervous that Trump is actually too liberal and will continue some of the mistakes of the Obama administration.  For example, will Trump and his congress have the courage to curb our one trillion dollar deficits?  Or will he compromise to the point that the unsustainable spending continues?  (Regardless of whether you are a Republican or Democrat, I think we can all agree that one of Obama's failures, with Congress getting plenty of blame, was a failure to get the budget under control, and I don' think that Hilary would have done much better if she had been elected).  

Of course, it remains to be seen if Tea Party ideas could actually fix the economy and the budget without raising taxes... the Tea Party's ideas have never really been widely implemented, but they could be either mad... or mad genius.  I don't know that Trump is going to let the Tea Party's ideas get a shot, though...

Same goes for North Korea... will Trump have the courage to try something different, or will he just continue doing what Obama did, strategic patience, which clearly did not work?

If Trump cuts down on spending and shrinks the government I'll be pleasantly surprised.  How he intends to do that while building a wall remains to be seen. 

[estradling75]

34 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@yjacket  I think the core of the difference we are having is that you don't think there is a real basis for fear.  We can't possibly agree on how to deal with it if we can't agree on what the issue is.  

 

The whole sub thread was about half the country hated people...  And that is totally irrational fear...  Now if you want to change the target and say something else is what your fear...  Well that is fine... but that is you that is changing the goal post mid-conversation and not communicating such a change clearly.

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If Trump cuts down on spending and shrinks the government I'll be pleasantly surprised.  How he intends to do that while building a wall remains to be seen. 

I'd be surprised if Trump gets a full term as president.

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I'd be surprised if Trump gets a full term as president.

My crystal ball was thrown out the window the moment he won. Who knows what'll happen now. If someone claimed to know the future, ask why they aren't making money in the stock market. 

[yjacket]

57 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

For example, will Trump and his congress have the courage to curb our one trillion dollar deficits?  Or will he compromise to the point that the unsustainable spending continues?  

Unfortunately, too many things are baked in the cake for Trump to do much about the debt and deficits.  Conservatives hail Reagan, yet he continued massive deficits and spending.  I'd simply be happy if Trump rolls back a ton of regulation, kills Obamacare and lowers taxes.  And I say this as a libertarian.

You've got something like 3 Trillion dollars just sitting at the Federal Reserve that commercial banks have just parked there. At some point, that money is going to get unleashed and when it does-look out-inflation nation. 

The only way to get rid of our deficits is to massively overall our monetary system and I don't expect that to happen under Trump.  People complain about the debt and deficit; yet unfortunately they don't understand our monetary system.  It literally must keep growing. If the deficit ever stops growing, the whole system implodes. It is designed that way.

People don't realize, every single Federal Reserve Note in existence in a literal sense represents debt. We are debt slaves. No debt, the entire monetary system collapses. It is literally impossible to stop the monster that has been created. One of two things will happen-it is guaranteed (only a matter of time)-either we have a collapse 10x worse than 2008 where the debt is wiped out and all the sudden things the things that create debt (i.e. loans) become worthless or we have a massive explosion of inflation where the amount of money created cancels out the debt (i.e. the Federal Reserve ends up buying all the bad loans like the bank bailouts but on a much broader scale).

You want to see things get real messed up, when the monetary system blows, it will get real interesting.  When that happens, is anyone's guess and they can keep the game alive a lot longer than you think.  

You want to know how the system really works, read The Creature from Jekyll Island.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

My crystal ball was thrown out the window the moment he won. Who knows what'll happen now. If someone claimed to know the future, ask why they aren't making money in the stock market. 

My crystal ball: Donald Trump is obviously unusually gifted regarding money.  You don't turn a few million into a few billion without understanding how money works and without being deeply intelligent.  I think Trump probably does have a great chance of at least doing a little better than Obama regarding the economy.  I am not so optimistic about his foreign policy because he simply does not have the experience.

So, come 2020, I could see America doing really well economically, but with fully functional North Korean ICBMs pointed at Los Angeles.

Or, he could prove me wrong and be a tough talking genius who gets Kim Jong Un to back down.  Or he could be a total train wreck and quit the job halfway through.  Who knows?

As for the national debt, i certainly hope yjacket is not correct on this one, because i think we are in for a day of reckoning sooner than we think if things keep going the way they have been under Obama...

Edited November 13, 2016 by DoctorLemon

[yjacket]

5 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

As for the national debt, i certainly hope yjacket is not correct on this one, because i think we are in for a day of reckoning sooner than we think if things keep going the way they have been under Obama...

For the record, I hope I'm not right on this either!  Unfortunately, I have read a lot on this subject and studied it quite intensively. A sidenote, I actually became a hard-core libertarian through the study of economics and human action.

But in case I'm am right, I protect myself in many different ways.

In many ways, it is quite terrifying at how quickly everything could go south.  FDR, without any prior warning, declared bank holidays.  Argentina when they went through their collapse only allowed people to withdraw no more than 100/day. Greece had a bail-in (i.e. they just started slicing 0s off everyone's bank account). How many people in the US have more than 2k in their bank account? Of those that do, how many would be able to get access to it if banks were mandated to be closed for a week? How many people have anything else that they could quickly convert from one asset to another for emergency funds?

If you don't have a backup plan for when the lights get turned out, you are living dangerously.  Having a corrupt politician like Clinton come close to being elected can be frightening, but a huge amount of people saw that corruption coming.  It's the unseen danger that is the worst.

Just about all totalitarian regimes have started due to economics.  The economic collapse almost always precedes the decent into tyranny.

Have a backup plan and if there is a panic, just be sure to panic first. 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, yjacket said:

For the record, I hope I'm not right on this either!  Unfortunately, I have read a lot on this subject and studied it quite intensively. A sidenote, I actually became a hard-core libertarian through the study of economics and human action.

But in case I'm am right, I protect myself in many different ways.

In many ways, it is quite terrifying at how quickly everything could go south.  FDR, without any prior warning, declared bank holidays.  Argentina when they went through their collapse only allowed people to withdraw no more than 100/day. Greece had a bail-in (i.e. they just started slicing 0s off everyone's bank account). How many people in the US have more than 2k in their bank account? Of those that do, how many would be able to get access to it if banks were mandated to be closed for a week? How many people have anything else that they could quickly convert from one asset to another for emergency funds?

If you don't have a backup plan for when the lights get turned out, you are living dangerously.  Having a corrupt politician like Clinton come close to being elected can be frightening, but a huge amount of people saw that corruption coming.  It's the unseen danger that is the worst.

Just about all totalitarian regimes have started due to economics.  The economic collapse almost always precedes the decent into tyranny.

Have a backup plan and if there is a panic, just be sure to panic first. 

To avoid these horrible scenarios, would it be feasible for Trump to make cuts to cap the debt at its current percentage of GDP?  I guess if we are 20 trillion in the hole, and the economy is growing at 1.5% per year, that is a deficit of no more than $300 billion a year to grow the debt at 1.5%?  We are currently in the range of 5-600 billion per year annual deficit, or the debt growing at twice the rate of GDP.  Is cutting $300 billion or so and keeping it there realistic? 

I know such cuts would be only a temporary band-aid to try to figure out what to do next, but maybe it could buy us some time...

I am not an economist and know that my knowledge is limited in this area.  However this issue has my attention and i am trying to learn what i can about it.

Edited November 13, 2016 by DoctorLemon

[yjacket]

9 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

To avoid these horrible scenarios, would it be feasible for Trump to make cuts to cap the debt at its current percentage of GDP?  I guess if we are 20 trillion in the hole, and the economy is growing at 1.5% per year, that is a deficit of no more than $300 billion a year to grow the debt at 1.5%?  We are currently in the range of 5-600 billion per year annual deficit, or the debt growing at twice the rate of GDP.  Is cutting $300 billion or so and keeping it there realistic? 

I know such cuts would be only a temporary band-aid to try to figure out what to do next, but maybe it could buy us some time...

I am not an economist and know that my knowledge is limited in this area.  However this issue has my attention and i am trying to learn what i can about it.

It would be real nice, but probably impractical.

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/

Mandatory federal spending accounts for ~65% of the current budget (that includes medicare, social security, etc.) or about 2.5 trillion.  "Discretionary" spending makes up the other 1.1 trillion of which 53% is military spending, currently the interest on the debt is only 6% at 250 billion. Here is the rub, over the past 8 years, most of the interest has been rolled into low-interest bonds, i.e. the Federal government is paying super low-interest rates on the debt. Once (and it will happen) interest rates rise, the government will be forced to start paying normal rates on the debt.  At normal rates (~5-6%) the interest on the debt would balloon to something like 800 billion a year!

So in practical terms the only part of the federal budget that can be cut is the 1.1 trillion of discretionary spending.  No politician is going to touch SS, medicare, etc. until they are forced to and Trump never ran on a platform of reforming SS.  This is why you here every so often the idea from politicians to raise the retirement age or cut back SS benefits. As a country we are on the cusp of a huge amount of the population (baby boomers) entering into retirement and collecting SS checks, medicare, etc. Once those folks are removed from the working force and no longer paying into SS and are now taking out expect SS payments to skyrocket.

SS was always built on a scam that you have more workers paying into the system that people taking out of the system.  It's dropped from 3.4 to 2.8. In 2020 in will be 2.4.  In 2020 16% of the population will be 65 or older. https://www.ssa.gov/history/ratios.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v66n4/v66n4p37.html.  Quite frankly demographically we screwed ourselves as a country.  The liberalist, elite, feminist movement engrained less and less children in people's head.  Right now, the US is below repopulation rate.  There are ~1.8-1.9 births per woman, you must have 2.1 births per woman simply to maintain an even population. The only reason the population is growing in the US is due to immigration!

Combine all that and there are some very serious structural problems down the road that are not going to be solved very easily.  So let's take military spending, Trump nor the GOP war-party are going to cut military spending (especially when he campaigns on a stronger military). So what's left, the other 500 billion used to fund all the rest of the Federal Government???  Sure you could cut some, maybe 10-50 billion, but 300 billion, not gonna happen!

Then you look at the current deficit to GPD ratio:

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S

We are already at 105% and that's up 20% since the end of the 2008 recession!  The longest expansion in US history was 10 years, we are beginning year 7 in 2 months. We are going to have a recession soon, bank on it-my guess is this time next year (they almost always begin in the fall). So you already can't cut the federal budget much, during a recession the federal income drops and the deficit expands (naturally), so you can bank that 105% going up another 10-15%.

The only ways to solve this structural problem are either a) print a bunch of base money to take down the leverage ratio and drop the amount of debt to base money out there (i.e. unleash massive inflation which would inflate away most of the debt-a soft default), b) default on the debt and wipe it away (hard default) or c) pay it back. C is what the European Countries like Greece, etc. are doing and what Japan is doing. Eventually though you have so much debt that you can't pay it back and you have to start defaulting anyway.

Maybe, just maybe there is still a chance where you can drop enough regulation and enough of the US economy is unencumbered that the US economy can start growing a lot again. That is the best case scenario that I hope with Trump, the next best case scenario is that we become like Japan for the next 20 years with very little inflation but more and more debt, and quite frankly in Japan as long as the individual stays out of debt things aren't too bad.  It still remains to be seen what the end-game for Japan is.  My belief is that it will go like it always goes in a debt-based purely fiat currency, a massive financial crack-up boom of inflation where the debt is wiped away and the currency becomes worthless.

That's why the Tea Party howling at the debt is like the wolf howling at the moon.  They complain about the wrong thing, you want to solve the debt, you have to reform the entire monetary system, which is the Federal Reserve System and how our currency is actually created. But to do that would require reforming the entire world monetary system since the US currency is the reserve currency of the world, the moment you reform the Federal Reserve is the moment you reform the entire world monetary regime and that is the moment you have a world monetary collapse.

And that is the heart and root of the New World Order and One World Government.  Everyone use one monetary currency-it is why the EU became the EU-it first started out as a trade agreement, then became a monetary agreement and then stated to become a political agreement.  It is what Clinton was planning with the US, first a trade agreement with Mexico and Canada (NAFTA), the next step was and is a monetary agreement.

And the above is why I turned so adamantly against Clinton.  I started reading the actual e-mails, speeches, etc. and realized these people weren't kidding around.  Had she been elected, her plan was a North American Union with Mexico and Canada. This wasn't some conspiracy nut-it was spelled out in their own words.

So long-term, we are screwed, but then again in the long-term we are all dead.  But the reaper has been stayed for a bit.  The Federal debt on the other hand-it will one day completely explode-it's just a matter of when (but that could be in 30 years).

Edited November 13, 2016 by yjacket

[unixknight]

My 8 year old daughter came to me on the 9th.

"Daddy, who won the election?"
"Trump did."

"Yes!"

My daughter is blissfully unaware that any notions of a glass ceiling exist.  Why should she be?  Do you know why they call it a glass ceiling, in my opinion?  Because it's only visible to those who want to see it.  It's only a barrier to those who let it be one.  The biggest thing I hate about Hillary Clinton right now is that in her belated concession speech, she said the glass ceiling wasn't broken yet.  What an evil, disgusting vile thing to say to the little girls of America...  That just because she failed that must mean the system is the problem, and not she.  Now every little girl who heard that thinks there's a barrier in place that's so strong and so large that even the great and powerful Hillary R. Clinton, with all her superpowers, couldn't breach it.  Because if she couldn't do it, nobody could.  Clinton and her defeatist rhetoric is the problem, not the system.

If my daughter were running in that election she'd have won by an epic landslide that would have echoed through the eternities.

My daughter has informed me that she intends to be the first person to set foot on Mars, and is already studying the Constellation spacecraft she intends to command.  You should have seen her assemble the cardboard model of it I brought her home from NASA HQ when I went there for a work meeting.  (HOW COOL IS THAT?!?!?!?!?!?!?)  A child with the attention span of a gnat spent 3 straight hours putting that model together. 

She knows that Hillary Clinton is a liar, and the fact that she is a woman is utterly irrelevant to my daughter.  She knows there are good women and bad women, just like there are good men and bad men.  She disapproves of Clinton mostly from overhearing conversations between her mother and me, but we keep it light when she's around.  This is nothing to be troubled about for her.  Mackenzie will almost certainly live to see the first female U.S. President.  Heck, she may BE the first, though I sincerely hope it doesn't have to take that long. 

How do you tell your kids about the election?  You tell them what's happening as it happens and you answer their questions and when they lose interest they go back to playing with their Legos.  All of this hand wringing and despair by children is an epic failure on the part of the parents who are dumping all this emotional meltdown on their kids instead of letting them be children.  If you really believe that Donald Trump is the herald to the apocalypse, and you hate that he won, you have a responsibility to your children to not project your stress onto them in the first place. 

If your child is an emotional wreck over the election, then you have messed up, but it can be fixed.  Here's what you do:  You put on your grownup pants, you go to your child, you reassure them that everything's fine and that mommy/daddy was just disappointed, you love them, and not to worry all is well.  Then, if you must scream and cry and stress and rant, you stop being so selfish and you do it away from your child who deserves to have a happy, carefree childhood.

My daughter was pleased that Clinton lost but if she had won, that same conversation would have gone like this:

"Daddy, who won the election?"
"Clinton."

"Oh.  Daddy?"

"Yeah?"

"Can I play on my tablet?"

"Yup."

"Yes!"

[Backroads]

19 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

I'm not sure why you would say this, or why you feel this way.  Can you explain?  They know I'm their friend and I never had to admit I hate them because I don't.  I don't understand your point here. 

 

You say people would never directly say everyone hated them, yet you say it feels that way. unless I validate these feelings so many hate them, I'm not sympathetic.

You have to keep in mind your most noticeable social actions are different than mind. you already have the clout. A more conservative white girl from Utah who doesn't include championing these rights in her past time isn't going to be seen as caring unless I say exactly what they want to hear. I don't have the privilege of saying otherwise.

If I say, no, not everyone hates you, I'll likey be condemned.

Edited November 13, 2016 by Backroads

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

My daughter is blissfully unaware that any notions of a glass ceiling exist.  Why should she be?  Do you know why they call it a glass ceiling, in my opinion?  Because it's only visible to those who want to see it.  It's only a barrier to those who let it be one.  The biggest thing I hate about Hillary Clinton right now is that in her belated concession speech, she said the glass ceiling wasn't broken yet.  What an evil, disgusting vile thing to say to the little girls of America...  That just because she failed that must mean the system is the problem, and not she.  Now every little girl who heard that thinks there's a barrier in place that's so strong and so large that even the great and powerful Hillary R. Clinton, with all her superpowers, couldn't breach it.  Because if she couldn't do it, nobody could.  Clinton and her defeatist rhetoric is the problem, not the system.

I do believe that even if Clinton won she would not acknowledge breaking the glass ceiling... She would instead take a page out of President Obama play book and continue to fan the flames of the -sim divides.  8 Years ago and 4 years ago we elected (and re-elected) and African-American President.  Instead of using his own self as an example of how people could be what ever they wanted to be no matter what color of their skin.  But he doesn't, he fuels the fire of racism instead...  Basically telling everyone who are you going to believe me or your lying eyes.

I fully expect that Clinton would have done the same for gender. Because the Democratic Party/Liberals main power based on the various Racial and Gender divides (which we do have issues with) so they can't acknowledge any progress.

It is also why after voting 8 years ago and 4 years for an African-American, that this election proves that half of America are racist and haters... Because they can't play any other tune.  They have to imagine that people that were not racist 4 and 8 years ago suddenly became so.  It also why they have to teach kids fear... because otherwise they lose the next generation

[Traveler]

 

One of life’s lessons

When I served in the military, I was not prepared for the incompetence of the military establishment.  Many time, especially in Hollywood movies, the military establishment is portrayed as blood thirsty psychopaths bent on killing everybody.  I never encountered anyone anywhere like that – but I did encounter a lot of just basic incompetence and foolishness – for example having an entire company of men stand at attention in hottest humidity of the day until someone passed out.

But I did learn one thing – unity of a military unit is more important than someone being individually right.  I must admit that when I married – I had to relearn this lesson.  That is a family will function better if the parents are together in love, despite incompetence, trying to make things work than if one is right and resents not being properly rewarded for being right.

One lesson from the Book of Mormon is that when a country first decides to divide into Laminites and Nephits (or Democrats and Republicans) that such a nation will fail.  To become divided is worse than prejudice, worse than bigotry and even worse than criminal murderous secret combinations.  Being divided is the first step in the end of intelligent and enlightened society (or family) – and if allowed will single handled bring on, allow or cause every other destructive elements of failure.

I am sure someone will disagree – and they may be right about it – but as I said being right and not unified is not all that right.

 

The Traveler

Edited November 14, 2016 by Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

45 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I am sure someone will disagree – and they may be right about it – but as I said being right and not unified is not all that right.

Unity is frustrating buzzword in politics because it means "unite under my values and forsake yours." In reality, it means absolutely nothing but it makes us feel better by saying it. 

How will pro-lifers "unite" with pro-chociers? How will gun rights advocates "unite" with gun control people? How will people against gay marriage "unite" with people who are for it? Will Black Lives Matter suddenly shake hands with police officers (or more importantly, vice versa)? How about the Trumpers vs the NeverTrumpers-if they "unite" that would mean....?

The truth is that this country is incredibly divided and it's not getting better anytime soon.

Edited November 14, 2016 by MormonGator

[Backroads]

We need a good alien invasion or something to unite us in a common goal.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Backroads said:

We need a good alien invasion or something to unite us in a common goal.

It takes great tragedy to unite us. 9/11 comes to mind. For a brief time virtually all of us except the hardcore, insane left was at least more sympathetic to W right afterwards. it didn't last.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

20 hours ago, Backroads said:

You say people would never directly say everyone hated them, yet you say it feels that way. unless I validate these feelings so many hate them, I'm not sympathetic.

You have to keep in mind your most noticeable social actions are different than mind. you already have the clout. A more conservative white girl from Utah who doesn't include championing these rights in her past time isn't going to be seen as caring unless I say exactly what they want to hear. I don't have the privilege of saying otherwise.

If I say, no, not everyone hates you, I'll likey be condemned.

You are right that that actions speak louder than words.  Just saying, "Note everyone hates you."  Is going to be meaningless, yes.  For example, a Black friend of mine shared a tweet from Charles Gabba, "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker.  End of story."  So yeah, she's not likely to believe just words.

But if you wanted to support your brothers and sisters (the lady that posted that is a member of the church) both in the church and out (we are all Heavenly Father's children)  there are simple things you could do, if you wanted to.  For starters, you could stop calling people whose choices you don't understand, "moronic parenting".  

Edited November 14, 2016 by LiterateParakeet

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

You are right that that actions speak louder than words.  Just saying, "Note everyone hates you."  Is going to be meaningless, yes.  For example, a Black friend of mine shared a tweet from Charles Gabba, "Not all Trump supporters are racist, but all of them decided that racism isn't a deal-breaker.  End of story."  So yeah, she's not likely to believe just words.

 

Do you even see the glass house you are in before you start lobbing that stone? @LiterateParakeet

Because here is comes right back at you

"Not all Hilary supports are liars who value convenience over national security, but all of them decided liar weak national security isn't a deal-breaker End of story"

Simple fact... this was called the choice between the lesser of two evils for a reason.

On one hand we had a man who had serious flaws and they were on complete display.

On the other hand we had a women who had serious flaws, including reflexive lying  and coverups that you could not tell how deep it was.

Now everyone I have talked to that has deal with serious personal flaws in a parner almost always says that while the flaws were bad the repeated cover-ups the repeated lies, the repeated deception was worse.

Hilary Clinton issues so much denial about her actions you'd think she lived in Egypt

 

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

But if you wanted to support your brothers and sisters (the lady that posted that is a member of the church) both in the church and out (we are all Heavenly Father's children)  there are simple things you could do, if you wanted to.  For starters, you could stop calling people whose choices you don't understand, "moronic parenting".  

Again back at you

If you wanted to support your brothers and sisters both in the church and out there are simple thing you could do, if you wanted to.  For starter, you could stop calling people whose choice you don't understand (voting) "racist or supporter of racism"

Edited November 14, 2016 by estradling75