Frightening times

[AtlantaAdonis]

For the first time ever, I think we're looking at the real threat of impending theocracy. I really hope Democrats have a plan to deal with this that doesn't imply playing by the rules of the "kawnstitution" that the reich wings doesn't care about. It's time for the gloves to come off.

 

[Simpletruther]

For the first time ever, I think we're looking at the real threat of impending theocracy. I really hope Democrats have a plan to deal with this that doesn't imply playing by the rules of the "kawnstitution" that the reich wings doesn't care about. It's time for the gloves to come off.

Just Wait till trump takes the gloves off

 

[Simpletruther]

For the first time ever, I think we're looking at the real threat of impending theocracy. I really hope Democrats have a plan to deal with this that doesn't imply playing by the rules of the "kawnstitution" that the reich wings doesn't care about. It's time for the gloves to come off.

My prediction about the crazy threads ramping up about now is proving more accurate than I even imagined

 

[HonestJoe]

For the first time ever, I think we're looking at the real threat of impending theocracy.

What makes you think that? It seems further from a theocracy than it's ever been to me. There are certainly lots of Americans who use their faith to influence their politics but it's rarely the same faith as their neighbours (even when they imagine it is). The biggest blocker to any one theocratic rule is all the other religions.

 

[AtlantaAdonis]

What makes you think that? It seems further from a theocracy than it's ever been to me. There are certainly lots of Americans who use their faith to influence their politics but it's rarely the same faith as their neighbours (even when they imagine it is). The biggest blocker to any one theocratic rule is all the other religions.

Seriously? Trump's about to put a whacko fundamentalist Cathlolic to the court and you wonder how there can be a theocracy?

 

[Craig234]

What makes you think that? It seems further from a theocracy than it's ever been to me. There are certainly lots of Americans who use their faith to influence their politics but it's rarely the same faith as their neighbours (even when they imagine it is). The biggest blocker to any one theocratic rule is all the other religions.

You're out of touch. The rich want all the money for themselves. They need people to vote to agree. To get that, since Reagan they formed a partnership with evangelical voters, who are given what THEY want, a 'social conservative' agenda. It has given a lot of political power to them.

You should read some of the books on the topic, such as "American Theocracy: The Peril and Politics of Radical Religion, Oil, and Borrowed Money in the 21st Century" by Kevin Phillips, Nixon's campaign strategist who left the Republican Party.

Other religions are essentially a non-issue for the political power of the evangelicals, they aren't really a blocker at all; in fact, Islam largely serves as a demon they use for more power.

Now, I don't think that's nearly as big an issue for the country, as plutocracy. But see the documentary below for just one evangelical group's remarkable political power.

The Evangelicals Trying to Turn America Into a Theocracy

Netflix’s new five-part series “The Family,” now streaming, explores an elite coalition of Christians with enormous influence in American politics.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[HonestJoe]

Seriously? Trump's about to put a whacko fundamentalist Cathlolic to the court and you wonder how there can be a theocracy?

Even if that is who he nominates and they're approved by the Senate, that still wouldn't mean the US is anywhere close to a theocracy. There have always been people with extreme religious views involved in US government, and generally more so in the past by todays standards.

 

[HonestJoe]

You're out of touch. The rich want all the money for themselves. They need people to vote to agree. To get that, since Reagan they formed a partnership with evangelical voters, who are given what THEY want, a 'social conservative' agenda. It has given a lot of political power to them.

All true. Excessive religious influence in politics is a valid concern (like a lot of other excessive influences). None of that comes anywhere close to theocracy though. The only book you need to read to understand that is a dictionary. There is a certain irony of using extreme rhetoric and exaggeration in opposition to this kind of thing and that approach is certainly counterproductive in addressing any real risks and issues.

 

[Craig234]

All true. Excessive religious influence in politics is a valid concern (like a lot of other excessive influences). None of that comes anywhere close to theocracy though. The only book you need to read to understand that is a dictionary. There is a certain irony of using extreme rhetoric and exaggeration in opposition to this kind of thing and that approach is certainly counterproductive in addressing any real risks and issues.

Sounds like some denial, which explains why accuracy sounds extreme to you. You don't sound interested in information.

 

[HonestJoe]

Sounds like some denial, which explains why accuracy sounds extreme to you. You don't sound interested in information.

I was referring to the rhetoric and exaggeration in OP, which isn't in any way accurate. I agreed with your comments, I was just pointing out that what you describe still isn't anywhere close to theocracy. That word has a specific meaning and it isn't "Some strongly religious people being involved in politics".

 

[Craig234]

I was referring to the rhetoric and exaggeration in OP, which isn't in any way accurate. I agreed with your comments, I was just pointing out that what you describe still isn't anywhere close to theocracy. That word has a specific meaning and it isn't "Some strongly religious people being involved in politics".

OK. I couldn't read your mind that you were commenting on the OP while replying to my post. I think our situation is somewhere between theocracy and 'some strongly religious people involved in politics'. I posted some recommended reading to learn more, and you basically said, who needs to read.

 

[HonestJoe]

OK. I couldn't read your mind that you were commenting on the OP while replying to my post. I think our situation is somewhere between theocracy and 'some strongly religious people involved in politics'. I posted some recommended reading to learn more, and you basically said, who needs to read.

The topic of the thread is the OP by definition and they didn't make the rational points you did (and I agreed with). They stated that America is at real risk of theocracy. I challenged that statement and you appeared to be defending it when you said I was "out of touch".

I see it as dishonest and counter-productive to even bring in the word theocracy if what you're talking about doesn't actually involve any kind of attempt to get close to that state. that kind of thing is good for selling books and getting clicks but not for rational debate.

 

[Craig234]

The topic of the thread is the OP by definition and they didn't make the rational points you did (and I agreed with). They stated that America is at real risk of theocracy. I challenged that statement and you appeared to be defending it when you said I was "out of touch".

I see it as dishonest and counter-productive to even bring in the word theocracy if what you're talking about doesn't actually involve any kind of attempt to get close to that state. that kind of thing is good for selling books and getting clicks but not for rational debate.

Perhaps the topic of *the thread* is the OP; you can make a post replying in response. When you instead reply to someone's post, the reasonable inference is that your comments are about their post. That's an issue of being clear what you are saying.

I explained what I was saying you are out of touch about, and I did not say it was that there is a theocracy. In fact you agreed with the comments, but also said other things such as that you are uninterested in information on the issue. It's the old 'you can lead a horse to water' situation. You want to insult 'selling books' from a place of ignorance. That's not 'good for rational debate', either.

Forums aren't the best place to say 'here, I'll inform you of what books say' in a post' much of the time.

Imagine someone saying 'what's the problem with trump? He's a real estate guy. Why do you hate real estate people? That's all there is to him, and no, you don't need any more info for a rational discussion about him.' Not gonna be much of a 'rational discussion'. Someone tells you a couple of books, you say ya they just want to sell books.

 

[HonestJoe]

I explained what I was saying you are out of touch about, and I did not say it was that there is a theocracy.

Nobody said there is a theocracy. The claim is that the US is at imminent risk of becoming a theocracy. That's what the OP said and you defended them. That is what the titles for the book and article you referenced are saying too (regardless of whether they really believe that or are spinning up exaggerated rhetoric for sales). That is simply not true.

There may well be more rational arguments back by actual facts behind that, there may even be some behind to the OPs position but it is my opinion that regardless of how much legitimate material you have, if you present it from behind false rhetoric and exaggeration, you corrupt the whole. I don't believe it is possible to have that rational debate unless that false information is entirely removed as it can only possibly serve as a distraction.

 

[Craig234]

Nobody said there is a theocracy. The claim is that the US is at imminent risk of becoming a theocracy. That's what the OP said and you defended them.

I discussed your post, not the OP.

That is what the titles for the book and article you referenced are saying too (regardless of whether they really believe that or are spinning up exaggerated rhetoric for sales). That is simply not true.

Thanks for explaining the book that you say no one needs to read.

There may well be more rational arguments back by actual facts behind that, there may even be some behind to the OPs position but it is my opinion that regardless of how much legitimate material you have, if you present it from behind false rhetoric and exaggeration, you corrupt the whole.

So, the topic doesn't matter, just one specific word.

I don't believe it is possible to have that rational debate unless that false information is entirely removed as it can only possibly serve as a distraction.

No, you think the way to have a rational debate is to refuse any actual information, and then post your opinion.

 

[HonestJoe]

I discussed your post, not the OP.

My post was challenging the OP assertion that the US is at imminent threat of becoming a theocracy. You either agree that is correct or not.

Thanks for explaining the book that you say no one needs to read.

I never said nobody needs to read it. I questioned their choice of title in the wider context of non-fiction book titles and news headlines often being overly spun rhetoric and exaggeration to grab attention. The fact the titles talk refer to theocracy doesn't mean the content actually talks about the idea of impending theocracy.

So, the topic doesn't matter, just one specific word.

Not one word, one simple claim; the US is at imminent threat of becoming a theocracy.

No, you think the way to have a rational debate is to refuse any actual information, and then post your opinion.

I've no objection to information about the US actually becoming a theocracy, which is what is being discussed here. You've not offered that.

If you want to discuss the wider issues of religious influence in politics, that should be done under the label of "Religious Influence in Politics" and not "America is Becoming a Theocracy". That is my only point here.

 

[Craig234]

My post was challenging the OP assertion that the US is at imminent threat of becoming a theocracy. You either agree that is correct or not.

That's not the only comment you made.

I never said nobody needs to read it. I questioned their choice of title in the wider context of non-fiction book titles and news headlines often being overly spun rhetoric and exaggeration to grab attention.

Yes, you did. Saying 'the only book we need is a dictionary', is saying no one needs to read that book. Or any other info. Whatever you want to think you said, that's what you said. As for the title, perhaps you should read the book to comment.

I've no objection to information about the US actually becoming a theocracy, which is what is being discussed here. You've not offered that.

You wouldn't know what offered, since you rejected any information.

If you want to discuss the wider issues of religious influence in politics, that should be done under the label of "Religious Influence in Politics" and not "America is Becoming a Theocracy". That is my only point here.

Then don't attack information on the topic of the dangers of excessive power of religion in politics. And hey - maybe try getting a bit more informed by reading something with relevant info, instead of just saying 'we don't need any books, just rational discussion without information'. I don't mind ignorance usually; advocacy for it and stubborn insistence of it is something else.

 

[HonestJoe]

Yes, you did. Saying 'the only book we need is a dictionary', is saying no one needs to read that book. Or any other info. Whatever you want to think you said, that's what you said. As for the title, perhaps you should read the book to comment.

Do you serious believe I was dismissing all books in existence!? I was speaking in a very specific context (and somewhat in jest) - you only need the dictionary to understand that the US is not at imminent threat of becoming a theocracy. The word has a very specific meaning and nothing you or I discussed comes anywhere close to the the US actually becoming a theocracy.

I believe the OP was using the word literally, which is why I said they are simply wrong. I believe sources you're referring to are using the word rhetorically, which means what they actually say could be perfectly valid but I feel their use of the word in that context is a mistake regardless. For one, it will encourage the false statements from the likes of the OP, which only serves to distract from the real problems you mentioned.

You wouldn't know what offered, since you rejected any information.

If you're asserting that the US is at imminent threat of becoming a theocracy, I'd want to read your reasons for saying that. I was under the impression that isn't what you're saying and isn't what the sources you presented say either so they're not relevant in this context.

Then don't attack information on the topic of the dangers of excessive power of religion in politics.

I didn't, I agreed with you on that. I attacked the statement that the US is at imminent threat of becoming a theocracy. The blocker here is your unwillingness to acknowledge the massive difference between the two points.

 

[Craig234]

I didn't, I agreed with you on that. I attacked the statement that the US is at imminent threat of becoming a theocracy. The blocker here is your unwillingness to acknowledge the massive difference between the two points.

No, I already said I think it's between what you said, religious people with some political access, and a theocracy. The 'blocker here' was you fixating on 'not a theocracy' as the only three words you wanted to discuss, while dismissing any other information. Here's just a little for some idea of some of what's happening: http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm

 

[bongsaway]

My prediction about the crazy threads ramping up about now is proving more accurate than I even imagined

How many other presidents have you ever heard tell you the election is rigged before the election, any? Other than nixon how many presidents have you heard say the press is the enemy of the people? How many presidents have you heard say if they lose they are going to challenge the results because of fraudulent voting? How many other presidents when asked will they commit to a peaceful transition of power say, we'll see.

Crazy are the people who see no problem with the things I've mentioned. So I guess we'll see come november who wins, the people who are helping trump to become an authoritarian or the people trump is scaring the crap out of with his comments. Let's hope our democracy wins and not the wanna be autocrat.

 

[HonestJoe]

No, I already said I think it's between what you said, religious people with some political access, and a theocracy. The 'blocker here' was you fixating on 'not a theocracy' as the only three words you wanted to discuss, while dismissing any other information.

What I wanted to discuss was the OP and the fact their statement is wrong and a distraction. My whole point is that we can't have a reasonable discussion on the wider topic in the context of that distraction and I've no intention of giving them the credit of having their thread turn in to any kind of meaningful discussion (which they clearly never wanted in the first place). Sometimes the right answer to a thread topic is just "No" and any other discussions can (and should) happen elsewhere.

 

[OceanBlues1]

I see it as dishonest and counter-productive to even bring in the word theocracy if what you're talking about doesn't actually involve any kind of attempt to get close to that state.

Okay, you don't like the word "theocracy." How about dictatorship? Because I think that kind of oppressive government is exactly what Trump wants, and has probably wanted since he was just a candidate. And no, I don't believe it's "dishonest or counterproductive" to be very concerned about Trump's frightening words. I don't want a dictatorship. I want to keep the Democratic-Republic government we have. Trump seems to want to destroy it.

 

[jnug]

For the first time ever, I think we're looking at the real threat of impending theocracy. I really hope Democrats have a plan to deal with this that doesn't imply playing by the rules of the "kawnstitution" that the reich wings doesn't care about. It's time for the gloves to come off.

Actually Trump is now an avowed Autocrat. Trump certainly does not believe in the Republic nor in the bedrock of the Republic, the smooth transition of power.

Trump screams about Anarchy while fomenting Anarchy. In fact, I have no idea why he hunts so diligently for Anarchists. All he has to do is shake a tree of his own supporters to find Anarchists.

At any rate, just as any good Autocrat will do, Trump will throw over any group if it suits him. If it suits him, he will throw over the Evangelists. That should be obvious. Is there anybody out there that actually believes there is an Evangelistic bone in Trump's body? He is an AUTOCRAT and his path to maintaining power is to turn the US into an Autocracy with Donald at its head. This is not rocket science folks.