Coons is delusional if he really thinks Trump gives the teeniest tiniest shit about their shared Presbyterianism. And it's delusions like his that let heartless venal predators like Trump continue their reigns of terror.

Will he be successful? I have no idea.

with Republicans. Zero.

Very bizarre, and basically saying you have no commonality with GOP voters?

I have seen no sign of that changing, either.

On a personal level, i know many Republicans. On a political level, I have nothing to do with them.

Which republican politicians do you trust, guillaumeb? Do tell.

And is valid.

It is fine to claim that you have personal relationships, but politicians at all levels must have personal and professional relationships.

So you can hold to your own views but if Democratic politicians held the same views there would literally be no progress.

Did you think I cared what you thought about my position? How odd.

You still did not answer my question about Republicans you trust. I wonder why that is?

which I find to be unrealistic. Use the logic that you write so often about, and apply logic to your position that you want nothing to do with GOP politicians.

If you refuse to engage with GOP politicians, it affects no one. But if Democratic politicians applied that same reasoning, there would literally be no dialogue.


Again, your view is fine for a discussion board, but useless in practice.

So, kinda like how you feel about requiring priests to report child abuse incidents they learn in the confessional booth.

Your position - that you're "unsure" but that there are good arguments on both sides - is utterly useless in practice, but that's OK for you. You'll savage someone like MineralMan, though. FFS gil.

It has been tried many times in the past. I remain here.

I just use my two dots.

..

I just find it helpful to remind anyone else reading the level of hypocrisy involved when he makes an attempt.

The word does not mean what you think it does. That I disagree with EMM's position, and find it unrealistic, is my view, and it is one that is shared by Pelosi and Coons.

But on this discussion board, we are free to say that we would never reach out.

What a massive use of hyperbole.

What I did was use your own reply, one you use so frequently when addressing theists.

So if you disagree with Pelosi and Coons, that is your right. But they must work with others, and you are a commenter and critic.

Edited to add:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218307010

You have replied to the wrong post.

Someone else used that word. You are not capable of "savaging" me, or anyone else, for that matter.

But, as Pelosi and Coons both know, reality requires working with the opposition.

What the actual fuck, gil? Why do you behave this way?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=304549

Many are familiar with it.

It seems that an appeal to faith alienates as many as it attracts.

Do we attempt to reach the other side, or build walls?

and others come to us as they choose. Building bridges doesn't mean using a battering ram to get the other side to accept the bridge.

There is a Buddhist saying that the flapping of a butterflies wings can set off a tsunami on the other side of the world. You can effect change by being the change. Honey and vinegar and all that.

And too, somewhere in the bible I remember something about praying to God in secret that God might hear you. Oh, but that would defeat the whole purpose of this group, wouldn't it?

As to the purpose of this group, each poster defines that purpose as they see it.

But in my view, we can build bridges or walls.

Possible.

Why are these the only two options in your view? Can we not build screen doors, hoagies, and submarines, too?

And Mexico will pay for the sandwiches.

There are more options than just bridges or walls.

Others use them to further disconnect from reality.

who was kicked out of Boston Atheists, and wants to portray that situation as an example of intolerance by atheists comparable to Christians denying birth control coverage to employees, or opposing same-sex relationships.

The same guy who personally thinks abortion is murder.

The same guy who is "unsure" whether a priest who learns about child abuse should be required to report it.

This same guy is admonishing anyone who doesn't want to work with the people who agree with him on all of those issues.

Pretty fucking ridiculous if you ask me.

Yet posts endless diatribes against atheists who vote reliably D at about the same rate evangelicals reliably vote R.

Very telling that.

Dispensing "eye for an eye" justice on those you feel deserve it doesn't seem very Christian.

But what would I know, right? You go and do all the nasty stuff you want. I'm gonna be here to call you out, though.

I think McConnell is not trustworthy, which has caused a lot of the dysfunction in the Senate. I think Lisa Murkowski is trustworthy. I think Richard Burr may be somewhat trustworthy. He has played the sort of games that Nunes did in the House.

But trustworthy aside, at some point in the future, McConnell will be gone, hopefully Democrats will be in charge again, and we will need to start repairing our country. The real damage Trump has done is destroy the norms that a functioning political system needs to operate. To undo the damage, we will need to re-establish the norms and that means reaching across the aisle.

I don't know if that will actually work, and I don't think we should compromise for compromise's sake, but we'd be better off if we could make it work. Personal relationships in Congress will help that. I am sure there are other personal relationships in Congress that aren't based on religion.

Coon's relationship with Trump is only tangentially about religion, because Trump really isn't religious. It seems more about Coon's friendly and open personality than religion. But it being Religion News, they had to play up the religious angle.

I'm sure there's a GOP voter out there who likes tacos, too.

I, however, don't tacitly or explicitly approve of separating familes at the border... so that taco thing seems kind of meaningless by comparison, doesn't it?

Shrimp tacos, or fish tacos?

...so if I had to choose between the two, I would obviously go for the grilled mahi fish taco.

That being said, my tastes trend towards land mammals. Carne asada are my favorite, followed by carnitas and chorizo. Chicken belongs in fajitas and enchiladas, but not tacos.

They were incredible.

Tell that to Speaker Pelosi and Coons.

Pelosi's view on the matter:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218307010

find a reasonable common ground with a gaggle of insane neo-nazi jeebus spouting hate mongering nut jobs.

How did that work out?

Donald.

We both know that. But Coons and Pelosi also know that.

So, if they asked, what would you advise them to do?

They are dishonest fascist bad actors.

And if they ask, "but what specifically should we do?", would you say to do nothing?

The GOP controls the Senate. The White House is controlled by Putin.

So what would get done over the next 20 months?

“While Democrats are negotiating in good faith to prevent another disastrous #TrumpShutdown that cost our economy $11 billion, Trump is laying the groundwork to declare a “national emergency” that even Republicans don’t want.”

https://mobile.twitter.com/teampelosi/status/1091141570567593985

not getting his damned wall, no matter how much he pouts nor how strong a tantrum he throws.

Nancy Pelosi is not giving in to Republicans. Just the opposite. She is telling them they need to back down and start cooperating with her. It has zero to do with religion.

She is not going to make nice with the Republicans who have brought this nation to a standstill. Instead, she's going to point out their errors and show them what needs to be done. If they bend in her direction, she'll take their votes. If they do not, she and the rest of us will take their seats in 2020.

You have chosen a bad example in Nancy Pelosi. She is as tough as nails and is not going to give an inch on important issues.

The example you provided in your OP is also flawed. The article promotes going along with Trump. That will not happen. The time for that passed when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker again. Rethink, Guy. You're wrong. Dead wrong.

As is your analysis of the article.

However, you do not bother to explain your opinion.

your position.

I see...

And yes, we're telling Coons that. If you read that article in the OP, Trump comes out of it as a reasonable person. That's a lie, and Coons is enabling it.

Think back to the Gillette ad; Coons is one of the people it's aimed at - those who can look at Trump, shake their heads, and say "Christians will be Christians". Christians must not be like Trump. No, don't compromise with Trump.

And I see nothing from Pelosi saying it's OK to compromise with Trump.

All I saw was that Coons had a personal connection with Trump, but disagreed with him on political issues. I didn't see any actual compromises mentioned, except about a minor appropriations bill and not involving Trump. It also said, that he
"Prays for Trump," which I took as a subtle dig. It's something that my Christians friends have told me after I tell them I'm never going to be a Christian.

It pretends that he is a decent human being. It makes excuses for his life. I really do mean it about the Gillette advert - it's our human duty to call out the worst of humanity, and that is Trump. Those who tolerate his behaviour and attitude are enabling him.

I don't recall it saying that you should have no personal connection at all with people who do bad things.

I've had personal and professional connections with some pretty awful people, some were the dregs of humanity. It's really not about excusing bad behavior or anything like that. It's just not that simple.

Please point that out.

From "President Trump doesn’t have a lot of nice things to say about Democrats these days. Well, except Sen. Chris Coons" to "The president then looked over his shoulder at the smiling senator: “We pray together, right? That’s a good step.”"

And from "remind himself that Trump is “a child of God.”" to "“He says, ‘We Presbyterians have got to stick together!’ like we’re some small hunted minority or something,” Coons recalled, laughing."

This is an attempt to normalize Trump.

nor does it imply any attempt to normalize Trump's positions.

It does represent one Senator's attempt to reach Trump on a faith level.

That's code for someone trying to practice Christian love, you know "love your enemies." There is no exception in there for malignant narcissists.

It's normalizing him. It's stupid. It's naive. It's enabling.

And the "child of God" stuff is the "boys will be boys" excuses.

"Boys will be boys" is a way of letting men escape real world consequences like jail for rape.

"Child of God" is what prison ministers say when they are volunteering to work with murderers and sociopaths.

He really is letting Trump escape real world consequences.

Not some horrible partisan legislation. I really don't see a problem with showing up for something like that. And really, thw real world consequences I'm talking about is criminal prosecution, not a totally unrelated photo-op on something that actually is positive.

back into the control of pimps by criminalizing all online sex transactions?

That assumes much.

is causing more exploitation and violence against sex workers.

In the Chicago area, there have been numerous stories about sex workers who are controlled by pimps who advertise online. The pimp sets up the profiles, and the pimp controls the sex workers. And in a few cases, these sex workers are underaged and runaways.

Criminalisation of sex work normalises violence, review finds
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/11/criminalisation-of-sex-work-normalises-violence-review-finds

Pimps Are Preying on Sex Workers Pushed Off the Web Because of FOSTA-SESTA
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/bjpqvz/fosta-sesta-sex-work-and-trafficking

The War on Sex Workers Needs to Stop Now
Sex worker and advocate Siouxsie Q on why new legislation will put her community at greater risk for exploitation and death
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/the-war-on-sex-workers-needs-to-stop-now-628335/

Okay.

reduced violence and exploitation of adult sex workers.

They really do.

exploitation and violence against adult sex workers.

And too soon in any case.

I provided three links that substantiate my argument. You have provided nothing to substantiate yours. That is simply dishonest arguing.

That bill has had disastrous consequences online for not just sex workers, but the LGBTQIA community, and content creators of all types.

In their crusade to seem morally superior they have acted to cause harm to the ones they are claiming to protect. All because of a moral panic appeal to the religious.

And homophobia was explicitly used.

And here it's used as an example of good behaviour.

I think the signing Coons attended was the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, signed on Jan 9 and as far as I can tell does not mention the internet. Coons sponsored it.

FOSTA already passed around April last year.

It's congratulating one of the worst people in the world for not screwing up something that other people did (because that bill was not crafted by Trump, nor did he do any work to get it through. Of course he didn't - we all know he's a lazy wanker who doesn't care for any other human being).

Trump is damn lucky he hasn't been prosecuted for a variety of crimes. He has been accused of raping his first wife, and of sexual misconduct by 21 other women: https://www.businessinsider.com/women-accused-trump-sexual-misconduct-list-2017-12?r=US&IR=T

It is an acknowledgment that, at this time, he is the President.

Second stolen presidential election this decade. The occupant of the white house is an agent of a hostile foreign government. Trump is an enthusiastic booster of white nationalism, islamophobia, xenophobia. But he claims he loves your christian gods.

Just fuck that.

And in some situations, it is appropriate.

But not in a government with multiple parties.

Notice how no other Democrat was there? That's a slight clue that it wasn't compulsory.

Acknowledging that he's president is something like "not arresting him for his conspiracy with Russians". Or, out of respect for the office, not constantly pointing out he's a piece of shit, using that terminology. Though it would be very helpful if some members of Congress did say that occasionally.

then pray for him.

He has gone on TV to say so too.

I dealt with a malignant narcissist at work once, a character very much like Trump. You probably would not have liked how I dealt with him, even though I did end up getting him fired. You might have thought I "normalized" him too much.