On Zion Distant, and Babylon Close

[Kevin Christensen]

A recent report by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) discussed the costs and benefits of Obama Era regulations, and demonstrated that "Those regulations had benefits far in excess of their costs, and they had no discernible effect on jobs or economic growth." 

The Vox report summarizes:

Quote

The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars:

• Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion
• Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion

By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs.

According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false.

What is false?  The notion of "job killing regulations" as "hurting the economy."  And a closer look at facts of the matter brings to mind Nibley, in Approaching Zion. One of Nibley's themes his classic "What is Zion? A Distant View" had to do with the stark difference between Zion and Babylon, and the tendency of many LDS to try to have it both ways.

Quote

In order to reconcile the ways of Babylon with the ways of Zion, it has been necessary to circumvent the inconvenient barriers of scripture and conscience by the use of the tried and true device of rhetoric, defined by Plato as the art of making true things seem false and false things seem true by the use of words.⁷⁷ This invaluable art has, since the time of Cain, invested the ways of Babylon with an air of high purpose, solid virtue, and impeccable respectability. “The servants of sin should appear polished and pious, . . . able to call to their assistance . . . the subtle, persuasive power of rhetoric.”⁷⁸ “The devil is an orator; he is powerful; . . . “⁷⁹

And this:

Quote

First, of course, the work ethic, which is being so strenuously advocated in our day. This is one of those neat magician’s tricks in which all our attention is focused on one hand while the other hand does the manipulating. Implicit in the work ethic are the ideas (1) that because one must work to acquire wealth, work equals wealth, and (2) that that is the whole equation. With these go the corollaries that anyone who has wealth must have earned it by hard work and is, therefore, beyond criticism; that anyone who doesn’t have it deserves to suffer—thus penalizing any who do not work for money; and (since you have a right to all you earn) that the only real work is for one’s self; and, finally, that any limit set to the amount of wealth an individual may acquire is a satanic device to deprive men of their free agency—thus making mockery of the Council of Heaven. These editorial syllogisms we have heard a thousand times, but you will not find them in the scriptures.

And this:

Quote

God recognizes only one justification for seeking wealth, and that is with the express intent of helping the poor (Jacob 2:19).

And this (relevant to the Tweeter in chief):

Quote

Every rhetorician knows that his most effective weapons by far are labels. He can demolish the opposition with simple and devastating labels such as communism, socialism, or atheism, popery, militarism, or Mormonism, or give his clients’ worst crimes a religious glow with noble labels such as integrity, old-fashioned honesty, toughmindedness, or free competitive enterprise. “You can get away with anything if you just wave the flag,” a business partner of my father once told me. He called that patriotism.

Concluding with this:

Quote

All my life I have shied away from these disturbing and highly unpopular—even offensive—themes. But I cannot do so any longer, because in my old age I have taken to reading the scriptures and there have had it forced upon my reluctant attention, that from the time of Adam to the present day, Zion has been pitted against Babylon, and the name of the game has always been money—”power and gain.”

It has been supposed that wealth gives power. In a depraved state of society, in a certain sense it does, if opening a wide field for unrighteous monopolies, by which the poor are robbed and oppressed and the wealthy are more enriched, is power. In a depraved state of society money can buy positions and titles, can cover up a multitude of incapabilities, can open wide the gates of fashionable society to the lowest and most depraved of human beings; it divides society into castes without any reference to goodness, virtue or truth. It is made to pander to the most brutal passions of the human soul; it is made to subvert every wholesome law of God and man, and to trample down every sacred bond that should tie society together in a national, municipal, domestic and every other relationship.¹⁰⁹

Cain slew “his brother Abel, for the sake of getting gain” (Moses 5:50). For Satan had taught him “this great secret, that I may murder and get gain” (Moses 5:31). He excused himself to God: “Satan tempted me because of my brother’s flocks” (Moses 5:38), and having gotten the best of his brother in competition, Cain “gloried in that which he had done,” rejoicing in the rhetoric of wealth: “I am free; surely the flocks of my brother falleth into my hands” (Moses 5:33).

He felt no guilt, since this was fair competition. Abel could take care of himself: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Moses 5:34).

It was all free competitive enterprise where “every man prospered according to his genius, and . . . every man conquered according to his strength; and whatsoever a man did was no crime” (Alma 30:17). This is no mere red thread running through the scriptures but the broad highway of history.

Commenting on the astonishingly short time in which the Nephites turned from a righteous to a wicked nation, Nephi puts his finger on the spot: “Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this—Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, . . . tempting them to seek [in other words, work] for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world” (3 Nephi 6:15).

With all of this in mind from Nibley, consider this from the Vox summary of the OMB Report, and consider just how little public or media discussion of this report has occurred.

Quote

For example, new fuel economy standards for medium- and heavy-duty engines had (in 2001 dollars) between $6.7 billion and $9.7 billion in benefits. But they cost industry $0.8 billion to $1.1 billion.

 

The MATS rule, aimed at reducing toxic emissions from power plants, had between $33 billion and $90 billion in benefits (in 2007 dollars, for some reason), but it cost industry $9.6 billion.

In short, air quality rules secure enormous health benefits for the American public, but they also ask a great deal of industry.

To frame the same point another way: Air quality regulations serve as a downward redistribution of wealth, out of the pockets of industrialists and into the pockets of ordinary Americans, particularly the poor and vulnerable Americans (African Americans and Hispanics in particular) who tend to live closest to pollution sources. They shift costs, from the much higher health and social costs of pollution remediation to the comparatively smaller costs of pollution abatement.

And therein lies the source of industry and GOP rage toward EPA. It’s why EPA delayed and delayed air rules under Bush. It’s why the GOP Congress worked so furiously to block air rules under Obama. And it’s why EPA is weakening or repealing air rules as fast as possible under Trump.

The GOP is opposed to downward redistribution of wealth. If one policy goal has unified the right above all else, it is upward redistribution. Even as its base drifts further into a fog of xenophobic, reactionary resentment, its moneyed interests and policy leaders remain laser-focused on reducing taxes and regulatory burdens on the wealthy. Upward redistribution is what unites GOP health care policy, tax policy, financial sector policy, and environmental policy.

That is why Republicans hate EPA and its rules: They are a burden to industry, but worse, they are a burden to industry that is very obviously worth it. Industry makes a small sacrifice, public health improves, and economic growth continues apace. EPA rules are a living demonstration of the good that government can do.

Amazing how much rhetoric and labeling and flag waving and accusing and tweeting really boils down to "Am I my brother's keeper?"

There is more, of course here in the Vox essay here:

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2018/3/6/17077330/trump-regulatory-agenda-omb

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

[The Nehor]

Agreed.

[Jeanne]

I had to smile because I the Op in Home...it says On Zion and Distant, Baby...  Oh...laugh people...!

[SteveO]

"Xenophobic" and "reactionary resentment"?

 

You're sure to win hearts and minds

 

 

   

[Stargazer]

Well, this thread won't last very long, I predict.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

"Xenophobic" .............................   

Pronounced as in Book of Mormon Zenos, "The Foreigner," who used horticultural motifs in his prophetic commentary on how to get things right.  Thus, Zenophobia would be hatred of Zenos' principles of good ecological stewardship.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Kevin Christensen said:

..................................Amazing how much rhetoric and labeling and flag waving and accusing and tweeting really boils down to "Am I my brother's keeper?"....................

Ironically, however, both Republicans and Democrats tend to favor corporate socialism, and socialism for the wealthy elites, and they use patriotism combined with sophistry to mask what they are really doing -- in order to get the great unwashed masses to vote against their own true interests.  They call it "populism," but that is only truly a description of the propaganda objective of the elite effort to gain power and to exercise it only for the benefit of the elites.

The hypocrisy is most evident in utter failure in every endeavor those elites claim to be seeking, from the War on Drugs to Pro-Life policies, both of which are complete failures, with more deaths from overdoses than ever and continuing high infant mortality -- due in the latter case to denial to the poor of prenatal care, post-natal care, and sound healthcare for the mothers.  In the midst of that, has anyone ever heard of the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

[SteveO]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Pronounced as in Book of Mormon Zenos, "The Foreigner," who used horticultural motifs in his prophetic commentary on how to get things right.  Thus, Zenophobia would be hatred of Zenos' principles of good ecological stewardship.

You and I, and everyone reading this knows what “xenophobic” means.  

[Robert F. Smith]

12 minutes ago, SteveO said:

You and I, and everyone reading this knows what “xenophobic” means.  

I just assumed that you would understand my point, which is not what xenophobic means. I guess I was wrong.

[longview]

41 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Ironically, however, both Republicans and Democrats tend to favor corporate socialism, and socialism for the wealthy elites, and they use patriotism combined with sophistry to mask what they are really doing -- in order to get the great unwashed masses to vote against their own true interests.  They call it "populism," but that is only truly a description of the propaganda objective of the elite effort to gain power and to exercise it only for the benefit of the elites.

Hence the need for Trump.  He may be a salty sailor but he gets the job done for the silent majority.   

[SteveO]

26 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I just assumed that you would understand my point, which is not what xenophobic means. I guess I was wrong.

You and I, and everyone reading this knows in what context “xenophobic” was used in the article...drop the act

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by SteveO

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, SteveO said:

You and I, and everyone reading this knows in what context “xenophobic” was used in the article...drop the act.....................................

You are clearly imagining some absurd fairy tale to suit yourself.  I was referring to the use of horticultural motifs in Zenos' prophetic commentary on how to get things done properly, rather than hatred of good ecological stewardship.  Had you paid close attention to what I actually said, you would have immediately realized that.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, longview said:

Hence the need for Trump.  He may be a salty sailor but he gets the job done for the silent majority.   

That is apparently the evangelical rationale for going whole hog for the "salty sailor" -- the abandonment of all moral rectitude.  However, it was not a majority of any kind, and a majority is not needed in our idiotic electoral system.

[SteveO]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You are clearly imagining some absurd fairy tale to suit yourself.  I was referring to the use of horticultural motifs in Zenos' prophetic commentary on how to get things done properly, rather than hatred of good ecological stewardship.  Had you paid close attention to what I actually said, you would have immediately realized that.

Robert, my initial comment on this thread was pointing out that labeling political opposition, as the Vox article did, is counterproductive to winning over people to one's point of view.  Labeling Conservatives and Republicans as "Xenophobic" and with "reactionary resentment" is incendiary and off-putting.  It's also ironic in this case, considering it had followed after Nibley's quote on labeling opposition.

I took your comment on "xenophobic," as used in the Vox article about EPA regulations, as an attempt to make it seem less inflammatory by redefining it as a hatred of ecological stewardship.  The context in the article was clearly labeling Republicans and Conservatives as bigots and racists who want to get rid of regulations to grind the faces of the poor (apparently Blacks and Hispanics).  I think its unhelpful when discussing politics in such a divisive time.

I didn't (and still don't) understand what horticultural motifs in Zenos' prophetic commentary had anything to do with anything--but I'll admit it might have gone over my head.  Apologies.  

Edited April 21, 2018 by SteveO

[Kevin Christensen]

Is it impolitic to point out that Scott Pruitt, is not, as we have been seeing publicly demonstrated through current scandals, a paragon of wisdom, honesty and integrity, but a former lobbyist for the industries that the EPA is supposed to regulate, and has, with the vocal approval of Trump, dismantled environmental protections that have proven economic benefits that far outweigh their costs?  

I must admit that I do not find the mention of "xenophobic, reactionary resentment" to be a distortion of public evidence, inappropriate mislabeling, or misleading propaganda, and certainly not grounds to change the subject away from the main point, that the "White House Office of Management and Budget" itself provided the evidence that Vox only reported, that is, that the regulations that Pruitt and Trump have been removing have public benefits that far far outweigh the costs, and that their rationale for doing so, (removing "job killing regulations" to help the economy), has no actual basis.  It  just a transparent bid to cater to very rich, incidentally at the expense of the not rich.  If I am not sufficiently tactful, it is because I am angry.   In the little book, The Lessons of History, the Durrants comment that one of the lessons is that wealth does eventually get redistributed, either the French and Russian way, with violent revolution, or the sensible British way, via taxation.  One of the lessons of the Book of Abraham is that we live in a society of intelligences, that is, it's not all about "me", but rather, always about "us".  If our decisions reflect that, we're better off, as Joseph Smith put it, "each man seeking the interest of his neighbor," rather than the Korihor/Ayn Rand approach. 

I worked for 10 years in downtown Pittsburgh, which, in the heyday of coal and steel, up to the mid 1970s, was amazingly polluted.  Coal is not, and never was clean.  People can sand blast buildings to get the stains of a century off, but lungs are a different matter.  I got here in 2004 and compared to the pictures I have seen, its actually very nice.  I used to walk along the river for my lunch hour, past places that used to be nothing but what William Blake called "dark satanic mills."  If you actually do some history, it is clear that the steel jobs left because the technology of smelting radically changed (what Clayton Christensen calls "disruptive innovation") and that genii will not go back in the bottle.  I very much prefer my technical writing in information technology, a job that itself has also changed radically many times while I have been doing it due to ongoing disruptive innovation.  It's much more sensible to retrain than to try to turn back the clock with MAGA hats, and certainly not sensible or beneficial to say that it's okay to dump coal and mining sludge into streams, rivers, and lakes because that is cheaper. That, I think, is difficult to fit into any viable definition of greatness.  And is the kind of mind that is willing pollute the environment because it is easy and cheap going to be the kind of mind that willingly pays good wages and benefits for employees?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[SteveO]

28 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

Is it impolitic to point out that Scott Pruitt, is not, as we have been seeing publicly demonstrated through current scandals, a paragon of wisdom, honesty and integrity, but a former lobbyist for the industries that the EPA is supposed to regulate, and has, with the vocal approval of Trump, dismantled environmental protections that have proven economic benefits that far outweigh their costs?  

I must admit that I do not find the mention of "xenophobic, reactionary resentment" to be a distortion of public evidence, inappropriate mislabeling, or misleading propaganda, and certainly not grounds to change the subject away from the main point, that the "White House Office of Management and Budget" itself provided the evidence that Vox only reported, that is, that the regulations that Pruitt and Trump have been removing have public benefits that far far outweigh the costs, and that their rationale for doing so, (removing "job killing regulations" to help the economy), has no actual basis.  It  just a transparent bid to cater to very rich, incidentally at the expense of the not rich.  If I am not sufficiently tactful, it is because I am angry.   In the little book, The Lessons of History, the Durrants comment that one of the lessons is that wealth does eventually get redistributed, either the French and Russian way, with violent revolution, or the sensible British way, via taxation.  One of the lessons of the Book of Abraham is that we live in a society of intelligences, that is, it's not all about "me", but rather, always about "us".  If our decisions reflect that, we're better off, as Joseph Smith put it, "each man seeking the interest of his neighbor," rather than the Korihor/Ayn Rand approach. 

I worked for 10 years in downtown Pittsburgh, which, in the heyday of coal and steel, up to the mid 1970s, was amazingly polluted.  Coal is not, and never was clean.  People can sand blast buildings to get the stains of a century off, but lungs are a different matter.  I got here in 2004 and compared to the pictures I have seen, its actually very nice.  I used to walk along the river for my lunch hour, past places that used to be nothing but what William Blake called "dark satanic mills."  If you actually do some history, it is clear that the steel jobs left because the technology of smelting radically changed (what Clayton Christensen calls "disruptive innovation") and that genii will not go back in the bottle.  I very much prefer my technical writing in information technology, a job that itself has also changed radically many times while I have been doing it due to ongoing disruptive innovation.  It's much more sensible to retrain than to try to turn back the clock with MAGA hats, and certainly not sensible or beneficial to say that it's okay to dump coal and mining sludge into streams, rivers, and lakes because that is cheaper. That, I think, is difficult to fit into any viable definition of greatness.  And is the kind of mind that is willing pollute the environment because it is easy and cheap going to be the kind of mind that willingly pays good wages and benefits for employees?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

To suggest that Republicans oppose regulation because they hate the poor, ie, African Americans and Hispanics?  Yeah, I would say it fails to meet respectful discourse on an already touchy subject.  I didn’t make that unnecessary insinuation distracting from the main point.  The article did.  It doesn’t help the writer make his point, and it immediately turns people off to listening.

The problem is, and I speak only for myself, is when you say the EPA is going to ensure a higher quality of life for everyone, and all I can think of is this:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/gold-king-mine-spill-colorado-rivers-epa-claims/

And I could post links all day over the rampant idiocy of EPA policy infringing on people’s property rights, incompetence, and straight up acts of extortion.  I agree we need regulations, because NO ONE wants dirty air or water.  But if you’re extolling the virtues of government regulation, you need to address the issues that make people adverse to government in the first place.

Further, you’re worried about fossil fuels.  I agree it’s due for a change...to what though?  To this?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/europes-soaring-energy-prices-2013-11

Talk about gouging the poor...give me a viable and economic alternative to coal and gas, and I’ll get behind it.  At the moment, renewable energy at the macro level is impractical as a majority contributor, and at the micro level unaffordable.

Finally, you are communicating via a computer or a smart phone yes?  Just about everything you use that involves electronics involves semi conductors.  You have any idea what goes into making those?  Off the top of my head there’s NF3 (Nitrogen triflouride) which has the greenhouse potency almost 17,000 times that of CO2.  You know how we abate it?  We don’t, it’s released straight to atmosphere.  You know how many fabrication plants there are in the world?  A lot:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_semiconductor_fabrication_plants

You know why we don’t abate it? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

EPA will leave you alone if you pay enough in lobbying.  Nobody cares about NF3 though anyways.  Like I said, you have no problem using the products that require it’s use—and nobody is going to stop using them anytime soon.  So it’s quietly swept under the rug.

It’s not so simple as Republicans just hate the poor and are at war with clean air and water.  The reality is always complicated and not so clean cut.  

BTW, the fab I work at has the best benefits and pay in the valley here in Utah.  Just don’t build your homes by us.  

[longview]

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That is apparently the evangelical rationale for going whole hog for the "salty sailor" -- the abandonment of all moral rectitude.

All?  It is astonishing that a scholar like you would resort to absolutism?  Trump has in the past been honored and feted by several black activist organizations for his charity and advocacy.  It was only when he became a candidate that they turned the tables and unleashed a horrific attack on him by making up accusations of white supremacism and racism and anti-semitism, etc.  None of those charges were levied on him prior to 2015.

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

However, it was not a majority of any kind, and a majority is not needed in our idiotic electoral system.

Do you hate the Constitution of the U.S.?  That Heavenly Banner?  This is a Republic.  NOT a pure democracy.  NOT a government by mob rule.

The Electoral College was set up by our founding fathers who were strongly inspired by God to provide many kinds of protections.  Such as checks and balances, separation of powers, advise and consent, etc.  If it wasn't for the EC, presidential elections would be overwhelmed by mega-cities that tend to vote in lock-steps.

YES.  It was a good kind of majority which represented many walks of life, different kinds of states, regional interest, etc.

[Calm]

Contains language, documented history of Trump's racism along with some positive actions he took:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/every-moment-donald-trumps-long-complicated-history-race

First charges are in 1973.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

17 hours ago, longview said:

Hence the need for Trump.  He may be a salty sailor but he gets the job done for the silent majority.   

Yes, if you prefer an autocractic banana republic riddled with corruption.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, longview said:

All?  It is astonishing that a scholar like you would resort to absolutism?  Trump has in the past been honored and feted by several black activist organizations for his charity and advocacy.  It was only when he became a candidate that they turned the tables and unleashed a horrific attack on him by making up accusations of white supremacism and racism and anti-semitism, etc.  None of those charges were levied on him prior to 2015.

WRONG!

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, longview said:

All?  It is astonishing that a scholar like you would resort to absolutism?  Trump has in the past been honored and feted by several black activist organizations for his charity and advocacy.  It was only when he became a candidate that they turned the tables and unleashed a horrific attack on him by making up accusations of white supremacism and racism and anti-semitism, etc.  None of those charges were levied on him prior to 2015.

Like his father before  him, Trump has always been an opportunistic and authoritarian figure, and (like Adolf Hitler) has been feted and courted by diverse groups -- including the Clintons, and other opportunists.  There is nothing new in the extreme polarization of America, nor in the hypocrisy of groups which claim that high moral and ethical principles are supposedly of prime importance.  So, if you want to condemn situational ethics, and lack of evenhanded criticism of evil, regardless of who is faulted, then I am with you.  If you are attempting to provide cover for the wholesale evangelical turn to evil, then I don't understand you at all.  Did you learn anything at all from the history of the Third Reich?

4 hours ago, longview said:

Do you hate the Constitution of the U.S.?  That Heavenly Banner?  This is a Republic.  NOT a pure democracy.  NOT a government by mob rule.

Only an idiot would ever suggest that we have a pure Republic, or pure democracy.  Every political scientist knows that we have a mixed system, and fthat the history of the U.S. Constitution has been one of change, such that the basic rights which were once accorded only to white male landowners have now been extended to a range of minorities.  White Southern racists are still angry about that extension of Constitutionalism to non-whites, and they have long preferred mobocracy.  Many of them are evangelicals, who actively reject the teachings of Jesus Christ, and always have.  They love Trump for the same reasons that nearly all Germans loved Adolf Hitler.

4 hours ago, longview said:

The Electoral College was set up by our founding fathers who were strongly inspired by God to provide many kinds of protections.  Such as checks and balances, separation of powers, advise and consent, etc.  If it wasn't for the EC, presidential elections would be overwhelmed by mega-cities that tend to vote in lock-steps.

If the evangelicals actually believed in that Constitution, then they would not so vociferously gerrymander districts so as to deny one-man-one-vote, and they would not actively move to prevent others from voting.  They clearly prefer lock-step racist voting patterns (through denial of franchise to others), even though Trump will never serve their real interests.  You may have noticed that a federal judge just held a governor in contempt for deliberately preventing citizens from registering to vote.  If it made no difference, why is it that Trump continually lies in claiming that he got a majority of the vote?  Why do evangelicals support a pathological liar, adulterer, and traitor to the USA?  Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind?

4 hours ago, longview said:

YES.  It was a good kind of majority which represented many walks of life, different kinds of states, regional interest, etc.

Yes, a narrow range of ignoramuses did vote for that narcissistic son of a racist (a good German, by the way), and they will reap the whirlwind for doing so.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, SteveO said:

Robert, my initial comment on this thread was pointing out that labeling political opposition, as the Vox article did, is counterproductive to winning over people to one's point of view.  Labeling Conservatives and Republicans as "Xenophobic" and with "reactionary resentment" is incendiary and off-putting.  It's also ironic in this case, considering it had followed after Nibley's quote on labeling opposition.

I took your comment on "xenophobic," as used in the Vox article about EPA regulations, as an attempt to make it seem less inflammatory by redefining it as a hatred of ecological stewardship.  The context in the article was clearly labeling Republicans and Conservatives as bigots and racists who want to get rid of regulations to grind the faces of the poor (apparently Blacks and Hispanics).  I think its unhelpful when discussing politics in such a divisive time.

I didn't (and still don't) understand what horticultural motifs in Zenos' prophetic commentary had anything to do with anything--but I'll admit it might have gone over my head.  Apologies.  

I take the non-polar view that the only rational supporters of the EPA rollback are those who can make a big profit on the deal.  Simple as that.  Others who support it for ideological reasons will lose, regardless of their pretended liberal-conservative positions (which are not real in any case, and actually have more to do with emotion and mood than any rational assessment).

If they would get out of that fever swamp and take the POV of BofM Zenos, there might be some hope for all of us.  But you know what "fat chance" means.

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, a narrow range of ignoramuses did vote for that narcissistic son of a racist (a good German, by the way), and they will reap the whirlwind for doing so.

And what are we to make of people who accuse those who voted for Hillary, or any other good Democrat these days, as participating in the wholesale slaughter of infants (via abortion), and therefore, they who voted for those abortion-lovers will reap the whirlwind?

I think we will get further by not implicating those whom we disagree politically with evil -- both sides do it, and both sides are wrong.  Neither Trump nor Obama is the devil.  

And perhaps this thread needs to be closed, because the civility has completely leached out of it and turned into political bickering.