Jump to content

Menu

Checking in... Anxiety about current events


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, SKL said:

Entirely possible.

My point is not that one side or the other is exempt from accusations.  It's that humans are humans and greed is greed, and there is really no point saying "but my side is cleaner than your side" as if that makes one of us a better person.

Most people are decent.  I am pretty sure that goes for almost everyone on this board.  That does not mean that our personal decency extends to everything we ever associated ourselves with, voted for, or believed.  It also doesn't mean that the problems associated with everything we ever voted for or believed taints us personally.  I think if we could remember this, we'd spend less energy contributing to the fight between "sides" that don't really represent any of us very well.

YES! This. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 966
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The head company officials at Parler do not have a right to be hosted on Amazon Web Services, nor do they have a right to be hosted as an app by Apple. It is completely within a company’s rights to tu

Which would then be government-controlled media. Really, I'm completely confused when champions of the 'free-market' cry victim when the free market does something they don't like. 

re folks unhappy with the 2016 electoral outcome vs folks unhappy with the 2020 outcome In 2016, there were a lot of folks deeply unhappy with the outcome of the election. I was one. We stresse

Posted Images

Well, who exactly is one supposed to hold responsible for the misbehavior of their chosen representatives? If they don't speak for you, don't vote for them. If you vote for them as the "lesser evil," you should be comfortable with the decisions they make. 

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Well, who exactly is one supposed to hold responsible for the misbehavior of their chosen representatives? If they don't speak for you, don't vote for them. If you vote for them as the "lesser evil," you should be comfortable with the decisions they make. 

Don't quote please, as I'll likely delete.

See..(please be merciful to me as I am experiencing major regret) I did vote Trump and I am very very regretful. I could go into all my reasoning, but that doesn't matter now, does it? I feel shame for that decision, and wanted him impeached as soon as I heard what happened on 1/6. Where I'm stuck is that I don't feel that the representatives (both presidential and otherwise) put forth reflect AT ALL what I want for my nation. Doesn't give me any choices other than to just stay home from election day.  (I did not vote Trump in 2016.)

I felt so gross casting that vote.

I have promised myself that I will never again cast a vote for anyone that I have such huge misgivings for. If that means I quit voting, then that's what I guess I must do. I am much more committed now, however, to voting much more carefully for local elections. My thinking is that most people who end up in the Capitol started out in local politics. If we're not careful at the local level to vote for people of character, then they eventually move to Washington and still behave with poor character. (Yes, I know Trump didn't start out locally, but he was also embolded by others of his party who did not have to guts to buck the politics of party.)

 

 

Edited by fairfarmhand
  • Like 21
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

My Kindle keeps showing me advertisement for romances, lol. Maybe it knows something I don't... 

Is there a way to get it to filter what kind of ads? I know I have to allow ads on mine, but the last one that popped up when it was on screensaver mode had an embarrassing picture considering I share my kindle with my kids and it’s usually sitting out. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kand said:

Is there a way to get it to filter what kind of ads? I know I have to allow ads on mine, but the last one that popped up when it was on screensaver mode had an embarrassing picture considering I share my kindle with my kids and it’s usually sitting out. 

I do wonder that!! I keep getting ads I don't want to share with my kids, either 😛 . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Terabith said:

...

I have heard about Finland not existing.  I don't really get it, but I've heard of it.  

Finland not existing is just a conspiracy to make fun of other conspiracies. No one takes it seriously. And it's a shame, because of this tactic of ridicule, a lot of people are being blinded to the real truth exposed by other "conspiracies". Birds aren't real, for example. And, what I consider an even bigger global game changer: giraffes don't exist. I mean, seriously, how did we all fall for an animal half horse half ostrich, with leopard spots and weird antennae things? "Yeah, that looks right." Our education system has failed us.

In terms of brainwashing the global population, Big Pharma and Big Oil and Big Illuminati have a lot to learn from Big Giraffe and Big Bird.

Edited by Moonhawk
  • Haha 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

@fairfarmhand: for what it's worth, I think ALL OF US paying more attention to local politics and the characters of the people we choose to represent us would be a huge win. My personal opinion after many years of watching is that institutions are really only as good as the people that populate them. The idea that "norms" constrain jerks is just wishful thinking. 

So... we should choose good, smart, evidence-based people for the jobs we want done, period. And that goes both locally and not locally. 

(That has frankly become my opinion about everything. Specific human beings matter more than anything else, so choose wisely. Philosophy doesn't trump actual people, no pun intended, neither in politics nor in journalism nor in teaching.) 

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Birds aren't real, for example. And, what I consider an even bigger global game changer: giraffes don't exist. I mean, seriously, how did we all fall for an animal half horse half ostrich, with leopard spots and weird antennae things? Our education system has failed us.

In terms of brainwashing the global population, Big Pharma and Big Oil and Big Illuminati have a lot to learn from Big Giraffe and Big Bird.

Isn't that from Nightvale?  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Isn't that from Nightvale?  

You would know better than me, since I'm pretty sure that's where you live. 😛 

[lol, I actually had to Google it, so no idea. I think they were spawned separately but probably cross-pollinated at some point]

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Soooo.... how about those bodice rippers, lol? 

My Kindle keeps showing me advertisement for romances, lol. Maybe it knows something I don't... 

If it’s showing you Courtney Milan ads, buy them all.  
 

Books about relationships with male protagonists and depressing endings are “literary fiction” while books about relationships with female protagonists and happy endings are romance.  Right now I’ll take the happy endings, thanks.

 

  • Like 6
  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

Don't quote please, as I'll likely delete

Thanks for being brave enough to share. In 2016, my DH didn’t vote for anyone for president, because he didn’t feel he could pull the lever for either. He did eventually regret that, and voted fervently against Trump in 2020. I agree it’s better not to vote for anyone than for someone who poses an actual risk to the country. Based on what we’ve seen and the risks we now face, I think having more people putting country over party and voting for whichever person they need to to keep our government from collapsing is essential when we face such grave risks. I sincerely hope we are able to right the ship and get back to normal politics where people are choosing between two normal people who both have the good of the country at heart, one with policies they largely like, and the other with policies they largely disagree with. That’s the way it’s usually been, and an election like that would be a relief at this point.

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

The way to "take responsibility" for votes.  Part of it is simply having regrets and expressing them if there is evidence that shows that you voted for someone harmful to the country.  The "stick to your guns no matter what evidence there is to the contrary" approach is not a good approach.  You can't take back your vote, obviously.  But you can be one of the few who actually learns from history instead of repeating it.  This applies to support of "causes" and even "a particular narrative" (like a "stolen election" that has been proven to not actually have been stolen at all).  If you find that you believed something that doesn't have evidence to back it up, then don't keep spreading that false narrative. 

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kand said:

Thanks for being brave enough to share. In 2016, my DH didn’t vote for anyone for president, because he didn’t feel he could pull the lever for either. He did eventually regret that, and voted fervently against Trump in 2020. I agree it’s better not to vote for anyone than for someone who poses an actual risk to the country. Based on what we’ve seen and the risks we now face, I think having more people putting country over party and voting for whichever person they need to to keep our government from collapsing is essential when we face such grave risks. I sincerely hope we are able to right the ship and get back to normal politics where people are choosing between two normal people who both have the good of the country at heart, one with policies they largely like, and the other with policies they largely disagree with. That’s the way it’s usually been, and an election like that would be a relief at this point.

We can all hope and pray for that to happen ASAP! 

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

They've never been my chosen form of entertainment, but perhaps I should give them a try. 

Realistically, though, I should start a new mystery series. I keep having grand plans to read interesting, thought-provoking books, then I dutifully buy them and don't read them, because I really only read when I'm grabbing a quick snack or falling asleep or when the kids give me 10 minutes of peace, and that's not conducive to reading thoughtful books. 

Any thoughts on fun mystery series? Some I've liked so far: 

 

-- Agatha Christie

-- Josephine Tey (although she has some crazy pseudo-science in there, speaking of conspiracies!) 

-- Ruth Rendell's Inspector Wexford series 

 

There's another one I'm blanking on.. anyway, any ideas from the anxiety-busting crew? 

I've enjoyed the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde (sci fi detective mystery taking place in out of of books -- they are book detectives:)) 

I've also enjoyed the Mary Russell series by Laurie King.  The first is the Beekeeper's Apprentice.  She's Sherlock Holmes' wife and solves mysteries with him.  They can be clever but also not too challenging.  

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Not_a_Number said:

They've never been my chosen form of entertainment, but perhaps I should give them a try. 

Realistically, though, I should start a new mystery series. I keep having grand plans to read interesting, thought-provoking books, then I dutifully buy them and don't read them, because I really only read when I'm grabbing a quick snack or falling asleep or when the kids give me 10 minutes of peace, and that's not conducive to reading thoughtful books. 

Any thoughts on fun mystery series? Some I've liked so far: 

 

-- Agatha Christie

-- Josephine Tey (although she has some crazy pseudo-science in there, speaking of conspiracies!) 

-- Ruth Rendell's Inspector Wexford series 

 

There's another one I'm blanking on.. anyway, any ideas from the anxiety-busting crew? 

Mystery novels aren't my thing so I'm not familiar with many of them but I read Gaudy Night by Dorothy Sayers for my bookclub last year and really enjoyed it. It's set in Oxford before WWII and is very pre-war British. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, fairfarmhand said:

 

There is a third party you might appreciate—PM me if interested. I voted very differently in local elections this year after the craziness of recent years has demanded that local people running for office toe a certain line. It used to be a lot harder to find out what local candidates espoused as their views. 

19 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

The way to "take responsibility" for votes.  Part of it is simply having regrets and expressing them if there is evidence that shows that you voted for someone harmful to the country.  The "stick to your guns no matter what evidence there is to the contrary" approach is not a good approach.  You can't take back your vote, obviously.  But you can be one of the few who actually learns from history instead of repeating it.  This applies to support of "causes" and even "a particular narrative" (like a "stolen election" that has been proven to not actually have been stolen at all).  If you find that you believed something that doesn't have evidence to back it up, then don't keep spreading that false narrative. 

This would do tremendous good. My opinion in the last five years was moot to everyone because I “never liked the guy.” It’s not allowed to be that I have a semi-functional BS detector; I have been unfairly biased all along. But an opinion like yours would get at least some air time and might sway a few people. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

I live in a red state, I know a lot of friends who are republican and unless they wanted to stay away from voting, they voted for their party candidate who went through a primary. Unlike politics in my country of birth where the prime minister is the leader of party and chosen by members of the winning party or a coalition if there is no majority, in the US the primary is another layer where people have a direct choice in the candidate. 

The last former president of the republican party was the former governor of my state. I did not know him as governor, I only knew him as president. He also became president in a controversial way, but most of my friends in my state agreed he was a good man though his policies were debatable

The difference though between the former president and the current president is religious leaders did not anoint him as God's anointed. Yesterday Franklin Graham called the 10 republican senators who impeached the president as Judas. Meaning what ? The current president is Jesus ? Huh ? Franklin Graham also framed this election as a good vs evil.

What I do not get is the Vice President is a good Christian in all that the religious right measures "Good Christian". He was the person hunted by a crowd carrying a cross, chanting the name of Jesus and preparing a gallows to hang him in defense of a man who is nothing Christian like that. It boggles the mind. How can this happen ?

It happens when religious leaders lie I think. We were always told in church and Sunday school, God sees the heart and not to be outwardly good. Straight from Jesus teaching. When the conduct was outwardly bad, religious leaders said instead God sees the heart and somehow he was God's anointed. It flew against everything I was taught in Christianity. 

There is a price to pay for all this and we paid it on Jan 6th.

I've always worn a cross on my person from a child and hold it when I am scared or distressed even now. I always say Jesus, Jesus when I am scared. It has always had a calming effect on me. On that day, the sign of the cross and the name Jesus gave me one of the most terrifying moments of my life because I saw democracy and christianity fundamentally change in this country and not in a good way.

So we cannot blame one person for this. 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

It also absolves people of the obligation to atone for wrongdoing. Nothing is purposefully wrong or objectively wrong therefore nothing requires atonement. It’s an odd position for Christians, especially, to take.

Just as "sheep" is a very odd insult for Christians to use! 

2 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

Any thoughts on fun mystery series? 

I really like the Isabel Dalhousie/Sunday Philosophy Club by Alexander McCall Smith, and I think it has extra appeal to those of us who like to discuss things at great length 😄

2 hours ago, fraidycat said:

I really enjoyed the Sue Grafton alphabet series.

I used to like this one, too. I think I missed the last few. 

21 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Mystery novels aren't my thing so I'm not familiar with many of them but I read Gaudy Night by Dorothy Sayers for my bookclub last year and really enjoyed it. It's set in Oxford before WWII and is very pre-war British. 

If you think you might want to read this one as a series, I'd start at the beginning. The events of Gaudy Night will mean more that way. 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great book suggestions - I adore the Thursday Next series (you must read it in order, very important) and really like the Mary Russell series. Gaudy Night is one of my favourite books; you'd get more out of it by reading a couple of the ones before. And if you haven't read The Goblin Emperor - it's very interesting analysis of politics! 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, katilac said:

 

If you think you might want to read this one as a series, I'd start at the beginning. The events of Gaudy Night will mean more that way. 

Thanks. It was slow going in the beginning and I think that was partially because I had no idea who the characters were. I might read more of them but I'm not a big fan of mysteries. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Terabith said:

Okay, so I asked my husband if he remembered weird murals in the Denver airport, and he does.  And now that we talked about it, I do vaguely recall a discussion about weird art, but frankly, it was the first place we lived as adults, and I was usually more concerned with finding our luggage/ departure gates/ figuring out where we were going, so that's probably why it's not a top ten memory for me.  But I think there was more context than that article implied.  

Honestly, Denver is a pretty logical place for sequestering government officials.  It's got the natural barrier of mountains; NORAD is close by, and there aren't any other major cities for a long while.  I wouldn't be shocked to find out that there was some continuity of government space in that area.  West Virginia would be my other thought of logical place for underground bunkers.  

I have heard about Finland not existing.  I don't really get it, but I've heard of it.  

As you drive into the airport, there's a wild bronco rearing up on its back legs with glowing red eyes. I think that has something to do with a conspiracy, too.

ETA:The blue bronco has orange eyes, in part to the Denver Broncos, who, if I remember correctly, had recently won the Superbowl about the same time  the new airport opened and the statue was installed.

Screenshot_20210117-153243.png

Edited by Wilrunner3
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Wilrunner3 said:

As you drive into the airport, there's a wild bronco rearing up on its back legs with glowing red eyes. I think that has something to do with a conspiracy, too.

Screenshot_20210117-153243.png

Yes, they were building that when we were there, I'm pretty sure.  It's kind of horrific looking.  And I think there was some drama with the artist being killed by the head falling on him or something?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Terabith said:

Yes, they were building that when we were there, I'm pretty sure.  It's kind of horrific looking.  And I think there was some drama with the artist being killed by the head falling on him or something?  

I think you're right. I just read an article that said the locals call it" blucifer".

This article says how the artist was killed. It sounds gruesome, so I won't go into detail.

Edited by Wilrunner3
Added link
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Thanks. It was slow going in the beginning and I think that was partially because I had no idea who the characters were. I might read more of them but I'm not a big fan of mysteries. 

The four Harriet Vane novels hang together as a subset of the Lord Peter series.  Strong Poison is the first, then Have His Carcase, Gaudy Night, and Busman’s Honeymoon

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

re sincere hopes for our future

59 minutes ago, kand said:

... Based on what we’ve seen and the risks we now face, I think having more people putting country over party and voting for whichever person they need to to keep our government from collapsing is essential when we face such grave risks. I sincerely hope we are able to right the ship and get back to normal politics where people are choosing between two normal people who both have the good of the country at heart, one with policies they largely like, and the other with policies they largely disagree with. That’s the way it’s usually been, and an election like that would be a relief at this point.

This is how I experienced every election of my life up to 2016, and it is my fervent hope that we're able to make our way back to the garden.

We're supposed to have different views about policy matters. That is healthy. We're supposed to argue about them; that too is healthy.

And when the candidate we favor loses an election, we're supposed to behave they way we teach our kids to lose a ball game. You feel the sharp pang of disappointment, you take a breath, you line up (perhaps grumpily: that is OK) to shake the hands of the winning team. And you retreat to regroup to figure out how to do a better job so you can win the next time around.

You don't suddenly howl that the rules are unfair and you certainly don't chase after the ref with noose in hand.

  • Like 18
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Plum said:

Look at what the DNC did to Sanders.

No comment on what the DNC did to him, but he would have lost VERY badly if he had run against Trump. Look how they've weaponized the "socialism" thing against Biden, who is a vanilla centrist.... 

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Clinton and next Biden were the anointed ones. Though I really felt like if I voted for Biden, it's a vote for Kamala as President.

Why do you refer to some of them by last names and some by first names?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

No comment on what the DNC did to him, but he would have lost VERY badly if he had run against Trump. Look how they've weaponized the "socialism" thing against Biden, who is a vanilla centrist.... 

We hashed this out during the primaries. Sanders didn't have enough support among core Democratic Party voters after ACTIVELY participating in creating the primary rules. If you cannot win a plurality of your 'own' party's voters, you do not get their nomination. This, again, goes back to which voters matter. He largely lost the primary because he did not have a deep base of support among non-white voters. There is a significant portion of the population, however, that believes white votes are the only ones that count.

  • Like 14
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Why do you refer to some of them by last names and some by first names?

No idea. Completely unintentional. Weird. 
ETA probably just multitasking. starting this post then coming back to it here and there. 

Edited by Plum
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Plum said:

If Presidential candidates are considered the lesser of two evils, then you are still voting for evil. I want a candidate I can be proud of. I want one that can put together a coherent sentence. I want a candidate that represents me. I am disenfranchised. I am one of the "exhausted majority" that isn't a part of the extreme fringes. I've been told my standards are too high. I don't think I should have to settle when voting for President. I resent the fact that these were my choices. 

I applaud you for voting for neither. Seriously. I voted third party in 2016, but felt I had a little more leeway this time. It was a protest vote though, and I would have preferred other choices. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, kbutton said:

I applaud you for voting for neither. Seriously. I voted third party in 2016, but felt I had a little more leeway this time. It was a protest vote though, and I would have preferred other choices. 

Dh thinks not voting is the answer. I think making the effort to show up and vote none of the above makes a point. Besides there’s still local elections that I do want to vote on. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Why do you refer to some of them by last names and some by first names?

I reckon this is how they are most commonly referred to in the media but it’s good you raised it.  I have seen a lot of epidemiology/doctor people complain about the way that men seem to get dr last name and the women particularly women of colour (is that the right term - apologies if not) get first names.  

Edited by Ausmumof3
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Plum said:

Dh thinks not voting is the answer. I think making the effort to show up and vote none of the above makes a point. Besides there’s still local elections that I do want to vote on. 

I agree with you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Plum said:

Dh thinks not voting is the answer. I think making the effort to show up and vote none of the above makes a point. Besides there’s still local elections that I do want to vote on. 

In 2016, I thought showing up and voting none of the above or write in was a way to make a point. Now I think it just throws my vote away. I wrote in my vote in 2016 (I wouldn’t have if I didn’t live somewhere where I already knew definitely which way my state was going to go), but I don’t expect I am likely to ever do that again unless there is a third candidate that actually has a real chance. Otherwise, I’m just giving support to whoever is in the lead. I no longer see a non-vote or a non-viable vote as neutral. It’s still has an effect on which of the top two candidates win, and I feel a duty to have whatever influence in that I can when stakes are high. 

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, kand said:

I no longer see a non-vote or a non-viable vote as neutral. It’s still has an effect on which of the top two candidates win, and I feel a duty to have whatever influence in that I can when stakes are high. 

I tend to agree with that stance. Again, unless people have done the legwork to make a third party actually viable. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted third party in 2016 but I was sorely tempted to vote Biden this round but ended up third party. 

The truth is the point in voting is to have alternatives. Most Americans don't feel they have any decent alternatives. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, katilac said:

Just as "sheep" is a very odd insult for Christians to use! 

Right?!? Several months ago I taught a Sunday School lesson on Jesus, the Good Shepherd. During our discussion, one of my students proclaimed, "I'm not a sheep!" She is old enough to understand metaphors and I can guess exactly where that statement came from. 😞 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Dreamergal said:

Yesterday Franklin Graham called the 10 republican senators who impeached the president as Judas. 

One of the many reasons my family no longer donates to Samaritan's Purse, including no longer filling Operation Christmas Child boxes. 😞 It's not that we don't want to give gifts to children; it's that we don't trust them with our money any longer. 

Total side note, for those who like to pack boxes for others--here are some alternatives:

School kits

Infant care kits

Relief kits

Also, homeless shelters often welcome backpacks packed with snacks, hygiene items, hats, socks, etc. for those who live on the street. 

(Back to your regular programming....)

Edited by MercyA
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plum said:

 This has lead me to vote None of the Above in the last two presidential elections. If Presidential candidates are considered the lesser of two evils, then you are still voting for evil.  

Just quoting to say I agree. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I reckon this is how they are most commonly referred to in the media but it’s good you raised it.  I have seen a lot of epidemiology/doctor people complain about the way that men seem to get dr last name and the women particularly women of colour (is that the right term - apologies if not) get first names.  

Women are typically referred to by their first names while men are referred to by their last names. Trump. Pence. Hillary. Kamala. Biden. Nikki. I've flexed this conditioned muscle too. It's still denigrating.

Edited by Sneezyone
  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, kand said:

In 2016, I thought showing up and voting none of the above or write in was a way to make a point. Now I think it just throws my vote away. I wrote in my vote in 2016 (I wouldn’t have if I didn’t live somewhere where I already knew definitely which way my state was going to go), but I don’t expect I am likely to ever do that again unless there is a third candidate that actually has a real chance. Otherwise, I’m just giving support to whoever is in the lead. I no longer see a non-vote or a non-viable vote as neutral. It’s still has an effect on which of the top two candidates win, and I feel a duty to have whatever influence in that I can when stakes are high. 

I feel comfortable weighing this one election at a time. In some cases, I really cannot vote for a main candidate.

It might be time for a robust national discussion about ranked choice voting (and other possibilities I’ve never heard of) to allow for more options. I realize that would mean amending the constitution. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

WaPo published an excellent article a couple days ago that included interviews with various members of Capitol and DC police, describing the seige from their perspectives.  If you saw the horrific video of the bloodied officer screaming as he was being crushed in a door by the rioters (photo below), this is his account:

D.C. officer Daniel Hodges, assigned to a civil-disturbance unit, entered the Capitol grounds with the riot well underway. He was quickly separated from colleagues, and someone in the mob grabbed his radio.

The 32-year-old waded through the hostile crowd, only to be knocked down. Someone tried to gouge his eyes and others piled on top of him before a fellow officer wrested him free. He reached the Capitol and got inside. With no assignment and no way to find his supervisor, he went “looking for work.”

He found it at the West Terrace doors. He had a gas mask and put it on, then worked his way to the front of the police line. He tried to hold the rioters back “as best I could,” he said.

Shortly after 3 p.m., Hodges got caught between the interior glass doors, sandwiched by rioters pushing forward and by police behind him pushing the other way. His arms were trapped, then his head, on the rioter’s side.

“I really couldn’t defend myself at that point,” he said. A rioter grabbed his gas mask from the bottom and shoved upward, tearing it off his helmet. Another took his baton “and started beating me in the head with it.” He took face-fulls of bear spray with no way to shield himself, and a video captured his agonizing groans and twisted face as the assault continued before he was finally freed and pulled back.

“The zealotry of these people is absolutely unreal,” said Hodges, who suffered from a severe headache but otherwise emerged unhurt. “There were points where I thought it was possible I could either die or become seriously disfigured.”

Still, Hodges said, he did not want to turn to his gun.

“I didn’t want to be the guy who starts shooting, because I knew they had guns — we had been seizing guns all day,” he said. “And the only reason I could think of that they weren’t shooting us was they were waiting for us to shoot first. And if it became a firefight between a couple hundred officers and a couple thousand demonstrators, we would have lost.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2021/01/14/dc-police-capitol-riot/?arc404=true

Screen Shot 2021-01-17 at 3.10.06 PM.png

  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 12
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MercyA said:

One of the many reasons my family no longer donates to Samaritan's Purse, including no longer filling Operation Christmas Child boxes. 😞 It's not that we don't want to give gifts to children; it's that we don't trust them with our money any longer. 

Total side note, for those who like to pack boxes for others--here are some alternatives:

School kits

Infant care kits

Relief kits

Also, homeless shelters often welcome backpacks packed with snacks, hygiene items, etc. for those who live on the street. 

(Back to your regular programming....)

I finally cut ties the day before yesterday, before I heard about the whole calling people who voted their conscience Judas even after what happened. I could not justify it to myself. We stayed mostly because of the shoe boxes. We have reduced the number, but I could not bring myself to make the final cut especially the shoe boxes. We will not be doing that anymore. 

Thanks for this list. I like the shoe boxes because they are a tactile way for my kids to learn about giving back.

I have always said rather snarkily a reckoning for American Christianity is coming. But not this way. It seems like it is imploding to me. First Ravi Zacharias, a man who was so much instrumental in keeping my faith when I wavered, now this. It tells me I need to put my trust in God alone and not man, but it is such a harder walk.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Moonhawk said:

Finland not existing is just a conspiracy to make fun of other conspiracies. No one takes it seriously. And it's a shame, because of this tactic of ridicule, a lot of people are being blinded to the real truth exposed by other "conspiracies". Birds aren't real, for example. And, what I consider an even bigger global game changer: giraffes don't exist. I mean, seriously, how did we all fall for an animal half horse half ostrich, with leopard spots and weird antennae things? "Yeah, that looks right." Our education system has failed us.

In terms of brainwashing the global population, Big Pharma and Big Oil and Big Illuminati have a lot to learn from Big Giraffe and Big Bird.

I'm so confused.

In case anyone is still wondering, I've been to Finland and I'm pretty sure it exists.  Unless the cruise company is in on this.  ....   😛

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

Women are typically referred to by their first names while men are referred to by their last names. Trump. Pence. Hillary. Kamala. Biden. Nikki. I've flexed this conditioned muscle too. It's still denigrating.

During the VP debate, the moderator accidentally called Sen. Harris "Kamala" and immediately apologized.  Sen. Harris said something like, "That's alright, I'm just Kamala".

I use her first name when I think of her -- I think it's because she seems so approachable.  I never think of Secy. Clinton as "Hillary", though I don't dislike her.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DoraBora said:

During the VP debate, the moderator accidentally called Sen. Harris "Kamala" and immediately apologized.  Sen. Harris said something like, "That's alright, I'm just Kamala".

I use her first name when I think of her -- I think it's because she seems so approachable.  I never think of Secy. Clinton as "Hillary", though I don't dislike her.

I think the decision to be spoken to on a first name basis is a calculated one. Strong women in politics are often seen as ^*#{s and unapproachable. Granting permission to use your first name is disarming and an attempt, I think, to charm people who don’t recognize these biases. We can look at what happened when Dr. Biden chose to use her well-earned title and the hullabaloo that caused for insight too.

  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...