A look inside the basket of deplorables

Post Reply New Topic

Okay. You can find news stories that go into detail on specific cases, but here are my impressions.

Episcopalians used to be the rich liberal religion of West Texas, although plenty of people follow it. The Episcopal church is the US branch of the Anglican church, in some sense. Each church is under the direct supervision of both a local board and a bishop. Everybody reports to the Archbishop of Canterbury, but they don't consider him infallible. When he started to support equality and specifically marriage equality, the Texas bishops generally dragged their feet but went along. This put them into conflict with the local boards of some churches. It wouldn't be enough for the local board to request a new priest, because they would get another one assigned by the same bishop. Most of the small town churches depend on the diocese to find priests, and the financial relationships between the churches and the diocese can be arcane since they were written long, long ago. The lawyers for the boards figured out that they could choose to be under the authority of any bishop, so some of them have rebranded themselves Anglican churches and placed themselves under the authority of homophobic bishops from Africa. It's a surprise move from a population with a lot of racists, but I guess they hate the gays more. It turns out that the Texas people were surprised to learn that some of their new bishops hold reprehensible attitudes toward women, as well. I find the culture clash they stepped into particularly hilarious.

The diocese also has lawyers. They accepted the boards' decisions, and then notified them that they needed to find a new home since they are no longer part of the diocese. The boards seemed to forget that diocese owns either the church building or the land on which it is built. It's been in court for years, as far as I know, but I haven't followed it and I no longer ask my parents for updates on the situation.

Lots of false (or questionable) equivalencies in this thread.

Racism/sexism means thinking that people are less than others or should have fewer explicit or implied rights than others, just based on how they were born. Is that equal to calling someone a nasty name like "deplorable"? That judgment is based on what the insulted people believe, not based on their mere existence.

Politically influencing religion has existed since the beginning of time. One could argue that all religious bodies are inherently political. Is that equal to murdering millions based on their religious beliefs??

All insults are not equal. All objectionable beliefs are not equal. Some are direct and present threats to the physical safety of real, living, people. If you're offended by something, check the level of severity of the threat.

One candidate makes me feel physically unsafe, and worried about the safety of MILLIONS of other people. And that candidate is unapologetic about the threats. There is absolutely guilt by association, too. Because if that doesn't bother you, then why would I believe that you'd do anything to protect me as your neighbor? The other candidate, I find morally questionable at times. But, that one has not issued threats, and has also stood up to things that would threaten my family's physical safety (and the safety of millions of others). Put on a scale, there's no question in terms of how I'll vote.

I don't like one candidate, but I'm afraid of the other. I don't know how anyone could ignore that threat, and it makes me question the values of those that do.

If you actually watched the debate you know that Trump muttered that "such a nasty woman" comment when she was not even being particularly nasty. In fact it was during one of the rare moments when either took a break from being nasty to actually talk about the issues. She was talking at length about policy, and he didn't have the attention span to listen, and got flustered.

But- like the nasty women comment -Hillary shouldn't have said that "half of Trump supporters are in a basket of deplorables".

Half of the supporters of either major candidate in a given election would be roughly half-of-half (one quarter) of the whole US population.

Its neither accurate, nor politic, to slander one quarter of the US population.

She shoulda said that "less than one percent of the US population is deplorable", but of that one percent- most of them vote for Trump (ie the KKKers and the Neo Nazis etc). That would be fine (both politic, and probably rather accurate).

Bill Maher had commented on how the majority of Trump supporters actually don't fit the stereotype of underclass Americans who are losing jobs to immigrants (legal and illegal), and they aren't being marginalized by the elites, and whatever else is supposed to apply to them. Most of them in fact make an annual income of at least $71,000. As Maher says, they're just a bunch of "whiny little b*tches" who despise those less fortunate than them. If that aint deplorable, I don't know what is.

Jack Chick:

Guy who spent his adult life ignorantly smearing Catholics, Mormons, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, gay people, feminists, f*****g D&D players dies of natural causes at the ripe old age of 92 =/= an act of politically motivated mass murder.