calbear93 said:

---

movielover said:

---

The Wall Street UniParty is pushing already-over Ron DeSanctimonious.

---

DeSantis is done. Running to the right of Trump wins over no one.

---

Yep, he already lost me. Maybe the left media had a hand in this with the relentless amount of 'look what Ron did now stories' but he sure seemed to get more outlandish the longer he had the spotlight. Started to remind me of Trump. That's why I commented on the Vivek rapping post. I really don't want to see Vivek turning into a clown show now that he has a bit of momentum. I want my president to act presidential.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

movielover said:

---

The Wall Street UniParty is pushing already-over Ron DeSanctimonious.

---

DeSantis is done. Running to the right of Trump wins over no one.

---

Yep, he already lost me. Maybe the left media had a hand in this with the relentless amount of 'look what Ron did now stories' but he sure seemed to get more outlandish the longer he had the spotlight. Started to remind me of Trump. That's why I commented on the Vivek rapping post. I really don't want to see Vivek turning into a clown show now that he has a bit of momentum. I want my president to act presidential.

---

I fear that those days are gone now. Not sure we can resurrect them.

SFCityBear said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

movielover said:

---

The Wall Street UniParty is pushing already-over Ron DeSanctimonious.

---

DeSantis is done. Running to the right of Trump wins over no one.

---

Yep, he already lost me. Maybe the left media had a hand in this with the relentless amount of 'look what Ron did now stories' but he sure seemed to get more outlandish the longer he had the spotlight. Started to remind me of Trump. That's why I commented on the Vivek rapping post. I really don't want to see Vivek turning into a clown show now that he has a bit of momentum. I want my president to act presidential.

---

I fear that those days are gone now. Not sure we can resurrect them.

---

Someone like Tim Scott, Chris Sununu, Glenn Youngkin, and even someone more liberal like Michael Bennet. All about business, governing and leading without needless mudslinging.

calbear93 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

movielover said:

---

The Wall Street UniParty is pushing already-over Ron DeSanctimonious.

---

DeSantis is done. Running to the right of Trump wins over no one.

---

Yep, he already lost me. Maybe the left media had a hand in this with the relentless amount of 'look what Ron did now stories' but he sure seemed to get more outlandish the longer he had the spotlight. Started to remind me of Trump. That's why I commented on the Vivek rapping post. I really don't want to see Vivek turning into a clown show now that he has a bit of momentum. I want my president to act presidential.

---

I fear that those days are gone now. Not sure we can resurrect them.

---

Someone like Tim Scott, Chris Sununu, Glenn Youngkin, and even someone more liberal like Michael Bennet. All about business, governing and leading without needless mudslinging.

---

As to the mudslinging, do you think the other party would ever agree to a truce? And do you think our party would cease trying to attack each other? Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neill may have been from a lost breed as well.

Great line. I've forwarded your comment to MamaBear for analysis.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

movielover said:

---

The Wall Street UniParty is pushing already-over Ron DeSanctimonious.

---

DeSantis is done. Running to the right of Trump wins over no one.

---

Yep, he already lost me. Maybe the left media had a hand in this with the relentless amount of 'look what Ron did now stories' but he sure seemed to get more outlandish the longer he had the spotlight. Started to remind me of Trump. That's why I commented on the Vivek rapping post. I really don't want to see Vivek turning into a clown show now that he has a bit of momentum. I want my president to act presidential.

---

I fear that those days are gone now. Not sure we can resurrect them.

---

Someone like Tim Scott, Chris Sununu, Glenn Youngkin, and even someone more liberal like Michael Bennet. All about business, governing and leading without needless mudslinging.

---

I liked Tim Scott and my dismissing of him may be a bit unfair but when I heard him end a campaign speech with, "Can I get an Amen", he lost me. I really want my politicians to keep religion out of their decision making. I'm no constitutional scholar but I think that's in there, right?
The others I haven't listened to yet. Vivek talks about faith being part of what he thinks folks are missing and I hope he goes no further than that word. I'm getting picky in my old age.

---

You are misinterpreting the establishment clause. Every politician has the right to practice and promote their own faith like everyone else. The establishment clause prohibits congress from establishing an official government religion. That has been extended to the states through the 14th amendment. The issue has primarily revolved in case law and pertained to funding but to a lesser degree to endorsement by official state action (e.g. split on whether posting ten commandment violates the establishment clause). A politician saying and expressing faith (which both Clintons and Obama have done also) is not even close.

And if that simple non-disparaging statement of personal faith disqualifies a candidate (one simple statement), how the heck do you vote for any candidate?

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

movielover said:

---

The Wall Street UniParty is pushing already-over Ron DeSanctimonious.

---

DeSantis is done. Running to the right of Trump wins over no one.

---

Yep, he already lost me. Maybe the left media had a hand in this with the relentless amount of 'look what Ron did now stories' but he sure seemed to get more outlandish the longer he had the spotlight. Started to remind me of Trump. That's why I commented on the Vivek rapping post. I really don't want to see Vivek turning into a clown show now that he has a bit of momentum. I want my president to act presidential.

---

I fear that those days are gone now. Not sure we can resurrect them.

---

Someone like Tim Scott, Chris Sununu, Glenn Youngkin, and even someone more liberal like Michael Bennet. All about business, governing and leading without needless mudslinging.

---

I liked Tim Scott and my dismissing of him may be a bit unfair but when I heard him end a campaign speech with, "Can I get an Amen", he lost me. I really want my politicians to keep religion out of their decision making. I'm no constitutional scholar but I think that's in there, right?
The others I haven't listened to yet. Vivek talks about faith being part of what he thinks folks are missing and I hope he goes no further than that word. I'm getting picky in my old age.

---

You are misinterpreting the establishment clause. Every politician has the right to practice and promote their own faith like everyone else. The establishment clause prohibits congress from establishing an official government religion. That has been extended to the states through the 14th amendment. The issue has primarily revolved in case law and pertained to funding but to a lesser degree to endorsement by official state action (e.g. split on whether posting ten commandment violates the establishment clause). A politician saying and expressing faith (which both Clintons and Obama have done also) is not even close.

And if that simple non-disparaging statement of personal faith disqualifies a candidate (one simple statement), how the heck do you vote for any candidate?

---

There are degrees. I don't want candidate speech to end with "can I get an Amen". It's pretty easy, actually. I don't want the candidate to slap me in the face with his faith. Yes, I'm an atheist. I guess you could say "Amen" and be an atheist but I haven't seen one. I will vote for religious folks especially over Trump but my preference is that it not be something they proclaim in the first thing I see from them. I actually like Tim Scott so maybe I'll take your info and reevaluate.

---

OK, that's fair. Then it comes down to your personal connection to a candidate. It is not an establishment clause violation for a candidate to state an expression of faith during his campaign.

What I will say is that, while understandable, we need to stop looking at candidates and political parties as affirmation of ourselves. Affirmation should come from family and friends, but not our leaders. It should be based on policy and not whether we think a candidate makes us feel identified, affirmed and included.

When you get a chance and despite The Atlantic being a far left publication (but they have some really good thought pieces from time to time), read the article from yesterday titled "How America Got Mean". It is not one sided and does not just attack conservatives, even if the conclusion is that culture devoid of moral education, individual and subjective morality and humanistic psychology intertwined with parental coddling that has created narcissist who focus on how they are feeling, and political alignment as moral affirmation as opposed to what they are doing in their community have led to the far right worship of Trump. However, the points made in the article also clearly pertain to the tribal defense and rationalization of Biden (as we have seen) and virtue signaling from the left.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/09/us-culture-moral-education-formation/674765/

I recognized that there may be a paywall and I am normally against reposting for copyright reasons, However, because I think it is such a thoughtful analysis, I can repost the full article on how we ended up in a society where Trump is acceptable or cheered or worshipped by a large percentage of America. The article address that as well as how the typical knee-jerk reaction to, obsession with, Trump from the left is part of the cultural problem and degradation that will continue to make Trumpism possible. Let me know if you are interested in reading the article.

Regarding this:

"What I will say is that, while understandable, we need to stop looking at candidates and political parties as affirmation of ourselves. Affirmation should come from family and friends, but not our leaders. It should be based on policy and not whether we think a candidate makes us feel identified, affirmed and included."

I understand this. I have many republican friends who tell me that yah, Trump is a jerk but look at his policies. My response, for Trump (in this case) is that I can't get past the fact that in my lifetime Trump has been a liar, a cheater a narcissist, etc and that anything he did was first and foremost for his ego. Any benefit we got as a country was almost by accident. And I don't trust him to not do something in that vain that will cause this country great harm. Not because he wants to harm the country but because his first thought is always about himself. With regards to a religious person I can't get past the potential that, for example, when faced with a massive decision he may go home at pray on it to some being that seems ridiculous to me to believe in. Instead of logically trying to decide what is best for the country. That's an extreme viewpoint of a religious person, I know, but it's been my experience that when I question my smart religious friends on how they can still believe in an unseen, magical force they give me ridiculous explanations and when pushed they fall back on, "well, it's just a faith and we'll have to agree to disagree". That's fine for a friendship but I don't want my country to be potentially run with these types of decision making processes. I'm not trying to affirm anything about myself. The reason I talk to my friends about religion is because I'm constantly thinking that I must be missing something. I was raised Catholic. Most of my friends still go to church. Most are very successful, smart. loving, caring people. What am I missing? As of now, I don't think I'm missing anything other than it seems to give my friends peace and a cohesion in their lives that I guess they need. I don't find any use for it and it seems like believing in Santa (a bit). And geez, I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just trying to answer your question about Tim Scott.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Regarding this:

"What I will say is that, while understandable, we need to stop looking at candidates and political parties as affirmation of ourselves. Affirmation should come from family and friends, but not our leaders. It should be based on policy and not whether we think a candidate makes us feel identified, affirmed and included."

I understand this. I have many republican friends who tell me that yah, Trump is a jerk but look at his policies. My response, for Trump (in this case) is that I can't get past the fact that in my lifetime Trump has been a liar, a cheater a narcissist, etc and that anything he did was first and foremost for his ego. Any benefit we got as a country was almost by accident. And I don't trust him to not do something in that vain that will cause this country great harm. Not because he wants to harm the country but because his first thought is always about himself. With regards to a religious person I can't get past the potential that, for example, when faced with a massive decision he may go home at pray on it to some being that seems ridiculous to me to believe in. Instead of logically trying to decide what is best for the country. That's an extreme viewpoint of a religious person, I know, but it's been my experience that when I question my smart religious friends on how they can still believe in an unseen, magical force they give me ridiculous explanations and when pushed they fall back on, "well, it's just a faith and we'll have to agree to disagree". That's fine for a friendship but I don't want my country to be potentially run with these types of decision making processes. I'm not trying to affirm anything about myself. The reason I talk to my friends about religion is because I'm constantly thinking that I must be missing something. I was raised Catholic. Most of my friends still go to church. Most are very successful, smart. loving, caring people. What am I missing? As of now, I don't think I'm missing anything other than it seems to give my friends peace and a cohesion in their lives that I guess they need. I don't find any use for it and it seems like believing in Santa (a bit). And geez, I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just trying to answer your question about Tim Scott.

---

OK, but I would argue that disliking Trump is not a reflection of personal affirmation or vice versa. I don't like the fact that he does not care about our country, is a con man, has no respect for rule of law or the constitution, has zero conservative bona fides or view points, and has zero integrity. Those are important elements on qualification of leadership as opposed to just wanting someone who looks and feels like me. Trump is like no one else but it's his failures in character that are necessary for the highest office that has me never voting for him.

On the matter of things that are unseen, there are a lot things that are unseen. Love is unseen. Emotions are unseen. Anything spiritual is unseen. Morality is unseen. Beliefs are unseen. If we are just reduced to physical facets of our being, then we are just like rocks but with different chemical composition, and value of human life (which is also unseen) is pointless. If we are just reduced to physical, why is human life more important than preserving a rock? Clearly we are more than what is seen. Non-religious folks have a lot of faith in the unseen. In fact, most of what we consider as defining us are unseen. Assume you still give weight to those in your own identity, including your memories and thoughts.

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Regarding this:

"What I will say is that, while understandable, we need to stop looking at candidates and political parties as affirmation of ourselves. Affirmation should come from family and friends, but not our leaders. It should be based on policy and not whether we think a candidate makes us feel identified, affirmed and included."

I understand this. I have many republican friends who tell me that yah, Trump is a jerk but look at his policies. My response, for Trump (in this case) is that I can't get past the fact that in my lifetime Trump has been a liar, a cheater a narcissist, etc and that anything he did was first and foremost for his ego. Any benefit we got as a country was almost by accident. And I don't trust him to not do something in that vain that will cause this country great harm. Not because he wants to harm the country but because his first thought is always about himself. With regards to a religious person I can't get past the potential that, for example, when faced with a massive decision he may go home at pray on it to some being that seems ridiculous to me to believe in. Instead of logically trying to decide what is best for the country. That's an extreme viewpoint of a religious person, I know, but it's been my experience that when I question my smart religious friends on how they can still believe in an unseen, magical force they give me ridiculous explanations and when pushed they fall back on, "well, it's just a faith and we'll have to agree to disagree". That's fine for a friendship but I don't want my country to be potentially run with these types of decision making processes. I'm not trying to affirm anything about myself. The reason I talk to my friends about religion is because I'm constantly thinking that I must be missing something. I was raised Catholic. Most of my friends still go to church. Most are very successful, smart. loving, caring people. What am I missing? As of now, I don't think I'm missing anything other than it seems to give my friends peace and a cohesion in their lives that I guess they need. I don't find any use for it and it seems like believing in Santa (a bit). And geez, I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just trying to answer your question about Tim Scott.

---

OK, but I would argue that disliking Trump is not a reflection of personal affirmation or vice versa. I don't like the fact that he does not care about our country, is a con man, has no respect for rule of law or the constitution, has zero conservative bona fides or view points, and has zero integrity. Those are important elements on qualification of leadership as opposed to just wanting someone who looks and feels like me. Trump is like no one else but it's his failures in character that are necessary for the highest office that has been never voting for him.

On the matter of things that are unseen, there are a lot things that are unseen. Love is unseen. Emotions are unseen. Anything spiritual is unseen. Morality is unseen. Beliefs are unseen. If we are just reduced to physical facets of our being, then we are just like rocks but with different chemical composition, and value of human life (which is also unseen) is pointless. If we are just reduced to physical, why is human life more important than preserving a rock. Clearly we are more than what is seen. Non-religious folks have a lot of faith in the unseen.

---

My very religious friend who I have coffee with every Saturday morning (and a lawyer, BTW) out of the blue, after he ended my religious inquiry months earlier with "it's just my belief", asked me, "do you understand every facet of science, of evolution, etc or do you take a large amount of it on faith. I said I take a large amount of it on faith. I later thought about this. I never pressed the subject but I figured I have more faith in the men and women who have spent their lives trying to discern these mysteries and trying to prove these mysteries and trying to explain them to simpletons like me than I have faith in the priests and nuns and friends whose explanations of God have fallen short of reason in my eyes.

Another related anecdote...my wife has asked me, "Are we soul mates?". We are celebrating our 40th wedding anniversary in 2 months. As my friends have since told me, I made the blunder of saying, of course not. Out of the 8 billion people in the world do you actually think we ended up with the exact right person to share our life with? (my definition of soul mate). Or, have we just made our love for each other work to the best of our ability and dealt with the good and bad of each other. She was of course sad. I now realize I should have lied. But I bring this up to illustrate that I'm not a touchy feely person and so while I get that there may be many, perhaps an infinite amount of forces in the world that we cannot know I can't get behind a leader who may depend on some of these forces for inspiration or decision making help.

Sorry for the long winded explanations. I'm not succinct.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Regarding this:

"What I will say is that, while understandable, we need to stop looking at candidates and political parties as affirmation of ourselves. Affirmation should come from family and friends, but not our leaders. It should be based on policy and not whether we think a candidate makes us feel identified, affirmed and included."

I understand this. I have many republican friends who tell me that yah, Trump is a jerk but look at his policies. My response, for Trump (in this case) is that I can't get past the fact that in my lifetime Trump has been a liar, a cheater a narcissist, etc and that anything he did was first and foremost for his ego. Any benefit we got as a country was almost by accident. And I don't trust him to not do something in that vain that will cause this country great harm. Not because he wants to harm the country but because his first thought is always about himself. With regards to a religious person I can't get past the potential that, for example, when faced with a massive decision he may go home at pray on it to some being that seems ridiculous to me to believe in. Instead of logically trying to decide what is best for the country. That's an extreme viewpoint of a religious person, I know, but it's been my experience that when I question my smart religious friends on how they can still believe in an unseen, magical force they give me ridiculous explanations and when pushed they fall back on, "well, it's just a faith and we'll have to agree to disagree". That's fine for a friendship but I don't want my country to be potentially run with these types of decision making processes. I'm not trying to affirm anything about myself. The reason I talk to my friends about religion is because I'm constantly thinking that I must be missing something. I was raised Catholic. Most of my friends still go to church. Most are very successful, smart. loving, caring people. What am I missing? As of now, I don't think I'm missing anything other than it seems to give my friends peace and a cohesion in their lives that I guess they need. I don't find any use for it and it seems like believing in Santa (a bit). And geez, I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just trying to answer your question about Tim Scott.

---

OK, but I would argue that disliking Trump is not a reflection of personal affirmation or vice versa. I don't like the fact that he does not care about our country, is a con man, has no respect for rule of law or the constitution, has zero conservative bona fides or view points, and has zero integrity. Those are important elements on qualification of leadership as opposed to just wanting someone who looks and feels like me. Trump is like no one else but it's his failures in character that are necessary for the highest office that has been never voting for him.

On the matter of things that are unseen, there are a lot things that are unseen. Love is unseen. Emotions are unseen. Anything spiritual is unseen. Morality is unseen. Beliefs are unseen. If we are just reduced to physical facets of our being, then we are just like rocks but with different chemical composition, and value of human life (which is also unseen) is pointless. If we are just reduced to physical, why is human life more important than preserving a rock. Clearly we are more than what is seen. Non-religious folks have a lot of faith in the unseen.

---

My very religious friend who I have coffee with every Saturday morning (and a lawyer, BTW) out of the blue, after he ended my religious inquiry months earlier with "it's just my belief", asked me, "do you understand every facet of science, of evolution, etc or do you take a large amount of it on faith. I said I take a large amount of it on faith. I later thought about this. I never pressed the subject but I figured I have more faith in the men and women who have spent their lives trying to discern these mysteries and trying to prove these mysteries and trying to explain them to simpletons like me than I have faith in the priests and nuns and friends whose explanations of God have fallen short of reason in my eyes.

Another related anecdote...my wife has asked me, "Are we soul mates?". We are celebrating our 40th wedding anniversary in 2 months. As my friends have since told me, I made the blunder of saying, of course not. Out of the 8 billion people in the world do you actually think we ended up with the exact right person to share our life with? (my definition of soul mate). Or, have we just made our love for each other work to the best of our ability and dealt with the good and bad of each other. She was of course sad. I now realize I should have lied. But I bring this up to illustrate that I'm not a touchy feely person and so while I get that there may be many, perhaps an infinite amount of forces in the world that we cannot know I can't get behind a leader who may depend on some of these forces for inspiration or decision making help.

Sorry for the long winded explanations. I'm not succinct.

---

You should read David Hume. He would ask about your faith in those men, the basis of your faith. How do you make the connection that spending years trying to discern those mysteries means they are more credible? Past results? Then he would ask what basis you have that the past will reflect the future. At the end, we exist based on blind faith of the unseen. There are innate qualities that we human beings share that are not driven by physical. People of different cultures and nations will refer to an innate sense of fairness. They feel an unseen love for their children. You could call them biological and survival instinct, but where is the physical and patent manifestation (as opposed to expression) of that. Scientist believe in the Big Bang theory and, when ask what existed before the Big Bang, they answer nothing because time did not exist before the Big Bang. No faith there?

You may have more faith in the unseen then you suspect.

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Regarding this:

"What I will say is that, while understandable, we need to stop looking at candidates and political parties as affirmation of ourselves. Affirmation should come from family and friends, but not our leaders. It should be based on policy and not whether we think a candidate makes us feel identified, affirmed and included."

I understand this. I have many republican friends who tell me that yah, Trump is a jerk but look at his policies. My response, for Trump (in this case) is that I can't get past the fact that in my lifetime Trump has been a liar, a cheater a narcissist, etc and that anything he did was first and foremost for his ego. Any benefit we got as a country was almost by accident. And I don't trust him to not do something in that vain that will cause this country great harm. Not because he wants to harm the country but because his first thought is always about himself. With regards to a religious person I can't get past the potential that, for example, when faced with a massive decision he may go home at pray on it to some being that seems ridiculous to me to believe in. Instead of logically trying to decide what is best for the country. That's an extreme viewpoint of a religious person, I know, but it's been my experience that when I question my smart religious friends on how they can still believe in an unseen, magical force they give me ridiculous explanations and when pushed they fall back on, "well, it's just a faith and we'll have to agree to disagree". That's fine for a friendship but I don't want my country to be potentially run with these types of decision making processes. I'm not trying to affirm anything about myself. The reason I talk to my friends about religion is because I'm constantly thinking that I must be missing something. I was raised Catholic. Most of my friends still go to church. Most are very successful, smart. loving, caring people. What am I missing? As of now, I don't think I'm missing anything other than it seems to give my friends peace and a cohesion in their lives that I guess they need. I don't find any use for it and it seems like believing in Santa (a bit). And geez, I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just trying to answer your question about Tim Scott.

---

I love your response relating to Trump. I am not a very religious person at all (CE Christian), but when I read your response re:same I keep thinking this country was founded by and for religious people, and run by religious people for almost 250 years. It is just of late that anything religious, like you Tim Scott comment are being thrown out.

Now, I see not trusting Trump one iota, but those with belief in God not so much. To deeply try to intertwine religion and politics is another matter, but "Amen", not so to me.

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Regarding this:

"What I will say is that, while understandable, we need to stop looking at candidates and political parties as affirmation of ourselves. Affirmation should come from family and friends, but not our leaders. It should be based on policy and not whether we think a candidate makes us feel identified, affirmed and included."

I understand this. I have many republican friends who tell me that yah, Trump is a jerk but look at his policies. My response, for Trump (in this case) is that I can't get past the fact that in my lifetime Trump has been a liar, a cheater a narcissist, etc and that anything he did was first and foremost for his ego. Any benefit we got as a country was almost by accident. And I don't trust him to not do something in that vain that will cause this country great harm. Not because he wants to harm the country but because his first thought is always about himself. With regards to a religious person I can't get past the potential that, for example, when faced with a massive decision he may go home at pray on it to some being that seems ridiculous to me to believe in. Instead of logically trying to decide what is best for the country. That's an extreme viewpoint of a religious person, I know, but it's been my experience that when I question my smart religious friends on how they can still believe in an unseen, magical force they give me ridiculous explanations and when pushed they fall back on, "well, it's just a faith and we'll have to agree to disagree". That's fine for a friendship but I don't want my country to be potentially run with these types of decision making processes. I'm not trying to affirm anything about myself. The reason I talk to my friends about religion is because I'm constantly thinking that I must be missing something. I was raised Catholic. Most of my friends still go to church. Most are very successful, smart. loving, caring people. What am I missing? As of now, I don't think I'm missing anything other than it seems to give my friends peace and a cohesion in their lives that I guess they need. I don't find any use for it and it seems like believing in Santa (a bit). And geez, I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just trying to answer your question about Tim Scott.

---

OK, but I would argue that disliking Trump is not a reflection of personal affirmation or vice versa. I don't like the fact that he does not care about our country, is a con man, has no respect for rule of law or the constitution, has zero conservative bona fides or view points, and has zero integrity. Those are important elements on qualification of leadership as opposed to just wanting someone who looks and feels like me. Trump is like no one else but it's his failures in character that are necessary for the highest office that has been never voting for him.

On the matter of things that are unseen, there are a lot things that are unseen. Love is unseen. Emotions are unseen. Anything spiritual is unseen. Morality is unseen. Beliefs are unseen. If we are just reduced to physical facets of our being, then we are just like rocks but with different chemical composition, and value of human life (which is also unseen) is pointless. If we are just reduced to physical, why is human life more important than preserving a rock. Clearly we are more than what is seen. Non-religious folks have a lot of faith in the unseen.

---

My very religious friend who I have coffee with every Saturday morning (and a lawyer, BTW) out of the blue, after he ended my religious inquiry months earlier with "it's just my belief", asked me, "do you understand every facet of science, of evolution, etc or do you take a large amount of it on faith. I said I take a large amount of it on faith. I later thought about this. I never pressed the subject but I figured I have more faith in the men and women who have spent their lives trying to discern these mysteries and trying to prove these mysteries and trying to explain them to simpletons like me than I have faith in the priests and nuns and friends whose explanations of God have fallen short of reason in my eyes.

Another related anecdote...my wife has asked me, "Are we soul mates?". We are celebrating our 40th wedding anniversary in 2 months. As my friends have since told me, I made the blunder of saying, of course not. Out of the 8 billion people in the world do you actually think we ended up with the exact right person to share our life with? (my definition of soul mate). Or, have we just made our love for each other work to the best of our ability and dealt with the good and bad of each other. She was of course sad. I now realize I should have lied. But I bring this up to illustrate that I'm not a touchy feely person and so while I get that there may be many, perhaps an infinite amount of forces in the world that we cannot know I can't get behind a leader who may depend on some of these forces for inspiration or decision making help.

Sorry for the long winded explanations. I'm not succinct.

---

You should read David Hume. He would ask about your faith in those men, the basis of your faith. How do you make the connection that spending years trying to discern those mysteries means they are more credible? Past results? Then he would ask what basis you have that the past will reflect the future. At the end, we exist based on blind faith of the unseen. There are innate qualities that we human beings share that are not driven by physical. People of different cultures and nations will refer to an innate sense of fairness. They feel an unseen love for their children. You could call them biological and survival instinct, but where is the physical and patent manifestation (as opposed to expression) of that. Scientist believe in the Big Bang theory and, when ask what existed before the Big Bang, they answer nothing because time did not exist before the Big Bang. No faith there?

You may have more faith in the unseen then you suspect.

---

BA in Philosophy. I've read Hume and many, many more. You are a skilled writer.

Hume argued against the existence of innate ideas, positing that all human knowledge derives solely from experience. This places him with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and George Berkeley as an empiricist.[12]

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Regarding this:

"What I will say is that, while understandable, we need to stop looking at candidates and political parties as affirmation of ourselves. Affirmation should come from family and friends, but not our leaders. It should be based on policy and not whether we think a candidate makes us feel identified, affirmed and included."

I understand this. I have many republican friends who tell me that yah, Trump is a jerk but look at his policies. My response, for Trump (in this case) is that I can't get past the fact that in my lifetime Trump has been a liar, a cheater a narcissist, etc and that anything he did was first and foremost for his ego. Any benefit we got as a country was almost by accident. And I don't trust him to not do something in that vain that will cause this country great harm. Not because he wants to harm the country but because his first thought is always about himself. With regards to a religious person I can't get past the potential that, for example, when faced with a massive decision he may go home at pray on it to some being that seems ridiculous to me to believe in. Instead of logically trying to decide what is best for the country. That's an extreme viewpoint of a religious person, I know, but it's been my experience that when I question my smart religious friends on how they can still believe in an unseen, magical force they give me ridiculous explanations and when pushed they fall back on, "well, it's just a faith and we'll have to agree to disagree". That's fine for a friendship but I don't want my country to be potentially run with these types of decision making processes. I'm not trying to affirm anything about myself. The reason I talk to my friends about religion is because I'm constantly thinking that I must be missing something. I was raised Catholic. Most of my friends still go to church. Most are very successful, smart. loving, caring people. What am I missing? As of now, I don't think I'm missing anything other than it seems to give my friends peace and a cohesion in their lives that I guess they need. I don't find any use for it and it seems like believing in Santa (a bit). And geez, I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just trying to answer your question about Tim Scott.

---

OK, but I would argue that disliking Trump is not a reflection of personal affirmation or vice versa. I don't like the fact that he does not care about our country, is a con man, has no respect for rule of law or the constitution, has zero conservative bona fides or view points, and has zero integrity. Those are important elements on qualification of leadership as opposed to just wanting someone who looks and feels like me. Trump is like no one else but it's his failures in character that are necessary for the highest office that has been never voting for him.

On the matter of things that are unseen, there are a lot things that are unseen. Love is unseen. Emotions are unseen. Anything spiritual is unseen. Morality is unseen. Beliefs are unseen. If we are just reduced to physical facets of our being, then we are just like rocks but with different chemical composition, and value of human life (which is also unseen) is pointless. If we are just reduced to physical, why is human life more important than preserving a rock. Clearly we are more than what is seen. Non-religious folks have a lot of faith in the unseen.

---

My very religious friend who I have coffee with every Saturday morning (and a lawyer, BTW) out of the blue, after he ended my religious inquiry months earlier with "it's just my belief", asked me, "do you understand every facet of science, of evolution, etc or do you take a large amount of it on faith. I said I take a large amount of it on faith. I later thought about this. I never pressed the subject but I figured I have more faith in the men and women who have spent their lives trying to discern these mysteries and trying to prove these mysteries and trying to explain them to simpletons like me than I have faith in the priests and nuns and friends whose explanations of God have fallen short of reason in my eyes.

Another related anecdote...my wife has asked me, "Are we soul mates?". We are celebrating our 40th wedding anniversary in 2 months. As my friends have since told me, I made the blunder of saying, of course not. Out of the 8 billion people in the world do you actually think we ended up with the exact right person to share our life with? (my definition of soul mate). Or, have we just made our love for each other work to the best of our ability and dealt with the good and bad of each other. She was of course sad. I now realize I should have lied. But I bring this up to illustrate that I'm not a touchy feely person and so while I get that there may be many, perhaps an infinite amount of forces in the world that we cannot know I can't get behind a leader who may depend on some of these forces for inspiration or decision making help.

Sorry for the long winded explanations. I'm not succinct.

---

You should read David Hume. He would ask about your faith in those men, the basis of your faith. How do you make the connection that spending years trying to discern those mysteries means they are more credible? Past results? Then he would ask what basis you have that the past will reflect the future. At the end, we exist based on blind faith of the unseen. There are innate qualities that we human beings share that are not driven by physical. People of different cultures and nations will refer to an innate sense of fairness. They feel an unseen love for their children. You could call them biological and survival instinct, but where is the physical and patent manifestation (as opposed to expression) of that. Scientist believe in the Big Bang theory and, when ask what existed before the Big Bang, they answer nothing because time did not exist before the Big Bang. No faith there?

You may have more faith in the unseen then you suspect.

---

BA in Philosophy. I've read Hume and many, many more. You are a skilled writer.

Hume argued against the existence of innate ideas, positing that all human knowledge derives solely from experience. This places him with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and George Berkeley as an empiricist.[12]

---

That's fantastic.

I didn't take a lot of philosophy classes but the few that I did take made the major very tempting. Reading Kant, Descartes and Hume in the intro classes and even Wittgenstein whose writing I barely understood was really enlightening. And reading thesis that made me reassess what we truly understood near the little stream near Moses Hall were some of my favorite memories.

I just couldn't hack it as a philosophy major. But I suspected you would like David Hume, but did not realize you were a Philosophy major who would know him exponentially better than I would. The fact that he was like you an atheist who was a skeptic and an empiricist and would even consider you to have too much faith in the unperceived made me think of him as I read about your aversion to faith and innate knowledge.

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

calbear93 said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Regarding this:

"What I will say is that, while understandable, we need to stop looking at candidates and political parties as affirmation of ourselves. Affirmation should come from family and friends, but not our leaders. It should be based on policy and not whether we think a candidate makes us feel identified, affirmed and included."

I understand this. I have many republican friends who tell me that yah, Trump is a jerk but look at his policies. My response, for Trump (in this case) is that I can't get past the fact that in my lifetime Trump has been a liar, a cheater a narcissist, etc and that anything he did was first and foremost for his ego. Any benefit we got as a country was almost by accident. And I don't trust him to not do something in that vain that will cause this country great harm. Not because he wants to harm the country but because his first thought is always about himself. With regards to a religious person I can't get past the potential that, for example, when faced with a massive decision he may go home at pray on it to some being that seems ridiculous to me to believe in. Instead of logically trying to decide what is best for the country. That's an extreme viewpoint of a religious person, I know, but it's been my experience that when I question my smart religious friends on how they can still believe in an unseen, magical force they give me ridiculous explanations and when pushed they fall back on, "well, it's just a faith and we'll have to agree to disagree". That's fine for a friendship but I don't want my country to be potentially run with these types of decision making processes. I'm not trying to affirm anything about myself. The reason I talk to my friends about religion is because I'm constantly thinking that I must be missing something. I was raised Catholic. Most of my friends still go to church. Most are very successful, smart. loving, caring people. What am I missing? As of now, I don't think I'm missing anything other than it seems to give my friends peace and a cohesion in their lives that I guess they need. I don't find any use for it and it seems like believing in Santa (a bit). And geez, I don't want to offend anyone, I'm just trying to answer your question about Tim Scott.

---

OK, but I would argue that disliking Trump is not a reflection of personal affirmation or vice versa. I don't like the fact that he does not care about our country, is a con man, has no respect for rule of law or the constitution, has zero conservative bona fides or view points, and has zero integrity. Those are important elements on qualification of leadership as opposed to just wanting someone who looks and feels like me. Trump is like no one else but it's his failures in character that are necessary for the highest office that has been never voting for him.

On the matter of things that are unseen, there are a lot things that are unseen. Love is unseen. Emotions are unseen. Anything spiritual is unseen. Morality is unseen. Beliefs are unseen. If we are just reduced to physical facets of our being, then we are just like rocks but with different chemical composition, and value of human life (which is also unseen) is pointless. If we are just reduced to physical, why is human life more important than preserving a rock. Clearly we are more than what is seen. Non-religious folks have a lot of faith in the unseen.

---

My very religious friend who I have coffee with every Saturday morning (and a lawyer, BTW) out of the blue, after he ended my religious inquiry months earlier with "it's just my belief", asked me, "do you understand every facet of science, of evolution, etc or do you take a large amount of it on faith. I said I take a large amount of it on faith. I later thought about this. I never pressed the subject but I figured I have more faith in the men and women who have spent their lives trying to discern these mysteries and trying to prove these mysteries and trying to explain them to simpletons like me than I have faith in the priests and nuns and friends whose explanations of God have fallen short of reason in my eyes.

Another related anecdote...my wife has asked me, "Are we soul mates?". We are celebrating our 40th wedding anniversary in 2 months. As my friends have since told me, I made the blunder of saying, of course not. Out of the 8 billion people in the world do you actually think we ended up with the exact right person to share our life with? (my definition of soul mate). Or, have we just made our love for each other work to the best of our ability and dealt with the good and bad of each other. She was of course sad. I now realize I should have lied. But I bring this up to illustrate that I'm not a touchy feely person and so while I get that there may be many, perhaps an infinite amount of forces in the world that we cannot know I can't get behind a leader who may depend on some of these forces for inspiration or decision making help.

Sorry for the long winded explanations. I'm not succinct.

---

You should read David Hume. He would ask about your faith in those men, the basis of your faith. How do you make the connection that spending years trying to discern those mysteries means they are more credible? Past results? Then he would ask what basis you have that the past will reflect the future. At the end, we exist based on blind faith of the unseen. There are innate qualities that we human beings share that are not driven by physical. People of different cultures and nations will refer to an innate sense of fairness. They feel an unseen love for their children. You could call them biological and survival instinct, but where is the physical and patent manifestation (as opposed to expression) of that. Scientist believe in the Big Bang theory and, when ask what existed before the Big Bang, they answer nothing because time did not exist before the Big Bang. No faith there?

You may have more faith in the unseen then you suspect.

---

BA in Philosophy. I've read Hume and many, many more. You are a skilled writer.

Hume argued against the existence of innate ideas, positing that all human knowledge derives solely from experience. This places him with Francis Bacon, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and George Berkeley as an empiricist.[12]

---

That's fantastic.

I didn't take a lot of philosophy classes but the few that I did take made the major very tempting. Reading Kant, Descartes and Hume in the intro classes and even Wittgenstein whose writing I barely understood was really enlightening. And reading thesis that made me reassess what we truly understood near the little stream near Moses Hall were some of my favorite memories.

I just couldn't hack it as a philosophy major. But I suspected you would like David Hume, but did not realize you were a Philosophy major who would know him exponentially better than I would. The fact that he was like you an atheist who was a skeptic and an empiricist and would even consider you to have too much faith in the unperceived made me think of him as I read about your aversion to faith and innate knowledge.

---

I remember very little from my philosophy courses. I was denied an ability to register for school because I was a junior with no major. One of my good friends who had gotten a philosophy degree from Boston College and was/is VERY religious to this day (his dad became a priest after his mom died) convinced me to try philosophy. It was one of the few majors at Cal that had zero prereqs. Many others had conditions and then would look at my grades and deny me. I did actually enjoy it and it was difficult to understand all the reading. If you are a lawyer you would have done very well. I was a bad writer and didn't particularly like to read (to this day). That's all the major was. We took no tests, only wrote papers. My grades took a full grade point swing up when I met my future wife. She was working as a paralegal and proofread all my work. Instead of me turning in poorly written, poorly looking papers typed on a manual typewriter with correction fluid and crossed our words my wife would make sure all the grammar was correct, all the spelling was correct and the papers were typed perfectly on her office's word processors. These days a bit of my belief system is influenced by Sam Harris. If you think I need to open my mind to those things we cannot see read or watch some of his work. My favorite idea of his is when he talks about AI. His basic premise is that intelligence in silicon is no different (and will actually end up being better in all respects) to intelligence in "meat" (humans). It is this belief that leads him to the possibility that AI may ultimately replace humans. And here you thought just lacking a spirituality was as bad as it could get. ;-)
Again, sorry to be so long winded and off topic. I hope you and Unit2 keep up the civil exchanges on BI. I learn a lot.

L = Long Peter?

"No, daddy, no!" - Ashley Biden