Totally! And you could study the work of that woman Olivia Remes of Cambridge U. She has 3 rules for mental resilience and avoiding mental illness. They are great. After that, I bet you won't have anymore angst. Or much less.
One thing that has always plagued me in sociological and psychological and even social psychological matters and that is that the word angst is merely just the German word for fear. Although I am from German immigrant ancestors (one ‘not very good people,’ the legend is that one left Prussia because he killed a man. I like to think that, it’s the romantic in me) I doubt that heritage imbues any unique type of fear, unless you begin to talk about the rules of German grammar. You don’t want to know.
While I agree with your overall premise, I have to take issue with the idea that Buttigieg is “ clearly attempting to connect with white religious voters.” There are so many queer and trans people of faith—myself and the people I work for and worship with included—who have been told our whole lives how awful and disgusting we are, and “look! It’s right there in the Bible!” The reason asshats like Huckabee are rejecting what Buttigieg is saying is because he’s espousing queer theology, not pandering to white evangelicals.
OK, then, let's stick to the message. When did going hard left work for the Democratic Party, especially (I should have been more specific in the first post) on the level of presidential elections? (cough*1972*cough)
The Hard Left cites polls which seem to indicate that some great untapped Left majority lurks out there in Flyover Country, outside the big-city and college-town bohemias of the Hard Left, but those hypothetical leftists never seem to show up at the polls, so of what use are they, even if they do exist? It looks to me like if the Democratic Party had somehow nominated St. Bernard of Vermont in 2016, then Cheeto Mussolini would actually have won the thumping victory which he is deluded that he won.
I do not intend to apologize for my suspicions. I suppose it's less a matter of number of appearances than of what is said in those appearances, but small number of appearances does tend to correlate with hard-left anti-Democratic views and "both-siderist" views; not so much pro-Rethuglican and pro-Russian as anti-anti-Rethuglican and anti-anti-Russian. Granted, correlation does not necessarily indicate cause and effect.
Maybe not you individually, but the honest Hard Left played small but indispensable roles in inflicting both Bush Junior (2000) and Benedict Donald (2016) on our country and on the larger world, by refusing to vote for an imperfect, but at least not evil, candidate, therefore giving the victory to the forces of evil. Russian disinformation campaigns played a much larger role, at least in 2016. I don't know which one you are, but yeah, I don't trust you either way. I doubt that will distress you.
Of course! 100% agree! But I think it’s easier to point out the nuances of our laws to them if we make it about the Constitution rather than their bigotry. It’s not that it would change their intentions. It’s just a better way to control the narrative in a way that is more inclusive. I’m not religious, so I have grown very tired of hearing our politicians talk about their religious ideologies. I have yet to hear even one speak in the same way about their good character being the result of Atheist upbringing, or of the inspirations found in the existing world that’s entirely separate from any organized religion. There’s supposed to be a separation of church and state, but over and over again, the message has been sent loud and clear. Atheist is a dirty word in politics.
That's probably fair; I'm not nearly as familiar with Bruni as I am the others. But this is kind of a sore point with me, especially since the "Christianity" practiced by most Republicans is the utter antithesis of what Christianity actually teaches. I can best be described as a lapsed Baptist these days, but the way they've perverted it really grinds my gears.
I call myself an apatheist (a pun on apathy). It fits perfectly well. If pressed, I'd label myself an agnostic atheist.
I'm also very annoyed that atheists are regarded as being so untrustworthy and that it impacts politics so heavily. Maybe times will change as the number of Nones keep increasing.
First of all the last national election (2018) gave a pretty good show of who wins elections, when there is no cheating. 2nd why does that idiot have a job? I have a kid with a journalism degree who would be such a better writer for the nyt, or any legit form of media. @@
Well just consider it's not up to you to find answers to those questions. We arrived when it was all going on. Altho for some reason, other people try to hold us personally responsible for each bad phenomenon, just because it may suit them at that moment. Like seventh grade science teachers haranguing their classes about climate change, and scaring them to death. That's why Olivia Remes is interesting. She proposes that it's not necessary that every challenge we face result in more stress and self-blame. Btw, it was jarring to hear a tiny German girl whisper 'angst' when a fire truck went by.
Hey Cletus, thanks for responding. Here is the thing, I am actually not hard left by any stretch of the imagination.
If anything up to the election of Bush Jr., (Shrub, in the immortal words of Molly Ivins) I might have been even described as a Rockefeller republican. However, the actions of Shrub, along with the rise of the tea party caused me to make a radical reassessment of my political views. TBH I started paying attention. The election of Trump and the way the Republicans just rolled over for him finished my radicalization.
What I think is that there has a shift over the last 40 years that have put far too much concentration of money, then power, into the hands of the financial class that has engineered this shift. I believe that there needs to be a strong correction back to the principles of the New Deal and the reformers of the turn of the 19th-20th century. Hopefully, this will strengthen the power of the middle and working class and bring this country into a better balance.
I believe that Warren especially would represent that strong correction. She goes farther left than I am entirely comfortable with and I am worried that she may be too far left for a lot of independent voters. However, I believe the third way policies that the center left adopted after Reagan have been a disaster for liberalism. The Democratic party as some sort Republican lite has patently not worked and has allowed a rogue Republican party that represents an electoral minority to gain far more power than they should have.
You are correct; your mistrust does not distress me, mainly because I have been writing mostly to organize my own thoughts. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to use your responses to help work out my own position.
Does the Democratic Party need to completely change its message? Not all. Nor should it demand that all Democrats should become religious. But it does need to STOP parroting the very same message as the GOP for the 25% of Americans who identify themselves as "Christian", i.e. "the Democratic Party hates your God and it despises YOU for believing in that god."
If only the D P leadership wised up regarding religion in general and Christianity in particular, they would learn that there's a way to win over SOME of 25% of those American "Christian" voters, i.e. "Contrary to what the G.O.P. have been telling you, just because we welcome Atheists, Native Americans, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. does NOT mean that we don't have any room for "Christians" in our party."
To the contrary, my friend, see my post c. 6:15PM Fri. where I explain why our Dem. Party "needs to STOP parroting the very same message as the GOP for the 25% of Americans who identify themselves as "Christian", i.e. "the Democratic Party hates your God and it despises YOU for believing in that god."
Is having an attack of severe existentialist angst a good enough excuse to take off from work?
Totally! And you could study the work of that woman Olivia Remes of Cambridge U. She has 3 rules for mental resilience and avoiding mental illness. They are great. After that, I bet you won't have anymore angst. Or much less.
One thing that has always plagued me in sociological and psychological and even social psychological matters and that is that the word angst is merely just the German word for fear. Although I am from German immigrant ancestors (one ‘not very good people,’ the legend is that one left Prussia because he killed a man. I like to think that, it’s the romantic in me) I doubt that heritage imbues any unique type of fear, unless you begin to talk about the rules of German grammar. You don’t want to know.
While I agree with your overall premise, I have to take issue with the idea that Buttigieg is “ clearly attempting to connect with white religious voters.” There are so many queer and trans people of faith—myself and the people I work for and worship with included—who have been told our whole lives how awful and disgusting we are, and “look! It’s right there in the Bible!” The reason asshats like Huckabee are rejecting what Buttigieg is saying is because he’s espousing queer theology, not pandering to white evangelicals.
OK, then, let's stick to the message. When did going hard left work for the Democratic Party, especially (I should have been more specific in the first post) on the level of presidential elections? (cough*1972*cough)
The Hard Left cites polls which seem to indicate that some great untapped Left majority lurks out there in Flyover Country, outside the big-city and college-town bohemias of the Hard Left, but those hypothetical leftists never seem to show up at the polls, so of what use are they, even if they do exist? It looks to me like if the Democratic Party had somehow nominated St. Bernard of Vermont in 2016, then Cheeto Mussolini would actually have won the thumping victory which he is deluded that he won.
I do not intend to apologize for my suspicions. I suppose it's less a matter of number of appearances than of what is said in those appearances, but small number of appearances does tend to correlate with hard-left anti-Democratic views and "both-siderist" views; not so much pro-Rethuglican and pro-Russian as anti-anti-Rethuglican and anti-anti-Russian. Granted, correlation does not necessarily indicate cause and effect.
Maybe not you individually, but the honest Hard Left played small but indispensable roles in inflicting both Bush Junior (2000) and Benedict Donald (2016) on our country and on the larger world, by refusing to vote for an imperfect, but at least not evil, candidate, therefore giving the victory to the forces of evil. Russian disinformation campaigns played a much larger role, at least in 2016. I don't know which one you are, but yeah, I don't trust you either way. I doubt that will distress you.
Of course! 100% agree! But I think it’s easier to point out the nuances of our laws to them if we make it about the Constitution rather than their bigotry. It’s not that it would change their intentions. It’s just a better way to control the narrative in a way that is more inclusive. I’m not religious, so I have grown very tired of hearing our politicians talk about their religious ideologies. I have yet to hear even one speak in the same way about their good character being the result of Atheist upbringing, or of the inspirations found in the existing world that’s entirely separate from any organized religion. There’s supposed to be a separation of church and state, but over and over again, the message has been sent loud and clear. Atheist is a dirty word in politics.
That's probably fair; I'm not nearly as familiar with Bruni as I am the others. But this is kind of a sore point with me, especially since the "Christianity" practiced by most Republicans is the utter antithesis of what Christianity actually teaches. I can best be described as a lapsed Baptist these days, but the way they've perverted it really grinds my gears.
"White evangelicals embrace Trump because he will protect them from a changing world."
'Bout sums it up.
I call myself an apatheist (a pun on apathy). It fits perfectly well. If pressed, I'd label myself an agnostic atheist.
I'm also very annoyed that atheists are regarded as being so untrustworthy and that it impacts politics so heavily. Maybe times will change as the number of Nones keep increasing.
I had such bad existential angst as a teenager, trying to figure out my place in the world. It's hard work and there's not much guidance.
I'm gonna make my own family nonreligious holiday now.
First of all the last national election (2018) gave a pretty good show of who wins elections, when there is no cheating. 2nd why does that idiot have a job? I have a kid with a journalism degree who would be such a better writer for the nyt, or any legit form of media. @@
Well just consider it's not up to you to find answers to those questions. We arrived when it was all going on. Altho for some reason, other people try to hold us personally responsible for each bad phenomenon, just because it may suit them at that moment. Like seventh grade science teachers haranguing their classes about climate change, and scaring them to death. That's why Olivia Remes is interesting. She proposes that it's not necessary that every challenge we face result in more stress and self-blame. Btw, it was jarring to hear a tiny German girl whisper 'angst' when a fire truck went by.
As a species, we should be moving away from fairy tales as a central factor in our decision making process anyway.
Hey Cletus, thanks for responding. Here is the thing, I am actually not hard left by any stretch of the imagination.
If anything up to the election of Bush Jr., (Shrub, in the immortal words of Molly Ivins) I might have been even described as a Rockefeller republican. However, the actions of Shrub, along with the rise of the tea party caused me to make a radical reassessment of my political views. TBH I started paying attention. The election of Trump and the way the Republicans just rolled over for him finished my radicalization.
What I think is that there has a shift over the last 40 years that have put far too much concentration of money, then power, into the hands of the financial class that has engineered this shift. I believe that there needs to be a strong correction back to the principles of the New Deal and the reformers of the turn of the 19th-20th century. Hopefully, this will strengthen the power of the middle and working class and bring this country into a better balance.
I believe that Warren especially would represent that strong correction. She goes farther left than I am entirely comfortable with and I am worried that she may be too far left for a lot of independent voters. However, I believe the third way policies that the center left adopted after Reagan have been a disaster for liberalism. The Democratic party as some sort Republican lite has patently not worked and has allowed a rogue Republican party that represents an electoral minority to gain far more power than they should have.
You are correct; your mistrust does not distress me, mainly because I have been writing mostly to organize my own thoughts. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to use your responses to help work out my own position.
Does the Democratic Party need to completely change its message? Not all. Nor should it demand that all Democrats should become religious. But it does need to STOP parroting the very same message as the GOP for the 25% of Americans who identify themselves as "Christian", i.e. "the Democratic Party hates your God and it despises YOU for believing in that god."
If only the D P leadership wised up regarding religion in general and Christianity in particular, they would learn that there's a way to win over SOME of 25% of those American "Christian" voters, i.e. "Contrary to what the G.O.P. have been telling you, just because we welcome Atheists, Native Americans, Asians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. does NOT mean that we don't have any room for "Christians" in our party."
See why all "people of faith" should ThankGodforLiberalDemocrats.org .Rev. R D
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
To the contrary, my friend, see my post c. 6:15PM Fri. where I explain why our Dem. Party "needs to STOP parroting the very same message as the GOP for the 25% of Americans who identify themselves as "Christian", i.e. "the Democratic Party hates your God and it despises YOU for believing in that god."