New York Times - A Dishonorable Senate
Republican legislators abdicated their duty by refusing to seek the truth.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A comment I wrote for the liberal crybabies:
Republican legislators refused to waste time about something normal people don't care about.
Not to worry, Democrats, Bloomberg will get the job in November.
Friday, January 31, 2020
This is a Wall Street Journal article about how the Republican Senators were persuaded to end the impeachment thing very quickly.
POLITICS
How Republicans Scotched the Idea of Witnesses in Trump’s Impeachment Trial
White House, Senate GOP leaders swung into a good-cop, bad-cop routine to keep lawmakers in the fold after Bolton book leak.
By Michael C. Bender, Lindsay Wise, Siobhan Hughes, and Rebecca Ballhaus
January 31, 2020
WASHINGTON—At the White House on Sunday evening, as the phones started ringing nonstop and emails flooded in, President Trump took aim at the cause of the alarm: John Bolton, his former national security adviser.
Mr. Bolton’s recollection in his forthcoming book—that Mr. Trump had put a hold on Ukraine aid to press Kyiv to open an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden —had just leaked. The information ran counter to a key Trump defense that he had held up the aid because of broad corruption concerns, and it turned up the heat on some Republicans to extend the trial by calling witnesses.
As White House aides scrambled to figure out how to respond, Mr. Trump recalled that Mr. Bolton once told him he wanted to be national security adviser because he worried he couldn’t win the Senate confirmation required for many other senior jobs.
“I should have seen that as a red flag,” Mr. Trump said, according to an aide in the room. “But instead, I did the guy a favor, took him at his word that this was a good fit, and this is what he did to me?”
Mr. Bolton didn’t respond to a request for comment.
For the first time, Republican plans for a quick Senate impeachment trial were under threat of derailment. The White House and GOP leadership in the Senate swung into a political good-cop, bad-cop routine to keep the trial on track for a fast acquittal.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. Ky.), aided by White House liaisons, exercised a behind-the-scenes campaign in the chamber to keep his members from panicking and breaking en masse from Mr. Trump. Mr. McConnell’s office advised the president’s legal team throughout the process on which arguments were important to be made on the floor to resonate with certain undecided senators.
Mr. Trump stayed largely on the sidelines, heeding advice he had received directly from Mr. McConnell to give fence-sitting Republican senators—who were wary both of crossing the president and appearing browbeaten by him—the space to make their own decisions. But he engaged in some political saber-rattling with tweets about the need for a speedy trial resolution and criticism of Mr. Bolton, which was amplified by conservative allies in the media.
“Once he got over being pissed about this whole thing,” an administration official said, “he could see the wisdom of sitting still and letting the Senate come to its conclusions.”
The strategy didn’t prove immediately effective. In a private meeting at lunchtime Monday, Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) made an impassioned speech to his colleagues about the need to hear from Mr. Bolton.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) floated the possibility of bringing in Mr. Bolton and a witness who would appeal to Mr. Trump.
Mr. McConnell’s message to senators then was to stay calm and be patient. He had framed the handling of the trial as a bigger threat to the party’s Senate majority than to the president, and stressed on Monday that there was plenty of time before senators would have to decide, said people familiar with the matter.
At the White House, Mr. Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. In the Oval Office, when asked about Mr. Bolton’s allegations, Mr. Trump said: “False.” His lawyers, arguing his case in the Senate, made only brief mention of the issue.
That night, the consequences of crossing Mr. Trump started to come into focus for Republicans. On his primetime Fox News show, Tucker Carlson called Mr. Bolton a snake. Lou Dobbs, a host on Fox Business News, referred to Mr. Bolton as a “tool for the radical” Democrats.
By Tuesday, it was clear to Republicans in the White House and the Senate that Mr. Bolton’s account in his draft manuscript, first reported two days earlier by the New York Times, had to be more forcefully addressed, officials said.
White House officials spoke out against Mr. Bolton, as did Trump allies in the Senate. Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), who considers Mr. Bolton a close friend, patrolled the Senate hallways gripping a printout of talking points matching those pushed by the White House. Other Republican senators bristled, however, unwilling to make a call on who might not be telling the truth between the president and Mr. Bolton, a prominent and longtime conservative in Washington.
On Tuesday afternoon, all 53 Republican senators gathered in an ornate room near the Capitol Rotunda. Mr. McConnell was clutching a card—apparently a tally of Republican votes on the witness question—marked with “yeses,” “noes” and “maybes.”
He told them the vote count wasn’t where it needed to be, according to people familiar with the meeting, and struck an ominous tone, saying the future of the country and the Constitution were at stake. People close to Mr. McConnell were struck by his intensity. They felt that he had moved the needle.
Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who face competitive races in the fall, also addressed their colleagues in the meeting. Other GOP senators, including Mike Lee of Utah, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas, all lawyers, made the legal case against witnesses.
Reports that the GOP had yet to secure the needed votes to prevent witnesses increased the tension and suggested for the first time that Mr. Trump’s trial could prove much longer—and potentially more volatile—than at any time since it began almost two weeks before.
Mr. McConnell kept up his cajoling on Wednesday, repeating his argument that the trial wasn’t just about the president, but about preserving the GOP Senate majority, and the sooner it ended the better. He also said that adding witnesses would bog down the Senate in battles over executive privilege—the right of the president to prevent advisers from sharing some information—when the outcome of the trial wasn’t in doubt.
There were signs that the strategy was starting to tamp the momentum for witnesses. Mr. McConnell met that morning with Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who was one of the handful viewed as potentially in favor of calling witnesses. “I’m not going to be discussing the witness situation right now,” she said afterward.
Mr. Toomey, who had earlier floated the idea of calling witnesses for both sides, shifted position, telling reporters he didn’t believe that new witnesses could change the outcome of the trial.
But the vote was “still uncertain” as of Wednesday evening, according to Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the GOP whip.
In the White House, the rapid-response communications team, led by Adam Kennedy, deputy communications director, unearthed video of an interview Mr. Bolton gave to Radio Free Europe in August before he left the national security post in which he described Mr. Trump’s interactions with Ukraine as “very warm and cordial”—suggesting it undermined his book excerpt.
Club for Growth, a conservative group that has aligned itself with Mr. Trump, aired a television ad attacking Mr. Romney for siding with Democrats on the need for more witnesses, and referring to Mr. Bolton as a “spotlight-seeking blowhard.”
By Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Trump strolled the halls of the West Wing. “We’re doing good, I think,” he said in a brief exchange with The Wall Street Journal. When asked about the vote for witnesses, he said: “Whatever it is, it is.”
By Thursday lunchtime, GOP support for witnesses was on a knife edge. With Mr. Romney in favor, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine a likely, two other GOP senators—Ms. Murkowski and Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee—became pivotal. With their 53-47 Senate majority, the Republicans could afford three defections, down to a 50-50 Senate vote, figuring Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wouldn’t use his power to intervene to break the tie.
At lunch with his colleagues that day, Mr. McConnell didn’t reveal where the vote tally stood. Mr. Alexander, who is retiring, shook his head when asked afterward if he had made a decision. “There’s been no clear declaration of who’s still stewing on it,” said Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana. “It’s going to be very, very close.”
Mr. McConnell met with Mr. Alexander in the leader’s office at dinnertime on Thursday. He had one tactical advantage in keeping the Tennessee senator onside: a half-century of friendship and Mr. Alexander’s rule of thumb to be upfront with the majority leader about whether he would vote against the party.
In the Senate chamber, Ms. Murkowski asked the White House legal team why the Senate shouldn’t call Mr. Bolton. The lawyers responded that House Democrats could have subpoenaed Mr. Bolton, but chose not to. House Democrats have said that Mr. Trump directed administration officials not to testify before the House.
An hour and a half later, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) had persuaded Ms. Murkowski to reframe the question, in effect asking: Even if Mr. Bolton’s account was accurate, would Mr. Trump’s actions amount to an impeachable offense? Mr. Trump’s lawyers said late Thursday that it wouldn’t be. It was a subtle signal that she might be leaning against the need to hear from Mr. Bolton or other witnesses.
Ms. Collins said Thursday evening that, as expected, she would vote for witnesses. But later Mr. Alexander, while terming Mr. Trump’s actions on Ukraine inappropriate, said he saw no need for witnesses.
On Friday around lunchtime, Ms. Murkowski said she, too, saw no need for witnesses, effectively scotching the prospect. Senators on Friday afternoon narrowly voted 51-49 not to have witnesses, the first impeachment trial in U.S. history to exclude them.
Write to Michael C. Bender at Mike.Bender@wsj.com, Lindsay Wise at lindsay.wise@wsj.com, Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@wsj.com and Rebecca Ballhaus at Rebecca.Ballhaus@wsj.com
How Republicans Scotched the Idea of Witnesses in Trump’s Impeachment Trial
White House, Senate GOP leaders swung into a good-cop, bad-cop routine to keep lawmakers in the fold after Bolton book leak.
By Michael C. Bender, Lindsay Wise, Siobhan Hughes, and Rebecca Ballhaus
January 31, 2020
WASHINGTON—At the White House on Sunday evening, as the phones started ringing nonstop and emails flooded in, President Trump took aim at the cause of the alarm: John Bolton, his former national security adviser.
Mr. Bolton’s recollection in his forthcoming book—that Mr. Trump had put a hold on Ukraine aid to press Kyiv to open an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden —had just leaked. The information ran counter to a key Trump defense that he had held up the aid because of broad corruption concerns, and it turned up the heat on some Republicans to extend the trial by calling witnesses.
As White House aides scrambled to figure out how to respond, Mr. Trump recalled that Mr. Bolton once told him he wanted to be national security adviser because he worried he couldn’t win the Senate confirmation required for many other senior jobs.
“I should have seen that as a red flag,” Mr. Trump said, according to an aide in the room. “But instead, I did the guy a favor, took him at his word that this was a good fit, and this is what he did to me?”
Mr. Bolton didn’t respond to a request for comment.
For the first time, Republican plans for a quick Senate impeachment trial were under threat of derailment. The White House and GOP leadership in the Senate swung into a political good-cop, bad-cop routine to keep the trial on track for a fast acquittal.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R. Ky.), aided by White House liaisons, exercised a behind-the-scenes campaign in the chamber to keep his members from panicking and breaking en masse from Mr. Trump. Mr. McConnell’s office advised the president’s legal team throughout the process on which arguments were important to be made on the floor to resonate with certain undecided senators.
Mr. Trump stayed largely on the sidelines, heeding advice he had received directly from Mr. McConnell to give fence-sitting Republican senators—who were wary both of crossing the president and appearing browbeaten by him—the space to make their own decisions. But he engaged in some political saber-rattling with tweets about the need for a speedy trial resolution and criticism of Mr. Bolton, which was amplified by conservative allies in the media.
“Once he got over being pissed about this whole thing,” an administration official said, “he could see the wisdom of sitting still and letting the Senate come to its conclusions.”
The strategy didn’t prove immediately effective. In a private meeting at lunchtime Monday, Sen. Mitt Romney (R., Utah) made an impassioned speech to his colleagues about the need to hear from Mr. Bolton.
Sen. Pat Toomey (R., Pa.) floated the possibility of bringing in Mr. Bolton and a witness who would appeal to Mr. Trump.
Mr. McConnell’s message to senators then was to stay calm and be patient. He had framed the handling of the trial as a bigger threat to the party’s Senate majority than to the president, and stressed on Monday that there was plenty of time before senators would have to decide, said people familiar with the matter.
At the White House, Mr. Trump hosted Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. In the Oval Office, when asked about Mr. Bolton’s allegations, Mr. Trump said: “False.” His lawyers, arguing his case in the Senate, made only brief mention of the issue.
That night, the consequences of crossing Mr. Trump started to come into focus for Republicans. On his primetime Fox News show, Tucker Carlson called Mr. Bolton a snake. Lou Dobbs, a host on Fox Business News, referred to Mr. Bolton as a “tool for the radical” Democrats.
By Tuesday, it was clear to Republicans in the White House and the Senate that Mr. Bolton’s account in his draft manuscript, first reported two days earlier by the New York Times, had to be more forcefully addressed, officials said.
White House officials spoke out against Mr. Bolton, as did Trump allies in the Senate. Sen. James Inhofe (R., Okla.), who considers Mr. Bolton a close friend, patrolled the Senate hallways gripping a printout of talking points matching those pushed by the White House. Other Republican senators bristled, however, unwilling to make a call on who might not be telling the truth between the president and Mr. Bolton, a prominent and longtime conservative in Washington.
On Tuesday afternoon, all 53 Republican senators gathered in an ornate room near the Capitol Rotunda. Mr. McConnell was clutching a card—apparently a tally of Republican votes on the witness question—marked with “yeses,” “noes” and “maybes.”
He told them the vote count wasn’t where it needed to be, according to people familiar with the meeting, and struck an ominous tone, saying the future of the country and the Constitution were at stake. People close to Mr. McConnell were struck by his intensity. They felt that he had moved the needle.
Republican Sens. Cory Gardner of Colorado, Martha McSally of Arizona and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who face competitive races in the fall, also addressed their colleagues in the meeting. Other GOP senators, including Mike Lee of Utah, Josh Hawley of Missouri and Ted Cruz of Texas, all lawyers, made the legal case against witnesses.
Reports that the GOP had yet to secure the needed votes to prevent witnesses increased the tension and suggested for the first time that Mr. Trump’s trial could prove much longer—and potentially more volatile—than at any time since it began almost two weeks before.
Mr. McConnell kept up his cajoling on Wednesday, repeating his argument that the trial wasn’t just about the president, but about preserving the GOP Senate majority, and the sooner it ended the better. He also said that adding witnesses would bog down the Senate in battles over executive privilege—the right of the president to prevent advisers from sharing some information—when the outcome of the trial wasn’t in doubt.
There were signs that the strategy was starting to tamp the momentum for witnesses. Mr. McConnell met that morning with Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who was one of the handful viewed as potentially in favor of calling witnesses. “I’m not going to be discussing the witness situation right now,” she said afterward.
Mr. Toomey, who had earlier floated the idea of calling witnesses for both sides, shifted position, telling reporters he didn’t believe that new witnesses could change the outcome of the trial.
But the vote was “still uncertain” as of Wednesday evening, according to Sen. John Thune of South Dakota, the GOP whip.
In the White House, the rapid-response communications team, led by Adam Kennedy, deputy communications director, unearthed video of an interview Mr. Bolton gave to Radio Free Europe in August before he left the national security post in which he described Mr. Trump’s interactions with Ukraine as “very warm and cordial”—suggesting it undermined his book excerpt.
Club for Growth, a conservative group that has aligned itself with Mr. Trump, aired a television ad attacking Mr. Romney for siding with Democrats on the need for more witnesses, and referring to Mr. Bolton as a “spotlight-seeking blowhard.”
By Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Trump strolled the halls of the West Wing. “We’re doing good, I think,” he said in a brief exchange with The Wall Street Journal. When asked about the vote for witnesses, he said: “Whatever it is, it is.”
By Thursday lunchtime, GOP support for witnesses was on a knife edge. With Mr. Romney in favor, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine a likely, two other GOP senators—Ms. Murkowski and Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee—became pivotal. With their 53-47 Senate majority, the Republicans could afford three defections, down to a 50-50 Senate vote, figuring Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts wouldn’t use his power to intervene to break the tie.
At lunch with his colleagues that day, Mr. McConnell didn’t reveal where the vote tally stood. Mr. Alexander, who is retiring, shook his head when asked afterward if he had made a decision. “There’s been no clear declaration of who’s still stewing on it,” said Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana. “It’s going to be very, very close.”
Mr. McConnell met with Mr. Alexander in the leader’s office at dinnertime on Thursday. He had one tactical advantage in keeping the Tennessee senator onside: a half-century of friendship and Mr. Alexander’s rule of thumb to be upfront with the majority leader about whether he would vote against the party.
In the Senate chamber, Ms. Murkowski asked the White House legal team why the Senate shouldn’t call Mr. Bolton. The lawyers responded that House Democrats could have subpoenaed Mr. Bolton, but chose not to. House Democrats have said that Mr. Trump directed administration officials not to testify before the House.
An hour and a half later, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.) had persuaded Ms. Murkowski to reframe the question, in effect asking: Even if Mr. Bolton’s account was accurate, would Mr. Trump’s actions amount to an impeachable offense? Mr. Trump’s lawyers said late Thursday that it wouldn’t be. It was a subtle signal that she might be leaning against the need to hear from Mr. Bolton or other witnesses.
Ms. Collins said Thursday evening that, as expected, she would vote for witnesses. But later Mr. Alexander, while terming Mr. Trump’s actions on Ukraine inappropriate, said he saw no need for witnesses.
On Friday around lunchtime, Ms. Murkowski said she, too, saw no need for witnesses, effectively scotching the prospect. Senators on Friday afternoon narrowly voted 51-49 not to have witnesses, the first impeachment trial in U.S. history to exclude them.
Write to Michael C. Bender at Mike.Bender@wsj.com, Lindsay Wise at lindsay.wise@wsj.com, Siobhan Hughes at siobhan.hughes@wsj.com and Rebecca Ballhaus at Rebecca.Ballhaus@wsj.com
BBC News - The impeachment of President Fucktard Trump is not going to happen. What a waste of fucking time. The Democrats accomplished nothing. I hope the Democrats have enough common sense to nominate Mike Bloomberg because nobody else can defeat Trump.
By a thin majority, US senators have agreed not to call witnesses during Donald Trump's impeachment trial.
This paves the way for the swift end of the trial, that is all but certain to end in Mr. Trump's acquittal.
Final vote: 49 - 51
In the end, as expected, the motion for witnesses was denied by 51 to 49. Mitt Romney, and Susan Collins, were the two Republicans who sided with the Democrats.
This paves the way for the swift end of the trial, that is all but certain to end in Mr. Trump's acquittal.
Final vote: 49 - 51
In the end, as expected, the motion for witnesses was denied by 51 to 49. Mitt Romney, and Susan Collins, were the two Republicans who sided with the Democrats.
A very interesting chess game.
I play the Black side of the Sicilian Defence, Najdorf Variation. I usually get killed during the middlegame when my opponent sacrifices pieces to wipe out my king. In the game I just played I tried thinking instead of being afraid, and thinking worked.
Here is the game: https://lichess.org/ctLk0Qo0/black#0
My Lichess.org Profile
Here is the game: https://lichess.org/ctLk0Qo0/black#0
My Lichess.org Profile
This post is about a mental illness. It's called "praying". This ridiculous disease is a big problem in Idiot America.
Christian assholes like to tell atheists (aka normal people) "I will pray for you."
Why do they do this? They like to advertise their stupidity, and they are assholes who like to insult normal people. "I will pray for you" is an insult and they know it.
Why do religious morons pray? And what is praying?
Wikipedia: Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with an object of worship through deliberate communication. In the narrow sense, the term refers to an act of supplication or intercession directed towards a deity (a god), or a deified ancestor.
The idea is if god-soaked fucktards want their sky daddy to fix a problem, for example, a disease, the fucktards get down on their knees and put their 2 hands together and then talk to themselves, but they think their Magic Man is listening to the whole thing. They believe the magical creature they worship might help them with their problem. I'm not making any of this stuff up.
Obviously, these people are insane. Here in Idiot America, there are millions of these gullible morons.
Religions sell a lot of bullshit, including a god fairy that loves people who suck up to it. And the praying thing is a big part of the sucking up.
This bullshit is more evidence for the idea that most human apes are just plain fucking stupid.
Why do they do this? They like to advertise their stupidity, and they are assholes who like to insult normal people. "I will pray for you" is an insult and they know it.
Why do religious morons pray? And what is praying?
Wikipedia: Prayer is an invocation or act that seeks to activate a rapport with an object of worship through deliberate communication. In the narrow sense, the term refers to an act of supplication or intercession directed towards a deity (a god), or a deified ancestor.
The idea is if god-soaked fucktards want their sky daddy to fix a problem, for example, a disease, the fucktards get down on their knees and put their 2 hands together and then talk to themselves, but they think their Magic Man is listening to the whole thing. They believe the magical creature they worship might help them with their problem. I'm not making any of this stuff up.
Obviously, these people are insane. Here in Idiot America, there are millions of these gullible morons.
Religions sell a lot of bullshit, including a god fairy that loves people who suck up to it. And the praying thing is a big part of the sucking up.
This bullshit is more evidence for the idea that most human apes are just plain fucking stupid.
Thursday, January 30, 2020
If the bible god was real we would have to kill it.
"What really is the Bible's message?"
I wrote this: The bible is about god's love for genocide and slavery.
Someone else wrote this: Not to mention rape, infanticide, eternal torture, etc.
I wrote this: The bible is about god's love for genocide and slavery.
Someone else wrote this: Not to mention rape, infanticide, eternal torture, etc.
Mike Bloomberg makes Fucktard Trump cry.
Washington Post
Bloomberg gets under Trump’s skin as he ramps up spending on 2020 ads
By Josh Dawsey and Michael Scherer
January 23, 2020
Mike Bloomberg is lagging behind his Democratic competitors in the polls, and he will not appear on the next presidential debate stage or on the ballot in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina.
But the former New York mayor has attracted the obsessive attention of President Trump, who is annoyed by Bloomberg’s constant ads targeting him, concerned about the billionaire’s outsize spending, focused on his growing numbers in the polls and seemingly fixated on his TV appearances.
The president has repeatedly attacked Bloomberg on Twitter, calling him “Mini Mike” to insult his small stature, and frequently focused on him in conversations with campaign advisers and White House officials.
“It’s very clear that the ads we are running have gotten under his skin because they are effective,” said Howard Wolfson, a senior Bloomberg aide. “Mike’s poll numbers are improving, the president is screaming. Mike is a data-driven guy. When he sees data is working, he doubles down.”
Wolfson said to expect more blistering ads against the president in coming months. So far, Bloomberg’s spots have targeted Trump over impeachment, his position on vaping, his health-care-policy decisions and his relationship with the military. Many have prompted rapid responses from Trump, sometimes minutes after they air.
Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey debuted a new ad on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday that cited a new book by two Washington Post reporters, who chronicle how Trump lashed out at U.S. military leaders, characterizing them as “dopes and babies.” Trump responded shortly after the spot aired.
“Mini Mike Bloomberg is playing poker with his foolhardy and unsuspecting Democrat rivals,” Trump tweeted. “The fact is, when Mini losses [sic], he will be spending very little of his money on these ‘clowns’ because he will consider himself to be the biggest clown of them all — and he will be right!”
Trump’s advisers have repeatedly encouraged the president to focus on other opponents instead. Campaign manager Brad Parscale and senior adviser Jared Kushner have warned against giving Bloomberg more attention and do not see him as the threat that Trump does, aides have said. There is no plan for the campaign to target him with advertisements at this point, advisers said.
Trump has repeatedly brought up Bloomberg — calling him “evil,” in the words of one close adviser — and said that he wants to destroy Trump with unrelenting money, even if the president does not believe Bloomberg can win, according to aides.
He has called Bloomberg’s ads “lies” that are unfair depictions of his record in the White House. Several advisers have said the president also references Bloomberg’s 2016 Democratic convention speech as a sore point and repeatedly asks advisers about his polling numbers, which have hovered below 10 percent in public surveys.
Other advisers have sought to elevate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), hoping that a leftist candidate could give Trump a good foil in the general election.
Parscale said this week that he would only worry about Bloomberg if he surpassed former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in the Democratic race.
“It’s a free country, and he can set his money on fire if he wants to. He’s still in a statistical tie with the back of the pack in the Democrat field,” said Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign spokesman.
Trolling the president is different from convincing skeptical primary voters and defending his own record on issues such as stop-and-frisk policing in New York City. Bloomberg endorsed George W. Bush, for instance, and welcomed the Republican National Convention in New York in 2004.
But his path to the nomination could become clearer if former vice president Joe Biden stumbles in Iowa and New Hampshire, creating an opening for Bloomberg to use his significant advertising budget to argue that he is the most electable alternative.
In the meantime, the campaign has been using attacks on Trump as a rallying cry, both to recruit staff to his campaign and to convince Democratic primary voters that his campaign is more than the vanity project of another billionaire candidate.
Sheekey said the campaign will either be the “best primary campaign in American history” or the greatest independent spending campaign against an incumbent president that has ever been created.
As it stands, the Bloomberg advertising campaign is squarely focused on states that could help get Bloomberg the nomination, with only about 1 in 4 dollars going to the six swing states that his advisers expect to be competitive in the general election, according to Facebook ad spending data and a source familiar with the television buys, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to share the information publicly.
But that swing-state spending has still been considerable. Through Jan. 11, Bloomberg has spent $198 million on television advertising, including more than $47 million for spots in the projected swing states of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. On Facebook, he has blasted another $3.6 million to voters in those states.
Before the year is over, he has promised to spend $100 million on a digital effort to defeat Trump in swing states, and he has committed millions more to an effort to register 500,000 new voters in those states. He is also building a data operation that he intends to use to elect a Democratic president whether or not he is the nominee, his advisers say.
Mike Bloomberg shifts presidential ad campaign to focus on impeachment
In an interview, Wolfson said he wanted to draw a contrast with Democrats, who are attacking one another in New Hampshire and Iowa. Bloomberg has not competed in those states, knowing he would be unlikely to fare well, and is focused on Super Tuesday on March 3.
“We’ve chosen a different path. They are in Iowa and New Hampshire attacking one another. We’re making the case against Donald Trump,” Wolfson said. “Voters among all else are looking for a candidate that is best qualified to take on Donald Trump in a general election.”
Many of the ads Bloomberg has run include some mention of Trump, with many of the spots focusing on the president’s perceived weaknesses among swing voters.
“Health care is a huge vulnerability for him,” Wolfson said of Trump. “It’s the issue that won the Democrats won the midterms. It is difficult for him to defend his own record on health care.”
Bloomberg’s aides also plan on using the ground campaign that Bloomberg is building against Trump, whether or not he wins the nomination. Those hired in potential general-election swing states — 60 in Arizona and more than 80 in North Carolina, for example — have been told they will have a job through the summer conventions or the November elections to organize against Trump.
Bloomberg seems to have approached the endeavor as a no-risk proposition, given that he has decided that defeating someone he calls an “existential threat to our country” is one of his top priorities.
“My Plan B is a hell of a lot better than anybody else’s Plan A,” he has told advisers, according to one aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
Either Bloomberg wins the nomination and the presidency or he remains the 12th-richest person in the world with a chance of taking credit for defeating Trump.
On the stump, Bloomberg seems to delight in needling Trump, calling him a “real estate promoter” and not a businessman. He will recount the phone call from Trump after the 2016 election, when the president-elect offered his cellphone number. Bloomberg says he didn’t bother to write it down.
Bloomberg also repeats an anecdote about Trump not knowing how to use a New York City subway card when they rode together many years ago. Trump has said this description is untrue, saying the gates were opened for them because they were traveling with a large entourage.
“I never had a MetroCard when I rode the subway with him,” Trump told The Washington Post last year.
Bloomberg gets under Trump’s skin as he ramps up spending on 2020 ads
By Josh Dawsey and Michael Scherer
January 23, 2020
Mike Bloomberg is lagging behind his Democratic competitors in the polls, and he will not appear on the next presidential debate stage or on the ballot in Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina.
But the former New York mayor has attracted the obsessive attention of President Trump, who is annoyed by Bloomberg’s constant ads targeting him, concerned about the billionaire’s outsize spending, focused on his growing numbers in the polls and seemingly fixated on his TV appearances.
The president has repeatedly attacked Bloomberg on Twitter, calling him “Mini Mike” to insult his small stature, and frequently focused on him in conversations with campaign advisers and White House officials.
“It’s very clear that the ads we are running have gotten under his skin because they are effective,” said Howard Wolfson, a senior Bloomberg aide. “Mike’s poll numbers are improving, the president is screaming. Mike is a data-driven guy. When he sees data is working, he doubles down.”
Wolfson said to expect more blistering ads against the president in coming months. So far, Bloomberg’s spots have targeted Trump over impeachment, his position on vaping, his health-care-policy decisions and his relationship with the military. Many have prompted rapid responses from Trump, sometimes minutes after they air.
Bloomberg campaign manager Kevin Sheekey debuted a new ad on “Fox & Friends” on Thursday that cited a new book by two Washington Post reporters, who chronicle how Trump lashed out at U.S. military leaders, characterizing them as “dopes and babies.” Trump responded shortly after the spot aired.
“Mini Mike Bloomberg is playing poker with his foolhardy and unsuspecting Democrat rivals,” Trump tweeted. “The fact is, when Mini losses [sic], he will be spending very little of his money on these ‘clowns’ because he will consider himself to be the biggest clown of them all — and he will be right!”
Trump’s advisers have repeatedly encouraged the president to focus on other opponents instead. Campaign manager Brad Parscale and senior adviser Jared Kushner have warned against giving Bloomberg more attention and do not see him as the threat that Trump does, aides have said. There is no plan for the campaign to target him with advertisements at this point, advisers said.
Trump has repeatedly brought up Bloomberg — calling him “evil,” in the words of one close adviser — and said that he wants to destroy Trump with unrelenting money, even if the president does not believe Bloomberg can win, according to aides.
He has called Bloomberg’s ads “lies” that are unfair depictions of his record in the White House. Several advisers have said the president also references Bloomberg’s 2016 Democratic convention speech as a sore point and repeatedly asks advisers about his polling numbers, which have hovered below 10 percent in public surveys.
Other advisers have sought to elevate Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), hoping that a leftist candidate could give Trump a good foil in the general election.
Parscale said this week that he would only worry about Bloomberg if he surpassed former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) in the Democratic race.
“It’s a free country, and he can set his money on fire if he wants to. He’s still in a statistical tie with the back of the pack in the Democrat field,” said Tim Murtaugh, a Trump campaign spokesman.
Trolling the president is different from convincing skeptical primary voters and defending his own record on issues such as stop-and-frisk policing in New York City. Bloomberg endorsed George W. Bush, for instance, and welcomed the Republican National Convention in New York in 2004.
But his path to the nomination could become clearer if former vice president Joe Biden stumbles in Iowa and New Hampshire, creating an opening for Bloomberg to use his significant advertising budget to argue that he is the most electable alternative.
In the meantime, the campaign has been using attacks on Trump as a rallying cry, both to recruit staff to his campaign and to convince Democratic primary voters that his campaign is more than the vanity project of another billionaire candidate.
Sheekey said the campaign will either be the “best primary campaign in American history” or the greatest independent spending campaign against an incumbent president that has ever been created.
As it stands, the Bloomberg advertising campaign is squarely focused on states that could help get Bloomberg the nomination, with only about 1 in 4 dollars going to the six swing states that his advisers expect to be competitive in the general election, according to Facebook ad spending data and a source familiar with the television buys, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because that person was not authorized to share the information publicly.
But that swing-state spending has still been considerable. Through Jan. 11, Bloomberg has spent $198 million on television advertising, including more than $47 million for spots in the projected swing states of Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. On Facebook, he has blasted another $3.6 million to voters in those states.
Before the year is over, he has promised to spend $100 million on a digital effort to defeat Trump in swing states, and he has committed millions more to an effort to register 500,000 new voters in those states. He is also building a data operation that he intends to use to elect a Democratic president whether or not he is the nominee, his advisers say.
Mike Bloomberg shifts presidential ad campaign to focus on impeachment
In an interview, Wolfson said he wanted to draw a contrast with Democrats, who are attacking one another in New Hampshire and Iowa. Bloomberg has not competed in those states, knowing he would be unlikely to fare well, and is focused on Super Tuesday on March 3.
“We’ve chosen a different path. They are in Iowa and New Hampshire attacking one another. We’re making the case against Donald Trump,” Wolfson said. “Voters among all else are looking for a candidate that is best qualified to take on Donald Trump in a general election.”
Many of the ads Bloomberg has run include some mention of Trump, with many of the spots focusing on the president’s perceived weaknesses among swing voters.
“Health care is a huge vulnerability for him,” Wolfson said of Trump. “It’s the issue that won the Democrats won the midterms. It is difficult for him to defend his own record on health care.”
Bloomberg’s aides also plan on using the ground campaign that Bloomberg is building against Trump, whether or not he wins the nomination. Those hired in potential general-election swing states — 60 in Arizona and more than 80 in North Carolina, for example — have been told they will have a job through the summer conventions or the November elections to organize against Trump.
Bloomberg seems to have approached the endeavor as a no-risk proposition, given that he has decided that defeating someone he calls an “existential threat to our country” is one of his top priorities.
“My Plan B is a hell of a lot better than anybody else’s Plan A,” he has told advisers, according to one aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private conversations.
Either Bloomberg wins the nomination and the presidency or he remains the 12th-richest person in the world with a chance of taking credit for defeating Trump.
On the stump, Bloomberg seems to delight in needling Trump, calling him a “real estate promoter” and not a businessman. He will recount the phone call from Trump after the 2016 election, when the president-elect offered his cellphone number. Bloomberg says he didn’t bother to write it down.
Bloomberg also repeats an anecdote about Trump not knowing how to use a New York City subway card when they rode together many years ago. Trump has said this description is untrue, saying the gates were opened for them because they were traveling with a large entourage.
“I never had a MetroCard when I rode the subway with him,” Trump told The Washington Post last year.
Mike Bloomberg: "We cannot have a society where you go out on the street and you get blown away. We just have to say enough is enough."
Washington Post
Bloomberg’s Super Bowl ad focuses on the ‘national crisis’ of gun violence, not Trump
By Katie Zezima
January 30, 2020
Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg, who has flooded the airways with ads attacking President Trump, is trying a different approach with a spot during the Super Bowl: His newest ad will focus on a mother whose son was shot and killed.
Bloomberg, who founded the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, is predominantly relying on ads to propel his presidential candidacy. On Sunday — a day before the Iowa caucuses, where Bloomberg is not on the ballot — he will reach his biggest audience yet. More than 100 million people watched last year’s Super Bowl, according to Nielsen ratings.
Long the domain of high-priced and highly produced commercials hyping cars and beer, this year’s game in Miami will have a dose of politics, with spots from Bloomberg and President Trump’s reelection campaign. Fox Sports executives have said the network is selling 30-second ads during the contest between the San Francisco 49ers and Kansas City Chiefs for more than $5 million each.
Bloomberg’s new ad does not mention the president. It features a Texas woman, Calandrian Simpson Kemp, talking about how her son, George H. Kemp Jr., started playing football at age 4, with photos of him holding football gear as a baby and child.
On a Friday morning in September 2013, she learned that her son had been shot overnight.
Her son, a 20-year-old football player who had finished his freshman year at Navarro College, was killed during an altercation in Richmond, Tex.
Kemp calls gun violence a “national crisis.” She starts talking about Bloomberg halfway through the ad, which says that the candidate “started a national gun safety movement.” Kemp does not specifically mention the National Rifle Association, which has long spent money on anti-Bloomberg ads, but she says that the gun lobby is afraid of Bloomberg.
Kemp said she believes the gun control movement has found its candidate in Bloomberg, who, she said, “heard mothers crying. So he started fighting.”
Howard Wolfson, a senior Bloomberg aide, said trying to combat gun violence is a major reason the former New York mayor decided to run for president.
“This is a subject that has animated him,” Wolfson said. “And he did help build this movement of activists all around the country that he stands in solidarity with.”
The advertisement is a significant departure from the spots Bloomberg has run since announcing his candidacy on Nov. 24. Most have focused on slamming Trump on issues including impeachment and health care. Trump has responded to some of them, calling the ads “lies” that are unfair to his White House record.
Bloomberg gets under Trump’s skin as he ramps up spending on 2020 ads
Wolfson said the campaign took a different approach this time, both to highlight Bloomberg’s record on gun control and because Super Bowl ads typically don’t focus on politics.
“My view is that people watching the Super Bowl aren’t interested in attack ads,” he said.
Bloomberg’s campaign filmed videos with people from 12 states whose loved ones were killed in gun violence. They will be posted on the candidate’s website Friday.
In an interview Wednesday, Kemp said she joined Moms Demand Action, which is part of Everytown, in 2014. She met Bloomberg through the group, showing him George’s photo and speaking with him about her son.
Initially a supporter of former congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) in the presidential race because of his gun control plans, Kemp threw her support behind Bloomberg after O’Rourke dropped out of the race.
Kemp said she nearly fell out of bed when Bloomberg’s presidential campaign asked her to appear in a video that would become a Super Bowl ad. Her son always wanted to play in the Super Bowl, and now she hopes others see their loved ones in him.
“So many boys will say . . . that was my brother, too, that happened to my uncle, too,” she said. “They feel like they can identify themselves and feel like they are part of something in this country and not just a negative statistic.”
She talks to her son often, and she has something to say to him on Super Bowl Sunday.
“I’m going to tell George that he made it,” she said. “To know that this was his passion since age four, and to now be able to have the world see my son, to see George Kemp Jr., in the Super Bowl. He made it in a different way and his mama sure is proud of him.”
Michelle Ye Hee Lee contributed to this report.
Bloomberg’s Super Bowl ad focuses on the ‘national crisis’ of gun violence, not Trump
By Katie Zezima
January 30, 2020
Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg, who has flooded the airways with ads attacking President Trump, is trying a different approach with a spot during the Super Bowl: His newest ad will focus on a mother whose son was shot and killed.
Bloomberg, who founded the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, is predominantly relying on ads to propel his presidential candidacy. On Sunday — a day before the Iowa caucuses, where Bloomberg is not on the ballot — he will reach his biggest audience yet. More than 100 million people watched last year’s Super Bowl, according to Nielsen ratings.
Long the domain of high-priced and highly produced commercials hyping cars and beer, this year’s game in Miami will have a dose of politics, with spots from Bloomberg and President Trump’s reelection campaign. Fox Sports executives have said the network is selling 30-second ads during the contest between the San Francisco 49ers and Kansas City Chiefs for more than $5 million each.
Bloomberg’s new ad does not mention the president. It features a Texas woman, Calandrian Simpson Kemp, talking about how her son, George H. Kemp Jr., started playing football at age 4, with photos of him holding football gear as a baby and child.
On a Friday morning in September 2013, she learned that her son had been shot overnight.
Her son, a 20-year-old football player who had finished his freshman year at Navarro College, was killed during an altercation in Richmond, Tex.
Kemp calls gun violence a “national crisis.” She starts talking about Bloomberg halfway through the ad, which says that the candidate “started a national gun safety movement.” Kemp does not specifically mention the National Rifle Association, which has long spent money on anti-Bloomberg ads, but she says that the gun lobby is afraid of Bloomberg.
Kemp said she believes the gun control movement has found its candidate in Bloomberg, who, she said, “heard mothers crying. So he started fighting.”
Howard Wolfson, a senior Bloomberg aide, said trying to combat gun violence is a major reason the former New York mayor decided to run for president.
“This is a subject that has animated him,” Wolfson said. “And he did help build this movement of activists all around the country that he stands in solidarity with.”
The advertisement is a significant departure from the spots Bloomberg has run since announcing his candidacy on Nov. 24. Most have focused on slamming Trump on issues including impeachment and health care. Trump has responded to some of them, calling the ads “lies” that are unfair to his White House record.
Bloomberg gets under Trump’s skin as he ramps up spending on 2020 ads
Wolfson said the campaign took a different approach this time, both to highlight Bloomberg’s record on gun control and because Super Bowl ads typically don’t focus on politics.
“My view is that people watching the Super Bowl aren’t interested in attack ads,” he said.
Bloomberg’s campaign filmed videos with people from 12 states whose loved ones were killed in gun violence. They will be posted on the candidate’s website Friday.
In an interview Wednesday, Kemp said she joined Moms Demand Action, which is part of Everytown, in 2014. She met Bloomberg through the group, showing him George’s photo and speaking with him about her son.
Initially a supporter of former congressman Beto O’Rourke (D-Tex.) in the presidential race because of his gun control plans, Kemp threw her support behind Bloomberg after O’Rourke dropped out of the race.
Kemp said she nearly fell out of bed when Bloomberg’s presidential campaign asked her to appear in a video that would become a Super Bowl ad. Her son always wanted to play in the Super Bowl, and now she hopes others see their loved ones in him.
“So many boys will say . . . that was my brother, too, that happened to my uncle, too,” she said. “They feel like they can identify themselves and feel like they are part of something in this country and not just a negative statistic.”
She talks to her son often, and she has something to say to him on Super Bowl Sunday.
“I’m going to tell George that he made it,” she said. “To know that this was his passion since age four, and to now be able to have the world see my son, to see George Kemp Jr., in the Super Bowl. He made it in a different way and his mama sure is proud of him.”
Michelle Ye Hee Lee contributed to this report.
Washington Post - Some more stuff about Mike Bloomberg, the next President of the United States.
Election 2020
Mike Bloomberg
DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE
Bloomberg was a late entrant into the race, launching his campaign Nov. 24 with a plan to do something no successful presidential candidate has ever done: skip the first four states and spend hundreds of millions of dollars to gain support on Super Tuesday. In addition to trying to win the Democratic Party’s nomination, Bloomberg is also spending big on a general election effort to help ensure President Trump loses in November. He’s hired hundreds of employees to quickly build out campaign operations and get ads in front of voters.
Bloomberg, 77, is one of the world’s richest people and former mayor of New York, where he was elected as a Republican and independent but never a Democrat. Since leaving office, he’s poured money into philanthropic efforts to combat gun violence and climate change. The company Bloomberg founded, which helped make him a billionaire, started out providing real-time financial data to Wall Street firms and has expanded to include a news operation as well.
The Washington Post has an article about Mike Bloomberg, the next President of the United States.
Washington Post
Washingon D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser endorses Mike Bloomberg for president
By Paul Schwartzman and Fenit Nirappil
January 30, 2020
D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser endorsed Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg Thursday, calling the billionaire former mayor of New York City “the only candidate who will unify the country and defeat Donald Trump.”
Bloomberg came to Washington to deliver a speech outlining his plan to create affordable housing and ease the homeless crisis that is posing challenges for large cities across the country, including the nation’s capital.
Bowser appeared with him at the Atlas Performing Arts Center on H Street NE, a gentrifying corridor that illustrates the challenges cities face in balancing economic development and the needs of the poor.
She chose Bloomberg, a businessman who served three terms as mayor, from a crowded field of candidates that includes former vice president Joe Biden, who worked closely with the District during the Obama administration and whom she has praised in the past.
“What’s most important to me is we have a candidate who can defeat Donald Trump,” Bowser said at a news conference, praising Bloomberg’s plans for affordable housing and gun control. “I think Mike has demonstrated the commitment to be in this race until the end and put the necessary resources in to get it done.”
The crowd of about 100 people included top D.C. government officials and fixtures of local politics, including Cora Masters Barry, widow of former mayor Marion Barry.
Bloomberg, who entered the race in November, ranked fourth among Democrats and Democratic-leaning registered independent primary voters in a Washington Post-ABC News poll published Sunday, slightly trailing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and far behind Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
He is not on the ballot in next week’s Iowa caucuses or the following week’s New Hampshire primary, but he is pouring tens of millions of dollars into the 14 Super Tuesday states hosting primaries March 3. The District’s Democratic primary is June 2.
Bloomberg has been criticized, especially by African Americans and civil rights leaders, for backing an aggressive “stop-and-frisk” policy as New York mayor, which led to police officers stopping a disproportionate number of minorities. Shortly before launching his presidential bid, Bloomberg said he was “wrong” for supporting the policy.
Bowser, who will be a national campaign co-chair, is among more than two dozen current and former mayors to endorse Bloomberg, a list that also includes former Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter. Bloomberg praised Bowser last week at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, saying she is “doing a terrific job” and that he hopes that “one day soon we can call her governor” — a reference to his support for D.C. statehood.
Her debut as a Bloomberg campaign surrogate was on “The Russ Parr Morning Show,” a syndicated radio show based in the District. When a host asked her how voters should respond to the “stain” of Bloomberg’s support for stop-and-frisk, Bowser said she accepted Bloomberg’s about-face.
“He regrets very much that he wasn’t looking more closely at the data and recognizing the disproportionate impact on African Americans,” Bowser said.
“All mayors are going to go and talk about public safety and do everything they can to keep their city safe, that’s one of the first jobs of the mayor,” Bowser continued. “But no mayor wants to support a policy that underneath it is harassing innocent people.”
She also praised Bloomberg’s campaign strategy to focus on Super Tuesday states instead of the much less diverse Iowa and New Hampshire.
“Mike is . . . taking an entirely different approach, and he’s going to states all over the country, populous states, diverse states that better reflect America to spread his message,” she said. “He’s laying the groundwork in D.C. for D.C. to be the 51st state, and he wants to make an early investment in our town.”
Washingon D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser endorses Mike Bloomberg for president
By Paul Schwartzman and Fenit Nirappil
January 30, 2020
D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser endorsed Democratic presidential hopeful Mike Bloomberg Thursday, calling the billionaire former mayor of New York City “the only candidate who will unify the country and defeat Donald Trump.”
Bloomberg came to Washington to deliver a speech outlining his plan to create affordable housing and ease the homeless crisis that is posing challenges for large cities across the country, including the nation’s capital.
Bowser appeared with him at the Atlas Performing Arts Center on H Street NE, a gentrifying corridor that illustrates the challenges cities face in balancing economic development and the needs of the poor.
She chose Bloomberg, a businessman who served three terms as mayor, from a crowded field of candidates that includes former vice president Joe Biden, who worked closely with the District during the Obama administration and whom she has praised in the past.
“What’s most important to me is we have a candidate who can defeat Donald Trump,” Bowser said at a news conference, praising Bloomberg’s plans for affordable housing and gun control. “I think Mike has demonstrated the commitment to be in this race until the end and put the necessary resources in to get it done.”
The crowd of about 100 people included top D.C. government officials and fixtures of local politics, including Cora Masters Barry, widow of former mayor Marion Barry.
Bloomberg, who entered the race in November, ranked fourth among Democrats and Democratic-leaning registered independent primary voters in a Washington Post-ABC News poll published Sunday, slightly trailing Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and far behind Biden and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
He is not on the ballot in next week’s Iowa caucuses or the following week’s New Hampshire primary, but he is pouring tens of millions of dollars into the 14 Super Tuesday states hosting primaries March 3. The District’s Democratic primary is June 2.
Bloomberg has been criticized, especially by African Americans and civil rights leaders, for backing an aggressive “stop-and-frisk” policy as New York mayor, which led to police officers stopping a disproportionate number of minorities. Shortly before launching his presidential bid, Bloomberg said he was “wrong” for supporting the policy.
Bowser, who will be a national campaign co-chair, is among more than two dozen current and former mayors to endorse Bloomberg, a list that also includes former Philadelphia mayor Michael Nutter. Bloomberg praised Bowser last week at the U.S. Conference of Mayors, saying she is “doing a terrific job” and that he hopes that “one day soon we can call her governor” — a reference to his support for D.C. statehood.
Her debut as a Bloomberg campaign surrogate was on “The Russ Parr Morning Show,” a syndicated radio show based in the District. When a host asked her how voters should respond to the “stain” of Bloomberg’s support for stop-and-frisk, Bowser said she accepted Bloomberg’s about-face.
“He regrets very much that he wasn’t looking more closely at the data and recognizing the disproportionate impact on African Americans,” Bowser said.
“All mayors are going to go and talk about public safety and do everything they can to keep their city safe, that’s one of the first jobs of the mayor,” Bowser continued. “But no mayor wants to support a policy that underneath it is harassing innocent people.”
She also praised Bloomberg’s campaign strategy to focus on Super Tuesday states instead of the much less diverse Iowa and New Hampshire.
“Mike is . . . taking an entirely different approach, and he’s going to states all over the country, populous states, diverse states that better reflect America to spread his message,” she said. “He’s laying the groundwork in D.C. for D.C. to be the 51st state, and he wants to make an early investment in our town.”
We can resolve our most pressing problems if we have the right leader to turn innovative ideas into reality@MikeBloomberg is a problem-solver with a proven track record of getting things done. He’s a mentor & friend & I’m proud to endorse him for president. #MikeWillGetItDone
Today, January 30, 2020, I bought a subscription to the Washington Post. I also have subscriptions to the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. Thank goodness BBC News is free (and better than what I've been paying for).
You will be charged $39 for the initial 52 week term and $100 every 52 weeks thereafter until you cancel. Sales tax may apply. If the rate for your subscription changes, we will notify you of the new amount at least 10 days in advance of the date of your next payment. By subscribing, you agree to the above terms, the Terms of Service, Digital Products Terms of Sale & Privacy Policy.
Faith is an excuse to believe in bullshit that makes cowardly morons feel good.
"If one must have faith in order to believe something, or believe in something, then the likelihood of that something having any truth or value is considerably diminished."
-- Christopher Hitchens
-- Christopher Hitchens
I wrote this at the Wall Street Journal 4 years ago. A fucktard thinks "the gift of faith" is a good thing.
FUCKTARD: One of the main things to keep in mind is that not a single dogma (established teaching) of the church has been changed once it has been established as dogma. If any were to change it will call into question the very belief that the church is guided by the Holy Spirit and that the Church is infallible. Cardinal Gibbons made this statement shortly after the first Vatican Council in his book Faith of our Fathers and not a single established teaching has been changed that he outlines in the book. It is great that we can trust in God's church and not have to rely on his Bishops.
ME: Sorry about this nitpicking but your "Holy Spirit" is just a fantasy. It's not real. Spirits, whether or not they are holy, do not exist. Leprechauns have the same problem.
FUCKTARD: It is obvious you do not understand who the Holy Spirit is from the Christian perspective and by your comments you have not been granted the gift of faith. You of course are entitled to your opinion. For Catholics, we know the Holy Spirit, guides our Church and ourselves as part of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three Divine Persons of One God. An article of Faith and a cornerstone of our beliefs.
ME: Sir, I endured 8 years of brainwashing in a Catholic school. I know exactly what your holy spook is and I know it's not real. This is reality. Reality is not an opinion. Today we have something called the "21st century". We know things these days. It's not like the Dark Ages the god-soaked live in.
ME: Sorry about this nitpicking but your "Holy Spirit" is just a fantasy. It's not real. Spirits, whether or not they are holy, do not exist. Leprechauns have the same problem.
FUCKTARD: It is obvious you do not understand who the Holy Spirit is from the Christian perspective and by your comments you have not been granted the gift of faith. You of course are entitled to your opinion. For Catholics, we know the Holy Spirit, guides our Church and ourselves as part of the Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Three Divine Persons of One God. An article of Faith and a cornerstone of our beliefs.
ME: Sir, I endured 8 years of brainwashing in a Catholic school. I know exactly what your holy spook is and I know it's not real. This is reality. Reality is not an opinion. Today we have something called the "21st century". We know things these days. It's not like the Dark Ages the god-soaked live in.
I don't like Christians.
"Is it rude to correct people?"
It's OK if you're nice. However, if it's a Christian then ridicule is probably required.
It's OK if you're nice. However, if it's a Christian then ridicule is probably required.
Part of my income is AT&T dividends. I will keep my shares of AT&T until I drop dead. I'm not interested in capital gains. I only care about the dividends.
AT&T: Well, That Was A Surprise
Very safe dividend
Although the dividend has been hiked again and we do fully expect that the dividend will be hiked again in December 2020, it's more than covered by free cash flow. While dividend hikes have a negative impact to the payout ratio in and of itself, if free cash flow comes in at $28 billion for the year, we project the payout ratio will remain comfortably under 55% for the year. This is a massive improvement from years past. The dividend has been raised like clockwork every year and we see this as continuing. At approximately $15 billion in dividends paid out this year, divided by $28 billion in free cash flow, we see a payout ratio of around 53%-54%. This is very safe. Dividend payments will need to grow by 33% at these free cash flow levels for us to be concerned ($20 billion in payouts, which would bring the payout ratio to back over 70%). Keep in mind, we are, of course, projecting another one penny per quarter increase at the end of the year, so that would only bump payouts by about $300 million. There's a lot of wiggle room.
Final thoughts
This was mostly an in-line quarter with our expectations that we laid out. A few more video sub losses than expected, but positive expense management helped boost EPS above our expectation, while the dividend, that juicy 5.3% yield, remains incredibly safe. More debt reduction and plans for growth of the evolving company are expected in 2020. We love the name, you should own it.
Very safe dividend
Although the dividend has been hiked again and we do fully expect that the dividend will be hiked again in December 2020, it's more than covered by free cash flow. While dividend hikes have a negative impact to the payout ratio in and of itself, if free cash flow comes in at $28 billion for the year, we project the payout ratio will remain comfortably under 55% for the year. This is a massive improvement from years past. The dividend has been raised like clockwork every year and we see this as continuing. At approximately $15 billion in dividends paid out this year, divided by $28 billion in free cash flow, we see a payout ratio of around 53%-54%. This is very safe. Dividend payments will need to grow by 33% at these free cash flow levels for us to be concerned ($20 billion in payouts, which would bring the payout ratio to back over 70%). Keep in mind, we are, of course, projecting another one penny per quarter increase at the end of the year, so that would only bump payouts by about $300 million. There's a lot of wiggle room.
Final thoughts
This was mostly an in-line quarter with our expectations that we laid out. A few more video sub losses than expected, but positive expense management helped boost EPS above our expectation, while the dividend, that juicy 5.3% yield, remains incredibly safe. More debt reduction and plans for growth of the evolving company are expected in 2020. We love the name, you should own it.
Something I wrote at a website that's infested with evolution deniers, also known as Christian assholes.
Do you think Christian creationists are wonderful people?
For example, they are constantly trying to suppress the teaching of evolution so that the students learn nothing about it. Isn't that wonderful?
And when necessary they will harass and threaten biology teachers who teach evolution. Isn't that wonderful?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Some "Idiot America" stuff written by know-nothing Christian assholes who think evolution is wrong:
"Why do the school systems push an un-proven theory about evolution onto students, and teaching as if it's a fact? The theory of evolution has never been 100% proven, so why teach it. Creationism has also not been proven as fact. If the school systems are going to teach a theory they should first tell the students that what they are about to teach is not fact, so you must take it with a grain of salt."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
"Don't you think you should prove it before you teach it as fact?"
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Anyone who doesn't suck up to this anti-science asshole is a bigot:
"Are you one of those anti-Christian/creationism hate-mongers and bigots?"
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A normal person wrote this. It's a good example of Idiot America's biology teachers who know nothing about biology.
"I had to learn it on my own during high school. It wasn't taught until I reached college. At least, back then, they weren't pushing intelligent design or creation science."
For example, they are constantly trying to suppress the teaching of evolution so that the students learn nothing about it. Isn't that wonderful?
And when necessary they will harass and threaten biology teachers who teach evolution. Isn't that wonderful?
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Some "Idiot America" stuff written by know-nothing Christian assholes who think evolution is wrong:
"Why do the school systems push an un-proven theory about evolution onto students, and teaching as if it's a fact? The theory of evolution has never been 100% proven, so why teach it. Creationism has also not been proven as fact. If the school systems are going to teach a theory they should first tell the students that what they are about to teach is not fact, so you must take it with a grain of salt."
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
"Don't you think you should prove it before you teach it as fact?"
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Anyone who doesn't suck up to this anti-science asshole is a bigot:
"Are you one of those anti-Christian/creationism hate-mongers and bigots?"
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
A normal person wrote this. It's a good example of Idiot America's biology teachers who know nothing about biology.
"I had to learn it on my own during high school. It wasn't taught until I reached college. At least, back then, they weren't pushing intelligent design or creation science."
This is Idiot America. I'm not making this stuff up. We have millions of batshit crazy fucktards.
"What proof do the Christians have about the Earth only being 6000 years old?"
They think the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Imagine the breathtaking stupidity required to believe this anti-science anti-reality bullshit. These people are not just stupid, they're totally insane. And there are millions of them in Idiot America.
They think the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Imagine the breathtaking stupidity required to believe this anti-science anti-reality bullshit. These people are not just stupid, they're totally insane. And there are millions of them in Idiot America.
Imagine the stupidity required to believe in a religion in the 21st century.
"Which religion is the right religion?"
All religions have one thing in common: They were invented by morons who made stuff up.
All religions have one thing in common: They were invented by morons who made stuff up.
Wednesday, January 29, 2020
"Evolution is a tinkerer, not an engineer. Evolution does not design new organisms; rather, new organisms emerge from the inherent genetic variation that occurs in organisms."
"If God made us in his image, he must be full on retard right? Unintelligent Design?"
Your question, well done. I found this answer:
An omnipotent god could do anything (we guess), but one who is omnipotent, serious, and thoughtful (at least as serious and thoughtful as an exemplary human) would not route wiring from giraffe’s larynx around its aorta.
The routing we see in the giraffe makes the nerve at least ten times longer than a direct route, which requires more material to make the nerve and makes the nerve impulses take at least ten times longer to reach their target. It also exposes ten times more nerve to damage. The giraffe routing is not only unintelligent, it's spectacularly unintelligent! There are thousands of examples like this in nature, where evolution has created peculiar structures that would be far better if they were designed rather than evolved. In fact, just about everywhere you turn in biology, there are stupid "designs" that no intelligent designer would make. Contrary to Dr. Hunter's claims, these are some of the most convincing examples of why evolution must be true. In each case the "stupid" design makes perfect sense when you look at the complete history of how that feature evolved.
Your question, well done. I found this answer:
An omnipotent god could do anything (we guess), but one who is omnipotent, serious, and thoughtful (at least as serious and thoughtful as an exemplary human) would not route wiring from giraffe’s larynx around its aorta.
The routing we see in the giraffe makes the nerve at least ten times longer than a direct route, which requires more material to make the nerve and makes the nerve impulses take at least ten times longer to reach their target. It also exposes ten times more nerve to damage. The giraffe routing is not only unintelligent, it's spectacularly unintelligent! There are thousands of examples like this in nature, where evolution has created peculiar structures that would be far better if they were designed rather than evolved. In fact, just about everywhere you turn in biology, there are stupid "designs" that no intelligent designer would make. Contrary to Dr. Hunter's claims, these are some of the most convincing examples of why evolution must be true. In each case the "stupid" design makes perfect sense when you look at the complete history of how that feature evolved.
"One Season" The Roches
One season I was born
Fell down like an acorn
I am the only tree
And everybody leaves
I've got to get away from you
Bud growing up at me
Resentful face I see
A harsh light seems to damn you
Is it because I am you?
I've got to get away from you
I need to find a love that's true
Loose leaf lay on the bed
Hair falling around her head
I watched her from the shore
I can't do any more
I've got to get away from you
I'll come and visit you in the zoo
We go on arguing
No one can say a thing
Set down your key and trumpet
Go have a dream and hump it
I've got to get away from you
You don't know what you put me through
Prized fighter with bruised pride
A fuse blew when you tried
To fix the worn out wire
And set the house on fire
I've got to get away from you
If only for a day or two
The Chinese dictatorship loves censorship.
WORLD
ASIA
CHINA
Wall Street Journal - China Strains to Stamp Out Coronavirus Criticisms at Home
Beijing takes steps to shape narrative after negative comments over government’s response to deadly outbreak keep circulating on social media.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has told authorities to ‘strengthen the guidance of public opinions’ over the coronavirus outbreak.
By Lingling Wei
January28, 2020
BEIJING—Chinese President Xi Jinping built up what many consider to be the world’s most sophisticated censorship machine to control public debate. Now that system is being put to the test as authorities try to dictate the narrative around the viral outbreak appearing across the country.
With criticism of the government spreading on social media, Mr. Xi has repeatedly instructed authorities to “strengthen the guidance of public opinions”—language seen as a call for censorship in Communist Party-speak.
State media outlets have been told to publish only information released through official channels, Chinese journalists say. They have also been instructed to focus on promoting “positive energy” and to avoid any critical reporting of officialdom, they say.
Social-media posts are being deleted, including comments calling out the government for failing to contain the virus or questioning official data related to the disease. Censors appear to have also targeted posts describing the predicament of people stuck in places that have been closed off due to the respiratory virus, a new type of coronavirus that originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan.
Yet negative messages continue to get through. In one case, social-media users have circulated comments from a letter to Wuhan’s government from lawyers who questioned its decision to briefly detain eight people for allegedly spreading false information after they were among the first to raise concerns about the virus.
“Exactly who is right and who is wrong? That matters to the public’s right to know,” said the letter, parts of which continue to appear on WeChat, a popular messaging app. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, one of the two lawyers who wrote the letter, Shang Manqiang, based in Wuhan, said: “If Hubei people must die, we should die knowing the reason.” Many cities in Hubei, a central Chinese province of which Wuhan is the capital, have been put on lockdown as the outbreak spreads.
Elsewhere, users of social media have replaced the Chinese term for “coronavirus” with “government official-shaped virus”—which sounds the same in Mandarin—to mock what they see as a fumbling response from the state.
Critics say the clampdown marks a reversal from earlier in the crisis, when officials drew praise from international authorities for being more transparent in sharing health information with them than during the early days of the severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, outbreak, 17 years ago.
“Having realized just how serious this is, and how potentially destabilizing it is for the Party, the Party is now scrambling to fully mobilize resources to tackle the crisis,” said a note in China Neican, a China-focused newsletter coedited by Adam Ni, a China researcher at Macquarie University in Sydney. “Ultimately, the Chinese people are likely to judge the Party harshly despite the Party’s efforts at narrative control.”
At a meeting on Sunday, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the country’s top internet regulator, said its goal is to create a “good environment” for the government’s fight against the epidemic, according to a statement posted on its website.
Beijing officials say there is a genuine desire to promote accurate information and block out false reports that could increase panic.
“We adhere to openness and transparency, release timely the development of the epidemic and the progress with its prevention and control, and actively respond to concerns,” the Information Office of China’s State Council said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal. On Monday, the information office said, the cabinet-level National Health Commission started to hold a daily press conference to better inform the public.
Still, many residents remain angry with the government, which some say underplayed the threat from a disease that has infected more than 4,500 people and killed at least 106. The fact that criticism keeps appearing on social media—despite China’s far-reaching censorship machine—speaks to the challenge that Beijing faces in maintaining stability as fear and frustration spread.
Some say the criticism could force the government to be more responsive to the public if it keeps piling up and breaking through the censorship. “Even an authoritarian government needs to take into account public opinions,” said one editor at the official Xinhua News Agency.
Mr. Xi issued his instruction to better guide public opinions on Jan. 20 as part of his directive to authorities on how to prevent the virus’s spread. During a meeting of top leaders on Sunday, Mr. Xi repeated that message as a way to bolster “social confidence” in the government’s ability to fight the epidemic.
Beijing’s challenge is apparent in the case of Zhang Ouya, a senior reporter at the state-controlled Hubei Daily in Wuhan.
On Jan. 24, a day after Beijing made the unprecedented decision to lock down Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, Mr. Zhang took to Weibo to call for the replacement of Wuhan’s government, which some citizens have said was slow to respond when the virus was first discovered late last year.
“Wuhan must immediately have a change of guard!” Mr. Zhang wrote. A leader “as fierce as” Wang Qishan —China’s vice president and the leader of the effort to fight SARS in the early 2000s—should be put at the helm, he wrote.
Mr. Zhang’s Weibo post went viral. Soon afterward, his employer, the Hubei Daily Media Group, told him to delete it and sent a letter of apology to the Wuhan government, according to people familiar with the matter.
The letter, viewed by the Journal, said Mr. Zhang’s action “has disturbed the current effort to control the epidemic and made various levels of the leadership uncomfortable.” The company pledged to better monitor employees and to spread only information of “positive energy.”
Officials at the Hubei Daily Media Group couldn’t be reached for comment. Reached by phone, Mr. Zhang said his Weibo post, now deleted, “represents only his own opinions.” He declined to comment further.
As they try to crack down on information deemed unfavorable to the government, authorities are trying to open up more official channels for the public to vent and to promote messages endorsed by the leadership. The State Council, China’s cabinet, since late last week has been letting people submit information via its website on any perceived official misconduct during the outbreak.
Still, a recent complaint posted on the website about how some health officials in Wuhan might have delayed reporting the number of infected cases was taken down soon after it started to circulate on social media.
Criticism also became sensitive after a press conference held Sunday by the provincial government of Hubei. During the briefing, which was intended to update the public on the province’s effort to control the epidemic, the mayor of Wuhan wore his medical mask upside down. The Hubei governor misspoke several times regarding the number of masks produced in the province.
One social-media user, whose account is dubbed “Boiling the Realm,” questioned the event.
“The press conference couldn’t have been more high-profile given the current special situation,” the user wrote. “But it became such an opportunity for the public to complain about the capabilities of government officials. It couldn’t have been stranger than this.”
The post was deleted a few hours after it was widely circulated in Chinese social media. Efforts to reach the person behind the account, which was registered by a male user, were unsuccessful.
Officials in the city of Wuhan and Hubei province declined to comment.
—Bingyan Wang, Kersten Zhang and Wenxin Fan contributed to this article.
ASIA
CHINA
Wall Street Journal - China Strains to Stamp Out Coronavirus Criticisms at Home
Beijing takes steps to shape narrative after negative comments over government’s response to deadly outbreak keep circulating on social media.
Chinese President Xi Jinping has told authorities to ‘strengthen the guidance of public opinions’ over the coronavirus outbreak.
By Lingling Wei
January28, 2020
BEIJING—Chinese President Xi Jinping built up what many consider to be the world’s most sophisticated censorship machine to control public debate. Now that system is being put to the test as authorities try to dictate the narrative around the viral outbreak appearing across the country.
With criticism of the government spreading on social media, Mr. Xi has repeatedly instructed authorities to “strengthen the guidance of public opinions”—language seen as a call for censorship in Communist Party-speak.
State media outlets have been told to publish only information released through official channels, Chinese journalists say. They have also been instructed to focus on promoting “positive energy” and to avoid any critical reporting of officialdom, they say.
Social-media posts are being deleted, including comments calling out the government for failing to contain the virus or questioning official data related to the disease. Censors appear to have also targeted posts describing the predicament of people stuck in places that have been closed off due to the respiratory virus, a new type of coronavirus that originated in the Chinese city of Wuhan.
Yet negative messages continue to get through. In one case, social-media users have circulated comments from a letter to Wuhan’s government from lawyers who questioned its decision to briefly detain eight people for allegedly spreading false information after they were among the first to raise concerns about the virus.
“Exactly who is right and who is wrong? That matters to the public’s right to know,” said the letter, parts of which continue to appear on WeChat, a popular messaging app. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal, one of the two lawyers who wrote the letter, Shang Manqiang, based in Wuhan, said: “If Hubei people must die, we should die knowing the reason.” Many cities in Hubei, a central Chinese province of which Wuhan is the capital, have been put on lockdown as the outbreak spreads.
Elsewhere, users of social media have replaced the Chinese term for “coronavirus” with “government official-shaped virus”—which sounds the same in Mandarin—to mock what they see as a fumbling response from the state.
Critics say the clampdown marks a reversal from earlier in the crisis, when officials drew praise from international authorities for being more transparent in sharing health information with them than during the early days of the severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, outbreak, 17 years ago.
“Having realized just how serious this is, and how potentially destabilizing it is for the Party, the Party is now scrambling to fully mobilize resources to tackle the crisis,” said a note in China Neican, a China-focused newsletter coedited by Adam Ni, a China researcher at Macquarie University in Sydney. “Ultimately, the Chinese people are likely to judge the Party harshly despite the Party’s efforts at narrative control.”
At a meeting on Sunday, the Cyberspace Administration of China, the country’s top internet regulator, said its goal is to create a “good environment” for the government’s fight against the epidemic, according to a statement posted on its website.
Beijing officials say there is a genuine desire to promote accurate information and block out false reports that could increase panic.
“We adhere to openness and transparency, release timely the development of the epidemic and the progress with its prevention and control, and actively respond to concerns,” the Information Office of China’s State Council said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal. On Monday, the information office said, the cabinet-level National Health Commission started to hold a daily press conference to better inform the public.
Still, many residents remain angry with the government, which some say underplayed the threat from a disease that has infected more than 4,500 people and killed at least 106. The fact that criticism keeps appearing on social media—despite China’s far-reaching censorship machine—speaks to the challenge that Beijing faces in maintaining stability as fear and frustration spread.
Some say the criticism could force the government to be more responsive to the public if it keeps piling up and breaking through the censorship. “Even an authoritarian government needs to take into account public opinions,” said one editor at the official Xinhua News Agency.
Mr. Xi issued his instruction to better guide public opinions on Jan. 20 as part of his directive to authorities on how to prevent the virus’s spread. During a meeting of top leaders on Sunday, Mr. Xi repeated that message as a way to bolster “social confidence” in the government’s ability to fight the epidemic.
Beijing’s challenge is apparent in the case of Zhang Ouya, a senior reporter at the state-controlled Hubei Daily in Wuhan.
On Jan. 24, a day after Beijing made the unprecedented decision to lock down Wuhan, a city of 11 million people, Mr. Zhang took to Weibo to call for the replacement of Wuhan’s government, which some citizens have said was slow to respond when the virus was first discovered late last year.
“Wuhan must immediately have a change of guard!” Mr. Zhang wrote. A leader “as fierce as” Wang Qishan —China’s vice president and the leader of the effort to fight SARS in the early 2000s—should be put at the helm, he wrote.
Mr. Zhang’s Weibo post went viral. Soon afterward, his employer, the Hubei Daily Media Group, told him to delete it and sent a letter of apology to the Wuhan government, according to people familiar with the matter.
The letter, viewed by the Journal, said Mr. Zhang’s action “has disturbed the current effort to control the epidemic and made various levels of the leadership uncomfortable.” The company pledged to better monitor employees and to spread only information of “positive energy.”
Officials at the Hubei Daily Media Group couldn’t be reached for comment. Reached by phone, Mr. Zhang said his Weibo post, now deleted, “represents only his own opinions.” He declined to comment further.
As they try to crack down on information deemed unfavorable to the government, authorities are trying to open up more official channels for the public to vent and to promote messages endorsed by the leadership. The State Council, China’s cabinet, since late last week has been letting people submit information via its website on any perceived official misconduct during the outbreak.
Still, a recent complaint posted on the website about how some health officials in Wuhan might have delayed reporting the number of infected cases was taken down soon after it started to circulate on social media.
Criticism also became sensitive after a press conference held Sunday by the provincial government of Hubei. During the briefing, which was intended to update the public on the province’s effort to control the epidemic, the mayor of Wuhan wore his medical mask upside down. The Hubei governor misspoke several times regarding the number of masks produced in the province.
One social-media user, whose account is dubbed “Boiling the Realm,” questioned the event.
“The press conference couldn’t have been more high-profile given the current special situation,” the user wrote. “But it became such an opportunity for the public to complain about the capabilities of government officials. It couldn’t have been stranger than this.”
The post was deleted a few hours after it was widely circulated in Chinese social media. Efforts to reach the person behind the account, which was registered by a male user, were unsuccessful.
Officials in the city of Wuhan and Hubei province declined to comment.
—Bingyan Wang, Kersten Zhang and Wenxin Fan contributed to this article.
This is about a Muslim who threw out Allah.
A Muslim's Way Out of Islam
by Achal Adhuli
I think books taught me to think and judge things rationally, to escape from the world of prejudice and irrational beliefs. Books were my true liberator, it's the best companion I ever had. But, it wasn't always fun. My family didn't take it lightly as they were noticing some change in me and also my teachers at school. In fact it was the teachers who gave me all sorts of trouble.
I read the Quran over and over again and couldn't believe what I was reading. I started to mark the questionable verses and wrote comments beside them. I wondered, are these versus full of hate being spread and preached everyday in all corners of my town? I was completely dumbstruck. Initially, I thought it was the translation that was to be blamed. But I collected many different translations of the Quran and very reputed Islamic scholars translated some of them. You can say I was really shocked and I spent almost two years of my year 9 and 10 searching for answers.
I started to question a lot to spread my message. I learned it from the life of Socrates, that's what he used to do, and it can be very effective sometimes. I started to question Islamic beliefs and traditions in a lot in my writing and that put me in trouble.
They physically attacked me one night- I was very lucky to escape only with some sharp cuts and bruises. An Islamist organization published a book and declared me a Nastik-Murtad or "Apostate-Infidel". So, I didn't really have to declare leaving Islam publicly, they did the honor for me.
After that I decided to leave the country and in 2003 I came to Australia as a student. As to whether I am still in danger today, I can say that I never underestimate their reach. It’s not just me, anyone who is non-Muslim, or a born-Muslim who doesn’t care about Islam much -- anyone who is different from them is in danger today and it’s the sad reality.
www.ex-muslim.org.au
by Achal Adhuli
I think books taught me to think and judge things rationally, to escape from the world of prejudice and irrational beliefs. Books were my true liberator, it's the best companion I ever had. But, it wasn't always fun. My family didn't take it lightly as they were noticing some change in me and also my teachers at school. In fact it was the teachers who gave me all sorts of trouble.
I read the Quran over and over again and couldn't believe what I was reading. I started to mark the questionable verses and wrote comments beside them. I wondered, are these versus full of hate being spread and preached everyday in all corners of my town? I was completely dumbstruck. Initially, I thought it was the translation that was to be blamed. But I collected many different translations of the Quran and very reputed Islamic scholars translated some of them. You can say I was really shocked and I spent almost two years of my year 9 and 10 searching for answers.
I started to question a lot to spread my message. I learned it from the life of Socrates, that's what he used to do, and it can be very effective sometimes. I started to question Islamic beliefs and traditions in a lot in my writing and that put me in trouble.
They physically attacked me one night- I was very lucky to escape only with some sharp cuts and bruises. An Islamist organization published a book and declared me a Nastik-Murtad or "Apostate-Infidel". So, I didn't really have to declare leaving Islam publicly, they did the honor for me.
After that I decided to leave the country and in 2003 I came to Australia as a student. As to whether I am still in danger today, I can say that I never underestimate their reach. It’s not just me, anyone who is non-Muslim, or a born-Muslim who doesn’t care about Islam much -- anyone who is different from them is in danger today and it’s the sad reality.
www.ex-muslim.org.au
An interesting thing about Islam. If Muslims throw out their disgusting cult, their family might kill them.
Leaving Islam cost me my relationship with my family but it made me a stronger person
By Sana Qadar
For many of us, our relationship with faith and religion evolves over time.
For some, the decision to stop believing isn't just private and personal — it can have a profound impact on relationships with family.
In this last interview of our three-part series, we hear from Nik, a woman who grew up in a conservative Muslim family.
Describe your upbringing:
My mother is actually a convert. She converted to Islam when I was about three and then met my stepfather and then very quickly became practicing.
So I'm the oldest of seven. Growing up we'd wake up in the morning for prayers, read Koran, read Koran again after school… living life on repeat.
When I hit puberty, my parents decided I couldn't be mixing with boys — or girls who might be a bad influence … so I was home-schooled from 11.
Why did you stop believing?
I'd always question why. Why do I have to do this? Why do I have to wear a hijab? Why, why, why.
As you get older the answers you're given stop making sense.
It was around when I was 15 I decided that I didn't believe … but that wasn't an option to come out and say it in my household. And you're raised in such an insular society you don't know who you can speak to.
I was 19 when I reached a point where I was like, "I'm an adult, I should be able to do what I want… why can't I go to university?"
My parents would be like, 'No, it's a haram environment with boys and girls mixing."
I essentially told my family that I no longer believed the day I left home. I was like, "F you, F you God, I'm out, bye".
And then I left home.
I had nowhere to go, I had no work experience, I had no money.
I went to live in a half-way house … I realized I needed to start working on myself and building my own mental strength and life.
How has your relationship with family been impacted?
Obviously, you never want to lose your family. I still love my family. Initially I tried to engage with them, but they'd be like, "You have to come home, you're ruining our family's reputation."
It was a lot of emotional manipulation.
I officially cut them out when I was 24.
When a boy breaks my heart or I'm facing medical things, you want your mum there, you want your family. And I don't have that.
But then I also have to weigh up that they didn't bring me anything but sadness or anxiety or stress in my life.
What's life like now?
Nik started the group Ex-Muslims Australia to help other people leaving the faith find support.
There's this thing where people generally feel by leaving the faith that we hate the people within the faith. I'm like, "No!"
My family are Muslim, I don't hate my family. I don't hate my Muslim co-workers. But what I do hate is the fact that when it came down to it, religion meant more to my family and friends, than me as a person.
What I do [with Ex-Muslims Australia], it's not about bringing hate, it's all about bringing awareness to the fact that people should be able to leave a religion without having to lose their family.
I've been asked over the years whether I regret leaving, and to be honest, I don't. Because the person I've become today is a strong, independent, confident person. I'm not afraid to say what's on my mind.
I do regret that leaving means that I no longer have a family support network, and it means that I am essentially alone in this big, scary world.
But I don't regret the person that it's turned me into.
If you're struggling, there are groups online that can help (including the organisation mentioned in this article), as well as resources like Kids Helpline, which helps young people up to the age of 25 (1800 55 1800) or Beyond Blue (1300 22 4636).
Why do some families shun their unbelieving members?
Gary Bouma, Emeritus Professor of sociology at Monash University, stresses that in general, it's rare for families to shun members who no longer believe in God.
"The simple facts of the matter are, if you have two religious parents, you have a 50 per cent chance of half of your children being religious themselves … so the background is this is something parents have to deal with," he says.
But he says a culture of "competitive piety" in some groups or families can fuel ostracisation: This idea that "if you are good because you don't do six things, I'm much better because I don't do 12," Mr Bouma explains.
"Competitive piety drives these kinds of high-temperature, very strict, hyper-orthodox kinds of groups. If you violate that, you've violated a really important code of that subgroup."
By Sana Qadar
For many of us, our relationship with faith and religion evolves over time.
For some, the decision to stop believing isn't just private and personal — it can have a profound impact on relationships with family.
In this last interview of our three-part series, we hear from Nik, a woman who grew up in a conservative Muslim family.
Describe your upbringing:
My mother is actually a convert. She converted to Islam when I was about three and then met my stepfather and then very quickly became practicing.
So I'm the oldest of seven. Growing up we'd wake up in the morning for prayers, read Koran, read Koran again after school… living life on repeat.
When I hit puberty, my parents decided I couldn't be mixing with boys — or girls who might be a bad influence … so I was home-schooled from 11.
Why did you stop believing?
I'd always question why. Why do I have to do this? Why do I have to wear a hijab? Why, why, why.
As you get older the answers you're given stop making sense.
It was around when I was 15 I decided that I didn't believe … but that wasn't an option to come out and say it in my household. And you're raised in such an insular society you don't know who you can speak to.
I was 19 when I reached a point where I was like, "I'm an adult, I should be able to do what I want… why can't I go to university?"
My parents would be like, 'No, it's a haram environment with boys and girls mixing."
I essentially told my family that I no longer believed the day I left home. I was like, "F you, F you God, I'm out, bye".
And then I left home.
I had nowhere to go, I had no work experience, I had no money.
I went to live in a half-way house … I realized I needed to start working on myself and building my own mental strength and life.
How has your relationship with family been impacted?
Obviously, you never want to lose your family. I still love my family. Initially I tried to engage with them, but they'd be like, "You have to come home, you're ruining our family's reputation."
It was a lot of emotional manipulation.
I officially cut them out when I was 24.
When a boy breaks my heart or I'm facing medical things, you want your mum there, you want your family. And I don't have that.
But then I also have to weigh up that they didn't bring me anything but sadness or anxiety or stress in my life.
What's life like now?
Nik started the group Ex-Muslims Australia to help other people leaving the faith find support.
There's this thing where people generally feel by leaving the faith that we hate the people within the faith. I'm like, "No!"
My family are Muslim, I don't hate my family. I don't hate my Muslim co-workers. But what I do hate is the fact that when it came down to it, religion meant more to my family and friends, than me as a person.
What I do [with Ex-Muslims Australia], it's not about bringing hate, it's all about bringing awareness to the fact that people should be able to leave a religion without having to lose their family.
I've been asked over the years whether I regret leaving, and to be honest, I don't. Because the person I've become today is a strong, independent, confident person. I'm not afraid to say what's on my mind.
I do regret that leaving means that I no longer have a family support network, and it means that I am essentially alone in this big, scary world.
But I don't regret the person that it's turned me into.
If you're struggling, there are groups online that can help (including the organisation mentioned in this article), as well as resources like Kids Helpline, which helps young people up to the age of 25 (1800 55 1800) or Beyond Blue (1300 22 4636).
Why do some families shun their unbelieving members?
Gary Bouma, Emeritus Professor of sociology at Monash University, stresses that in general, it's rare for families to shun members who no longer believe in God.
"The simple facts of the matter are, if you have two religious parents, you have a 50 per cent chance of half of your children being religious themselves … so the background is this is something parents have to deal with," he says.
But he says a culture of "competitive piety" in some groups or families can fuel ostracisation: This idea that "if you are good because you don't do six things, I'm much better because I don't do 12," Mr Bouma explains.
"Competitive piety drives these kinds of high-temperature, very strict, hyper-orthodox kinds of groups. If you violate that, you've violated a really important code of that subgroup."
Millions of people have been killed because they believed in the wrong magic god fairy.
A comment written by a Jew at the Wall Street Journal:
I have never commented critically, as a Jew, with respect to their "beliefs" and doctrines---which are numberless, and which have been used in the service of great acts of charity and compassion---and to justify the persecution, enslavement, forced conversion and mass murder of nearly every people Christians have encountered.
"The hideous Donald Trump"
I found this comment at the New York Times. I thought it was interesting. He explains why President Fucktard Trump could win the election in 2020. I agree Trump will win unless the Democrats nominate Mike Bloomberg.
Mad Moderate
Cape Cod
January 22, 2020
Times Pick
Why does Trump persist? Because on immigration in particular he is pushing policy positions that a substantial majority of Americans agree with. Most of the people who support him are not explicitly racist and many of them dislike both him as a person and the language he uses; nearly all object to separating families and putting kids in cages. But he crassly embodies the position that American citizens should have more rights in America than non-citizens. And to most Americans, even lifetime liberals like myself, that position (buffed out with nice rhetoric embracing our diverse citizenry) should be a foundation premise for every American politician. How we treat non-citizens is open to discussion, but the idea that American citizens should have more rights in our own country should not be. Democrats have allowed themselves to be painted as more concerned about being good global citizens than good American citizens and that is the single specific reason the hideous Donald Trump has a decent chance of being re-elected. Democrats, you can embrace diversity and giving preference to American citizens at the same time. It's not inconsistent. Do some polling. It's a winner.
28 Replies
254 Recommend
Mad Moderate
Cape Cod
January 22, 2020
Times Pick
Why does Trump persist? Because on immigration in particular he is pushing policy positions that a substantial majority of Americans agree with. Most of the people who support him are not explicitly racist and many of them dislike both him as a person and the language he uses; nearly all object to separating families and putting kids in cages. But he crassly embodies the position that American citizens should have more rights in America than non-citizens. And to most Americans, even lifetime liberals like myself, that position (buffed out with nice rhetoric embracing our diverse citizenry) should be a foundation premise for every American politician. How we treat non-citizens is open to discussion, but the idea that American citizens should have more rights in our own country should not be. Democrats have allowed themselves to be painted as more concerned about being good global citizens than good American citizens and that is the single specific reason the hideous Donald Trump has a decent chance of being re-elected. Democrats, you can embrace diversity and giving preference to American citizens at the same time. It's not inconsistent. Do some polling. It's a winner.
28 Replies
254 Recommend
One more time to help god-soaked morons understand.
Fucktard question:
"Why are atheists so afraid to admit that God exists? Truthfully, had God not existed, neither would we. Atheists, why do you choose to suppress this truth?"
Here in the 21st century where normal people live, we have something called science. Scientific progress has repeatedly shown your magic god fairy was never required for anything.
Also, even without the science, the idea that's there's a magical being with unlimited magical powers hiding somewhere in the universe is ridiculous, childish, and impossible. The Easter Bunny has the same problem.
"Why are atheists so afraid to admit that God exists? Truthfully, had God not existed, neither would we. Atheists, why do you choose to suppress this truth?"
Here in the 21st century where normal people live, we have something called science. Scientific progress has repeatedly shown your magic god fairy was never required for anything.
Also, even without the science, the idea that's there's a magical being with unlimited magical powers hiding somewhere in the universe is ridiculous, childish, and impossible. The Easter Bunny has the same problem.
You want to buy this book.
Amazon - The First Fifteen Lives of Harry August by Claire North
This book is about someone who had 15 lives. Every time he drops dead, he is born again on the same day he was born before. He remembers all his past lives. This is obviously fiction. This is one of the best books I ever read.
I just started reading this book and I'm at chapter 7. There are 82 chapters. It's a fantastic story and very interesting. The author is brilliant.
I bought a used hardcover book which was not perfect but good enough.
This book is about someone who had 15 lives. Every time he drops dead, he is born again on the same day he was born before. He remembers all his past lives. This is obviously fiction. This is one of the best books I ever read.
I just started reading this book and I'm at chapter 7. There are 82 chapters. It's a fantastic story and very interesting. The author is brilliant.
I bought a used hardcover book which was not perfect but good enough.
Some more "Idiot America Stupid".
Most Americans are fucking morons. The stupidity is out of control and it's getting worse.
For example, there is this thing:
If you've never heard of young-earth creationists, We Believe in Dinosaurs offers a sound introduction as it documents their building of an enormous, $120 million "life-size" Noah's Ark in rural Kentucky to prove that the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate. These are folks who reject evolution, think that the Earth and its lifeforms were created by god 6,000 years ago, and look at the story of Noah as factual and the flood as the reason we have all these dino fossils all over the world. They even have their own fundamentalist "scientists" who lecture on the topic. As one actual scientist put it, "They might have degrees in science, but they are not scientists."
The rest of it is at The Widespread, Willful Ignorance of We Believe in Dinosaurs
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Some more "Idiot America Stupid" here: This Young Earth Creationist’s Take on a Flat Earth Conference Is Hilarious
For example, there is this thing:
If you've never heard of young-earth creationists, We Believe in Dinosaurs offers a sound introduction as it documents their building of an enormous, $120 million "life-size" Noah's Ark in rural Kentucky to prove that the Bible is scientifically and historically accurate. These are folks who reject evolution, think that the Earth and its lifeforms were created by god 6,000 years ago, and look at the story of Noah as factual and the flood as the reason we have all these dino fossils all over the world. They even have their own fundamentalist "scientists" who lecture on the topic. As one actual scientist put it, "They might have degrees in science, but they are not scientists."
The rest of it is at The Widespread, Willful Ignorance of We Believe in Dinosaurs
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
Some more "Idiot America Stupid" here: This Young Earth Creationist’s Take on a Flat Earth Conference Is Hilarious
The Muslim theocracies are the most backward shithole countries in the world.
 |
| Demonstrators in Tehran hold a poster of Ayatollah Khomeini (1979). |
BOOKS
BOOKSHELF
‘Black Wave’ Review: Islam Against Itself
Saudi Arabia, Iran and the 40-year rivalry that unraveled culture, religion and collective memory in the Middle East.
By Josef Joffe
January 27, 2020
In the first line of “Black Wave,” Kim Ghattas raises the question that haunts the Muslim realm: “What happened to us?” It recalls a famous line by Bernard Lewis, the great Middle East historian. There are two ways, he argued, in which cultures and nations deal with doom and decay. The first is to ask: “What did we do wrong?”—triggering self-scrutiny and self-help. The second: “Who did this to us?”
No. 2 is a classic from Algeria to Afghanistan. It was “them” who did us in. The culprits are colonialism, then Western domination and the Yahud, the Jew. It is a tale of conspiracy and victimization. Ms. Ghattas, a Lebanese-born journalist who has worked for the BBC and the Financial Times, lays out a story that whispers: We did it to ourselves.
The book is packed with accounts of ambition, treachery and cruelty—with a wealth of historical detail down to the hour of the day. Yet the reader gets plenty of rest, too, profiting from the author’s reportorial savvy. She serves up a wealth of human interest wrapped in ambiance and atmosphere. She paints riveting portraits of the protagonists: the murderous zealots, and the reformers who preached moderation until they were exiled or murdered.
Ms. Ghattas recalls the Khomeinist takeover of Iran as of February 1979. At first, the nation cheered the fall of the Shah. But a few weeks later, Mahmoud Taleghani, the country’s second-ranking cleric, warned that Iran could “once more fall back into the hands of dictatorship and despotism.” It did. In September, the ayatollah mysteriously died. His sons called it murder.
Sadly, despots begetting despots defines the course of Mideast modernization. The world admires that region’s ancient culture, starting with the three A’s of algebra, astronomy and Arabic numerals 0 to 9. Luckily, these digits have deposed those clumsy Roman symbols. Try to write out 1,234,589.00 in capital letters.
What, then, went wrong? Colonialism-as-culprit cannot quite explain democratic India, nor the spectacular rise of China, once a playground of empires. Nor can it explain the tragedy of postcolonial independence. Two generations of self-rule may not suffice to embed liberal democracy. But what about implanting the seeds of peaceful change and economic growth not based on oil?
The subtitle of “Black Wave” puts it concisely: “Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Forty-Year Rivalry That Unraveled Culture, Religion and Collective Memory in the Middle East.” Extend the list, as the author does, to include Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Pakistan, plus non-state actors like the PLO, ISIS and sundry terror groups. Here is what you get. Cairo and Damascus struggled for supremacy in the ’60s. Baghdad entered the ring under Saddam Hussein, who went after Iran in the region’s longest and most deadly war (1980-88). Add relentless strife between tribes, sects and classes. Lebanon’s civil war from 1975 to 1990 claimed some 120,000 lives. From Jordan’s Abdullah to Egypt’s Sadat, peace-minded potentates were slain. Iran’s imperial-ideological designs keep shaking the Middle East from Basra to Beirut.
Israel fought eight wars against Arabs, depending on how you are counting. The Jewish state is said to be the source of all trouble. The numbers say “no.” Warfare and terror have killed some 23,000 Israelis since 1948. Yet the toll of Muslim-on-Muslim violence runs into the seven digits. Just take one million dead in the Iran-Iraq War and half a million in Syria. Samuel Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” had it wrong. It is not Islam vs. the West, but Islam against itself.
Top-down modernization having failed, Islamization is forging ahead. The author quotes from Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses.” “What happens when you win? . . . Compromise is the temptation of the weak; this is the test for the strong.” Analyzing the aftermath of George W. Bush’s “mission accomplished,” Ms. Ghattas shows how “regime change” merely produced false dawns. “Realities flipped,” while “the strong began to feel like victims and the oppressed began to subjugate.”
Sunnis had dominated the past, now it was the Shiites’ turn in Iraq and Lebanon, where Hezbollah has effectively captured the government while serving as advance guard of Iranian expansion. As winners and losers traded places, it was a time not for liberation, but score-settling and Islamism.
In Egypt, a democratic revolt toppled the autocrat Hosni Mubarak in 2011. Soon the promise of freedom paled, and two years later, millions marched against the freely-elected President Mohammed Morsi who tried to install an Islamic regime. In a familiar denouement, the military grabbed power. Gen. Sisi is still in charge. Iran’s “Green Revolution” of 2009 came to naught. So did the angry protests that began in 2017 and continue even now.
Post-Gadhafi Libya turned into a free-for-all, with Russia and Turkey rushing in. In Riyadh, Mohammed bin Salman bestrode the stage as a great modernizer. The script did not include Jamal Khashoggi, the reformist journalist dismembered in Istanbul’s Saudi consulate. Plus ça change.
The question “What happened to us?” leads the first and the concluding chapters. The pages in between limn a dispiriting answer: We happened to us. To avoid the charge of “Orientalism,” a perspective said to downgrade Arab-Islamic culture, the author refuses to end on a dissonant note. Almost in an afterthought, she fingers the outside world: “Far too many progressive minds in the wider Middle East have been left to fend for themselves.” True. They were “bludgeoned to death by forces . . . that most often served Western interests.” Not quite, unless ISIS and Hezbollah, Syria’s Assad or Iran’s Khamenei are cast as lackeys of the West.
Such an invocation of Western guilt is a minor blemish when compared to a superbly researched and subtly told story—current history at its best. “Between despair and hope,” Ms. Ghattas writes, “I ultimately settled on hope.” This blood-drenched plot deserves it. So, “Amen” and “Inshallah.”
Mr. Joffe, a fellow of Stanford’s Hoover Institution, serves on the editorial council of Die Zeit in Germany. He has written widely on the Middle East.
Tuesday, January 28, 2020
Some stuff I wrote for Christian creationist assholes. The overwhelming stupid, it burns.
You called every biologist in the world a liar. You have an insanity problem. And as usual for you science deniers, you're too lazy to educate yourself.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
Biologists call your Christian Creationist Discovery Institute "Crackpot Central". You copied and pasted bullshit from crackpots. You're never going to learn anything from professional morons.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
You are wrong about ERVs and you are wrong about Chromosome 2. Also, there is no science behind magical creationism. You don't even know what science is. And obviously, you get all your information about evolution from professional morons. Grow up FFS.
I found this comment about you. You're an uneducated anti-science moron: "CRR IS A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST who has called evolution a false religion." Drop dead asshole.
Why don't you grow up and educate yourself? Your magical creation fantasy is ridiculous, childish, and impossible. This is the 21st century and you're hiding in the Dark Ages. What a fucking idiot.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
This asshole provided a link to the National Geographic to explain why evolution is wrong. I wrote this for the moron:
National Geographic totally accepts the established truth of evolution. You have a serious insanity problem.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
I never met a Christian who wasn't a fucking retard.
I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
Biologists call your Christian Creationist Discovery Institute "Crackpot Central". You copied and pasted bullshit from crackpots. You're never going to learn anything from professional morons.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
You are wrong about ERVs and you are wrong about Chromosome 2. Also, there is no science behind magical creationism. You don't even know what science is. And obviously, you get all your information about evolution from professional morons. Grow up FFS.
I found this comment about you. You're an uneducated anti-science moron: "CRR IS A YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST who has called evolution a false religion." Drop dead asshole.
Why don't you grow up and educate yourself? Your magical creation fantasy is ridiculous, childish, and impossible. This is the 21st century and you're hiding in the Dark Ages. What a fucking idiot.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
This asshole provided a link to the National Geographic to explain why evolution is wrong. I wrote this for the moron:
National Geographic totally accepts the established truth of evolution. You have a serious insanity problem.
••••••••••••••••••••••••
I never met a Christian who wasn't a fucking retard.
I never met a Christian who wasn't a stupid fucking asshole.
Monday, January 27, 2020
This post is from 8 years ago. It's about the Christian retards of Idiot America and their ridiculous magical creation fantasy.
Friday, April 27, 2012
"You can't ever solve the problem of creationism without dealing directly with the false doctrines of religion."
Americans will never accept the established truth of evolution until the Christian death cult is completely eradicated from this country. Christianity makes stupid people even more retarded. They have no chance of understanding science unless something can be done to fight back against the child abuse called religious indoctrination. My idea is evolution must be taught starting at age 6 in First Grade, before idiot preachers and idiot parents can permanently destroy children's minds. This is the only possible way to get rid of the Magic Jeebus Man bullshit that is destroying my country.
When I discover an important post about the out of control religious stupidity problem in Idiot America, I provide a link to it here.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
At The Problem of Evolution in America Larry Moran (a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto) wrote about what Jerry Coyne (a biologist at the University of Chicago) wrote about which is this:
American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the U.S., which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the U.S. suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Since creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the U.S. is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The idea called "the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion" is extremely dishonest. Evolution is not compatible with any branch of any religion and to claim otherwise is just plain lying. Since Christians can, despite their stupidity, recognize a liar when they see one, it's pointless to tell them they can accept both the magic Jeebus man and the science of evolution. It's pointless for many reasons including the fact that the dead Jeebus was an uneducated moron who didn't even know what evolution is.
Instead of being a wimpy suck-up liar, it's better to tell the truth about the religious implications of evolution which is this: Evolution, besides being the strongest fact of science, has the advantage of making every religious fantasy even more ridiculous than it already was. It's impossible for an honest person to accept the scientific fact that people are nothing more than apes who developed thanks to natural processes and only natural processes, and still believe in a god with unlimited magical powers. All of science, especially evolutionary biology, has repeatedly shown beyond any doubt that god fairies, besides being a childish idiotic fantasy, are completely unnecessary. And if you don't like that then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed near innocent children.
"You can't ever solve the problem of creationism without dealing directly with the false doctrines of religion."
Americans will never accept the established truth of evolution until the Christian death cult is completely eradicated from this country. Christianity makes stupid people even more retarded. They have no chance of understanding science unless something can be done to fight back against the child abuse called religious indoctrination. My idea is evolution must be taught starting at age 6 in First Grade, before idiot preachers and idiot parents can permanently destroy children's minds. This is the only possible way to get rid of the Magic Jeebus Man bullshit that is destroying my country.
When I discover an important post about the out of control religious stupidity problem in Idiot America, I provide a link to it here.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
At The Problem of Evolution in America Larry Moran (a Professor in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto) wrote about what Jerry Coyne (a biologist at the University of Chicago) wrote about which is this:
American resistance to accepting evolution is uniquely high among First World countries. This is due largely to the extreme religiosity of the U.S., which is much higher than that of comparably advanced nations, and to the resistance of many religious people to the facts and implications of evolution. The prevalence of religious belief in the U.S. suggests that outreach by scientists alone will not have a huge effect in increasing the acceptance of evolution, nor will the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion. Since creationism is a symptom of religion, another strategy to promote evolution involves loosening the grip of faith on America. This is easier said than done, for recent sociological surveys show that religion is highly correlated with the dysfunctionality of a society, and various measures of societal health show that the U.S. is one of the most socially dysfunctional First World countries. Widespread acceptance of evolution in America, then, may have to await profound social change.
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
The idea called "the strategy of trying to convince the faithful that evolution is compatible with their religion" is extremely dishonest. Evolution is not compatible with any branch of any religion and to claim otherwise is just plain lying. Since Christians can, despite their stupidity, recognize a liar when they see one, it's pointless to tell them they can accept both the magic Jeebus man and the science of evolution. It's pointless for many reasons including the fact that the dead Jeebus was an uneducated moron who didn't even know what evolution is.
Instead of being a wimpy suck-up liar, it's better to tell the truth about the religious implications of evolution which is this: Evolution, besides being the strongest fact of science, has the advantage of making every religious fantasy even more ridiculous than it already was. It's impossible for an honest person to accept the scientific fact that people are nothing more than apes who developed thanks to natural processes and only natural processes, and still believe in a god with unlimited magical powers. All of science, especially evolutionary biology, has repeatedly shown beyond any doubt that god fairies, besides being a childish idiotic fantasy, are completely unnecessary. And if you don't like that then you're a fucking moron who shouldn't be allowed near innocent children.