JJ Husker

Mr. Putin, Tear down those firewalls....?

Yeah, this is one of the interesting justifications that I've seen people use in trying to reconcile their faith with their choice. I'm not a big fan of it. I'd definitely agree with your characterization of "extremely selective" criteria. To a point, we all have different priorities and it's not easy to hash out what we should agree about and what we shouldn't. That part I can understand. On the other hand, I'm generally happy to try and hash that out, point out what I think should be generally viewed as important and why. The thing is, I don't believe it is a justification he is using to reconcile his faith with his choice. It's probably a subtle difference (and possibly a more concerning one) but I'm pretty sure his faith, or more aptly the things he was exposed to because of his faith, led him to this choice. I'm not going to claim he is representative of any certain number of people, but I have the feeling he isn't the only one. I am fairly convinced through our discussions that he isn't going through a series of mental gymnastics trying to justify his support of Trump. It's simply that he has a very strong belief in God, prayer and has no doubts that God is very interactive with people on this earth. When he became aware of a couple of people who received this "revelation" and accepted those as legitimate, there was no justifying required. Simply the power of belief and faith.

I tend to agree with that assessment. However, I now find myself in the arena of "I seriously doubt I'll get what I want but I sure do hope he changes or won't be as bad as all indications pointed to". Wild pipe dreams....I know.

Thanks for sharing that. I'm guessing (could be wrong) that you probably don't think every one of these family members is racist. OR, that you can at least see how a person could find themselves in the Trump camp without being a racist. I really haven't been "privileged" or exposed to talking to many that really defend Trump or were overtly happy to vote for him. In fact I personally know darned few people that did or claim to have voted for him at all. Of course I could say much the same thing about Hillary voters. Political discussion in person is a sure way to cause some awkward situations. That is likely why so many of us choose to do it anonymously here on HB. The one exception to my lack of direct exposure to Trump supporters is one neighbor of mine who is absolutely convinced that Trump was ordained by God to become our President and lead this country in a new, better direction. Now before anyone pulls a muscle jumping all over this guy, I must tell you that he is one of the kindest, most giving, least racist people you could ever meet. I have known him for about 30 years, talk to him quite often. He has become over the years more deeply religious (for lack of a better word), to the point that some of our discussions are now a little uncomfortable for me. No, that isn't really it, it is the Trump thing that makes me uncomfortable but I digress. He may be a little over the top with the evangelical angle on this but he believes this with his whole heart. He is not stupid or ignorant. He is very engaged in his church, volunteers and is extremely accepting of all people. He does not have a racist or bigoted bone in his body. I do know these things about him for a fact. His almost sole focus is to acquaint people with God and Jesus and he is convinced through some revelations and other factors and beliefs that Trump (admittedly as unlikely of a person as Trump) is God's answer. He does not claim that Trump is a man of God per se but that God selected him to do his will. There are examples in the Bible of God selecting ungodly type people to do his will. I have had a couple lengthy discussions with him about the Trump pre and and post election. He has many very good reasons for why he believes as he does and why he feels Trump is not as bad as we all think and will actually turn out to be very good. I do not share his enthusiasm or subscribe to his theories but I am leaving myself slightly (ever so slightly) open to the possibility that hoping he may be proven right. If he isn't (and by all accounts, he won't be) it will become clearer and clearer by the day. Anyway, I just wanted to share that. I am not going to get into whether or not that rationale is right, wrong or indifferent. Just wanted people to know it exists and that, at least in this case, the source is from an extremely good person who is not bigoted or ignorant in the least. I think the worst you could say about this guy is that the criteria he is using and relying on is extremely selective which may lead some to the conclusion of ignorance. I don't want to morph this into yet another religion bashing topic either. That surely is not my intention.

I own my Hillary vote, lock, stock & barrel. That's good, I'm glad you were proud to vote for Hillary. And you now get the added benefit of not having to explain why you helped elect a [insert one or more of her many serious character flaws here]. You should maybe ask yourself, what or how many less of Trump's faults or policy positions would have changed your vote. Is it just because he's racist? Because of the womanizing and sexist problems? His legal issues? Stiffing contractors? The wall? Can you acknowledge that there are some specific issues, the scope and breadth of which, had you deemed them a little less concerning, that may have caused you to change your vote. If you can, then you may begin to see that not everyone sees the world through your eyes and experiences. I'm not proud to have voted for Hillary, as I've made clear over and over. I could easily have explained that vote, and would to this day, by saying that as flawed as she is, much as I dislike her, she's better than Trump. And she is, and would be for America. It isn't a matter of seeing the world through different eyes. It's a matter of right and wrong. PS - you'd hear me bitching about four years of Clinton right now if she won the Electoral College. I'd be bitching about different things, but I would be opposed to her and her problems as well. I would be less horrified, but I'd be doing the same thing. So don't think you're getting some special Trump-only bitching from me. You'd be blessed with this regardless of who won. And sorry about the "proud to vote for Hillary" jab. That was an uncalled for tit-for-tat shot meant to elicit a reaction. I know you would've rather had some other viable options, as most all of us would've. I understand why some people voted for Hillary even though she too was unelectable.

I don't say this in a demonizing way, but imo, they do, or did, approve of racist behavior through the action of their vote. Hey, if they really do approve of racist behavior, go ahead and demonize them. It would be warranted in that situation. But please realize there are people who voted for him that were not exposed to the list of his prior actions that maybe we here were. Maybe some people heard just a few of the stories or tuned them out because they liked some aspect of Trump. Hell, maybe they strictly watch Fox News and heard none of it. I am not claiming everyone is super informed or smart or whatnot. Simply stating that a vote for Trump does not have to mean a person is or approves of racist behavior. I would like to think and hope that many people fall into this category because the world in which that is not true is a much scarier place than the world where a vote for Trump = Racism.

This is very true. And to be clear, this isn't about condemning Trump supporters at all. There's been a pretty concerted effort to understand who they are, what their concerns are, and why they voted for him. Trump voters, Clinton voters, anybody voters -- we're all American and need to connect with one another. The false equivalency argument is about how Trump and other politicians are not the same. That is, he should not be treated merely as a politician you disagree with winning an election -- that's a normal thing that happens. That's not the argument here. I think here we're just pointing at things Trump is doing and asking people to own their positions on that. If there were as many people who stood against these things as there seemed to be during the campaign, then correspondingly there won't be too many who own the things Trump the elected official is now doing. Thank you zoogs. This little bit of acknowledgement has been my only purpose here.

You're missing the point of the questions I said you should ask yourself. I realize it is hard to contemplate on this issue once your mind is already made up. Really, I do get that. I myself wonder why I am even attempting to explain this thought process when I could just be letting him have it with both barrels. I guess I like arguing but I also really dislike when people erroneously classify others as something they are not. Strikes me as a bit the same as being racist. The point was, if he were better in any of his flawed areas, there is a point on that sliding scale where you may have deemed him better than Hillary. All I'm saying is many people likely found themselves on the other side of that line from you and me. I don't think it necessarily makes them all bad people or racists or whatever. And the key word there is "all". Some are and these are the people I say voted for him for the wrong reasons. I just hope we all realize that was not the motivation or consideration for many of the votes that were cast. Now I know you're pulling my leg. OK. Good joke, JJ. Now your lack of understanding (or willful avoidance of understanding) is starting to kind of annoy me. It wasn't a joke. Racist- Judges people based on the color of their skin, not by really knowing anything about that person. What you and some people seem to have been doing for the last week or more- Judges people based on their vote, not by really knowing anything about that person. This in no way says it is exactly the same as racism or that one is not way worse than the other. But the action of judging other people based only on certain criteria....yeah, it's sort of the same thing.

I completely don't misunderstand the situation, nor am I incapable of whatever understanding you're talking about. I understand why they voted for him. I understand why people commit crimes, too - that doesn't mean I agree with those crimes. In fact, I vehemently oppose them. What you're basically saying is, there is no unelectable candidate. Everyone who votes for every candidate has a reason. Because of those reasons, every candidate from Pol Pot to Ghandi is OK. That's a fallacious statement and I'll oppose that line of reasoning every single time you bring it up. There are unelectable candidates. Trump is one. Who said he is ok? I didn't say he was ok. I have not asked you to not vehemently oppose Trump. I completely understand the desire and motivation to do so. What I am asking for is an acknowledgement that not everyone who voted for Trump did so because they are racists or that they approve of racist behavior. I know that to be a fact but it seems many hereabouts are struggling with the concept. Also, I did not say, basically or otherwise, that there are no unelectable candidates. I happen to feel there were more than one unelectable candidates in this election cycle. The fact one may be deemed worse than the other does absolutely nothing to reasonably justify that the other one is somehow electable. Additionally, a vote for a candidate does not mean that candidate is ok. Look, I feel a bit strange arguing these points as I am no Trump supporter and I run the risk of people misunderstanding my intentions. But I do know there are many good people who voted for Trump for their various reasons. The fact he crossed that line with you, me and so many others does not make the people who voted for him de facto supporters of all that is Trump. This is why the false equivalency argument has somewhat annoyed me. The point of demarcation is not the same for everyone. So no candidate is unelectable. People have reasons - which they always, always will - and because of those reasons we need to accept their votes as OK no matter how damaging the candidate they elect is to this country. That makes zero sense. Read that back again and think about what you're saying. This will be my last attempt...for the short term anyway. I did not say no candidate is unelectable. I deemed Trump and Hillary (and all others that I knew anything about on my ballot) unelectable. Were some worse than others? Absolutely... yes. But unelectable? That covered them all for me. Johnson > Hillary > Trump.... but still all unelectable. This whole discussion has not been about attempting to say a vote for Trump is ok or that he may not end up damaging this country. I am merely trying to get some acknowledgement that not everyone necessarily fully weighed or considered what their vote meant in all areas. And possibly many were not as aware of how despicable some of the candidates were in certain areas. Yes, maybe they should've been but we here in the political forum on HB are likely more aware of the issues than some others who also voted. If I was one of the people who were completely disillusioned with the past 4 or 8 years for whatever personal reasons and I had only been exposed to a few stories of how Trump was a so and so, I could've cast a vote that did not in any way mean I approved of the worst of Trump. Doesn't make it right, wrong or ok, it's just the way it is.

You're missing the point of the questions I said you should ask yourself. I realize it is hard to contemplate on this issue once your mind is already made up. Really, I do get that. I myself wonder why I am even attempting to explain this thought process when I could just be letting him have it with both barrels. I guess I like arguing but I also really dislike when people erroneously classify others as something they are not. Strikes me as a bit the same as being racist. The point was, if he were better in any of his flawed areas, there is a point on that sliding scale where you may have deemed him better than Hillary. All I'm saying is many people likely found themselves on the other side of that line from you and me. I don't think it necessarily makes them all bad people or racists or whatever. And the key word there is "all". Some are and these are the people I say voted for him for the wrong reasons. I just hope we all realize that was not the motivation or consideration for many of the votes that were cast.

I completely don't misunderstand the situation, nor am I incapable of whatever understanding you're talking about. I understand why they voted for him. I understand why people commit crimes, too - that doesn't mean I agree with those crimes. In fact, I vehemently oppose them. What you're basically saying is, there is no unelectable candidate. Everyone who votes for every candidate has a reason. Because of those reasons, every candidate from Pol Pot to Ghandi is OK. That's a fallacious statement and I'll oppose that line of reasoning every single time you bring it up. There are unelectable candidates. Trump is one. Who said he is ok? I didn't say he was ok. I have not asked you to not vehemently oppose Trump. I completely understand the desire and motivation to do so. What I am asking for is an acknowledgement that not everyone who voted for Trump did so because they are racists or that they approve of racist behavior. I know that to be a fact but it seems many hereabouts are struggling with the concept. Also, I did not say, basically or otherwise, that there are no unelectable candidates. I happen to feel there were more than one unelectable candidates in this election cycle. The fact one may be deemed worse than the other does absolutely nothing to reasonably justify that the other one is somehow electable. Additionally, a vote for a candidate does not mean that candidate is ok. Look, I feel a bit strange arguing these points as I am no Trump supporter and I run the risk of people misunderstanding my intentions. But I do know there are many good people who voted for Trump for their various reasons. The fact he crossed that line with you, me and so many others does not make the people who voted for him de facto supporters of all that is Trump. This is why the false equivalency argument has somewhat annoyed me. The point of demarcation is not the same for everyone.

I own my Hillary vote, lock, stock & barrel. That's good, I'm glad you were proud to vote for Hillary. And you now get the added benefit of not having to explain why you helped elect a [insert one or more of her many serious character flaws here]. You should maybe ask yourself, what or how many less of Trump's faults or policy positions would have changed your vote. Is it just because he's racist? Because of the womanizing and sexist problems? His legal issues? Stiffing contractors? The wall? Can you acknowledge that there are some specific issues, the scope and breadth of which, had you deemed them a little less concerning, that may have caused you to change your vote. If you can, then you may begin to see that not everyone sees the world through your eyes and experiences.

Let's make something perfectly clear. We knew enough about Donald Trump to know what he would do as president. He's now making those fears a reality.Based on what we knew before the election, there were no "right reasons" to vote for Donald Trump. This is something people who voted against Hillary will tell themselves, but it is a fallacy. If you don't want to be labeled a racist enabler, don't vote for a racist. If you don't want to be labeled a climate destruction enabler, don't vote for a denier of science. If you don't want to be labeled a xenophobe, don't vote for a xenophobe. Get the picture? I can go on - there's plenty more. But let's stop, right now, with this "I shouldn't be labeled any of these things because I voted for the guy who said he would do all these things." Life doesn't work that way. It's called abetting, and while you may not have robbed the bank, you drove the getaway car. Own your vote. Again....I didn't vote for him. But I do understand that some people did vote for him for good reasons. You seem incapable of that same level of understanding. People have varying motivation when they enter that voting booth. They may choose to overlook some faults of the candidates based on their specific concerns. Some people voted for Trump maybe because they felt strongly about abortion. I think quite a few voted for him due to their specific economic situation. Some voted based on jobs, inequitable trade conditions, healthcare, offshoring of jobs, taxes, the list could go on. And yes, I'm sure some asshats voted for him to get those [insert racial slur here] out of "their" country because that is the part of the Trump message that resonated with them. I understand the thought that everyone knew before so therefore.....but those things did not dictate every persons vote. Just because it influenced yours, mine and many others, don't jump to the knee jerk conclusion that everyone used the same reasoning. What you just typed is your opinion and your rationale, don't assign more to it than that. Hillary voters had to overlook and ignore some pretty serious character flaws as well. And please don't retread the false equivalency BS again. I think I've sufficiently explained that people use differing criteria. Not everyone who voted for Trump approves of his words, actions or behavior in all areas. The ludicrous claims to the contrary really need to stop.

Look, nobody is saying any of these racist words or actions are okay. I feel confident saying we all find them appalling. And yes, the election of DJT will embolden some people to do these things. There are people who voted for Trump for the wrong reasons, just like there are people who voted for Hillary or Obama for the wrong reasons. Those people may feel their repugnant hatred has now been validated. But there are also people who voted for these people for the right reasons. Lets try to avoid labelling those people as racist enablers or approvers. I think it does somewhat of a disservice to the cause to now link every anecdotal story of repulsive racist behavior to DJT. These asshats have always been among us and they have always engaged in this behavior. There may be some racists whom this electon now spurs to more overt actions. Let's all shout them down, just as we should no matter who is/was President, no matter when or where it occurs. But please don't mistake the acknowledgement that these things have and will always happen as some sort of approval or ignoring of these actions. I think we as a society can keep a lid on it as long as we don't go overboard with linking every racist action to the result of DJT being elected.

These are pretty good. My favorite; so you two buddies now?

There's this place called the woodshed where that type of thing is encouraged...just sayin.

Back to the 100 day plan. The repeal and replace Obamacare act better have a whole bunch more to it than the brief description provided by the OP. If anybody thinks those few things even begin to put a dent in the healthcare woes in this country..... Sorry, the ability to purchase across state lines will do virtually nothing to reign in escalating premium and care costs, nevermind that it will likely be completely useless. What good is a plan from 3 states away that does not include my providers in their network. It's basically stupidity exposed. Donald- the problem with healthcare is rapidly increasing costs. Period. Solve that before exploring any the avenue.

Sorry about the length. I could go on for hours about schools and students and parents. We have been blessed with some excellent teachers and great schools. Notably, our school district is (or was recently) considered one of the lowest performing in the state. They were even put on some kind of probation and had to show X amount of improvement or funding would've been cut. There is absolutely nothing wrong with our schools or teachers. However, there is plenty wrong with a large percentage of the students and parents in our district. This is why I know that money does not solve school and education issues. I've seen ungodly amounts of money shifted towards getting the low performers up to standards with little positive result.

Zoogs- I agree with positive affirmation. You never want to shut down an avenue that a child may later excel at. But schools today take it to the point that kids don't learn how to deal with losing or not being the best at everything. It's not really that fine of a line to encourage and affirm while at the same time teaching them how to deal with defeat and learning that some things are not worthy of being recognized as excellence. It seems currently society and our schools in particular do not have the balance right.

The basic problem with either model is, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Meaning; there are still and always will be students who are not going to perform well. Typically due to the lack of engagement to the education process by their parents. Anybody can look at some statistics and tell you which school is better than another. But that still does little good for the latch key parenting family that does not help their student or treat education as a priority. The worst parent could still send their kiddo to the best school and the result would still be a failing student. I've been involved in the public school system for 18 continuous years and I've seen a lot. I've seen numerous poor kids way outperform their circumstance and I've seen numerous rich kids underperform. What it comes down to in almost all cases is their parent's commitment to the process. Sure it's tougher for the disadvantaged family because they may be working shift work to make ends meet so they aren't around to make sure little Johnny does his homework. Or they may be poor or lazy or have drug problems and treat the schools as a sort of daycare that takes the responsibility off their hands for most of the day or in some cases virtually forever. The amount of kids that show up for school unprepared to learn is appalling. No breakfast, improper clothing, lack of sleep...I could go on and on. The best school in the world is not going to put a dent in many of these types of situations. But a good school and good teachers will also get through to many of these kids who have been dealt a bad situation. Too many people blame the schools, and I'm sure that is warranted in some situations. But my experience shows me that, by and large, the kid's home situation is the toughest egg to crack. I do think vouchers would help eliminate the situations where the school is not doing their job. And that just leaves the bad parent homes that no amount of tax money is going to overcome anyway. Not too continue my rant too much further but, I also believe this is why schools need to focus more on trades and vocations and concentrate on preparing some of these kids, who are never going further anyway, for going directly into the workforce and providing for themselves for the rest of their lives. I believe there is too much focus on trying to get all kids college bound when it is clear many are never going to succeed on that path. Schools waste a ton of money trying to get the lowest performers up to some certain level and they tend to ignore the top performers who really have a chance at making an impact in this world. This seems to be the educational philosophy in this country. Luckily we have opted into a public high school that I feel does a very good job of maintain a challenging environment for high performers and also tries to do the best they can for low performers. My daughter is taking numerous AP classes and will soon be taking some college classes while still in high school. Yet there are gang bangers and other various problems failing the simplest remedial classes in the same school.

LOL. Have you met parents? They're stupid and self-centered and wholly lacking in objectivity about their children. There's a reason today's kids get ribbons for finishing last - it's their parents. Knapp, this is partially true. Some parents are stupid and lacking objectivity. However, it has not been my experience that parents were the driving force behind ribbons down to last place. I and many parents used to make fun of the 12th place ribbons the Schools would hand out on field day. It is a valuable lesson learned, and the sooner the better, that some level of subpar performance is not worthy of being acknowledged as exemplary. 12th place in the three legged race? Really? I'm not sure where or how some of the insanity began but it is out of control. Part of the problem with society is we are raising a generation (maybe more than one) that thinks anything and everything they do is special. It's not. It stands to reason that some of these kids are having problems in the real world where real performance is the standard. I don't think many of these kids are learning that it might take real effort or skill or ability to make it in the world. As much disdain as I have for many parents, I think this has become more of a systemic problem than one directly attributable strictly to parents.

Zoogs- This is my understanding if how vouchers work. Taxing entities; Federal, state and local still collect funds (taxes) for educational purposes. Schools typically get reimbursed so much per student based on the specific enrollment numbers in the school/district. For explanation sake, let's say it is $7,000 per student per school year. What vouchers do is put the decision which school gets that $7,000 in the hands of the parents. Whichever school they send their child to, that school gets the money. The theory is it makes the schools more accountable and responsible for providing a good education. Bad schools would lose funding because parents will flock to the better schools. Initially, yes I think it would harm some underperforming schools in poorer areas but eventually competition and the desire to expand income should give rise to better schools everywhere. That per pupil money is just as good in a poor area as it is in a rich area. I actually think it could help improve school options in disadvantaged areas. It helps do away with the current model which in too many cases results in poring more and more funds into unaccountable hands.

Agree, those people will always exist. The best we can hope for is to keep lessening their numbers and keep making progress so they do not feel emboldened to crawl out of their holes to spew their hatred.

Zoogs- Comments like those just turn my stomach. WTH is wrong with some people? I don't even know where you begin to set somebody like that straight. I guess we just have to wait for their ilk to die off. I've told this story on HB before but years ago when I was at UNL, a group of us drove down to the Nebraska- Auburn football game (when we had the triplets and Bo Jackson played for Auburn). We spent the first night at our fraternity chapter house at Mississippi State. Sure I'd heard the bad words etc. before but it is really an eye opener when you're sitting on a porch having a beer and a couple black guys come walking down the street, minding their own business, and out of the blue one of the guys from their frat yells out "where ya goin' boy" with a level of disdain and hatred I had never seen before. I felt terrible for those two guys who just put their heads down and picked up the pace. I was just dumbfounded. It would never occur to me to do that based on somebody's skin color. I wish I could say I did something to help make it right but I was in such disbelief I just did nothing. Yeah, that was Mississippi in the early 80's but it was an eye opener for a kid from Columbus Nebraska. Anyway, yes, there are racist POS's still stealing our air, even today.