Not directly politics

[NomoreDramaQ1015]

I'm actually skeptical Haley or Vivek would have won against Harris.

Reason being the base that votes Republican regardless of who is running tends to be the older voting base, statistics bear that out.  That group of voters is only going to continue to get smaller and smaller as they pass on.  Again statistically the next generation following is more liberal than the last.

Trump has a very specific devoted base of people that give him an edge.   Those people like that he is a loose cannon who says whatever he is thinking in the moment and tells them exactly what it is they think they want to hear.  

If it was true anyone would have won against Harris then you would think the Republicans would have dropped Trump like a hot potato.  Even the most power hungry of them has to realize at this point he is too loose of a cannon they would have been better off with someone like Vivek or Haley that actually knows and understands how government works and could really get shit done. 

Trump really has no incentive to behave the second time around, he doesn't need them anymore.   I honestly would not be shocked if he starts doing a 180 on a lot of stuff just because he can.  Vivek and Haley would have continued to tout the party line.

Instead they went with Trump because they knew his base would pout and stay home if he wasn't chosen.  They need those MAGA nut bags to win.

[billisonboard]

Nov 8, 2024 15:06:44 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I'm actually skeptical Haley or Vivek would have won against Harris.

Reason being the base that votes Republican regardless of who is running tends to be the older voting base, statistics bear that out.  That group of voters is only going to continue to get smaller and smaller as they pass on.  Again statistically the next generation following is more liberal than the last.

Trump has a very specific devoted base of people that give him an edge.   Those people like that he is a loose cannon who says whatever he is thinking in the moment and tells them exactly what it is they think they want to hear.  

If it was true anyone would have won against Harris then you would think the Republicans would have dropped Trump like a hot potato.  Even the most power hungry of them has to realize at this point he is too loose of a cannon they would have been better off with someone like Vivek or Haley that actually knows and understands how government works and could really get shit done. 

Trump really has no incentive to behave the second time around, he doesn't need them anymore.   I honestly would not be shocked if he starts doing a 180 on a lot of stuff just because he can.  Vivek and Haley would have continued to tout the party line.

Instead they went with Trump because they knew his base would pout and stay home if he wasn't chosen.  They need those MAGA nut bags to win.

If by "they" you mean national party officials, they have lost any significant control over the nomination selection. That was shown in 2016 and reinforced this time around.

[Ryan]

Nov 8, 2024 15:06:44 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I'm actually skeptical Haley or Vivek would have won against Harris.

Reason being the base that votes Republican regardless of who is running tends to be the older voting base, statistics bear that out.  That group of voters is only going to continue to get smaller and smaller as they pass on.  Again statistically the next generation following is more liberal than the last.

Trump has a very specific devoted base of people that give him an edge.   Those people like that he is a loose cannon who says whatever he is thinking in the moment and tells them exactly what it is they think they want to hear.  

If it was true anyone would have won against Harris then you would think the Republicans would have dropped Trump like a hot potato.  Even the most power hungry of them has to realize at this point he is too loose of a cannon they would have been better off with someone like Vivek or Haley that actually knows and understands how government works and could really get shit done. 

Trump really has no incentive to behave the second time around, he doesn't need them anymore.   I honestly would not be shocked if he starts doing a 180 on a lot of stuff just because he can.  Vivek and Haley would have continued to tout the party line.

Instead they went with Trump because they knew his base would pout and stay home if he wasn't chosen.  They need those MAGA nut bags to win.

Trump is well liked because he calls Dems out in a very unique way, but Vivek can do the same thing.  He would've destroyed Harris in a debate.

[Ryan]

Nov 8, 2024 15:39:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Nov 8, 2024 15:06:44 GMT -5 NomoreDramaQ1015 said:

I'm actually skeptical Haley or Vivek would have won against Harris.

Reason being the base that votes Republican regardless of who is running tends to be the older voting base, statistics bear that out.  That group of voters is only going to continue to get smaller and smaller as they pass on.  Again statistically the next generation following is more liberal than the last.

Trump has a very specific devoted base of people that give him an edge.   Those people like that he is a loose cannon who says whatever he is thinking in the moment and tells them exactly what it is they think they want to hear.  

If it was true anyone would have won against Harris then you would think the Republicans would have dropped Trump like a hot potato.  Even the most power hungry of them has to realize at this point he is too loose of a cannon they would have been better off with someone like Vivek or Haley that actually knows and understands how government works and could really get shit done. 

Trump really has no incentive to behave the second time around, he doesn't need them anymore.   I honestly would not be shocked if he starts doing a 180 on a lot of stuff just because he can.  Vivek and Haley would have continued to tout the party line.

Instead they went with Trump because they knew his base would pout and stay home if he wasn't chosen.  They need those MAGA nut bags to win.

If by "they" you mean national party officials, they have lost any significant control over the nomination selection. That was shown in 2016 and reinforced this time around.

You want to talk rigging the primary?  Sanders in 2016, Sanders in 2020, and no primary in 2024.  It's all documented what the DNC did to discredit Sanders during the previous 2 campaigns.  If they are willing to do that, no question they orchestrated Harris as the nominee.

[jerseygirl]

Reading posts and seem to be noticing some are saying they are stopping giving to charities in response to the election outcome. Or am I badly mistaken??
But if so, why??
Assume they are democrats/liberals?
Already number of studies seem to show conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Postulated that liberals rely more on government supporting people than conservatives


www.aei.org/carpe-diem/who-gives-more-liberals-or-conservatives/

I really don’t understand anyone who responds to these election results by reducing charity??
I remember seeing something about Biden’s giving. It was pitifully small 0.2% or less than $1000/year. I was really shocked. Since he became president donating more maybe because publicity? ( and yes Trump is complete sleaze for charity)
abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1

Anyway I’m puzzled if some really are responding by decreasing charitable giving or probably I’m just really completely wrong

[billisonboard]

Nov 8, 2024 16:44:38 GMT -5 Ryan said:

Nov 8, 2024 15:39:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If by "they" you mean national party officials, they have lost any significant control over the nomination selection. That was shown in 2016 and reinforced this time around.

You want to talk rigging the primary?  Sanders in 2016, Sanders in 2020, and no primary in 2024.  It's all documented what the DNC did to discredit Sanders during the previous 2 campaigns.  If they are willing to do that, no question they orchestrated Harris as the nominee.

As a political science major, my perspective of the presidential nomination process goes back more than 100 years. I am thinking about the Progressive movement and the start of presidential primaries. The fact of the DNC efforts to discredit a candidate actually highlights their lack of control. In 2024, Biden controlled the nomination process. The DNC was forced to step in at the last minute.

[azucena]

Nov 8, 2024 17:05:01 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Reading posts and seem to be noticing some are saying they are stopping giving to charities in response to the election outcome. Or am I badly mistaken??
But if so, why??
Assume they are democrats/liberals?
Already number of studies seem to show conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Postulated that liberals rely more on government supporting people than conservatives


www.aei.org/carpe-diem/who-gives-more-liberals-or-conservatives/

I really don’t understand anyone who responds to these election results by reducing charity??
I remember seeing something about Biden’s giving. It was pitifully small 0.2% or less than $1000/year. I was really shocked. Since he became president donating more maybe because publicity? ( and yes Trump is complete sleaze for charity)
abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1

Anyway I’m puzzled if some really are responding by decreasing charitable giving or probably I’m just really completely wrong

Remove the money given to churches and then compare pls.

[tallguy]

Nov 8, 2024 17:41:32 GMT -5 azucena said:

Nov 8, 2024 17:05:01 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Reading posts and seem to be noticing some are saying they are stopping giving to charities in response to the election outcome. Or am I badly mistaken??
But if so, why??
Assume they are democrats/liberals?
Already number of studies seem to show conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Postulated that liberals rely more on government supporting people than conservatives


www.aei.org/carpe-diem/who-gives-more-liberals-or-conservatives/

I really don’t understand anyone who responds to these election results by reducing charity??
I remember seeing something about Biden’s giving. It was pitifully small 0.2% or less than $1000/year. I was really shocked. Since he became president donating more maybe because publicity? ( and yes Trump is complete sleaze for charity)
abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1

Anyway I’m puzzled if some really are responding by decreasing charitable giving or probably I’m just really completely wrong

Remove the money given to churches and then compare pls.

That is exactly it.  Conservatives "give" to support their church more than anything else.  Some of that money actually goes to help people in the community, but I would not bet on it being a high number.  I would bet also that a small percentage of even that number comes with no strings attached.  

[Opti]

Nov 8, 2024 16:44:38 GMT -5 Ryan said:

Nov 8, 2024 15:39:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

If by "they" you mean national party officials, they have lost any significant control over the nomination selection. That was shown in 2016 and reinforced this time around.

You want to talk rigging the primary?  Sanders in 2016, Sanders in 2020, and no primary in 2024.  It's all documented what the DNC did to discredit Sanders during the previous 2 campaigns.  If they are willing to do that, no question they orchestrated Harris as the nominee.

Have you forgotten Sanders is an independent and not a member of either of the two major political parties?

[jerseygirl]

Giving to churches includes lots of food banks, etc

So am I incorrect about some posting here re stopping charity giving?

[obelisk]

Nov 8, 2024 17:50:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Nov 8, 2024 17:41:32 GMT -5 azucena said:

Remove the money given to churches and then compare pls.

That is exactly it.  Conservatives "give" to support their church more than anything else.  Some of that money actually goes to help people in the community, but I would not bet on it being a high number.  I would bet also that a small percentage of even that number comes with no strings attached.  

As conservative and my supporters we do not support the churches,  My and our supporters support local charities for the homeless. You are mistaken on how we are supporting our local community 

[minnesotapaintlady]

Nov 8, 2024 18:11:13 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Giving to churches includes lots of food banks, etc

So am I incorrect about some posting here re stopping charity giving?

It's just a few days after the election. A lot of people are still feeling shell shocked and dejected.

I personally upped mine after seeing the results out of SD. 

[obelisk]

Nov 8, 2024 18:07:05 GMT -5 Opti said:

Nov 8, 2024 16:44:38 GMT -5 Ryan said:

You want to talk rigging the primary?  Sanders in 2016, Sanders in 2020, and no primary in 2024.  It's all documented what the DNC did to discredit Sanders during the previous 2 campaigns.  If they are willing to do that, no question they orchestrated Harris as the nominee.

Have you forgotten Sanders is an independent and not a member of either of the two major political parties?

Opti, how are you supporting the local community especially with requesting transportation for the last year.
In the past have you ever provided transportation for any one especially to provide transportation for voting.
Let us know with best regards

[tallguy]

Nov 8, 2024 18:11:58 GMT -5 obelisk said:

Nov 8, 2024 17:50:46 GMT -5 tallguy said:

That is exactly it.  Conservatives "give" to support their church more than anything else.  Some of that money actually goes to help people in the community, but I would not bet on it being a high number.  I would bet also that a small percentage of even that number comes with no strings attached.  

As conservative and my supporters we do not support the churches,  My and our supporters support local charities for the homeless. You are mistaken on how we are supporting our local community 

Nothing in what I said claimed it was exclusively giving to churches.  There are certainly some for whom that is not the case.  Overall, it generally is, and of that money it likely does not go to help secular causes that help the general public as a whole.  It goes to pay the bills of the church and to promote causes the church wants to promote. 

[Opti]

Nov 8, 2024 17:05:01 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Reading posts and seem to be noticing some are saying they are stopping giving to charities in response to the election outcome. Or am I badly mistaken??
But if so, why??
Assume they are democrats/liberals?
Already number of studies seem to show conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Postulated that liberals rely more on government supporting people than conservatives


www.aei.org/carpe-diem/who-gives-more-liberals-or-conservatives/

I really don’t understand anyone who responds to these election results by reducing charity??
I remember seeing something about Biden’s giving. It was pitifully small 0.2% or less than $1000/year. I was really shocked. Since he became president donating more maybe because publicity? ( and yes Trump is complete sleaze for charity)
abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1

Anyway I’m puzzled if some really are responding by decreasing charitable giving or probably I’m just really completely wrong

I did not find anything but conclusions in that link. I tried looking at the Scientific American link but it came up page not found. I would like links to actual data sets and how they defined liberal and conservative and what they did with people who identified as neither.

In all the times I gave blood no one ever asked my political persuasion, and I think that's a good thing. So, I am super dubious on this claim about giving blood being more of a conservative thing compared to everyone else. Same with the nonsense of "liberals" giving less because some conservative author thinks they expect the government to do that. That's BS. The small church I am involved with would be labeled liberal and does much including weekly food deliveries to people in the community.

I looked up aei.org, and I think they prefer "research" that makes them look good much like the Dairy Council and other organizations might. I don't expect the Dairy Council to report on issues consuming dairy can have on health nor do I expect look at that "article" that aei looks at most things with a critical factual eye. I expect its feel good propaganda mostly. MO


The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, known simply as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is a center-right / think tank based in Washington, D.C.,  (From Wikipedia)

mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-enterprise-institute/

[obelisk]

Nov 8, 2024 18:39:01 GMT -5 Opti said:

Nov 8, 2024 17:05:01 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Reading posts and seem to be noticing some are saying they are stopping giving to charities in response to the election outcome. Or am I badly mistaken??
But if so, why??
Assume they are democrats/liberals?
Already number of studies seem to show conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Postulated that liberals rely more on government supporting people than conservatives


www.aei.org/carpe-diem/who-gives-more-liberals-or-conservatives/

I really don’t understand anyone who responds to these election results by reducing charity??
I remember seeing something about Biden’s giving. It was pitifully small 0.2% or less than $1000/year. I was really shocked. Since he became president donating more maybe because publicity? ( and yes Trump is complete sleaze for charity)
abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1

Anyway I’m puzzled if some really are responding by decreasing charitable giving or probably I’m just really completely wrong

I did not find anything but conclusions in that link. I tried looking at the Scientific American link but it came up page not found. I would like links to actual data sets and how they defined liberal and conservative and what they did with people who identified as neither.

In all the times I gave blood no one ever asked my political persuasion, and I think that's a good thing. So, I am super dubious on this claim about giving blood being more of a conservative thing compared to everyone else. Same with the nonsense of "liberals" giving less because some conservative author thinks they expect the government to do that. That's BS. The small church I am involved with would be labeled liberal and does much including weekly food deliveries to people in the community.

I looked up aei.org, and I think they prefer "research" that makes them look good much like the Dairy Council and other organizations might. I don't expect the Dairy Council to report on issues consuming dairy can have on health nor do I expect look at that "article" that aei looks at most things with a critical factual eye. I expect its feel good propaganda mostly. MO


The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, known simply as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is a center-right / think tank based in Washington, D.C.,  (From Wikipedia)

mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-enterprise-institute/

[azucena]

Nov 8, 2024 18:11:13 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Giving to churches includes lots of food banks, etc

So am I incorrect about some posting here re stopping charity giving?

I was pretty clear about my planned changes for charity giving.

And I give to my new church. I'll have to poke around to see how much of that goes to actual charity work and not just church budget. I suspect it's not a high percentage but higher than my last church. New church is very active in social justice.

[raeoflyte]

Back to not directly politics for this thread...

Ds asked to go back to the gym after a long hiatus where he's refused my offers to take him. I asked him why the change and he said he wants something to help him work through his grief right now and wants to be able to stand up to incels to protect women if necessary. He hopes it doesn't come to that of course. I hate all of this for him, but I love him so damn much. Last night I asked if he'd like to talk to a therapist and he said yes so we're working on that too.

I told ds that I had already decided to have dc and I up our training. For mental and physical health but also because threats have increased in just 3 days. I've felt strongly about self defense for years but in a some day mindset. I'm looking at it differently now.

[raeoflyte]

I gave the wrong website in my first post.

Aidaccess.org will mail abortion pills across state lines and takes donations to help women who can't afford it.

[raeoflyte]

I am donating to the lgbtq center in our area and we will get our a$$es back down there for events to participate and volunteer. We did a lot there when we were young.

[cronewitch]

My family doesn't talk politics in front of my brother. His wife refuses to allow him to talk about politics so if you say anything at all my nephew says something like stop we don't talk about politics. 
My brothers were both for trump in 2016 actively posting on Facebook, I blocked on brother and haven't spoken to him more than 2-3 times since. My nephew thinks my other brother had decided against Trump but we don't want him to have to admit he was wrong.

I absolutely hate how awful everyone is being. Electing a convicted felon who insults everyone with a VP who things woman are only for having children.
As a postmenopausal childless cat lady, I am offended. I almost wish Trump does everything he said he would to show his fans that he is an idiot.

Imagine if he deported all the illegal aliens the first day, suddenly nobody picking crops, plucking chickens, shucking oysters or other low paid work.  Families torn apart, grandma sent back to the old country where she hasn't been in 70 years and doesn't know anyone.

[daisylu]

Nov 8, 2024 17:05:01 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Reading posts and seem to be noticing some are saying they are stopping giving to charities in response to the election outcome. Or am I badly mistaken??
But if so, why??
Assume they are democrats/liberals?
Already number of studies seem to show conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Postulated that liberals rely more on government supporting people than conservatives


www.aei.org/carpe-diem/who-gives-more-liberals-or-conservatives/

I really don’t understand anyone who responds to these election results by reducing charity??
I remember seeing something about Biden’s giving. It was pitifully small 0.2% or less than $1000/year. I was really shocked. Since he became president donating more maybe because publicity? ( and yes Trump is complete sleaze for charity)
abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1

Anyway I’m puzzled if some really are responding by decreasing charitable giving or probably I’m just really completely wrong

I will not presume to speak for others, but maybe people are choosing not to donate their time, effort, or money to assist people who continue to make decisions or choices that are so opposed their own best interests. Choices that the givers now feel affect their own best interests.

[jerseygirl]

Nov 9, 2024 7:24:40 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Nov 8, 2024 17:05:01 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Reading posts and seem to be noticing some are saying they are stopping giving to charities in response to the election outcome. Or am I badly mistaken??
But if so, why??
Assume they are democrats/liberals?
Already number of studies seem to show conservatives give more to charity than liberals. Postulated that liberals rely more on government supporting people than conservatives


www.aei.org/carpe-diem/who-gives-more-liberals-or-conservatives/

I really don’t understand anyone who responds to these election results by reducing charity??
I remember seeing something about Biden’s giving. It was pitifully small 0.2% or less than $1000/year. I was really shocked. Since he became president donating more maybe because publicity? ( and yes Trump is complete sleaze for charity)
abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/story?id=5791846&page=1

Anyway I’m puzzled if some really are responding by decreasing charitable giving or probably I’m just really completely wrong

I will not presume to speak for others, but maybe people are choosing not to donate their time, effort, or money to assist people who continue to make decisions or choices that are so opposed their own best interests. Choices that the givers now feel affect their own best interests.

That’s seems very judgmental to people who presumably need the help from a charity

But understand possible explanation

[azucena]

Daisylu summed up my reasoning.

I'm not giving my hard earned money to people who JUDGE and HATE others on the basis of skin tone, something they can't control. How's that for JUDGEMENT.

I'll also stand in judgement of those who want to control female bodies and other private choices.

[pulmonarymd]

I think people should donate to something that aligns with their values. Conservatives do it all the time. Reconsidering how your donations are used is a perfect thing to do from time to time. And if it just so happens that people who have decided that electing a narcissistic crybaby is the right thing for our country are affected, even better

[raeoflyte]

In Colorado there was prop 129 to essentially introduce nurse practitioners into vet med. Advocates said it would save consumers money and speed up veterinary care. Dh and all of the vet people I know were opposed because it doesn't address the problems the industry is facing already with low paid support staff, the curriculum isn't well thought out, and who would be qualified is iffy at best.

But it passed. And frankly that job was made for dh. He wanted to be a vet but student loans, more school, new baby, it just didn't work out. He is a certified emergency and critical care technician so he is already more credentialed than most technicians. He has worked overnights with new doctors for most of his career being the voice of, but do you want to do that? to absolutely do not do that! I think it will require a masters but I will encourage dh to go for it.

[jerseygirl]

Nov 9, 2024 8:55:38 GMT -5 azucena said:

Daisylu summed up my reasoning.

I'm not giving my hard earned money to people who JUDGE and HATE others on the basis of skin tone, something they can't control. How's that for JUDGEMENT.

I'll also stand in judgement of those who want to control female bodies and other private choices.

Reasonable , people give according to their desires/wishes
Who would give to a charity that conflicts with your principles?




I was thinking not giving to a charity ( that you agree with) but serves people who seems likely voted for someone you strongly disagree with. Judgemental?

[happyhoix]

Nov 8, 2024 18:11:13 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

Giving to churches includes lots of food banks, etc

So am I incorrect about some posting here re stopping charity giving?

yes you are incorrect - I haven’t heard a single person saying they would stop donating to charity due to the election. 

I have heard lots of young women saying they will no longer have sex because they are afraid of the potential consequences. I have heard some people vowing to leave the country (google searches for people looking to move to Europe are up something like 1500%) but haven’t read a single news story or social media post about anyone declaring they would stop donating to charity. 

And I can’t  think of any reason why someone would stop giving to charities due to who won the election - I mean, sure, they might want to stop giving to Trump charities, but that thing got legally shut down years ago due to it being a grift, right? So do you you have any links to articles with people declaring they are never giving to charities anymore? I’d love to know their reasoning. 

[jerseygirl]

I did see some/a post about ‘not giving to people who vote against their own best interests’.
So yes that’s judging people who think differently or deciding you know better than them what their best interests should be

[pulmonarymd]

Nov 9, 2024 10:53:22 GMT -5 jerseygirl said:

I did see some/a post about ‘not giving to people who vote against their own best interests’.
So yes that’s judging people who think differently or deciding you know better than them what their best interests should be

And the people who give to churches don't. They seem to believe that women should continue with pregnancies they don't wish to. I see people re-evaluating what they want to do with their charitable donations. They are saying that they do not want to give money to support people with values different than theirs. In addition, people who are voting for politicians who want to do things that are going to hurt many people, including those who voted for it, and in that case why should they ameliorate the damage.

You are judging how people decide to use their money. Who are you to judge?