Donald Trump: polls of approval and favorability

[Eric the Green]

Some I guess that includes Bob at times see our problem in the USA this 3T/4T era as inability to get along and work together. I tend to say no, that's not the problem; the problem is that the wrong side has been winning, and the other side needs to win instead.

How do we get that accomplished? Through polite communication? Maybe, when appropriate. Through angry demonstrations and demands for action, and good organizing and rallying supporters? That too. And also late nite comics who dispense the truth along with entertainment and satire to make it palatable; about the only blue media there is in today's market dominated by right-wing mega corporations. I know not what I'd do without them at this point; they make an outrageous political situation almost bearable. They are good at what they do, and according to my horoscope score method, if Seth Meyers ran for president he would probably win, because of his powerful combination of an intelligent grasp of facts and ideas with his winning smile and humor; if TV stars are now going to be the place from which presidents come, like Reagan and Trump before him, then he may be the next one. Mr. Colbert also has a pretty good score too.

[pbrower2a]

(07-11-2017, 11:08 AM)AD_84 Wrote:

(07-10-2017, 10:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Majority Of Republicans Think Colleges Are Bad For The U.S., Poll Shows

Quote:More than half of the Republicans surveyed for a Pew Research Center poll released Monday say colleges and universities are hurting the country, a drastic shift from how the same group viewed such institutions two years ago.

Fifty-eight percent of Republicans say colleges have a negative effect on the nation, according to the survey, which also polled respondents on institutions like churches, banks, the media and labor unions. Thirty-six percent of GOP survey participants say colleges are having a positive impact on the U.S.

Those numbers represent a dramatic change from 2015, when 54 percent of Republicans said they had a positive view of colleges. And although younger Republicans tend to have more favorable views of colleges than their older counterparts, the number of Republicans under 50 years old who view college positively has dropped 21 points since 2015.

Yep, there'll be lots and lots a jobs coming back into the brownfields without:
- New crops of engineers
- New crops of information scientists
- New crops of physical scientists
- New crops of accountants
- New crops of MBAs
- New crops of lawyers
- Etc

Oh, but the self-made who learned everything on their own will do it all. Right.

Of course that all takes some education to create  the maturity necessary for being a good engineer, information scientist, physicist, chemist, geologist, agronomist, accountant, business administrator, or lawyer. There is good reason for getting the bachelor's degree before specializing in the professions.

Add to that the schoolteachers and clergy who represent two of the professions that get a big chunk of college graduates. Note also that having a college degree of some kind may not be necessary for being a police officer -- but it certainly helps. Were I in a situation in which talk might alleviate a hostage situation or a family argument, then some teaching in the liberal arts (psychology and philosophy) might do better to resolve things than would brute force.  Brute force tends to kill people.

For the superstitious and angry, little could do more good for them than genuine education. Contempt for education in general is the hallmark of gross ignorance.

...OK, so there aren't enough desirable jobs to go around in a culture in which a BA degree is normal. Sure, menial work seems like a waste of talent, as does most semi-skilled work. It may surprise people that well-educated people do such work better. Indeed one cause for the power of economic recoveries is that people get more competent in the basic work of hustling food in restaurants and merchandise in stores. In good times, that work is for dullards who plod along. In bad times, retailing and and food service get better workers -- new teachers facing hiring freezes, people having to drop out of college for lack of funds, and professionally-trained people cast off in mass firings. Someone with a college degree might hate selling underwear in a department store as a mindless, joyless waste of talent -- but people still need underwear. Let's not forget that the server of cappuccino and latte at a coffee stand can sell more overpriced coffee to customers if able to carry on a conversation -- and guess who does better at that? Well-educated people. Starbucks recently wanted its baristas to get college degrees and made arrangements for their employees to get college degrees on line. That may not be the ideal way to get a college degree, but a degree from an accredited university is still a desirable thing.

Something else worth noting -- contempt for learning looks like very much a 'white thing'. This is heavily Republican, and more decisively, concentrated in people with less than a degree. This is not to be confused with legitimate concern, usually be people with solid education, about educational content or disdain for some wayward professor.  Colleges get their tenured cranks, too. But for those who hold colleges in such low esteem, there must be some perception that college education somehow worsens those who get the sheepskin. Less patriotism? No. College students are more likely to have seen the world or to have know people who have. Less religious? If religiosity implies uncritical acceptance of religious quackery, then college does make people less religious. Question: is the religious quackery such as young-earth creationism or belief that a televangelist can communicate well in prayer through a TV set likely to improve people? I think not.

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-12-2017, 08:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...OK, so there aren't enough desirable jobs to go around in a culture in which a BA degree is normal. Sure, menial work seems like a waste of talent, as does most semi-skilled work.

I'd agree that we spending a lot of effort and money providing people with a better education than they need.  In a lot of ways people are spending a lot of time, money and youth on not much.  If you take on the usual perspective of cutting the fat, educating only enough educated people to do jobs that require an education, it makes sense to cut schools and students.

There are other times I also consider the alleged post scarcity economy.  There are more people than jobs, and this is apt to get worse.  Do we put a lot of college professors, support staff, not to mention students out out on the streets looking for jobs?  From the scarcity perspective, isn't the objective to create jobs of any sort to give folks a chance to participate in the economy?  Is the side effect of having a population of well educated folk with fairly useless skills all that bad?

Just trying to think outside the box.  I learned that in college...  

[pbrower2a]

(07-13-2017, 09:06 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(07-12-2017, 08:26 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: ...OK, so there aren't enough desirable jobs to go around in a culture in which a BA degree is normal. Sure, menial work seems like a waste of talent, as does most semi-skilled work.

I'd agree that we spending a lot of effort and money providing people with a better education than they need.  In a lot of ways people are spending a lot of time, money and youth on not much.  If you take on the usual perspective of cutting the fat, educating only enough educated people to do jobs that require an education, it makes sense to cut schools and students.

The real justification for education beyond the K-12 level adequate for churning out laborers, sales clerks, and servants is that it improves people. It shows people that there is more to life than raw hedonism and passive entertainment as a reward for doing mind-numbing, soul-crushing, ache-generating work. The hazard to the Establishment is that laborers and servants will get educated and recognize that life is more than raw hedonism and passive entertainment as a reward for doing mind-numbing, soul-crushing, ache-generating work.

Sure, it is an ugly stereotype, but I have known people who return from a menial job only to put what used to be called a TV dinner in a microwave oven and zap it for a minute and a half (the difference between this and the old TV dinner is that the original TV dinner went into a convection oven and took thirty minutes to cook), remove the food from the microwave, and go to an easy chair in front of a TV and watch witless programming. About an hour after 'dinner' is completed the people go to the pantry for chips and the refrigerator for beer or sugary sodas and watch another five hours of bad TV.

I cannot do that. But I have a college degree, and I insist upon more sophistication in my idea of what constitutes a good life. I may still be stuck with a job that I hate, but that is the norm in a hierarchical, inequitable (and with Donald Trump and successors that Corporate America wants for us, increasingly so with the potential of authoritarian repression).

Quote:There are other times I also consider the alleged post scarcity economy.  There are more people than jobs, and this is apt to get worse.  Do we put a lot of college professors, support staff, not to mention students out out on the streets looking for jobs?  From the scarcity perspective, isn't the objective to create jobs of any sort to give folks a chance to participate in the economy?  Is the side effect of having a population of well educated folk with fairly useless skills all that bad?

Just trying to think outside the box.  I learned that in college...  

I think of reality as a hierarchy of boxes, one inside another. By thinking outside one box, we get the desire and will to escape one box and into one with more room. Of course, we can all be shoved into the old box that we took delight in leaving. Part of that is of economic reality not of our making. But there are contradictions between fitting some economic roles and having learned things that make cultural stereotypes of those roles incompatible.

So you become a driver of a delivery truck despite having a liberal arts degree. Maybe you took some courses in accounting and economics, so you know that your fellow drivers are badly exploited and you can explain to them that they are exploited.  If there is a union  you might be a good shop steward. If there is no union, then who is better suited to found one?

...Or after a couple years hustling underwear, maybe police work isn't so bad after all. You discover that you have more likelihood of pulling someone out of a lethal or crippling situation than of plugging some thug. With a bullet-proof

vest and a service revolver you are more likely to survive a shooting -- and kill a crook You go to the ER and find a minor bruise; the crook goes to the morgue. (Cops are more likely to be killed in vehicle crashes than in attacks by offenders. So if you get called to a nasty situation -- a family argument or a bar brawl -- your training in the humanities make you a better negotiator.

...or you find meaning in charitable work (nice for getting connections for dating and mating) or in some creative activity. After enough unpaid trial and error you are as good as anyone making a living at that. You change your line of work to fit your abilities.

[Eric the Green]

College does broaden the mind, and can encourage thought beyond the boxes people are brought up in. On the other hand, it does tend to promote some boxes for your mind. In my day, I could avoid them, but I don't know about today.

The first one is concentrating on the economic benefits and job training; this "education" just builds a big box around you and confines your view to the priority of making money. Making money for what purpose? And whom do you serve, and whom do you turn your productive life over to in the process? At what cost to society? And in your economics priority, do you absorb the box of trickle-down economics and libertarian beliefs that enslave us to the wealthy?

The second box is the materialist empirical paradigm. It still tends to dominate college, despite cracks in the box that developed in the Awakening years. Some of those cracks can still be seen in some places. Science gives us many benefits and dispells lots of errors. When it's not a box, it enables us to know much of what works and what doesn't. But I wonder if those who prefer evangelical superstitions and establishment/fundamentalist religions see a grain of truth in the back of their minds, beyond the reach of the usual authoritarian and intolerant preaching they listen to; the need for a spiritual life. It does greatly cramp humanity to restrict it to the materialist box, and thus deny your very own consciousness and center of your being and creativity. Reducing human life to what can be explained through mechanical causes, is about the worst box you can crawl into, because it cuts you off from genuine life itself, and from the benefits of spiritual knowledge and genuine worship, consciousness-revealing arts, prayer and meditation. Being present, not dominated by mental chatter and other addictions, and aware of the miracle, mystery and glory of "God" both within our consciousness and body, and among us humans and all things, is both essential, wondrous, and sadly lacking in our society.

I tend to think that seeing humans and other beings as inherently valuable in their own right, because they are soul and spirit and not just objects to manipulate, are essential to a fulfilling life and society. The two boxes above then don't need to be torn down, just seen beyond.

[pbrower2a]

ABC and the Washington Post have released a national poll. To be sure it is in line with many others, and that is hardly news:





I do not post such a poll in this form just to show some attractive graphics.

Quote:Differences among groups mark the partisan nature of these times: At the most extreme, Trump ranges from a 90 percent approval rating among conservative Republicans to 5 percent among liberal Democrats. And leaving aside ideology, the gap is nearly as wide by partisanship alone -- 82 percent approval for Trump among Republicans vs. 11 percent among Democrats. The deciding vote, as ever, is cast by independents, and just 32 percent approve.

Results are telling among other groups as well. Trump’s approval rating is 12 points higher among men than women, 42 percent vs. 30 percent; just 27 percent among 18- to 29-year-olds vs. 42 percent among seniors; and 29 percent in urban areas vs. 40 percent in the suburbs and 44 percent in rural areas.

Sixty-one percent of evangelical white Protestants approve of Trump’s performance, as do 55 percent of white men who don’t have a college degree -- two mainstays of his election coalition. His support drops by 20 points among non-evangelical white Protestants vs. evangelicals, and by 24 points among college-educated white women vs. white men who lack a degree. Further, while 45 percent of whites overall approve of his work, that drops to 19 percent of Hispanics and 15 percent of blacks.

While generally less extreme, several of these are reversed in views of the Democratic Party. A quarter of Democrats (27 percent) say their own party “just stands against Trump”; so do 55 percent of independents, soaring to 82 percent of Republicans. Men are 15 points more likely than women to hold this opinion, and 58 percent of whites see the Democrats as simply anti-Trump, compared with 31 percent of blacks, long among the most loyal Democratic groups.

One other result is telling in a different way: Senior citizens are 11 points more likely than young adults to think Russia tried to influence the election, 66 percent vs. 55 percent. Seniors, of course, will have the sharpest recollection of the Cold War, which is supposed to be long over.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/months-re...d=48639490

[pbrower2a]

Iowa -- Selzer, Des Moines Register:

Quote:A new Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll shows 43 percent of Iowans approve of the job Republican Donald Trump is doing as president, compared with 52 percent who disapprove. Fifty-six percent, meanwhile, say the nation has gotten off on the wrong track, while 32 percent say it’s headed in the right direction.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/n...480236001/

Selzer is one of the best pollsters in the business. It's one state and one electorally-small, but the 'gain' in disapproval for the President suggests that Iowa could be out of reach for the president in 2020. Other Republicans do fine, so the problem is Donald Trump. President Trump won Iowa decisively in 2016, but with this disapproval I can hardly expect him to win the state in 2020.

This poll suggests that the President has not pulled the Midwest permanently into the clutches of the Republican Party. Iowa and Wisconsin usually vote in tandem.

Don't be surprised if I modify this polling map to add other statewide polls.

Come on, Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, and Ohio!

The letter F shall signify a favorability poll, as the only polls that I have for Arizona, Massachusetts and Oklahoma





Blue, positive and 40-43% 20% saturation
............................ 44-47% 40%
............................ 48-50% 50%
............................ 51-55% 70%
............................ 56%+ 90%

Red, negative and 48-50% 20% (raw approval or favorability)
.......................... 44-47% 30%
.......................... 40-43% 50%
.......................... 35-39% 70%
.......................under 35% 90%

White - tie.

More telling may be disapproval ratings. Some of these are favorability ratings, which will get an asterisk.

Disapproval ratings:

Map for this theme:



navy under 40
blue 40-43
light blue 44-47
white 48 or 49
pink 50-54
red 55-59
maroon 60 or higher

* favorability

Colors chosen for partisan affiliation

[pbrower2a]

The current poll of Iowa establishes that President Trump is in deep trouble in a state that he won by nearly 10%.  Yes, it is possible for a Republican nominee to win the Presidency without Iowa (Dubya did so in 2000) or with New Hampshire (Dubya did in 2004 and Trump did in 2016). It is also possible for a President to win re-election while losing a state that he won in his first bid just barely but then lose it by 10% or more (as did Obama with Indiana). It is hard to see how President Trump can get disapproval ratings low enough to win Michigan or Pennsylvania outright in a binary race. He won both states, and he has little room for any losses if he loses those two states in 2020.

These are the states that President Trump and Hillary Clinton got within 10% of each other in 2016:

Iowa 9.41% 404/410
Texas 8.98% 368/404
Ohio 8.07% 350/368
Georgia 5.01% 334/350
North Carolina 3.66% 319/334
Arizona 3.50% 307/319
Florida 1.19% 278/307
Wisconsin 0.76% 268/278 (victory threshold in 2016)
Pennsylvania 0.72% 248/268
Michigan 0.22% 232/248
New Hampshire  0.37% 228/232
Minnesota 1.51% 218/228
Nevada 2.42% 213/218
Maine 2.96% 210/213
Colorado 4.91% 201/210
Virginia 5.32%  188/201
New Mexico 8.21% 183/188

*I do not quite know where the electoral vote for ME-02 goes. Neither do I quite know where the electoral vote for NE-02 goes.


I have the state, the margin of victory/loss, and the difference in electoral votes between winning and losing the state.  
Any state decided by more than 8% really isn't close, and if a Presidential nominee is trying to win it late in a close race, then one has an incompetent campaign because it is wasting resources of money or candidate's time. The states in this list that Hillary Clinton won and that Donald Trump won are in dark shades of red or blue.  States outside the 4% margin of error in polling are in medium shades of red and blue. States that Hillary Clinton barely won are in pink. States that Donald Trump won are in pale blue if beyond the victory line or in purple if at or below the victory line. For the latter, Hillary Clinton needed them and did not get them. This fits a model in which 2016 was a fair-and-square election and that 2020 will also be. Should 2020 not have a fair-and-square election, then democracy is dead in the USA and returns only in revolution or under a MacArthur-style regency -- except that the MacArthur-style regent will not be an American. As Germans, Italians, and Japanese can attest there are worse fates than military defeat -- like being relatively-privileged slaves or serfs in an Evil Empire.

If one goes from running as a Man of the People to being an enabler of the worst expressions of pure plutocracy, one might hurt approval ratings going into the next election. But the American political system is as plutocratic as it can be, with people largely ratifying the choices of well-organized, well-heeled elites.

If elections of 2020 be free and fair, then current trends in polling suggest that going from appeals to mass vulgarity and meanness to crass endorsement of pure plutocracy is not such good policy. Disapproval for President Trump in Michigan and Pennsylvania is in the low 60s, which indicates that those states are likely to vote even with such states as New York and Massachusetts in 2020. To win re-election, President Trump will need to win states with approval ratings now in the low fifties. That does not look easy -- unless he or his campaign cheats. Cheating could include use of intimidation  -- as in collusion with mass employers who warn people to be sure to vote Republican if you ever want to work again except in a labor camp that will make one place in which I used to work (low pay and ferocious competition between workers for keeping the low-paid jobs that they hold and which hold little opportunity for advancement) look like a pampered existence in contrast.

Any question that I have about the values for disapproval  are of the age of the poll in use (as in Minnesota) or that I really have a poll suggesting both age and a measure of low favorability (as in Arizona). Texas? Sure, it's Texas, but the latest poll is a corroboration of an earlier poll.

OK -- what about Utah? We need remember that Donald Trump got only 45% of the vote in Utah in 2016. I am tempted to believe that President Trump is an unusually-poor match for Mormon values. The usual Republican nominee for President has no such problem... but let a third-party or independent candidate run with a conservative platform and Obama-like family values, and that candidate either so splits the conservative vote that the Democrat wins or that the independent candidate ends up in first place. But note well -- that's a state in which only six electoral votes are at stake. Note also that such a nominee could split the conservative vote in states that usually go for Republicans like Indiana, which is a more significant prize. But if the Democrats win Indiana they are also winning Ohio, a state that President Trump won decisively in 2016.

OK -- what if the Democrats are rifted? Then Trump wins!  But I see the high levels of disapproval for President Trump even with an economy humming along and with no looming disasters of foreign policy. In a 4T, people take their politics seriously if they have a meaningful choice, whether it is between FDR and Willkie or whether it is between feigning enthusiasm for the Duce or ending up a political prisoner. Trump better resembles Mussolini than he does FDR in political choices.

I have yet to see any polls for Georgia or Ohio. But if the Trump steamroller upon liberalism were successful, then one would not see him faring so badly as having disapproval numbers in the low sixties in states (Michigan, New Hampshire, or Pennsylvania) in states that he either barely won or lost, or have disapproval numbers of the low fifties in states that he won by high single digits such as Iowa and Texas.

Trump had a chance to solidify his win if he had a Reagan-like talent for convincing workers that they are better off trusting management than 'union bosses', that pay cuts that lead to economic growth, that cuts in entitlements enhance the willingness of people to work if they are unemployed (or even disabled) and work even more diligently if they already have jobs, and that tax cuts for the super-rich spur investment instead of elite indulgence. Trump economics are like fascist economics -- an insistence that workers first deserve more pay through mass suffering in the workplace and poverty at home so that the rich-and-powerful have the means with which to reward workers better -- except, knowing how greedy and self-indulgent bastards are with helpless people under their brutal command, that workers get nothing but fear and suffering.

It takes terror to compel people to support a political leader who goes from a populist campaign to either pure plutocracy or to kleptocratic rule. Without such terror one gets a sense of betrayal by the masses that can cause an elected leader to implode at the next election.

[pbrower2a]

Trump’s standing takes a hit, even in places he won in ’16

There are two ways to view our new NBC/WSJ “Trump Counties” poll — measuring the counties that fueled Donald Trump’s 2016 win — we initially unveiled on Sunday.

Way #1: President Trump’s approval rating in these counties stands at 50%, which is higher than his 40% overall job rating from our June NBC/WSJ poll, or the 36% that WaPo/ABC had yesterday.

Way #2: His approval rating in these counties is down from his winning percentage in these areas in November 2016. In the Trump "Surge Counties" — think places like Carbon, Pa., which Trump won, 65%-31% (versus Mitt Romney's 53%-45% margin) — 56% of residents approve of the president's job performance. But in 2016, Trump won these “Surge Counties” by a combined 65%-29%. And in the "Flip Counties" — think places like Luzerne, Pa., which Obama carried 52%-47%, but which Trump won, 58%-39% — Trump's job rating stands at just 44%. Trump won these “Flip Counties” by a combined 51%-43% margin a year ago. Bottom line: Even in the places that he won in 2016, he’s taken a hit when it comes to his approval rating.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-re...16-n783611



.....................................................

NBC News promises more detail this week, which could include maps of states for which I have obsolete data (Minnesota, the disapproval rating from before the national polls went into the gold or gilt toilet), and states for which I have no polls (Georgia, Maine, Missouri, and Ohio)

My comment: In other words, this suggests that the 2020 Presidential election will look much more like those of 2012 or even 2008, either of which will be a disaster for elected Republicans -- and not only for the President. The President will need to do very well in rural Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, or Missouri just to offset the metropolitan votes of Atlanta, Gary, Indianapolis, South Bend, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, Kansas City, and St. Louis.

[Eric the Green]

Looking at the NBC poll this far ahead, tells me that unless the economy turns sour, the Democrats are still going to need to nominate a skillful candidate (which is indicated by their horoscope score quite well). Trump has still only dropped less than 10 points in the places he won. He could easily get those back just on the strength of his ability to entertain, speak and appeal to their values and prejudices.

So, nominating Cory Booker or Elizabeth Warren will probably not be enough to beat Trump in 2020, if Trump is the nominee again. Kamala Harris or Kirsten Gillibrand would lose badly.

Some others could be put into the "maybe" column, assuming Trump has a lower approval rating in 2020 than he has now: Joe Biden, and Bernie Sanders (both probably too old), Andrew Cuomo, Chris Murphy, Janet Napolitano, Tulsi Gabbard, Roy Cooper, Chuck Schumer, and some others that seem unlikely candidates.

If the Democrats want a good shot at winning, they will need to nominate a skillful candidate like Terry McAuliffe, or Mitch Landrieu if he runs. Sherrod Brown and Tom Vilsack might be good enough. Gavin Newsom, if he ran, might win, but would likely lose in 2024.

See the candidate scores here under who scored what:
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html

[pbrower2a]

Just to remind us of how un-Christ-like Donald Trump is:

[Eric the Green]

Good picture. I'm sure Bob won't like it

[Bob Butler 54]

(07-18-2017, 12:39 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Good picture. I'm sure Bob won't like it

But shouldn't Trump be using Twitter?

[Eric the Green]

Does the anti-christ use twitter?

[radind]

An anti-christ is anyone who does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

[pbrower2a]

(07-13-2017, 12:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: College does broaden the mind, and can encourage thought beyond the boxes people are brought up in. On the other hand, it does tend to promote some boxes for your mind. In my day, I could avoid them, but I don't know about today.

The tough-to-escape box is of student loan debt. It can induce people to sell out their dreams. The second is the absence of good career tracks for people with less than a degree. Underemployment for someone with a college degree may mean that one does the sort of work that high-school dropouts used to do. Fewer people drop out of high school, but the work is still ill-paid, the management of people doing such work is still harsh, and the work offers no economic security. 

Quote:The first one is concentrating on the economic benefits and job training; this "education" just builds a big box around you and confines your view to the priority of making money. Making money for what purpose? And whom do you serve, and whom do you turn your productive life over to in the process? At what cost to society? And in your economics priority, do you absorb the box of trickle-down economics and libertarian beliefs that enslave us to the wealthy?

The original objective of college education was to make students better. The college student would get to learn things that the common man didn't get to know, like the principles underlying the social order. The common man got fear, either of brutal treatment for any rebellion, hunger for slacking off, or eternal damnation for any disobedience to the Master Class that he somehow gets away with in This World. Where there are no rewards, the system  depends upon fear as its sole enforcer. So it was in a Gulag, a KZ-Lager, or almost anywhere for a peasant in the Middle Ages.

To be sure, the philosophy and theology ratified the hierarchy, repression, and inequity of the social order,  but as part of the educated elite, like the abbot in charge of the illiterate monks, the bishop over the semi-literate parish priests, the tax-collector, the legal officer, or the more  professional sort of military officer, one had relative privilege. 

Quote:The second box is the materialist empirical paradigm. It still tends to dominate college, despite cracks in the box that developed in the Awakening years. Some of those cracks can still be seen in some places. Science gives us many benefits and dispells lots of errors. When it's not a box, it enables us to know much of what works and what doesn't. But I wonder if those who prefer evangelical superstitions and establishment/fundamentalist religions see a grain of truth in the back of their minds, beyond the reach of the usual authoritarian and intolerant preaching they listen to; the need for a spiritual life. It does greatly cramp humanity to restrict it to the materialist box, and thus deny your very own consciousness and center of your being and creativity. Reducing human life to what can be explained through mechanical causes, is about the worst box you can crawl into, because it cuts you off from genuine life itself, and from the benefits of spiritual knowledge and genuine worship, consciousness-revealing arts, prayer and meditation. Being present, not dominated by mental chatter and other addictions, and aware of the miracle, mystery and glory of "God" both within our consciousness and body, and among us humans and all things, is both essential, wondrous, and sadly lacking in our society.

Spirituality has no cash value in commerce. But we have seen plenty of examples of people operating without ethical values; as with Enron about fifteen years ago and with many financial institutions... acting without integrity can lead to incredible disasters. Treating people like livestock at best and vermin at worst is not good for bringing out the best in people.

Quote:I tend to think that seeing humans and other beings as inherently valuable in their own right, because they are soul and spirit and not just objects to manipulate, are essential to a fulfilling life and society. The two boxes above then don't need to be torn down, just seen beyond.

I am tempted to believe that the ideal way to create prospective  managers, engineers, programmers, etc., would be to establish academies analogous to the Service academies. How good your college board scores and your work behavior would largely determine what academy one gets to attend. Obviously. "IBM Academy" would be more desirable than "(insert store name) Academy".  I can see the obvious merits of an honor code... and the rigidity that it implies.

[pbrower2a]

(07-18-2017, 05:51 PM)radind Wrote: An anti-christ is anyone who does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I have no desire to call my Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu buddies "Antichrist". There's a connotation of evil and fakery while defying the ethical dictates of God; imitating the lingo of Divine Redemption while acting as a demon.

Now this





 is an Antichrist!

[radind]

(07-18-2017, 06:31 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(07-18-2017, 05:51 PM)radind Wrote: An anti-christ is anyone who does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I have no desire to call my Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu buddies "Antichrist". There's a connotation of evil and fakery while defying the ethical dictates of God; imitating the lingo of Divine Redemption while acting as a demon.

Now this





 is an Antichrist!

Hitler was evil incarnate.

[Eric the Green]

(07-18-2017, 05:51 PM)radind Wrote: An anti-christ is anyone who does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

We are all sons and daughters of God. We are all individual expressions of God.

Not a belief. Reality.

Blessings.

[The Wonkette]

(07-18-2017, 05:51 PM)radind Wrote: An anti-christ is anyone who does not believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Really? I'm an anti-Christ because I'm Jewish?