Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

Money is pouring in for Kamala Harris as U.S. presidential candidate

422 replies

MsAmerica · 24/07/2024 01:34

And I confess myself very surprised.

Kamala Harris' fundraising reaches a record-breaking $100 million since Biden's exit
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/07/23/fundraising-for-kamala-harris-tops-100-million-shattering-records/74509043007/

Historic flood of cash pours into Harris campaign and allied groups
www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/historic-flood-of-cash-pours-into-harris-campaign-and-allied-groups/ar-BB1qvtCj?ocid=BingNewsSerp

OP posts:
Thread gallery
11
Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 09:38

pointythings · 31/08/2024 09:21

I'd rather the church (whichever church) keeps the hell out of my and my kids' sex lives, thanks. That mix has been shown to be pretty damn awful. Alongside my unbelief in any God, I also oppose organised religion of any kind. I'm glad my (adult) children are for the most part as irreligious as I am. (One is engaged to a pagan. Paganism I can live with).

I notice you didn't address the question I asked you last night - what would you do if your daughters turned out to be gay? Mine are.

I didn't advocate that the church should be in your sex life. Though I think you'd be shocked if you read the song of Solomon.

I would use my faith in Christ to inform them that God has set them apart for a special relationship with Him. Sex isn't the best thing in creation. Jesus is. And to live a life without having sex means you are free from all the nonsense and craziness that comes along with it. Not only that, but when God takes something away from you, He also replaces it with something better. And not just a little better, but more than you can ask or imagine better.

That's what I got from the apostle Paul when he wrote that it is better to not marry. Paul btw, was originally a Pharisee that traveled around killing Christians before he met Christ on the road to Damascus. I mean, this dude was like Heinrich Himmler to the first Christians... And then became the most prolific Christian apostle, basically starting all the ancient churches near the Mediterranean on his own. Which meant his former Pharisee colleagues wanted him dead. The Roman empire was looking for a way to kill him. And he was beaten, abused, imprisoned along the way. And was eventually sentenced to death for his faith in Christ. Why would anyone do that... Give up there life of political power, to suffer and die for a religion they previously persecuted? The only thing that makes sense is what he told people, he encountered the risen Christ. Wild stuff when you start looking into it.

pointythings · 31/08/2024 09:42

Sex isn't the best thing in creation. Jesus is.
This is purely a matter of opinion, and I say that as someone who has no interest in sex at all and has been celibate for 9 years and counting.

As for Paul, he espouses male headship. So he can fuck off and suffer some more, thanks.

Igotjelly · 31/08/2024 09:45

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 09:38

I didn't advocate that the church should be in your sex life. Though I think you'd be shocked if you read the song of Solomon.

I would use my faith in Christ to inform them that God has set them apart for a special relationship with Him. Sex isn't the best thing in creation. Jesus is. And to live a life without having sex means you are free from all the nonsense and craziness that comes along with it. Not only that, but when God takes something away from you, He also replaces it with something better. And not just a little better, but more than you can ask or imagine better.

That's what I got from the apostle Paul when he wrote that it is better to not marry. Paul btw, was originally a Pharisee that traveled around killing Christians before he met Christ on the road to Damascus. I mean, this dude was like Heinrich Himmler to the first Christians... And then became the most prolific Christian apostle, basically starting all the ancient churches near the Mediterranean on his own. Which meant his former Pharisee colleagues wanted him dead. The Roman empire was looking for a way to kill him. And he was beaten, abused, imprisoned along the way. And was eventually sentenced to death for his faith in Christ. Why would anyone do that... Give up there life of political power, to suffer and die for a religion they previously persecuted? The only thing that makes sense is what he told people, he encountered the risen Christ. Wild stuff when you start looking into it.

Edited

This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve ever read on Mumsnet and that’s saying something.

Interestingly STILL not answering the questions about homosexuality which I think is very telling.

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 09:49

Igotjelly · 31/08/2024 09:26

Well recorded abortion rates would be lower where it’s illegal wouldn’t they 😂 not sure the poor women going to backstreet abortion clinics are likely to tick ✅ when asked if they’ve had an abortion are they. Fuck me it’s like speaking to a brick wall.

And yes this is a man vs women issue because you as a man don’t have the same skin in the game.

That's my point! I know that data is bad when those nations are listed as having the lowest rates. But other posters in here are telling me the data says that nations with liberal abortion policies have lower abortion rates. So I feel like I'm running into the same wall when I the communicate that and ask them to share the information their looking at... And then be told I'm a jerk for not trusting the data!!!!! Holy smokes ladies, I'm trying to follow your advice and learn here! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 09:53

Igotjelly · 31/08/2024 09:45

This is the biggest load of bollocks I’ve ever read on Mumsnet and that’s saying something.

Interestingly STILL not answering the questions about homosexuality which I think is very telling.

Which part is bollocks? And I did answer the question about if my daughter was gay in the second paragraph.

Igotjelly · 31/08/2024 09:58

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 09:53

Which part is bollocks? And I did answer the question about if my daughter was gay in the second paragraph.

The whole thing is bollocks, hope that helps.

So if your child is gay you’d tell them to abstain from sex? Great parent you are. Some of us would support our children to be their full selves and celebrate them for exactly who they are. Any god that doesnt accept people being themselves and loving who they love is not one I would ever want to be associated with.

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 09:59

pointythings · 31/08/2024 09:42

Sex isn't the best thing in creation. Jesus is.
This is purely a matter of opinion, and I say that as someone who has no interest in sex at all and has been celibate for 9 years and counting.

As for Paul, he espouses male headship. So he can fuck off and suffer some more, thanks.

If you followed Jesus, you would see that He is. Men are pretty good at screwing things up, but Paul's writing comes from God revealing himself as Father/male. We men who are not perfect like Jesus have made a giant mess of that part of God's design, so I don't blame you for thinking that we suck.

Mind sharing what makes you feel that way?

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 10:17

Igotjelly · 31/08/2024 09:58

The whole thing is bollocks, hope that helps.

So if your child is gay you’d tell them to abstain from sex? Great parent you are. Some of us would support our children to be their full selves and celebrate them for exactly who they are. Any god that doesnt accept people being themselves and loving who they love is not one I would ever want to be associated with.

The whole thing is actually true, and I don't mind you asking questions or disagreeing or arguing or any of it. Like I said, I don't mind a good back and forth.

Yes, if my child was gay I would tell them that. It's based on biblical teaching, and also happens to be what gay Christians tell gay non-believers when they share the gospel. Sexual intercourse preferences isn't what defines someone as a person, or makes someone complete.

I think where a lot of people get God wrong is they think He only loves us only when we are perfect, but the truth about God is He loves us even when we are at our most sinful, and forgives our sins when we simply acknowledge He is who He says He is. Jesus, which means I AM SAVIOR.

God could be anything He wants to be. He could be like any other human in history that has abused power... Even the best leaders in any nation has had a scandal, they've made mistakes. It's human to do so.

But God, the same God who spoke the universe into existence, chose to write His story around grace, mercy, love, hope and forgiveness. What other king stepped off his throne to become a lowly, poor servant that gave his life so his people could be free? All He asks of us is to acknowledge Him and trust Him to receive those gifts.

If you don't want to associate with that God, then I'm not sure there is a god that could satisfy you... Which is really a prideful place to be, because you are essentially saying you're better than God.

RamblingEclectic · 31/08/2024 10:22

Not surprising, though I am very disappointed that the Democrats (much like the Republicans) didn't put their support behind many of the other, better options. Her track record is terrible and I have very little faith in her.

That's the name given to them by the media and on the Internet.

No, evangelicals gave themselves that name as part of showing they follow the Wesleyan tradition that everyone can be saved and the importance of being evangelical about the good news, as opposed to Calvinists taking Roman 9 and some being objects of wrath meant for destruction to it's all pre-determined. Some media expand it to any right-wing American Christian movement, but in large, evangelical is a descriptive name used by themselves.

Let's be clear though, if they're corrupt, cheating on their wives, and backstabbing the nation... Then they aren't following Jesus.

That may be true, but they are getting their power through Christian institutions. Erasing that is to erase how those who caused the mass graves that have been found in recent years or the combined protests by evangelicals and exvangelicals on sexual abuse in the churches were able to happen. Any institutions, and I argue particularly religious ones, fall to corruption without vigilance and US churches don't have that. Compare most US church sites to British ones and you'll notice that the US ones for some reason don't put any prominent information on safeguarding. British ones have their flaws, but they've become open and humble about the pains of the past and their responsibilities in preventing them in the future.

Abstinence education in the church is very effective.

Yeah, that's why there are so many 'son of a preacher man' jokes.

I'd rather the church (whichever church) keeps the hell out of my and my kids' sex lives, thanks.

You'll need to check which books you use as many popular liberal sex ed books like 'It's Perfectly Normal' were written and are used by Unitarian Universalist churches.

That's what I got from the apostle Paul when he wrote that it is better to not marry.

Paul wrote that as part of discussing that Jesus was coming back too soon to worry about such things.

Pharisees were a political movement as much as a religious one, most of the post-exile rulers before Israel was handed to the Romans by a Sadducee ruler were Pharisees. Might as well call Paul a former Republican and Republicans wanted him dead - Pharisees didn't want him dead, most of them didn't give a flying fuck about Christians, they were a bit busy with Roman occupation and trying to keep things alive, as were the Sadducees (who failed and died out) and other Jewish political groups. The ones who wanted them dead were the Zealots who, while mostly aligning with Pharisees religiously, their politics were one of using violence to overthrow oppression and heresy. Paul claims he was in one of the letters (one that is attributed to both him and Timothy, and is most likely a composition of multiple letters by multiple people), but it's suspect and doesn't change what we know of Pharisees at the time when we look at any other source. There is no evidence Pharisees ever supported people going out murdering Christians, there is very little writing from them that even mentions Christians until we're centuries out from Paul.

Also remember at the time, it was common for people to write things in the name of their teacher, modern Bible scholars have debate on how many were actually written by him, and not all Christians take Paul's writings as canon or divinely inspired - some view him as one of the a false prophet Jesus warned about, some view anything he wrote that appears to contradict the gospels as meaning something else. The editing and reformatting of the texts from the letter formats does cause issues with his and others tactic of referencing what others said and responding to it and other issues that make it really easy to use the latter parts of te New Testament to mean anything.

user556453 · 31/08/2024 11:07

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 05:12

Evangelical means they share the good news as instructed in the Great Commission. As in the last commandment Christ gave before He ascended to Heaven.

As far as why abortion is an important issue... Those lives were created by God. And we see examples in the old testament where Israel is apostate, worshipping other gods, and sacrificing their children to them... the most abhorrent (correct usage of this word btw) event in the Bible. When abortion is overused for the wrong reasons, it is just as abhorrent. That's why we Christians care so much. We also care about the other the orphan, the widow, the poor, and the foreigner. 95% of practicing Christians give to the causes and others. More than any other group or demographic of people. Probably worth a Google.

So why not vote in politicians who believe in helping those women and children? Until you start doing that it's just words. You didn't answer my earlier post on the current Republican party's voting record on legislation that makes the policies that help women and the children you're so keen to see being born.

Leave, pay, healthcare, housing, childcare and food are just a few of the basics Republicans are no longer interested in once that fetus is viable.

When legislation is introduced to make men equally responsible, in every way (and actually holds them to it) for every child that results from their ejaculation, regardless of age and circumstance and whether that child is a product of rape, incest, carelessness, intent or birth control failure, then maybe we could have a discussion about how undesirable safe and legal abortion is. Better yet, maybe the state could regulate when he can ejaculate, as that is a potential unborn child, after all?

user556453 · 31/08/2024 11:12

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 05:49

That's fair to say, and I can understand why people get so passionate about it on both sides because of how politicized this issue is. At some point though, we the people will have to start thinking critically about this to develop reasonable limitations. Because you're right, right now the loudest voices out there are the extremes who use abortion to scare one another into not agreeing. I hope by now I've made it clear that I don't want to take away abortion rights, but that some limitations are needed outside of rape, incest and medical necessity... And I don't think that's as scary or far apart from the other reasonable voices out there.

See that position 'sounds' reasonable. But it's not.

To start, who decides? Women are already suffering and losing their fertility because doctors don't know how to determine 'medically necessary'. Please read something about how this is impacting reproductive healthcare for women who do want families in states where this has been brought in.

And how do you prove a pregnancy is the product of rape or incest? Do we just take a woman at her word (lol)? Most women don't even want to report rape as the process is so shaming, lengthy and unlikely to result in a satisfactory outcome. What if she's married to her rapist? Do we have women and young girls appearing before tribunals trying to prove these things?

user556453 · 31/08/2024 11:16

Zonder · 31/08/2024 07:05

Maybe because they want to work with the same priorities that Jesus did. I can't bear the way the evangelical right in the US use abortion as some kind of plumbline while in the background so many of them are corrupt in their financial and sex lives, cheating on their families and the country.

This is a really interesting documentary

https://www.badfaithdocumentary.com/

Bad Faith Documentary

Bad Faith exposes Christian Nationalism, the most powerful anti-democratic force in America. Streaming on AppleTv+ and Google Play beginning April 26. Available for preorder now.

https://www.badfaithdocumentary.com

Igotjelly · 31/08/2024 11:17

user556453 · 31/08/2024 11:12

See that position 'sounds' reasonable. But it's not.

To start, who decides? Women are already suffering and losing their fertility because doctors don't know how to determine 'medically necessary'. Please read something about how this is impacting reproductive healthcare for women who do want families in states where this has been brought in.

And how do you prove a pregnancy is the product of rape or incest? Do we just take a woman at her word (lol)? Most women don't even want to report rape as the process is so shaming, lengthy and unlikely to result in a satisfactory outcome. What if she's married to her rapist? Do we have women and young girls appearing before tribunals trying to prove these things?

Do fundamentalist evangelicals even believe in the concept of marital rape?

user556453 · 31/08/2024 11:26

No, that was my point. The tribunal is definitely voting that one down!
Next!
I don't know... that eleven year old is very well developed. Are we sure she wasn't being too seductive at track practice? How is the coach meant to have resisted those little shorts...

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 11:37

RamblingEclectic · 31/08/2024 10:22

Not surprising, though I am very disappointed that the Democrats (much like the Republicans) didn't put their support behind many of the other, better options. Her track record is terrible and I have very little faith in her.

That's the name given to them by the media and on the Internet.

No, evangelicals gave themselves that name as part of showing they follow the Wesleyan tradition that everyone can be saved and the importance of being evangelical about the good news, as opposed to Calvinists taking Roman 9 and some being objects of wrath meant for destruction to it's all pre-determined. Some media expand it to any right-wing American Christian movement, but in large, evangelical is a descriptive name used by themselves.

Let's be clear though, if they're corrupt, cheating on their wives, and backstabbing the nation... Then they aren't following Jesus.

That may be true, but they are getting their power through Christian institutions. Erasing that is to erase how those who caused the mass graves that have been found in recent years or the combined protests by evangelicals and exvangelicals on sexual abuse in the churches were able to happen. Any institutions, and I argue particularly religious ones, fall to corruption without vigilance and US churches don't have that. Compare most US church sites to British ones and you'll notice that the US ones for some reason don't put any prominent information on safeguarding. British ones have their flaws, but they've become open and humble about the pains of the past and their responsibilities in preventing them in the future.

Abstinence education in the church is very effective.

Yeah, that's why there are so many 'son of a preacher man' jokes.

I'd rather the church (whichever church) keeps the hell out of my and my kids' sex lives, thanks.

You'll need to check which books you use as many popular liberal sex ed books like 'It's Perfectly Normal' were written and are used by Unitarian Universalist churches.

That's what I got from the apostle Paul when he wrote that it is better to not marry.

Paul wrote that as part of discussing that Jesus was coming back too soon to worry about such things.

Pharisees were a political movement as much as a religious one, most of the post-exile rulers before Israel was handed to the Romans by a Sadducee ruler were Pharisees. Might as well call Paul a former Republican and Republicans wanted him dead - Pharisees didn't want him dead, most of them didn't give a flying fuck about Christians, they were a bit busy with Roman occupation and trying to keep things alive, as were the Sadducees (who failed and died out) and other Jewish political groups. The ones who wanted them dead were the Zealots who, while mostly aligning with Pharisees religiously, their politics were one of using violence to overthrow oppression and heresy. Paul claims he was in one of the letters (one that is attributed to both him and Timothy, and is most likely a composition of multiple letters by multiple people), but it's suspect and doesn't change what we know of Pharisees at the time when we look at any other source. There is no evidence Pharisees ever supported people going out murdering Christians, there is very little writing from them that even mentions Christians until we're centuries out from Paul.

Also remember at the time, it was common for people to write things in the name of their teacher, modern Bible scholars have debate on how many were actually written by him, and not all Christians take Paul's writings as canon or divinely inspired - some view him as one of the a false prophet Jesus warned about, some view anything he wrote that appears to contradict the gospels as meaning something else. The editing and reformatting of the texts from the letter formats does cause issues with his and others tactic of referencing what others said and responding to it and other issues that make it really easy to use the latter parts of te New Testament to mean anything.

To start things off, from my perspective, we were discussing politics, and, politically, evangelical Christians is a title currently used more by pollsters, politicians and the media than it is by actual Christians (as in people who truly follow Jesus) now.

To your point, yes, when those movements started, church leaders used the phrase evangelical in describing which denominations set themselves apart in how zealously they pursued the great commission. But no Christian that I know of that is part of a denomination from that evangelical movement calls themselves that any more. We simply say we're Christians or Baptist or Methodist or whatever.

Mass graves, like in Canada?

https://nypost.com/2023/08/31/still-no-evidence-of-mass-graves-of-indigenous-children-in-canada/

Sin is sin is sin is sin is sin. It's terrible. It's even worse when people who claim to follow Jesus do it. I can't agree with you more how bad that is. But I also can't say it enough, the people who are sexually immoral and sexually abusive are not following Jesus Christ, even if they claim to be.

As for churches here in the US safeguarding children, I know my own church has a rigorous background check for everyone who serves on staff or volunteers, with independent security teams as an additional safeguard. Not sure why they aren't as vocal as churches in the UK.

Well, I'm not a preacher, but my son is waiting until he's married. I'm hopeful my younger two children do as well. My nephews waited until they were married. And our church youth groups have made abstinence cool in their circle of friends... So something is working right here in Kansas. And, this will sound silly, but I know zero son of preacher jokes.

Paul, who wasn't married, said it's better to not marry. Jesus is always coming back soon... Regardless of whether it's His second coming, or the end of our lives, time is of the essence. The message is clear enough, that the context doesn't change the meaning. And, verses aren't meant to be read in isolation.

The Pharisees and Sadducees held a trial to convict him of a capital crime, blasphemy, so they must certainly wanted him dead and tried to do it.

You're also wrong about killing of Christians on multiple counts... Though I can't be sure if you're only talking about Jews killing Christians or other governments too, so I'll address them both. First, Paul, who was called Saul before his conversion, guarded the robes of the Pharisees who killed the first Christian martyr, Stephen. Paul, post conversion, wrote about being the Pharisee of Pharisees. They, the Pharisees, commissioned his trips to try and to kill Christians in the diaspora. And Romans, well, they made sport of murdering Christians.

As for which books were included and original authors of the letters... First, the early church leaders and scholars came from a culture which had an oral tradition, so it was part of their culture to pass on and understand who wrote what book and so forth, also as the church became more organized, so did all the books of the Bible into a single manuscript. Plus God is not the type to just sit by and do nothing, as is evident from all the connections between different books and verses of the Bible...66 books from 40+ authors written over 2000 years that all correlate to one another and tell the seamless story of redemption through Jesus. Not mere coincidence from fallible men.

No human remains found 2 years after claims of ‘mass graves’ in Canada

After 2021 claims of mass graves of indigenous children at residential schools across Canada, leading to widespread protests, excavations have turned up no human remains.

https://nypost.com/2023/08/31/still-no-evidence-of-mass-graves-of-indigenous-children-in-canada

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 11:52

user556453 · 31/08/2024 11:07

So why not vote in politicians who believe in helping those women and children? Until you start doing that it's just words. You didn't answer my earlier post on the current Republican party's voting record on legislation that makes the policies that help women and the children you're so keen to see being born.

Leave, pay, healthcare, housing, childcare and food are just a few of the basics Republicans are no longer interested in once that fetus is viable.

When legislation is introduced to make men equally responsible, in every way (and actually holds them to it) for every child that results from their ejaculation, regardless of age and circumstance and whether that child is a product of rape, incest, carelessness, intent or birth control failure, then maybe we could have a discussion about how undesirable safe and legal abortion is. Better yet, maybe the state could regulate when he can ejaculate, as that is a potential unborn child, after all?

Well, I do vote for the ones who I think actually want to serve and make life better for Americans. But, after RFKJ dropped out, I don't see anyone left who I think will actually do that. Trump won't... He's a narcissistic populist, and Harris can't be trusted, she is literally proving all the political idioms correct about politicians will say anything to get elected.

On leave, the last legislation that was passed was the FMLA, which was bipartisan in 1993.

Pay shouldn't be legislated at the federal level, there are too many differences between the economies in each state for that to make sense.

Food and Housing is a mess because of the inflation of the last three years, and while I am not voting for Trump, his policies would improve the economy, lower rates, and improve the standard of living more.

Childcare is something I need to read more about to really understand the issue. I take full responsibility for being a jerk man here and not bring more well read on this issue.

I would support legislation to make men more responsible... Though I think you'd have a hard time getting the ejaculation bit in there.

user556453 · 31/08/2024 12:11

Wabash6503 · 31/08/2024 11:52

Well, I do vote for the ones who I think actually want to serve and make life better for Americans. But, after RFKJ dropped out, I don't see anyone left who I think will actually do that. Trump won't... He's a narcissistic populist, and Harris can't be trusted, she is literally proving all the political idioms correct about politicians will say anything to get elected.

On leave, the last legislation that was passed was the FMLA, which was bipartisan in 1993.

Pay shouldn't be legislated at the federal level, there are too many differences between the economies in each state for that to make sense.

Food and Housing is a mess because of the inflation of the last three years, and while I am not voting for Trump, his policies would improve the economy, lower rates, and improve the standard of living more.

Childcare is something I need to read more about to really understand the issue. I take full responsibility for being a jerk man here and not bring more well read on this issue.

I would support legislation to make men more responsible... Though I think you'd have a hard time getting the ejaculation bit in there.

Well you can add state politicians to the mix. No real economist seems to be aligned with you on your assessment of Trump's economic policies. Food and housing have been a mess for far longer than the last two years. All that aside, RFK is pro choice, so how does that align with your stance on picking and choosing on single issues?

And, yeah, funny joke there, but the fact is, no legislation to make men more responsible, I'm talking equally responsible for the entirety of the time the child is a minor. Although, I suppose it would be difficult to find a way to ensure there's an equal possibility the man could die in the process of bringing that life into the world, even if he's not on board with the pregnancy...
Editing to add - and the ejaculation thing sounds amusing, but some of these proposals are looking to ban contraceptives that keep an egg from implanting. How different is that really in its potential to create a human life than an ejaculation?

And let's talk about this (from March of Dimes)

More than 2 million women of childbearing age live in maternity care deserts (1,052 counties) that have no hospital offering obstetric care, no birth center and no obstetric provider. Almost 130,000 babies were born in maternity care deserts.

How do we assist women having babies, against their will, in these parts of the US? And how do we solve the negative effect on women who do want families? Maybe we should solve these problems before we start controlling other people's bodily autonomy?

Your own state seems to have an issue.

https://kansasreflector.com/2024/07/25/kansas-maternal-health-care-deserts-mean-hardships-on-mothers-communities-and-providers/#:~:text=Thirteen%20counties%20in%20Kansas%20ceased,for%20women%20seeking%20adequate%20care.

Zonder · 31/08/2024 20:44

user556453 · 31/08/2024 11:16

This is a really interesting documentary

https://www.badfaithdocumentary.com/

Link doesn't work for me @user556453 , sorry somehow I also tagged you, and cant undo it @Igotjelly

Zonder · 31/08/2024 20:47

I must say, it's a while since I came across an American who still believes they're the greatest country on earth - to the point where they really believe they have nothing to learn from any other countries, who clearly must be producing bad data 🤣

Most Americans i meet these days have got out a bit, travelled beyond the US and realised that the world is a large place.

Anyway, back on topic, Go Kamala!

XChrome · 31/08/2024 20:52

Ahem!

"Two scientific review papers find abstinence-only-until-marriage programs and policies in the United States are ineffective because they do not delay sexual initiation or reduce sexual risk behaviors. According to the researchers, these programs also violate adolescent human rights, withhold medically accurate information, stigmatize or exclude many youth, reinforce harmful gender stereotypes, and undermine public health programs."

https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-education-failure

In my experience it is typical of evangelicals to promote potentially dangerous falsehoods such as that abstinence only sex education is effective.

Abstinence Only Education is a Failure | Columbia Public Health

Two scientific review papers find abstinence-only education is ineffective at delaying sexual initiation or reducing sexual risk behaviors. Learn more.

https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/news/abstinence-only-education-failure

XChrome · 31/08/2024 20:55

Zonder · 31/08/2024 20:47

I must say, it's a while since I came across an American who still believes they're the greatest country on earth - to the point where they really believe they have nothing to learn from any other countries, who clearly must be producing bad data 🤣

Most Americans i meet these days have got out a bit, travelled beyond the US and realised that the world is a large place.

Anyway, back on topic, Go Kamala!

It's still true more often than not. Even a lot of liberals feel that way. It doesn't matter how well travelled they are either. People who pride themselves in their patriotism tend to have tunnel vision and see only what they want to see.

user556453 · 31/08/2024 21:22

Zonder · 31/08/2024 20:44

Link doesn't work for me @user556453 , sorry somehow I also tagged you, and cant undo it @Igotjelly

Sorry, not sure why - it's to a documentary called Bad Faith about the religious right and politics in the US.

Zonder · 31/08/2024 22:31

Thanks @user556453 I'll look it up.

prettybird · 31/08/2024 23:04

In May 2008, we were in South Africa and overheard a conversation between a Zimbabwean and an American. The American was saying to the Zimbabwean that he hadn't voted for Bush in the previous elections. The Zimbabwean replied that he hadn't ever met an American who'd voted for Bush. Quick as a flash, the American retorted, "Well, you wouldn't" Shock

He was meaning that Republicans tended not to travel abroad. It's an over-generalisation but I suspect a Venn diagram of Democrats who'd travelled abroad would have a far greater overlap than Republicans who'd travelled abroad.

Later that same trip we met four more Americans (it was our 10th wedding anniversary and we treated ourselves to a couple of nights in the luxury game reserve that we'd gone to on our honeymoon): a lovely gay American couple and then (the next night) a Texan couple.

The gay couple were lovely: one of them was a Republican and the other a Democrat. But the Republican was an old school Republican: well travelled (partly because he was very high up in the CDC) and had even been a Republican Electoral College Representative (can't remember for which state). He was a "thinking" Republican - he believed in sex education - he was after all in the business of controlling diseases Wink (iirc, he'd been involved with HIV/Aids programmes in Africa). His Democrat partner was an educator and a lovely gentle guy. They were both going to be voting Democrat in the upcoming Presidential election as they'd been unhappy about the Iraq War and the direction that the Republican Party appeared to be going - although the Republican did have concern about Obama and would've preferred Clinton (candidates hadn't been confirmed at that stage). The Democrat was much more open to Obama.

We had some lovely and wide ranging discussions with them the first night.

The Texan arrived the next night (can barely remember his wife, she barely said a word). He'd won this trip as a reward for Sales targets and had had to get a passport specially. Somehow we got on to the subject of politics again. He immediately said, "I just go in to the booth and whoever the Republican candidate is, I pull the lever for."

Dh and I and the gay couple just looked at each other ShockHmmConfused, drew breath and changed the subject. Grin

Heaven knows what the Republican would think of the depths to which the GOP has descended to under the malign influence of Trump, the MAGA movement, Project 25, the insurrection.....

He'd definitely be one of the Never Trumpers and probably would be involved in the Lincoln Project.

That's a long winded way to wonder whether those that assert that they'll be voting Trump, hate Harris, think the USA has nothing to learn from other countries.... have ever actually been to other countries Hmm

user556453 · 01/09/2024 02:02

@prettybird

In a nice little coda to your story, the Republican in the gay couple is likely to have worked closely with USAID's PEPFAR programme, which was established under Bush to set up systems to deliver and administer anti-HIV and AIDS drugs in Africa. The (possibly apocryphal) story about it is that W had many Texas friends and supporters in the pharmaceutical industry and it was a way of rewarding them them via floods of government cash. Regardless, it was one of the few good things to come out of that administration, and Marjorie Taylor Greene - if you're not familiar with her, don't look her up unless you want to spoil your appetite for days - is calling for it to be abolished in a second Trump administration. She's specifically targeted PEPFAR, but Project 2025 takes general aim at USAID.

Swipe left for the next trending thread