BaptistLife.Com Forums.

Why did Trump win? .

And economic angst is not the answer.

I wouldn't argue too strongly against it...but is it the reason Hil lost? Different question.

Did you have to link the story that had the photo of the guy in a "Trump won. Suck it up buttercup" sweatshirt?

Well, everyone's got there analysis and their spin. Most likely everything that's been mentioned--by Sanders and Warren, by Clinton herself, and this analysis, all had a bearing on how people voted. Analysis of this election is made complicated, however, by the fact that Clinton received three million more votes than the buffoon did. Had she won, a three million vote popular margin would be close to being considered a mandate. That fact gives a lot of credibility to Clinton's contentions regarding Comey, the wikileaks, and the Russian interference. The location of the electoral votes gives credence to the racism contention.

The bottom line is that five counties in three states account for the fractional percentage of votes that gave the buffoon his electoral vote margin. A swing of just a half a percent the other direction, fewer than 100,000 votes out of the more than 10 million cast in those three states, made the difference. So find out why those handful of voters in those five counties picked the buffoon over Clinton, and you'll have the reason why Trump won, and why Clinton lost.

Of course, had the buffoon lost the election, his reason would have been "massive voter fraud." Could be he was right. I think we'll probably know pretty soon.

The bad thing about Bruce's article is that it is a bonafide error/sin in the voters that enabled Trump to win.

Convincing those voters to flee from their errant ways is very difficult.

Economic angst can be changed by experience of worse economic angst when Trump’s march to even more corporate profits pay becomes apparent.

If you can justify health care as a privilege only for the affluent, especially from a Christian perspective, go ahead.

Emergency room care cannot, in any way, be equated to access to the kind of health care that is available for those who are affluent enough to afford the insurance to get it. An ER isn't going to provide chemotherapy or radiation treatments for cancer, dialysis, surgery beyond what is required for the emergency, treatment for the underlying causes of a heart attack, or provide any medication beyond what is immediately needed. And a lot of for-profit hospitals are getting out of the ER business by simply closing them down.

I'm old enough to remember when hospitals that had the names of Christian groups on them actually belonged to those groups. You can pick up an old Texas Baptist Annual and look through the reports of the Baptist hospitals and easily discern, from the mission and purpose statements, what Baptists believed about health care because they were putting a lot of money into caring for those who had no other means of getting it. The names are still, for the most part, on the hospitals, and the for-profit companies that operate them even use them to self-identify, but the charitable care is gone. I developed a chronic atrial fibrillation from a viral infection in my late 20's, and had trouble getting health insurance. When I lived close enough to Nashville, because I was an ordained Baptist minister, I could get treatment and care at the Baptist Hospital there, until it was sold to a conglomerate that also bought the Catholic hospital. Fortunately, my doctor got me enrolled in a program at Vanderbilt and I got treatment that way, and when I moved back to Texas, got transferred into one at the UT Texas Medical Center. I would most likely be dead now if I had to depend solely on emergency room treatment.

If the way most conservative, right wing Christians want to handle health care in the US were applied to the Bible, I wonder what the price tag would have been on Lazarus' resurrection? Jesus could have made a fortune.