The increasing obscenity in politics has a political salience. The word “vulgarity” is rooted in the Latin term for “the multitude”; to use coarse language is to speak in the tongue of the common people, and to reject the code of civility prescribed—if not always followed—by the political ruling class. Trump swore on the campaign trail to establish his populist bona fides and connect with the working class, while at the same time distinguishing himself from typical Republicans like Jeb Bush, the high-minded WASP, or Mitt Romney, the prim Mormon. Trump’s foul language showed his followers that he was serious about breaking the rules to upend the establishment. Democrats’ use of profanity projects a comparable message. Foul words often come from politicians who are already populists or hope to be seen as such (Gillibrand, Sanders, Perez). And swearing has intensified as Democrats have become more recalcitrant in their resistance to the president. Just as Trump cursed as a way of rejecting the Obama-era politics of 2016, Democrats are now cursing as a way of rejecting the Trumpian politics of 2017. To call “bullshit” is to renounce compromise or a search for comity. It means you are raring for a fight. To yell obscenities at the president is to say that his politics are themselves obscene.

For any current deployment of US troops abroad, are you able to state (a) the reason they are there and (b) how they will know they are done and can come home? Literally any.

This new idea of “trickle-down economics” wasn’t actually new; in the late 19th century it was called “horse and sparrow economics,” on the theory that if one fed more oats to the horses, there’d be more undigested grain left over in the horse poop for the sparrows to eat. (Seriously!) But the “supply side” marketing was pure 20th-century Madison Avenue.

It violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system. Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or to elect the president. And the same thing applies to governors and U.S. senators and congress members. So now we’ve just seen a complete subversion of our political system as a payoff to major contributors, who want and expect and sometimes get favors for themselves after the election’s over. … The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves. Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.

The physicians and the researchers I speak to believe that this will render cancer a manageable disease if we don’t cure outright for the vast majority of people within our lifetime.

Just as the Bible takes us through many stages of consciousness and history, it takes us individually a long time to move beyond our need to be dualistic, judgmental, accusatory, fearful, blaming, egocentric, and earning—and to see as Jesus sees. The Bible itself is a “text in travail,” according to René Girard’s fine insight. It mirrors and charts our own human travail. It offers both mature and immature responses to almost everything. In time, you will almost naturally recognize the difference between the text moving forward toward the mercy, humility, and inclusivity of Jesus and when the text is regressing into arrogance, exclusion, and legalism.

Political rhetoric does not exist in a vacuum; it actually shapes who we are as people and the kinds of policies our politics can produce. Someone like Donald Trump is comfortable with political rhetoric that is full of contempt and anger, because he has no interest in politics that are about lifting people up and about people doing big things together. Democrats who think they can use the rhetoric of contempt to bring people together will find that they’ve played into Trump’s hands. Democrats who think incivility is somehow going to open the doors of civic participation to those who have been shut out will be mistaken.

You see, Republicans almost universally advocate low taxes on the wealthy, based on the claim that tax cuts at the top will have huge beneficial effects on the economy. This claim rests on research by … well, nobody. There isn’t any body of serious work supporting G.O.P. tax ideas, because the evidence is overwhelmingly against those ideas.

Consider the following descriptions of Trump: “terribly unfit;” “erratic;” “reckless;” “impetuous;” “unstable;” “a pathological liar;” “dangerous to a democracy;” a concern to “anyone who cares about our nation.” Every one of these descriptions comes from a Republican member of Congress or of Trump’s own administration. They know. They know he is unfit for office. They do not need to be persuaded of the truth. They need to be persuaded to act on it.