US Politics IV - Page 47 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-04-2017, 08:15 AM   #921
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
dabiggestu2fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The edge of the known universe
Posts: 3,470
Local Time: 09:16 PM
Well there you have it folks! A tweet from trump giving reason why they should elect a pedophile. Party over country, party over human decency first.
__________________

dabiggestu2fan is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 08:24 AM   #922
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 10:16 PM
Hey now. He's a child molester, not a pedophile!
__________________

Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 08:40 AM   #923
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,204
Local Time: 04:16 PM
We must protect the unborn child, so that we may sleep with them once they turn 14.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:12 AM   #924
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
On this issue of abortion, I actually think if the Democrats had nominated a pro-life candidate they'd have a much better shot at winning this election.
They should not nominate a pro-life candidate which is pretty much the antithesis of their party and followers on the off chance that in a state like Alabama some scandal hits that maybe, possibly makes their pro-life candidate viable. That's frankly...absurd.

Enough of the pandering. Alabama will almost certainly elect a child molester because he is a Republican. We do not need Democrats to pander to be potentially competitive. No loss if this seat stays red, but filling up the Democratic party pew with right wing ideologues is a massive mistake in the long run.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:26 AM   #925
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,458
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Agreed. Enough of the pandering. The democrats would be in much better shape if they didn't come off as shrewd politicians always clearly trying to pander. It's Alabama - if the guy is a pro life democrat I don't think it's pandering. On a national scale, though, that's not the supposed identity of the party.

That's fine by me. It will serve the republicans on that issue, but it's *probably* what the people of Alabama want in general. These folks jobs are to represent their constituents.

Pandering and not representing a base made things worse for the dems. That's, in part, why Donald Trump was able to invigorate his base. Unapologetic and illogically firm on political positions you know he personally doesn't give a shit about.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:27 AM   #926
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
They should not nominate a pro-life candidate which is pretty much the antithesis of their party and followers on the off chance that in a state like Alabama some scandal hits that maybe, possibly makes their pro-life candidate viable. That's frankly...absurd.

Enough of the pandering. Alabama will almost certainly elect a child molester because he is a Republican. We do not need Democrats to pander to be potentially competitive. No loss if this seat stays red, but filling up the Democratic party pew with right wing ideologues is a massive mistake in the long run.
Well, far be it from me to tell Democrats how to win elections in red states (though I'm not sure in Alabama nominating a pro-life Dem would have been "pandering"). I'm just saying that had that been the case, they'd have a better shot there now.
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:38 AM   #927
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:16 PM
When you have limited resources, in terms of time and people, then the smart way to win elections is to build up infrastructure where you think it is possible to win and where it is a stretch. Not where it's essentially hopeless. There are red states or seats in red states that can be winnable - for example, places where Obama won like North Carolina or Indiana. Virginia, not too long ago, was such a state. Others are purple, like Colorado or Missouri. The biggest red state that should become fertile ground for Democrats is Texas - the Hispanic population growth there is skyrocketing and truthfully it is only a question of time before that state trends purple then blue. Especially if Trump keeps on delivering messages about walls, Mexican rapists and detaining 10-year-old children with cerebral palsy for being illegals.

It really makes no sense at all to waste $ on a state like Alabama. Even with a child molester who is otherwise unqualified anyway, according to you and many of his Republican colleagues, these people are almost certainly going to elect a Republican. So again, a waste of time and money.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 09:56 AM   #928
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,204
Local Time: 04:16 PM
Republicans have been able to get governors and mayors in Democratic strongholds for years by running candidates who have crossover appeal.

It would be smart for Democrats to do the same thing.

The exception, of course, should be in cases where the fucking opponent is a child molester, where these types of things shouldn't matter.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 10:08 AM   #929
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,458
Local Time: 05:16 PM
US Politics IV

I'm just not a fan of saying republicans or democrats are inherently responsible for that.

I'm a young adult, but I do remember a time when you could have views that deviate from your party without it being pandersome.

You can have socially progressive views and still be pro-life or super religious. You can be socially conservative on a handful of issues, but highly supportive of things like welfare and general social redistribution of wealth.

What I'm saying is... yes, I can imagine that a very religious Christian white male who is pro-life but otherwise has a more socialist agenda economically that he feels is in accordance with his strong religious views etc. and has open liberal ideas such as women's equality and is perhaps supportive of civil unions or whatever...

That's definitely someone who could give a republican a run for his seat in Alabama. That's definitely someone who I would not vote for and would not be elected in my own state. That's also definitely still a democrat. And it's not pandering. It's probably what a lot of people in Alabama are open to.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 11:29 AM   #930
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
What I'm saying is... yes, I can imagine that a very religious Christian white male who is pro-life but otherwise has a more socialist agenda economically that he feels is in accordance with his strong religious views etc. and has open liberal ideas such as women's equality and is perhaps supportive of civil unions or whatever...

That's definitely someone who could give a republican a run for his seat in Alabama. That's definitely someone who I would not vote for and would not be elected in my own state. That's also definitely still a democrat. And it's not pandering. It's probably what a lot of people in Alabama are open to.
Except if that individual's entire platform is based on being pro-life (which term I hate).

Because then you cannot count on them to vote with the party on SCOTUS nominees or federal judges. Because abortion is always, always the bright line test. We're constantly told that even Republicans who hate Trump voted for him because of SCOTUS. But the Democrats are supposed to abandon the (arguably) greatest privilege of governing so that some more anti-choice people in Alabama vote for a guy who isn't a reliable Democratic vote? It makes zero sense.

Instead you can devote resources and on-the-ground infrastructure in districts with quickly growing Latino populations in say, Texas. It's a no-brainer.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 11:35 AM   #931
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 10:16 PM
I don't know. It seems to me the Democrats entire long term strategy for winning elections is...

PLAN A: Wait for old white people to die and brown people to have babies.
PLAN B: There is no plan B


The short term strategy is...

PLAN A: Muellertime!
PLAN B: There is no plan B


What else is there?
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 11:45 AM   #932
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 09:16 PM
Nothing.

We gave up after Obama was elected cause we thought it was enough to get a black guy in office.

Dems are paying the price

I don't know who can win for them in 2020. Honestly I think Bernie may be their best shot, but he's never been vetted so who knows what shit will come up for him.

But he'd still splinter the party but damnit we'd get the hipster vote
BEAL is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 11:59 AM   #933
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:16 PM
The party apparatus is pretty much in disarray. Axelrod had a very good 50-state-strategy but the Obama people never really shared that or made it available to the DNC and its equivalents so that is part of the problem but not the sole explanation. They are at the point where they need new and fresh blood and that will come sort of naturally as part of a generational change.

But it isn't as if it's doom and gloom forever. You have to remember that Obama came on the national stage 4 years before being elected President. He was a nobody basically. You can build up infrastructure and excitement and a platform fairly quickly (hello, look at Trump) even as an outsider. So it isn't as if they have 20 years of rebuilding in front of them...
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 12:11 PM   #934
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,458
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Except if that individual's entire platform is based on being pro-life (which term I hate).



Because then you cannot count on them to vote with the party on SCOTUS nominees or federal judges. Because abortion is always, always the bright line test. We're constantly told that even Republicans who hate Trump voted for him because of SCOTUS. But the Democrats are supposed to abandon the (arguably) greatest privilege of governing so that some more anti-choice people in Alabama vote for a guy who isn't a reliable Democratic vote? It makes zero sense.



Instead you can devote resources and on-the-ground infrastructure in districts with quickly growing Latino populations in say, Texas. It's a no-brainer.


Why do you hate the term pro-life? Don't you think they're over there on the other side saying "I hate the term pro-choice? Blah blah blah it's pro-murder." I fully acknowledge the hypocrisies and the poor arguments put up by most pro-life folks. But there is a discussion to be had, in my opinion.

Who are you going to count on to vote with democrats more often? A republican in Alabama, or a pro-life democrat in Alabama? Also, it's Alabama. That's what the people of Alabama want. It's not a democrat senator's job to strictly vote by his or her party. This is a problem that plagues politics. If we cut that shit out and voted based upon constituency and represented based upon constituency, there would be pro choice republicans and pro life democrats, and chances are we would be closer to public opinion without installing a populist system (the whole point of our political system as is).
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 12:22 PM   #935
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
Why do you hate the term pro-life?
Because the implication is that anybody who supports any measures which legalize abortion is "anti-life." Furthermore, many, and in my view most, people who consider themselves "pro-life" are actually pro-embryo/fetus or pro-birth and their other political views are not pro-life in the slightest following the birth of that baby. While being pro-birth they are against subsidizing healthcare for pregnant mothers, they are sometimes even against insurance being required to provide maternal/fetal medicine coverage, they are against poor children having access to free healthcare or subsidized school lunches, they are against reasonable and paid maternity leave for the mother to recover from a very traumatic medical event, etc. So pro-life, my ass. And people who are pro-choice are not anti-life either nor are they pro-abortion. These terms are all fairly silly when unpacked.


Quote:
Who are you going to count on to vote with democrats more often?
Look that's undeniable. But you have not addressed the point I have made - that for SCOTUS nominees, the single bright line test is abortion. What use is an Alabama "pro-life" Democrat if he/she is going to vote with the Republicans on Roe v. Wade? You may be willing to give that up, but why should millions of women? Nevermind the actual remoteness of the possibility of a Democratic senator being elected in Alabama. There hasn't been one in 20 years and in those 20 years, the pendulum has swung so far that Alabama is much more Republican and the odds are essentially miniscule. Hello, a Democrat is losing to a child molester for heaven's sake...
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 12:42 PM   #936
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,458
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Because the implication is that anybody who supports any measures which legalize abortion is "anti-life."
You sort of just had st that while ignoring the parts where I said I fully understand what you've said. Yes, the hypocrisy is real. It doesn't mean that, on a neutral table, the argument can't be made. Anyways, this is sort of semantics. You can hate (and I do hate) when a hypocrite claims to be "pro-life," but the term pro-life does not necessarily suggest the opposite is "anti-life" or "pro-death." Both of the abortion terminologies are delivered from the positive perspective because both sides believe they have a moral high ground.







Quote:
Look that's undeniable. But you have not addressed the point I have made - that for SCOTUS nominees, the single bright line test is abortion. What use is an Alabama "pro-life" Democrat if he/she is going to vote with the Republicans on Roe v. Wade? You may be willing to give that up, but why should millions of women? Nevermind the actual remoteness of the possibility of a Democratic senator being elected in Alabama. There hasn't been one in 20 years and in those 20 years, the pendulum has swung so far that Alabama is much more Republican and the odds are essentially miniscule. Hello, a Democrat is losing to a child molester for heaven's sake...

I didn't address your point because I didn't even notice it. It seems as though you're suggesting that the most important value of a senator is to vote on Supreme Court justices for the sake of abortion laws or even just for the sake of putting the right justice in.

Senators wield so much more responsibility than just that. I'd happily compromise on some beliefs to have a stronger party, as long as the leadership of the party doesn't compromise on its views. Sadly, we have the exact opposite. We have mindless robotic party members who stand firm on party lines and follow whatever their leadership says (in both parties). You're shocked that a democrat is losing to a child molester... how about all of these republicans who continue to support the pussy grabber in chief? Same deal there.

You can't live so much in the instantaneous "now" and imagine "a democrat could never win Alabama." This sort of mentality neglects the future. It's like suggesting democrats shouldn't have tried in Texas because it's a firm red state during the presidential election. If you don't start somewhere, things are bound never to change.
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 12-04-2017, 01:05 PM   #937
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 05:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
I didn't address your point because I didn't even notice it. It seems as though you're suggesting that the most important value of a senator is to vote on Supreme Court justices for the sake of abortion laws or even just for the sake of putting the right justice in.
I personally don't think so and I also live in a place where abortion is "settled" as a matter of law and policy, even as a matter of the Conservative party platform. Our Supreme Court justices are appointees but the Court is NOT a political court like the American one. At all. So it depresses me that this is the state of affairs in the US, where I haven't lived in almost 10 years.

Given the power of the SCOTUS and the potential restrictions on women's health and liberty, in my view, you cannot discount the power or privilege of (a) nominating a justice and (b) voting one in based on a majority in the Senate. Does a Senator from Alabama do a lot of other things and contribute to other federal laws and advocate on behalf of his constituency back home? Well I'd hope so. But if that guy is a swing vote, and because of him you lose Roe v. Wade that would be disastrous. So if the Republicans can vote for a pussy grabber in chief over a qualified woman and a child molester over a civil rights lawyer, then why is the left constantly being told that they must give in on their principles and try to elect people who hold views consistent with their populace but inconsistent with the broader party platform or what is best for the nation? Sorry, not willing to give on this point. Don't get me wrong, if there was a pro-choice candidate in someplace like California running and was a child molester, I would NOT vote for that person because I have morals. But I am not in favour of nominating pro-life candidates to appease a local populace when it goes to the heart of governing. Why should a small population in Alabama hold women in NYC hostage, for example?

And all this hits pretty close to home - to have my children we have spent well into 6 figures out of pocket and had 5 fresh IVF cycles. Also 6 losses. I understand all this intimately. And I have never waivered on the ability and right of a woman to make her own choice, for couples to make their own choices about their families. Not my business just like it is nobody's business what we did to achieve our family dreams.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 01:21 PM   #938
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 20,724
Local Time: 03:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
On this issue of abortion, I actually think if the Democrats had nominated a pro-life candidate they'd have a much better shot at winning this election. But Jones is not only pro-choice, he's very outspokenly pro-choice and on this issue is out of touch with how most Alabama voters feel on this issue (and they feel very strongly). There's also been quite a bit of debate lately as to how open the Democratic party really is now to pro-life candidates.
Yeah, the thing is, I think there are areas where pro-choice and pro-life people can already find some common ground. Pro-choice people may agree that a woman has a right to have an abortion, but they also understand that it's not an easy thing to go through and that the circumstances that tend to lead women to have to make that choice in the first place are often horrible and worth dealing with. Meanwhile, many pro-life people are willing to accept that a woman should be allowed to have an abortion in the case of incest, rape, or a life-threatening health issue.

I think both sides tend to generally agree that it'd be nice to make it so there's less unwanted babies in the world, and less women being saddled with pregnancies they can't afford to take on, be it financially, medically, or emotionally, or don't want to take on. The main issue seems to come in regards to HOW to reduce and deal with those issues.

I'm pro-choice, and I think, in order to tackle the issue of abortion and unwanted pregnancies, we need to allow more access to contraception, better sex education in schools, and support funding of centers/organizations/etc. that help women who are struggling financially, or who've been raped, and fix any issues with the adoption system for those who might want to consider that option, be it to give up their baby or wanting to adopt, as well. We also need to do more to show that places like Planned Parenthood are not the abortion mills some tend to believe they are, and show the ways in which they and other places like them provide beneficial help for women.

And that's just a few ideas off the top of my head. I'd like to think that most pro-lifers could find some level of agreement with me on at least some of those suggestions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
Thanks for the really solid response Moonlit Angel! I appreciate & agreed with a good deal of it. And I'm glad you realised I wasn't trying to defend Moore...he's obviously despicable and I hope he loses. I actually think Moore was unqualified even before all this. The guy has no respect for the rule of law and is clearly on the fringe of most issues, even among Republicans. As far as I can tell he'd be the most extremist member of the Senate. I think the best chance for a Jones win is that Republicans just stay home. Which is what I meant when I mentioned Kimmel being a partial motivator for them to get out and vote.
You're welcome . Yeah, no, I certainly didn't feel you were trying to defend Moore-you were just speaking to the sad realities of how messy and complicated politics can be. What should seem blatantly obvious to some people isn't going to be that way to all, and I do think we need to remember that fact.

And that's a very fair point re: Kimmel's effect on voters. I can definitely see that inspiring them. I hate that people think on that level of spite when voting, but sadly, again, it is a reality.

But yeah, having his voters not show up would certainly help matters. And unfortunately, since there's still some time left before the election itself, that just gives more opportunity to stoke the flames. I wish we could just get the damn thing over with already.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
But it isn't as if it's doom and gloom forever. You have to remember that Obama came on the national stage 4 years before being elected President. He was a nobody basically. You can build up infrastructure and excitement and a platform fairly quickly (hello, look at Trump) even as an outsider. So it isn't as if they have 20 years of rebuilding in front of them...
Exactly. I think a good plan for the Democrats next year would be to have all their party's politicians who are running for seats in the midterms making the media rounds on a steady, regular basis, locally, statewide, and nationally. Let them all get their names out there, let them all talk about their platforms wherever possible, let's see footage of them meeting with constituents in their states, etc. Not only would that be a good way to try and entice people to vote Democrat in the midterms, but it would also allow any younger Democrats who are new to the party some much needed media attention, and help them build up a base so that come 2020, or beyond, some of them might have a legitimate shot at winning the presidency.

And they need to expand their profile as far as possible, too. Obviously they should go on programs that get a lot of liberal-leaning viewers, but if more independent or conservative-leaning programs invite them on, they should go there, too. Let those voters see the positive aspects of their platform and the Democratic party's stances as much as possible, so that they can gain some independent voters, as well as any remaining Trump supporters out there who are increasingly fed up with him and regretting their vote, or any other conservatives who weren't on the "Never Trump" train initially, but may start leaning that way now.

Trump's base is diehard, yes, but his overall approval ratings are in the toilet. There's far more people in this country who are sick of him than there are who support him. The Democrats have a perfect opportunity to sway that large group to support them going forward, and they need to take advantage of that opportunity.
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 01:37 PM   #939
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nazi punks fuck off
Posts: 21,973
Local Time: 04:16 PM
god almighty it took the entire morning to catch up on three pages of this thread...
DaveC is offline  
Old 12-04-2017, 02:32 PM   #940
Blue Crack Distributor
 
corianderstem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Seattle
Posts: 64,498
Local Time: 02:16 PM
President tweets something that sounds like an admission of obstruction of justice.

White House them says "oh, that was his lawyer tweeting that." (Experts say: dude, that actually looks worse for you).

Now today? "The President can't obstruct justice."


Shit's gettin' good.
__________________

corianderstem is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×