US Politics IV - Page 50 - 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 12-05-2017, 08:37 AM   #981
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kiwilad View Post
Yes, I do understand how this sounds to a woman who is pro choice.

Meeting Alabama voters where they are at on one issue amongs hundreds has nothing to do with your rights.

You want to nominate only pro-life candidates who will then only vote for pro-life SCOTUS nominees to hold judicial positions for life so that they have the votes needed to overturn Roe v Wade.

Hello?
__________________

anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 08:48 AM   #982
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Well take Joe Manchin for example...self described pro-life, pro-gun and won in deep red West Virginia, which gave Trump 68% of the vote (vs. Alabama's 62% for Trump). Yes he voted for Gorsuch, but also voted against the GOP on repealing the ACA and the recent tax bill.

Does anyone think Joe Manchin wins in WV if he's not pro-life and pro-gun? Isn't he proof that Dems can win in red states with the right candidates? Would we rather have a Republican in that seat?
__________________

Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 08:55 AM   #983
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
BEAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: San Diego
Posts: 6,516
Local Time: 07:56 PM
This may be slightly off the topic, but why should i be expected to meet a trump supporter on their side ?

We read articles about how liberals spent time living the conservative life or whatever to try and gain some understanding of where they are coming from.

I get empathy is important, but i only allow my empathy to feel for another human being, not some backward view.

You never read about how a rural conservative gives the liberal elitist lifestyle a try (though the irony is all of their talk show hero’s who rail against it are living that life).

I don’t want to meet halfway when it comes to belief systems or policies that harm a group of people or the planet.

I can understand how scary the world must look with the amount of change that has occurred over the last few generations. I can’t support people willing to forfeit the future due to their fear
BEAL is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:02 AM   #984
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,202
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
And they got Nixon on the cover up, not the crime.

You'd have to have a pretty low opinion of Robert Mueller to think that he's letting Flynn walk, who has committed a multitude of actual, provable crimes, if there wasn't something else there, and there are very few people above Flynn.
eh hem...

Quote:
FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Special Counsel Robert Mueller has asked Deutsche Bank (DBKGn.DE) to share data on accounts held by U.S. President Donald Trump and his family, a person close to the matter said on Tuesday.

Germany’s largest bank received a subpoena from Mueller several weeks ago to provide information on certain money and credit transactions, the person added, confirming a report by German daily Handelsblatt published on Tuesday.

Deutsche Bank, which has loaned the Trump organization millions of dollars for real estate ventures, said it would not comment on any of its clients.

Deutsche Bank rejected demands in June by U.S. House Democrats to provide details of Trump’s finances, citing privacy laws.

Mueller is investigating alleged Russian attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election and potential collusion by Trump aides.

Russia has denied meddling in the election and Trump has said there was no collusion.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:31 AM   #985
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
This may be slightly off the topic, but why should i be expected to meet a trump supporter on their side ?
Truthfully these suggestions most often come from a place of extraordinary privilege.

In other words, it's very easy for a white, straight man to tell women, racialized persons and LGBTQ individuals that they should "meet halfway" those who would take away the rights they now have or scale them back or prevent them from coming to a place of true equality. The people insisting on this kumbaya have nothing to lose and for them it is all a nice and theoretical exercise. But in some instances it can be a matter of life and death for the minority individual on the other side and I find it deeply troubling and disturbing that the onus is being placed on minorities with historical disadvantages to "meet halfway" people who would keep them there.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:31 AM   #986
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 08:56 PM
As I was saying...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
Of course, if Mueller comes up with something more, say conspiracy and a quid pro quo with the Russians, that would be something different entirely.
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:32 AM   #987
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post

Does anyone think Joe Manchin wins in WV if he's not pro-life and pro-gun? Isn't he proof that Dems can win in red states with the right candidates? Would we rather have a Republican in that seat?
You are looking at an anomalous case.

Why not stack the Democratic caucus with 10 such Manchins who will then have the power to hold the party hostage to their views much like what we are seeing from the Tea Party?

Why is it that you guys keep insisting that this is what Democrats should do but there is no suggestion that anybody on the right, not a voter and not a politician "meet halfway" their progressives in San Francisco?

It's truthfully really frustrating.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:35 AM   #988
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEAL View Post
You never read about how a rural conservative gives the liberal elitist lifestyle a try (though the irony is all of their talk show hero’s who rail against it are living that life).
Obviously you've never seen The Beverly Hillbillies.

And to be fair, elitists have done the same (e.g. Paris & Nicole on Real Life).
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:39 AM   #989
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Why is it that you guys keep insisting that this is what Democrats should do but there is no suggestion that anybody on the right, not a voter and not a politician "meet halfway" their progressives in San Francisco?
Well for one, I've never used the term "meet halfway". Not once. I don't even think meeting halfway is necessarily a good way to compromise.

Secondly, (and any of my friends would confirm this about me, trust me) if I were on say, a country music blog surrounded by a bunch of tea partiers and Trump supporters, I would, in fact, tell them that they should be trying to understand the POV of progressives and people in blue states. There's just no one around here to say that to. And If they said something racist or misogynistic, I'd call them out on that too.

So for the record, red state lurker on Interference, I do think you should try to understand the people who live in blue states. You'll discover that they're not all socialists who want to make you participate in gay weddings and turn you child transgender. That people in San Francisco in fact have families, and pay their bills, and worry about their health care and their children, and hope for the future go to church and can be good friends and neighbours. Just like you. And yes, they love U2 also.

Oh, I'd also tell people in that country music forum to shut up and stop criticising Bono, and that he's as good a Christian as any of them. But that's another story.
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:40 AM   #990
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post

I'd also tell them to shut up and stop criticising Bono,
Let's be honest, he can be pretty annoying.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:49 AM   #991
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
eh hem...
Didn't Trumpski say at one point that he'd get rid of Mueller if Mueller started digging into the finances?
anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:50 AM   #992
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,843
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
You are looking at an anomalous case.

Why not stack the Democratic caucus with 10 such Manchins who will then have the power to hold the party hostage to their views much like what we are seeing from the Tea Party?
If that means that the Democrats then have senators from Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina, then I'm not sure they will hold the party hostage. Because that would likely mean that the Democrats will have a big (super?) majority, assuming the bluer states also have a Democrat as senator.
This 'meeting in the middle' is only a strategy to win in deep-red states. It's not something to pursue in California, New York or Massachusetts. But if you're demanding purity of the candidates compared to some measuring stick, then your pursuing a Tea Party-like strategy. Pragmatism and influence be damned, ideology is what counts. That's what caused the current situation in Alabama in the first place.

Quote:
Why is it that you guys keep insisting that this is what Democrats should do but there is no suggestion that anybody on the right, not a voter and not a politician "meet halfway" their progressives in San Francisco?
There's no need for it. The conservatives have the majority in the House and the Senate. They have the power. So why move?
Popmartijn is online now  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:55 AM   #993
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Popmartijn View Post
There's no need for it. The conservatives have the majority in the House and the Senate. They have the power. So why move?
Because elections are cyclical and because even if the Democrats do nothing, the political pendulum inevitably swings as people get sick and tired of the party in power. All this doom and gloom as if the Republicans are suddenly a monarchy.

Did they swing left to court moderates in the last decade? LOL. That is NOT how they won, in fact it's the opposite.

And I disagree with you on your other point as well, because those Senators and Congressmen are always going to be worried about their hide first and their priority is re-election. The country is way too polarized for super majorities in any event. But you get 5-6 more of them in there and what is their incentive on social issues? We are not just talking about a "purity" test of one issue but a number of them. You think that suddenly they will all take policy positions of the rest of the party when they know they will lose the first election back home? And if they do not adopt the broader policies of the party on these important social issues, then what you're saying is that their value is maybe on other issues like the economy, etc where they may be more reliable voters. Great, but like I said that is a super privileged position you are coming from because their intransigence on social issues has zero impact on you personally.
anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 09:59 AM   #994
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: DC
Posts: 68,202
Local Time: 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Didn't Trumpski say at one point that he'd get rid of Mueller if Mueller started digging into the finances?
Yes, because that's where the bodies are buried.
Headache in a Suitcase is online now  
Old 12-05-2017, 10:05 AM   #995
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,663
Local Time: 08:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Didn't Trumpski say at one point that he'd get rid of Mueller if Mueller started digging into the finances?
I think it's his finances that Trump is most worried about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
Let's be honest, he can be pretty annoying.
Have you heard the Stern interview? Best version of Bono I've heard in a while.
Nick66 is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 10:08 AM   #996
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,663
Local Time: 01:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
You want to nominate only pro-life candidates who will then only vote for pro-life SCOTUS nominees to hold judicial positions for life so that they have the votes needed to overturn Roe v Wade.

Hello?
I don't think that because someone calls themselves pro-life (especially a democrat in the Deep South) they will then only vote for pro-life SCOTUS nominees or actively work to overturn Roe v Wade. It's one thing if they're openly campaigning on overturning Roe v Wade, but if they're simply stating that they personally believe abortion is morally troublesome and should be reduced?

Let's not forget that Obama was on record prior to his presidency as a supporter of traditional marriage over gay marriage, and look where his presidency took us in terms of gay rights. It's entirely possible that some of these pro-life democrats are taking that stance because of the political calculus that it's the safe position to take at the moment/for their constituency, but that in office they would not be so beholden to that stance.

Here in Omaha we had a mayoral race last year that featured a progressive candidate with a lot of great ideas vs our incumbent conservative, Trump supporting mayor . National news media, in the weeks immediately before the election, caught wind of the fact that the progressive also happened to be personally pro-life (even though his voting record had been quite supportive of pro-choice causes) and had introduced legislation while in the state legislature that some viewed as anti-abortion (but was actually merely compromised to bring in the necessary votes from conservatives to get some net-positive - from a progressive perspective - legislation approved), and they tore him a new one for not passing the progressive purity test.

That negative national attention immediately before the election I'm sure cost him a significant portion of votes. Whether it cost him the election I don't know, but it was definitely a contributing factor. Had he won the office, he would have no doubt been a much stronger ally of the pro-choice movement than our incumbent mayor, and that's the crucial point for me. Even if he wasn't openly pro-choice (though in this case, as a politician he was generally supportive of pro-choice issues, but maintained a personal belief that abortion was morally questionable), he would be the better choice for those who are.

Given the stronghold the Republican Party has on many state governments, it seems like holding all candidates to an ideological purity test does little more than ensure that it will take Dems even longer to gain traction in more conservative areas. It's pretty difficult to change hearts and minds if you never increase your representation in the way things are run. I think it would be better for the progressive agenda, including pro-choice issues, to focus on getting democrats into office, even if they don't perfectly line up on all the issues.
Diemen is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 10:16 AM   #997
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diemen View Post
I don't think that because someone calls themselves pro-life (especially a democrat in the Deep South) they will then only vote for pro-life SCOTUS nominees or actively work to overturn Roe v Wade. It's one thing if they're openly campaigning on overturning Roe v Wade, but if they're simply stating that they personally believe abortion is morally troublesome and should be reduced?
That's fine if you think that placing ridiculous and often humiliating restrictions on women's access to abortion is fair. I do not. And you can also see it as the first step in overturning Roe v. Wade.

The reality is also that Republicans who hold control of state legislatures constantly pass extremely restrictive bills regarding abortion. This is why you see clinics shuttering and women not having access for hundreds of kilometres near them. This is also why you see emboldeing among pharmacists who are now claiming religious right to deny women birth control pills or abortifacient drugs. It all comes from the same place. But back to the legislation - dozens of these cases end up progressing upwards in the courts because they are necessarily appealed. Most everybody in the legal scholarship community agrees that it is only a matter of time before SCOTUS hears a case that could directly or indirectly overturn Roe v. Wade. It doesn't mean that your pro-life candidate turned Senator from Nebraska or Alabama or Arkansas campaigned on overturning that landmark case or even made his or her pro-life views the centrepiece of the campaign. But when push comes to shove and you have to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and we ALL know that the bright line test will be Roe v. Wade, do you want to take that risk? That this pro-life individual will suddenly have a reversal and not vote with the Republicans to appoint such a SCOTUS justice?

And again, it's not about political purity and it's a bit insulting to read that over and over again. There are many social issues on which social conservatives and liberals diverge and I don't understand the necessity of liberals all moving on their principles and accommodating the right while the right is doing nothing and being asked to do nothing to come off their moral high horse (while voting for a child molester).
anitram is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 12:22 PM   #998
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,471
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post

Why is it that you guys keep insisting that this is what Democrats should do but there is no suggestion that anybody on the right, not a voter and not a politician "meet halfway" their progressives in San Francisco?

It's truthfully really frustrating.


my idealism has mostly been drowned in the bathtub this year, but 2 years ago i would have responded: because we have better arguments.

the more they hear us out, the more we make the case, the more we put our lives out there and explain ourselves over and over, the more we will win.

i think that did happen with same-sex marriage. the argument was brought to the people, it was made, over and over and over again, and it's now the law of the land. because we were always right.

all that said, my faith in institutions and indeed democracy and even humanity has been shaken this year, as the GOP now endorse child molesters in order to pass tax cuts for the superwealthy, but given Trumps 61% disapproval and 33% approval ratings in Gallup, i can still cling to hope that the majority of the people aren't rotten, but the system needs repair.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 12-05-2017, 12:33 PM   #999
Blue Crack Addict
 
LuckyNumber7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 18,458
Local Time: 03:56 PM
anitram, it does seem that you are indeed holding Supreme Court nominations about abortion to the gold standard of any senator's role in the government. That is not their only responsibility.

But you brought up gay marriage. What if this hypothetical candidate was super progressive but anti gay marriage? First, if he's from Alabama, well then I'm definitely not offended because there's no way Alabama was getting gay marriage through non-judicial senses.

Anyways. I didn't vote for Obama in 2012 because I was turned off and disappointed that he was in support of "traditional marriage" and I didn't buy into his "evolution." I was turned off by his politician use of someone's livelihood as a tool to win his election. But, as kiwilad said, change comes slowly. It's more likely that Obama believed in gay marriage in 2008 but swallowed those words to get elected then, rather than the other way round. In hindsight, I'd take back my third party vote in 2012, because Obama did a fantastic job.

But what about this supposed Alabama senator? Is someone automatically not a positive asset to progressivism because they don't support my #1 focus of gay marriage? Of course that can't be true. You better bet your ass that I personally won't vote for them (so I understand your reservations about this hypothetical Alabama senator), but that doesn't mean he/she isn't a force for the betterment. Example: a pro choice anti gay marriage candidate? A pro life pro gay marriage candidate?
LuckyNumber7 is online now  
Old 12-05-2017, 12:56 PM   #1000
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 18,918
Local Time: 03:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyNumber7 View Post
anitram, it does seem that you are indeed holding Supreme Court nominations about abortion to the gold standard of any senator's role in the government. That is not their only responsibility.
I talk about it because as a woman it is the social issue that I understand the best. I would treat a woman's right to choose the same way as full rights for LGBTQ individuals under the law, for example, but I don't argue the point because I am not part of that community and am not as well informed on the current struggles and trends state by state. There are a number of issues you can choose that are social issues and I don't think that advocating on behalf of one in the interest of time and knowledge means that is the bright line test or gold standard.

All that aside, I am a bit surprised that everybody here doesn't realize that when it comes to SCOTUS there actually really is only one bright line test that is indisputable, and that being abortion. Gun rights are the closest next one (the difference being is that historically gun ownership has not been restricted and so declaring the 2nd amendment to be of no force and effect when it comes to individual ownership would be a pretty massive change, but abortion was illegal for the majority of the history of the nation and is only a modern day SCOTUS interpretation change, if you will). So you can say it's my gold standard, but the reality is that it's actually the line in the sand that is used when any nominee comes up. It's the first thing discussed and it's precisely the thing that we are told a million times over made even allegedly rational Republicans vote for Trump. So why minimize its importance in elections?
__________________

anitram 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 02:56 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
×