US Politics IV

[Nick66]

Yeah this was my point and also the fact that Nick said that if Doug Jones had been pro-life, he may have had a better chance. Well my response was that it doesn't make a lot of sense to (a) nominate a pro-life candidate which is in general opposition with the party and most of its supporters, who by the way are the ones that fund the party and organize the infrastructure, and (b) hope that some massive ass scandal takes down the Republican who, going into the race had like a 30-point lead. Sorry, but hindsight is 20/20 so I disagree with the suggestion that the Democrats should put up candidates to suit the majority (i.e. Republican) voters of Alabama.

Also lost in this is the fact that the Democrats have primaries and the same VOTERS of Alabama elected Doug Jones, a pro-choice candidate. So now we are telling them they are wrong and should elect a pro-lifer? I mean how do you say that out of one side of your mouth and out of the other say that the will of the voters of Alabama (majority pro-life Republicans) must be respected?

Well the Democratic party has has some success running pro-gun candidates in some places, when the position of the national party is for more gun control, so there's that. I'm not saying the two issues are completely analogous, but there is something to be said for regional candidates having regional appeal. Though you're quite right, Dem primary voters in Alabama chose a pro-choice candidate there, which is their right and that's that.

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.

I have a high opinion of Mueller. It's part of the reason I don't think he'll try to indict a sitting President or resort to chickenshit suff like the Logan Act. And I'm not saying there's not more there, I'm just saying if there is, we haven't seen any hint of it yet.

I have my own opinion on why Flynn got the deal he got, but it's too much to type now.

 

[anitram]

For sure. A bunch of the huge chunk are those things. And a bunch aren't. You do believe that right? That not every Trump/Moore voter is a racist and/or misogynist?

Yes, but I believe a far larger % than you think more than suit the deplorable label.

We've had a lot written about them by journalists who followed these "lovely" people and their views.

An astounding % is not fit for polite society. You can choose to ignore this and believe it is a few here and there, but if you really dig down at the proliferation of white supremacists within the US in the last few years the statistics become frightening. There is no middle ground with these people, in fact, there is no giving a single inch to them on ANYTHING.

 

[anitram]

Did the primaries voters have a pro life candidate to vote for?

Of course, it's Alabama. I couldn't find info on all of them.

Candidates aside from Doug Jones:
Will Boyd (pro-life)
Vann Caldwell
Jason Fisher
Michael Hansen (pro-choice)
Robert Kennedy Jr. (no relation to Kennedy family) (pro-choice)
Charles Nana (pro-life)
Ron Crumpton (mixed record, unclear, currently leaning pro-life)
Brian McGee

 

[Nick66]

Supreme Court allows full enforcement of Trump travel ban

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to fully enforce a ban on travel to the United States by residents of six mostly Muslim countries.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Booooooooo .

 

[DaveC]

great, terrorism's solved, you guys. now time to get that wall up lickety-split and nobody will have to worry about illegal immigrants anymore either.

so much winning. i'm getting bored of winning.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Of course, it's Alabama. I couldn't find info on all of them.



Candidates aside from Doug Jones:

Will Boyd (pro-life)

Vann Caldwell

Jason Fisher

Michael Hansen (pro-choice)

Robert Kennedy Jr. (no relation to Kennedy family) (pro-choice)

Charles Nana (pro-life)

Ron Crumpton (mixed record, unclear, currently leaning pro-life)

Brian McGee

You have to remember... in a primary, open or closed, in Alabama of all places, the only people going to a democratic primary are full on progressives.

 

[kiwilad]

Of course, it's Alabama. I couldn't find info on all of them.

Candidates aside from Doug Jones:
Will Boyd (pro-life)
Vann Caldwell
Jason Fisher
Michael Hansen (pro-choice)
Robert Kennedy Jr. (no relation to Kennedy family) (pro-choice)
Charles Nana (pro-life)
Ron Crumpton (mixed record, unclear, currently leaning pro-life)
Brian McGee

Fair enough.

 

[kiwilad]

Yes, but I believe a far larger % than you think more than suit the deplorable label.

We've had a lot written about them by journalists who followed these "lovely" people and their views.

An astounding % is not fit for polite society. You can choose to ignore this and believe it is a few here and there, but if you really dig down at the proliferation of white supremacists within the US in the last few years the statistics become frightening. There is no middle ground with these people, in fact, there is no giving a single inch to them on ANYTHING.

I don't have any set idea of how many people/percentages fit the deplorable mantle. Not a clue.
I'm fairly certain most posters on this thread could agree almost to every point what constitutes 'deplorable'. And the mindsets we're talking about are horrific.
But it isn't an absolute unshakeable state of mind. It just isn't. History is full of great swathes of people vehemently believing one set of values before switching, en masse, to another set of values. Common hardship, common enemies, common victories etc have all been triggers for this.
To be very very broad with facts: the bulk of Germans didn't subscribe to Nazi ideology in 1928. Or 1948. But they kinda did in 1938. Leadership and events can radically change perceptions.

I may be way too Pollyanna about this but I can't believe the bulk of those 63 million Trump voters are racist misogynists. Nor can I believe all those who are racist misogynists are incapable of enlightenment.
What they do seem to be is isolated from diversity of views and cultures, isolated (to an extent) from higher education, and scared shitless for their future.
At the moment they see the enemy as being the educated, the middle and upper class social progressives, the media, the globalists. They roll all that up into 'the Democrats' and their fear turns to hate.

Being flexible about issues like abortion isn't pandering. Not to these people. It's meeting them where they are at, as opposed to where the rest of the country is at. Once you meet them there you can still walk forward. But at the moment there's such a divide it's achieving the absolute opposite of 'leading them to water'.
That phrase softly softly catchy monkey comes to mind.

 

[DaveC]

I don't have any set idea of how many people/percentages fit the deplorable mantle. Not a clue.
I'm fairly certain most posters on this thread could agree almost to every point what constitutes 'deplorable'. And the mindsets we're talking about are horrific.
But it isn't an absolute unshakeable state of mind. It just isn't. History is full of great swathes of people vehemently believing one set of values before switching, en masse, to another set of values. Common hardship, common enemies, common victories etc have all been triggers for this.
To be very very broad with facts: the bulk of Germans didn't subscribe to Nazi ideology in 1928. Or 1948. But they kinda did in 1938. Leadership and events can radically change perceptions.

this is a great point.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I have my own opinion on why Flynn got the deal he got, but it's too much to type now.

If and when you do have an opportunity to share that theory, I'd be interested to hear it. You have me curious .

 

[BVS]

I may be way too Pollyanna about this but I can't believe the bulk of those 63 million Trump voters are racist misogynists. Nor can I believe all those who are racist misogynists are incapable of enlightenment.
What they do seem to be is isolated from diversity of views and cultures, isolated (to an extent) from higher education, and scared shitless for their future.
At the moment they see the enemy as being the educated, the middle and upper class social progressives, the media, the globalists. They roll all that up into 'the Democrats' and their fear turns to hate.

So why is it so easy for you to believe the majority of these 63 million are capable of such hate toward Democrats, but they can’t be racist or misogynistic?

I think we’ve seen first hand in here that not all racism comes in the form of white hoods or swastikas. A poster in here recently, who for the most part respectable and educated, showed his true supremacist leanings when he refused to look at any history that showed “dark societies” contributing to civilization.

 

[anitram]

Being flexible about issues like abortion isn't pandering. Not to these people. It's meeting them where they are at.

Do you understand how this sounds to a woman who is pro choice?

Meeting these people where “they are at” means that you are willing to sacrifice my rights under the law.

Sorry but I’ll fight you every step of the way.

Why don’t we meet them where they are on gay rights too?

 

[kiwilad]

So why is it so easy for you to believe the majority of these 63 million are capable of such hate toward Democrats, but they can’t be racist or misogynistic?

I think we’ve seen first hand in here that not all racism comes in the form of white hoods or swastikas. A poster in here recently, who for the most part respectable and educated, showed his true supremacist leanings when he refused to look at any history that showed “dark societies” contributing to civilization.

Is that a serious question?
Firstly, I didn't state anything was 'so easy to believe'.
Secondly, you're gilding the lilly with your 'such hate'.
Thirdly you're equating political views that differ from yours with racism and misogynism.
And fourth, I didn't say those people can't be racist or misogynistic.

You've seen enough of my posts to know where I live and what I stand for. I don't claim to know much of anything about US politics.
My belief is consigning 63 million people to the deplorable basket and assuming they are all lost causes seems unwise.
I made an earlier point around not meeting these people half way by standing a pro choice candidate in Alabama was also unwise. Anitram explained the primary system - democracy picked the candidate. Fair enough.

 

[Nick66]

I may be way too Pollyanna about this but I can't believe the bulk of those 63 million Trump voters are racist misogynists. Nor can I believe all those who are racist misogynists are incapable of enlightenment. .

Very good point. And I'm sure the bulk of those 63 million people don't think of themselves as racist...they probably think they're decent people. And frankly most of them probably are.

Part of the issue, and I alluded to this earlier, is what people regard as racist. A lot progressives (as least if social media is any indication) think that agreeing that the US should "build the wall", or end sanctuary cities, means by definition that you're racist. Or at a minimum a xenophobic bigot. Whereas I'm sure many people who support those policies don't think there's anything racist about wanting a secure border or wanting to see immigration laws enforced.

This goes for a lot of things. Think confederate statutes have their place? Racist. Against affirmative action? Racist. Think marriage is between a man and a woman? Homophobe. Pro-life? Misogynist. Think that biology determines gender? Neanderthal.

I'm not saying that building the wall or ending sanctuary cities is good policy, but I don't think people who want those things are necessarily racist. Misguided perhaps. But because there are so few actual, out in the open mouth breathing racists (relatively speaking), and because many of us can't comprehend why someone would vote for Trump on the issues (because we're so sure he's wrong on them), we just attribute it to things like racism. And doing so pretty much shuts off all debate, because once you call someone a racist, or sexist, or homophobe because of now they feel on a political issue, you're attacking not their position but their motives, and any chance for conversation is immediately shut down.

It's lazy thinking, and it's part of why Democrats continue to lose in huge swaths of the country.

 

[kiwilad]

Do you understand how this sounds to a woman who is pro choice?

Meeting these people where “they are at” means that you are willing to sacrifice my rights under the law.

Sorry but I’ll fight you every step of the way.

Why don’t we meet them where they are on gay rights too?

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.
Directing 'fight' at someone like me is ridiculous. I want complete extinction for what Moore and Trump and Bannon stand for. I want 'pro life' - which I agree is a fucking stupid slogan - to vanish. And while we're at it, I want the insane indoctrination and worship of the jesus et al myth to vanish too. It's where half this shit comes from.
I'm not a contrarian. I tend to think laterally, to try and find solutions by coming at things from different angles. As it stands, Trump is the actual President. And that happened after Pussygate. And Moore is likely to be elected. AFTER these allegations.
It's all fucked up. Rather than shouting all the time I'm posting in this thread my pondering of what can be done differently to change the situation.

Re gay rights. The democrats did meet them where they were at re gay rights. For hundreds of years. As did the rest of the world. Change comes really slow sometimes.

 

[BVS]

Is that a serious question?
Firstly, I didn't state anything was 'so easy to believe'.
Secondly, you're gilding the lilly with your 'such hate'.
Thirdly you're equating political views that differ from yours with racism and misogynism.
And fourth, I didn't say those people can't be racist or misogynistic.

You've seen enough of my posts to know where I live and what I stand for. I don't claim to know much of anything about US politics.
My belief is consigning 63 million people to the deplorable basket and assuming they are all lost causes seems unwise.
I made an earlier point around not meeting these people half way by standing a pro choice candidate in Alabama was also unwise. Anitram explained the primary system - democracy picked the candidate. Fair enough.

Yes it was serious. I’m having a hard time understanding how someone can say they have an irrational hate of educated globalist, some fictitious enemy, but is so hesitant to see that racism and misogyny might play a big role.

I’m not equating a political view different to mine as racism or misogyny. I’m equating racism and misogyny to racism and misogyny.

I’m not even saying they are all racists or misogynists, but as we saw just recently a poster who would never consider himself racist, he’s probably very friendly to non-whites, but at the end of the day he wants whites first and that is why he voted the way he did.

 

[kiwilad]

Yes it was serious. I’m having a hard time understanding how someone can say they have an irrational hate of educated globalist, some fictitious enemy, but is so hesitant to see that racism and misogyny might play a big role.

I’m not equating a political view different to mine as racism or misogyny. I’m equating racism and misogyny to racism and misogyny.

I’m not even saying they are all racists or misogynists, but as we saw just recently a poster who would never consider himself racist, he’s probably very friendly to non-whites, but at the end of the day he wants whites first and that is why he voted the way he did.

Mate, have another read. I don't have any hate for those things. Nor did I say I did. Nor are democrats fictitious. Nor am I hesitant to say racism and misogyny can play a big role.
Not sure what you're trying to achieve here.

Re AEON (I presume), yeah he truly did believe 'whites' were superior. That's fucked up. And yes he did seem like a nice person.
Of course folk like him exist. And folk with far more extreme views too. So pulling out one or several examples isn't adding anything. No shit. These people with these views exist.

So what are you going to do? Lump all 63 million in with AEON, keep shouting at them for the next 3 years and then hope they start seeing things from your point of view?

 

[BVS]

Mate, have another read. I don't have any hate for those things. Nor did I say I did. Nor are democrats fictitious. Nor am I hesitant to say racism and misogyny can play a big role.

Not sure what you're trying to achieve here.



Re AEON (I presume), yeah he truly did believe 'whites' were superior. That's fucked up. And yes he did seem like a nice person.

Of course folk like him exist. And folk with far more extreme views too. So pulling out one or several examples isn't adding anything. No shit. These people with these views exist.



So what are you going to do? Lump all 63 million in with AEON, keep shouting at them for the next 3 years and then hope they start seeing things from your point of view?

What are you going on about? I never said anything about you hating anything or anyone.

AEON is not the minority, that’s my point. I grew up around these people, they’re in my family, they’re in my work place, etc. How much have we seen it in here? They don’t wear hoods, and many are nice people, but when there are folks that are bending over backwards to say racism is exaggerated and deny every single example of racism when the white race is involved, but eagerly jump to point out racism when it’s an example of black on white racism.

 

[BVS]

Very good point. And I'm sure the bulk of those 63 million people don't think of themselves as racist...they probably think they're decent people. And frankly most of them probably are.

Part of the issue, and I alluded to this earlier, is what people regard as racist. A lot progressives (as least if social media is any indication) think that agreeing that the US should "build the wall", or end sanctuary cities, means by definition that you're racist. Or at a minimum a xenophobic bigot. Whereas I'm sure many people who support those policies don't think there's anything racist about wanting a secure border or wanting to see immigration laws enforced.

This goes for a lot of things. Think confederate statutes have their place? Racist. Against affirmative action? Racist. Think marriage is between a man and a woman? Homophobe. Pro-life? Misogynist. Think that biology determines gender? Neanderthal.

I'm not saying that building the wall or ending sanctuary cities is good policy, but I don't think people who want those things are necessarily racist. Misguided perhaps. But because there are so few actual, out in the open mouth breathing racists (relatively speaking), and because many of us can't comprehend why someone would vote for Trump on the issues (because we're so sure he's wrong on them), we just attribute it to things like racism. And doing so pretty much shuts off all debate, because once you call someone a racist, or sexist, or homophobe because of now they feel on a political issue, you're attacking not their position but their motives, and any chance for conversation is immediately shut down.

It's lazy thinking, and it's part of why Democrats continue to lose in huge swaths of the country.

This is so absolutely lazy. Do these folks exist? Yes, but this is such a lazy stereotype. This is the right’s narrative.

This is how the right try to get out of having the discussion. Just look at our most recent discussions on race; “oh you just think it’s racist to build a wall” and when numerous points were brought up, none of them including the wall, they were all ignored and the narrative remained about the wall.

 

[anitram]

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?

 

[Nick66]

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?

 

[BEAL]

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

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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...

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[Nick66]

As I was saying...

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[Nick66]

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]

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.

 

[anitram]

I'd also tell them to shut up and stop criticising Bono,

Let's be honest, he can be pretty annoying.