Political Roundtable Part XXXI

[Wizardspride]

I believe Popper lives in Florida, so I'd like his opinion on DeSantis' "Anti-woke" agenda.

[bsilver]

Are the words courage and fairness used to justify poor behavior. Note: 20 years ago we had the forever wars + tax cuts. That could be discussed - but how did that work out for us?

Now we have a group actively trying to undermine democracy with the big lie and then defending January 6th. The Rs in house are a POS. Is it courageous and fair that we let them have air to pass disinformation?

Those that are defending Trump or those are defending those congressman in the house are playing their role in undermining democracy. Or maybe I am missing something. In DETAIL (no appeal to ignorance), tell me how they are not traders to democracy?

There is no honest debate with the supporters of the big lie and January 6th - do you get that? This is harsh and in a sense a personal attack. I am attacking your stance (or lack thereof) on one of the most important issues in recent times.

Your argument regarding Jan 6 is not with me dck. I condemn the riot and anyone who supported it.

Of course it is - you support the party that supports the rioters (Trump and the House Congressman & Congresswomen).

This is called cognitive dissonance.

Most of us here vote based on issues. And the R and D parties have pretty consistent positions. So what do think the individual with R views should do? Does the fact that some R politicians supported insurrection mean they have to vote D? ( I don’t think that many R politicians actually supported insurrection. They main problems is that they refuse to do anything about it for partisan political reasons.)

D voters can have the same dilemma. I think there is good reason to believe Bill Clinton is a rapist, and thought so 30 years ago. Did I have a problem voting for a rapist? Not the slightest, even though George HW Bush was the far more admirable person, as was Robert Dole.

[Zonkerbl]

Florida rejects AP Course on African American History, stating that the course violates the state's STOP WOKE act. Desantis then made the heads of Florida’s 28 state colleges pledged that they would not fund any program “that compels belief in critical race theory or related concepts such as intersectionality.”

Critical Race Theory is “an academic and legal framework that denotes that systemic racism is part of American society," as per the NAACP.

Intersectionality describes the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.

So let's break down what DeSantis is doing here:

1 - Codified language into law that Florida can't teach CRT
2 - Put in place administrators that will enforce these laws, and exercise their judgment to enforce these laws
3 - The materials that would fall under CRT can interpreted to be narrow or broad, which is why step 2 is so important.
4 - Step 2 pays additional dividends because now administrators are going above and beyond - pledging to not only put a stop to CRT but RELATED CONCEPTS as well - related concepts such as intersectionality... which, again, can be read to include any and all social categorizations.
5 - Florida has now put in place a system where they can censor education on the basis of the materials containing any reference to any social categorization.

Like, yes, states have functional autonomy on how to run their education system. However, we have seen what happens when politicians set the curriculum, instead of letting educators set it. The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, took place about a HUNDRED YEARS AGO in 1925, was over a teacher, Mr. Scopes, violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it illegal for teachers to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.

As much as Republicans love to say that libs are brainwashing their children, I really don't see how any rational citizen of Florida can stand for this. DeSantis and crew keep saying that there needs to be diversity in the classroom, that certain viewpoints are being suppressed. The rhetoric hints at that there needs to be a balanced discussion on race, history, etc. However, Florida just rejected an AP class, which is an elective, and the curriculum is vetted such that it is eligible for college credit. Sure seems like censorship to me. Sure sounds like how many schools in the South still refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, and that it was fought over states' rights, and that the quality of life for many slaves actually got worse after emancipation. Sure sounds like how Virginia kept Lee Jackson King day on the books up until 2000. Sure sounds like how I went to a middle school named after a segregationist, and a high school named after a different segregationist.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/outcry-grows-after-florida-rejects-ap-african-american-studies-course

I can't imagine a more open and shut case of violating the first amendment. Surely this is going to court?

[dckingsfan]

Your argument regarding Jan 6 is not with me dck. I condemn the riot and anyone who supported it.

Of course it is - you support the party that supports the rioters (Trump and the House Congressman & Congresswomen).

This is called cognitive dissonance.

Most of us here vote based on issues. And the R and D parties have pretty consistent positions. So what do think the individual with R views should do? Does the fact that some R politicians supported insurrection mean they have to vote D? ( I don’t think that many R politicians actually supported insurrection. They main problems is that they refuse to do anything about it for partisan political reasons.)

D voters can have the same dilemma. I think there is good reason to believe Bill Clinton is a rapist, and thought so 30 years ago. Did I have a problem voting for a rapist? Not the slightest, even though George HW Bush was the far more admirable person, as was Robert Dole.

No, not the same dilemma. One is a personal flaw that wasn't covered during the campaign. You didn't know about this until after the election and most of the allegations came out after 2016. And gee, it was part of the reason that Hillary wasn't elected.

This isn't a personal flaw. This is taking down all of democracy. It is covered. It is documented.

You are trying the both sides argument again. It doesn't stand. And those both sides fallacy arguments are going to cost us dearly.

[Zonkerbl]

Your argument regarding Jan 6 is not with me dck. I condemn the riot and anyone who supported it.

Of course it is - you support the party that supports the rioters (Trump and the House Congressman & Congresswomen).

This is called cognitive dissonance.

Most of us here vote based on issues. And the R and D parties have pretty consistent positions. So what do think the individual with R views should do? Does the fact that some R politicians supported insurrection mean they have to vote D? ( I don’t think that many R politicians actually supported insurrection. They main problems is that they refuse to do anything about it for partisan political reasons.)

D voters can have the same dilemma. I think there is good reason to believe Bill Clinton is a rapist, and thought so 30 years ago. Did I have a problem voting for a rapist? Not the slightest, even though George HW Bush was the far more admirable person, as was Robert Dole.

I think if it is so easy for the party whose policies you support to slide into fascism, that maybe you should reevaluate the policies you support.

[popper]

I believe Popper lives in Florida, so I'd like his opinion on DeSantis' "Anti-woke" agenda.

My understanding is that race is a social construct that was used by people (mostly Caucasian) to oppress others (mostly people of color). I'm probably the least knowledgeable person on this thread with regard to CRT so feel free to correct any misconceptions I may hold.

It's undeniable that racism was embedded in our legal and economic systems. Any vestige of those racist components should be eliminated immediately.

I endorse teaching students the historical facts about the foregoing and obviously about the evils of slavery in this country and others as well.

If DeSantis wants to eliminate the teaching of that history I would oppose that policy. With regard to his CRT edicts, I would have to invest many hours to fully understand the ramifications. Others here are more qualified to do so and I'll gladly read their analysis.

[montestewart]

Florida rejects AP Course on African American History, stating that the course violates the state's STOP WOKE act. Desantis then made the heads of Florida’s 28 state colleges pledged that they would not fund any program “that compels belief in critical race theory or related concepts such as intersectionality.”

Critical Race Theory is “an academic and legal framework that denotes that systemic racism is part of American society," as per the NAACP.

Intersectionality describes the interconnected nature of social categorizations such as race, class, and gender as they apply to a given individual or group, regarded as creating overlapping and interdependent systems of discrimination or disadvantage.

So let's break down what DeSantis is doing here:

1 - Codified language into law that Florida can't teach CRT
2 - Put in place administrators that will enforce these laws, and exercise their judgment to enforce these laws
3 - The materials that would fall under CRT can interpreted to be narrow or broad, which is why step 2 is so important.
4 - Step 2 pays additional dividends because now administrators are going above and beyond - pledging to not only put a stop to CRT but RELATED CONCEPTS as well - related concepts such as intersectionality... which, again, can be read to include any and all social categorizations.
5 - Florida has now put in place a system where they can censor education on the basis of the materials containing any reference to any social categorization.

Like, yes, states have functional autonomy on how to run their education system. However, we have seen what happens when politicians set the curriculum, instead of letting educators set it. The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, took place about a HUNDRED YEARS AGO in 1925, was over a teacher, Mr. Scopes, violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it illegal for teachers to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.

As much as Republicans love to say that libs are brainwashing their children, I really don't see how any rational citizen of Florida can stand for this. DeSantis and crew keep saying that there needs to be diversity in the classroom, that certain viewpoints are being suppressed. The rhetoric hints at that there needs to be a balanced discussion on race, history, etc. However, Florida just rejected an AP class, which is an elective, and the curriculum is vetted such that it is eligible for college credit. Sure seems like censorship to me. Sure sounds like how many schools in the South still refer to the Civil War as the War of Northern Aggression, and that it was fought over states' rights, and that the quality of life for many slaves actually got worse after emancipation. Sure sounds like how Virginia kept Lee Jackson King day on the books up until 2000. Sure sounds like how I went to a middle school named after a segregationist, and a high school named after a different segregationist.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/outcry-grows-after-florida-rejects-ap-african-american-studies-course

I can't imagine a more open and shut case of violating the first amendment. Surely this is going to court?

Next step: mandatory Christian instruction in public schools. He’s inflaming his audience like a wrestler on Monday Night Raw

[Zonkerbl]

I believe Popper lives in Florida, so I'd like his opinion on DeSantis' "Anti-woke" agenda.

My understanding is that race is a social construct that was used by people (mostly Caucasian) to oppress others (mostly people of color). I'm probably the least knowledgeable person on this thread with regard to CRT so feel free to correct any misconceptions I may hold.

It's undeniable that racism was embedded in our legal and economic systems. Any vestige of those racist components should be eliminated immediately.

I endorse teaching students the historical facts about the foregoing and obviously about the evils of slavery in this country and others as well.

If DeSantis wants to eliminate the teaching of that history I would oppose that policy. With regard to his CRT edicts, I would have to invest many hours to fully understand the ramifications. Others here are more qualified to do so and I'll gladly read their analysis.

Based off the first few paragraphs, Popper, you seem to understand CRT perfectly well. Banning the teaching of historical facts about the racism that is embedded in our legal and economic systems is exactly what DeSantis is proposing to do.

[Zonkerbl]

As I have said previously, the policies supported by moderate Republicans and moderate Democrats are pretty much indistinguishable, they're both pro business, both free trade, both pretty much gung ho capitalism. Moderate Dems had no problem with the xenophobia rampant in unions in the seventies and eighties right up until they pretty much abandoned unions in signing NAFTA.

So it would make a lot of sense to me if the Republican party were to just cease to exist, and for the Dem party to split into a "liberal" (in the classic sense of the word) and a "progressive" wing and everyone who actually pays attention to politics to choose one of those two.

Well, keeping in mind that the whole two party system is idiotic and we should have twenty political parties in this country just like everybody else does. Would result in a lot more "bipartisanship" if people were forced to reach out to similarly minded groups to form coalitions to get anything done.

[Zonkerbl]

We should make some changes so that we're not stuck in a two party system that leads to stagnation and decay.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/04/27/why-are-there-only-two-parties-in-american-politics/

[dobrojim]

Of course it is - you support the party that supports the rioters (Trump and the House Congressman & Congresswomen).

This is called cognitive dissonance.

Most of us here vote based on issues. And the R and D parties have pretty consistent positions. So what do think the individual with R views should do? Does the fact that some R politicians supported insurrection mean they have to vote D? ( I don’t think that many R politicians actually supported insurrection. They main problems is that they refuse to do anything about it for partisan political reasons.)

D voters can have the same dilemma. I think there is good reason to believe Bill Clinton is a rapist, and thought so 30 years ago. Did I have a problem voting for a rapist? Not the slightest, even though George HW Bush was the far more admirable person, as was Robert Dole.

I think if it is so easy for the party whose policies you support to slide into fascism, that maybe you should reevaluate the policies you support.

Some policies such as support for the Constitution, your oath of office, should take priority over
the things like...well, like everything else. If you cannot support voting and make bad faith arguments
in defense of your efforts to diminish the franchise for significant groups of people, you lose
any legitimate claim to represent the People.

Should Pena be allowed to run for office again when he gets out of jail?

[pancakes3]

Of course it is - you support the party that supports the rioters (Trump and the House Congressman & Congresswomen).

This is called cognitive dissonance.

Most of us here vote based on issues. And the R and D parties have pretty consistent positions. So what do think the individual with R views should do? Does the fact that some R politicians supported insurrection mean they have to vote D? ( I don’t think that many R politicians actually supported insurrection. They main problems is that they refuse to do anything about it for partisan political reasons.)

D voters can have the same dilemma. I think there is good reason to believe Bill Clinton is a rapist, and thought so 30 years ago. Did I have a problem voting for a rapist? Not the slightest, even though George HW Bush was the far more admirable person, as was Robert Dole.

No, not the same dilemma. One is a personal flaw that wasn't covered during the campaign. You didn't know about this until after the election and most of the allegations came out after 2016. And gee, it was part of the reason that Hillary wasn't elected.

This isn't a personal flaw. This is taking down all of democracy. It is covered. It is documented.

You are trying the both sides argument again. It doesn't stand. And those both sides fallacy arguments are going to cost us dearly.

1) Hold the phone, is January 6 NOT a political issue? It was at the directive of the leader of the republican party, to ensure the maintaining of power of the republican party, the means of which was through the votes of congressional members of the republican party, the investigation of which was nearly uniformly opposed by the republican party, and those in the republican party who opposed investigating/consequences of Jan 6 were subsequently removed from power both through election and appointment. There's also considerable backlash to dems pushing through the investigation wherein republicans are pushing to investigate Biden in retaliation. There's also the underlying issue of election denial that extends to beyond just the 2020 presidential election to all hotly contested elections for a number of positions.

2) Y'all talking about old s that's not applicable to this new s. the new s, which really ramped up in 2000 (if you had to point to a single event it was Bush v Gore) where the Republican party started deploying increasingly unsavory tactics to remain in power, among which is reframing the issues.

3) environmentalism was a purple issue from the 70's on through 2000 but has since been politicized. nobody disagrees that we need clean air and water, but global warming is now a dirty phrase for half the country (if we accept the premise that voters vote based on issues and not inertia).

4) gerrymandering kicked into high gear post 2000 when it became apparent that national elections can be won on the margins of a few select districts in a few select states. Republicans in key state legislatures (North Carolina, Arizona, and Florida notably) seeing their states shifting blue became masters at both actual gerrymandering as well as litigating cases challenging gerrymandering, culminating in 2019 in Rucho v. Common Cause where SCOTUS held that it was legal to gerrymander based on political affiliation. Doesn't seem like something that issue-voters would agree with, regardless of political affiliation, and yet here we are.

5) Citizens United, dark money, corporate personhood - yet another issue that most Americans say is a bad thing, and was part of the Republican agenda post 2000.

6) Vaccinations. Purple issue for decades, if not centuries. All of a sudden it's politicized.

There are dozens of other examples where Republicans have either obfuscated their true motives in advancing certain policies, or just outright convinced their base that their policies are align with the constituents that when presented in a transparent manner, voters would not agree with - even immigration. The problem with immigration isn't crime, or losing jobs. Immigrants have lower arrest rates, increase the labor force, and are net positives across the board. The problem with immigration is the lack of resources devoting to document workers. People wouldn't hop fences and live in poverty if they had the right to work openly (and be taxed accordingly). Same can be said that R's keep pushing the lack of voter ID as a real source of voter fraud and have yet to introduce a single piece of legislation that creates voter IDs. Like I said, dozens of examples. Even today, the entire agenda is reactionary. Impeach Biden, investigate Hunter, anti-woke, anti-green-new-deal, anti-immigration. Any affirmative agenda items (infrastructure bill) fails, despite controlling Congress + Presidency. The only piece of meaningful legislation (tax bill) is a costly and ill-prepared mess.

So forgive me if I get a little riled up when someone starts singing the same old song about civility and respect, because it effectively is a song of complacency, and it's the complacency that led us to where we are today:
- a meaninglessly yet fervently divided nation that refuses to introspect
- corporate greed effecting greater and greater wage/wealth inequality
- arrested development in vital sectors of r&d and implementation (renewable energy, sustainable transportation)
- revitalized jingoism, religious ferventry, classism, and racism stoking division and not inclusion (homo/transphobia sprinkled in for good measure)

[pancakes3]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/conservative-freedom-phone-backers-turn-on-each-other

look at these scummy rats turn on each other after the grift is up.

[pancakes3]

Posted primarily for illustrative purposes because presentation of arguments matter, maybe:

[verbal8]

Like, yes, states have functional autonomy on how to run their education system. However, we have seen what happens when politicians set the curriculum, instead of letting educators set it. The State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes, commonly referred to as the Scopes Monkey Trial, took place about a HUNDRED YEARS AGO in 1925, was over a teacher, Mr. Scopes, violating Tennessee's Butler Act, which had made it illegal for teachers to teach human evolution in any state-funded school.

As much as Republicans love to say that libs are brainwashing their children, I really don't see how any rational citizen of Florida can stand for this. DeSantis and crew keep saying that there needs to be diversity in the classroom, that certain viewpoints are being suppressed.

I don't think many rational people are going to stay in Florida. It really seems like #DeathSantis is taking the state back decades.

[Pointgod]

There’s been some good discussion back and forth over the last couple of pages. Sorry I couldn’t respond. I’m not trying to hammer guys like Popper or Bsilver into submission to see things exactly my way. But there’s no way to have a dialogue if you can’t acknowledge reality without posters taking it personally. I’ll give Popper credit that he’s more reasonable and seems willing to listen unlike Bonscott and TGW who are drive by trolls.

I feel Popper deep down knows the Republican Party has lost their way but the bias and right wing echo chamber kicks in and he has to create false equivalency with the Democratic Party. Let’s be clear there is no equivalence. Both parties aren’t corrupt, Republicans are corrupt. Democrats have not cheered on and defended domestic terrorists. Democrats are are on the right side of issues with 60-70% of the country. Democrats have held their own to much higher standards than Republicans ever have (Katie Hill and Al Franken for example).

Here are just two examples of how corrupt and bankrupt Republicans are and have always been. Dems have never seated a child molester for speaker of the House for example. The list goes on but pointing out actual truths shouldn’t be offensive.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

[Pointgod]

I believe Popper lives in Florida, so I'd like his opinion on DeSantis' "Anti-woke" agenda.

I don’t know how anyone can defend this…. Also why the people wetting their pants about Ron Desantis beating Biden need to pump their breaks. Once the National spotlight is on him it’s going to open the eyes of a lot of people.

Read on Twitter

[bsilver]

Of course it is - you support the party that supports the rioters (Trump and the House Congressman & Congresswomen).

This is called cognitive dissonance.

Most of us here vote based on issues. And the R and D parties have pretty consistent positions. So what do think the individual with R views should do? Does the fact that some R politicians supported insurrection mean they have to vote D? ( I don’t think that many R politicians actually supported insurrection. They main problems is that they refuse to do anything about it for partisan political reasons.)

D voters can have the same dilemma. I think there is good reason to believe Bill Clinton is a rapist, and thought so 30 years ago. Did I have a problem voting for a rapist? Not the slightest, even though George HW Bush was the far more admirable person, as was Robert Dole.

No, not the same dilemma. One is a personal flaw that wasn't covered during the campaign. You didn't know about this until after the election and most of the allegations came out after 2016. And gee, it was part of the reason that Hillary wasn't elected.

This isn't a personal flaw. This is taking down all of democracy. It is covered. It is documented.

You are trying the both sides argument again. It doesn't stand. And those both sides fallacy arguments are going to cost us dearly.

My timeline on Bill Clinton was wrong. The Paula Jones scandal and his infidelities were known in the 90s, but the rape allegations were after he ran for office.
In no way was I saying that R and D actions are equivalent. My anti R feelings are up there with anyone. I was writing about the equivalence in the emotions between R and D voters. The D voters hate (substitute you own feelings here) the R party and their positions and the R voters feeling the same way about the D party. Insurrection or rape are not going to change minds. A very conservative Liz Cheney will stop at supporting a Trump, but is not going to start voting D.
It’s worth going after the R party, but the voters you’re trying to influence are independents, and tring to fire up the D base.

[Zonkerbl]

Interesting thing about talking with Popper is I get a very similar vibe to my discussion with my grandfather Phil when I was a teenager in the 80s. He was always asking me, if we allow the unions to be broken, where are these people going to work?

Another interesting thing about that is my Grandfather was a union organizer in his youth in the thirties and a card carrying member of the American Communist Party.

[dobrojim]

I wonder if Cheney voted for her primary opponent.
AFAIK, she has not said, but I don’t believe this would
be big news outside of WY. But maybe it would. After
what she said during the Committee hearings, it’s hard
to imagine her voting for an election denier/insurrectionist.
That basically leaves only the dem.