Political Roundtable Part XV

[tontoz]

Maybe we should just tell them [Trump supporters] they're wrong and to rethink things instead of playing patty cake with them and acting like their views are special and totally reasonable?

My chief problem with Trump supporters is that most of them appear to be extremely gullible. He tells them that Obama tapped the phones at Trump Tower and despite evidence to the contrary they seem to believe it. Trump claims he had more people at his inauguration than Obama and, I suspect, many of his supporters believe that as well despite legit photos showing Obama with almost twice as many people. Trump says there were 3-4 million illegal votes cast in the election and that's why he lost the popular vote. Well, where's the evidence of that?

Trump lies on auto-pilot and it scares me that so many of his supporters are willing to accept--even embrace--reality.

People like that put the rest of us at risk.

The inauguration thing got me worried, or more worried I should say, about a trump presidency. The fact that he lied about it was not a surprise. What really bothered me was that he made such a big deal about something so trivial and wouldn't let it go. Clearly this was a sign of what was coming.

[Pointgod]

I am disappointed in certain posters responses to Nate. I just wrote what I thought was a carefully considered post explaining why shouting "racist racist" might make you feel better but doesn't accomplish anything, and you all basically ignored me. But maybe you guys are right.

Nate is who he is. He has friends on the intertubes whose job it is to produce well-reasoned *enough* arguments that when people respond "racist racist!" they can pat each other on the back and say, "see? We present a rational, well reasoned argument - *like they asked* - and their only response is "racist racist!" Therefore, we are correct."

Nate hates responding to me because I have enough knowledge of statistics to peel back the thin veneer of reasoning under his posts. So he doesn't respond to me anymore. And you know, at this point, does it even matter? I've crushed Nate's arguments again and again, but instead of being persuaded he's wrong, he just quits the board in a huff for awhile, waits for me to stop posting and then dives in again with some other racist BS.

For example, this table Nate presents, a cross tabulation that appears to show that blacks are inherently more violent than whites, by comparing homicides among whites and blacks across similar income levels. He doesn't post a link to the original article, just the table. So I know it's probably meaningless. He doesn't say what data is used. He doesn't make any attempt at all to explain why his data and reasoning is credible. He doesn't explain why income is a good cross-tab variable when the differences in *wealth* between the two groups is still considerable. He doesn't explain whether WIC and disability are counted as income. I could answer those questions myself without pestering Nate, *if he had posted the source,* but he didn't.

Then after making this extremely un-rigorous argument, he incredibly leaps to the conclusion that the difference in violence between blacks and whites is genetic, rather than, say, cultural. Nate, if you're reading this - *that's* what makes you a racist. No amount of pseudo-intellectual, allegedly "fact-based" argument can hide the incredible logical leaps your racist brain makes from the slightest hint of support to your argument to a genetically based root cause.

I understand the frustration of the board. The racist leap that Nate made is *Nate's fault.* Why is the burden of proof on us? Why do you need a Ph.D. economist to pick apart his arguments? Why give him the benefit of the doubt at all? Why not just shout "racist racist"? Particularly after Nate's credibility is so shattered, after having arguments easily picked apart, again and again, establishing a significant body of evidence of the racist motivations behind them?

Once someone has crossed over to the dark side of believing any racist idea, no matter how incredible, with no chance of being persuaded otherwise, what is the point of further argument? Is there anything at all to be gained?

Nate's posts ended up being a total affirmation of everything I was saying from the very beginning. I was 100% correct that engaging with him on an intellectual level would only allow him to abstract and de-contextualize everything and dump his fake news pseudo science propaganda on the thread.

He learned literally nothing. His views did not change. The thing that *did* happen was that he was able to validate his racist beliefs by simply having an argument. He has a side. We have a side.

It is worth responding and making the arguments - and it is worth doing so year after year.

There are some that will never change their opinions or who they vote for - but as Obama/Trump showed us - there are many who do swing from election to election.

Hillary took the easy way out with the deplorable comment and giving up on those who didn't agree. Obama did the hard work.

How did those elections turn out...

Racial resentment was the biggest predictor of someone who voted for Obama voting for Trump. How do you reason with people who voted mainly based on a sense of recapturing white pride?

Democrats can better use their resources focusing on the 40% of voters that decided to stay home, voter suppression and people disappearing off voter rolls. I think this whole idea that appealing to the feelings of Trump voters will so how make them stop voting against their own interests is wishful thinking.

[montestewart]

Trump claims he had more people at his inauguration than Obama and, I suspect, many of his supporters believe that as well despite legit photos showing Obama with almost twice as many people.

If you're comparing 2017 to 2009, I would say easily twice as many attended the latter, and I saw both. Granted, Trump support centers were farther away from DC, but Obama 2009 inauguration had closer to three times as many people, especially if you consider that so many people that were in DC for the 2017 inauguration were there to protest Trump.

[DCZards]

Trump claims he had more people at his inauguration than Obama and, I suspect, many of his supporters believe that as well despite legit photos showing Obama with almost twice as many people.

If you're comparing 2017 to 2009, I would say easily twice as many attended the latter, and I saw both. Granted, Trump support centers were farther away from DC, but Obama 2009 inauguration had closer to three times as many people, especially if you consider that so many people that were in DC for the 2017 inauguration were there to protest Trump.

Indeed. There were more people at the Women's March on the day after inauguration than were there on Inauguration Day.

[Kanyewest]

Trump claims he had more people at his inauguration than Obama and, I suspect, many of his supporters believe that as well despite legit photos showing Obama with almost twice as many people.

If you're comparing 2017 to 2009, I would say easily twice as many attended the latter, and I saw both. Granted, Trump support centers were farther away from DC, but Obama 2009 inauguration had closer to three times as many people, especially if you consider that so many people that were in DC for the 2017 inauguration were there to protest Trump.

Indeed. There were more people at the Women's March on the day after inauguration than were there on Inauguration Day.

Yeah the women's march had 3 times the people as Trump's inauguration. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/22/us/politics/womens-march-trump-crowd-estimates.html?mcubz=0

[Wizardspride]

Watch on YouTube

[dckingsfan]

I think in time Trump will become the most "lying" president of all time. The thing I worry more about is will it become the new normal?

Since Kennedy, power has moved to the Administrative branch... that has become the new normal.

A lying president that can do what they want - that is a truly scary thing.

[payitforward]

Here I go:

I come from a family of Viennese Jews. Those who managed to escape the Nazis got to the US in 1940.

On my Father's side, only he & 1 of his 2 sisters got out of Europe. His parents & his youngest sister, who was 18, were murdered in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. All the rest of my Father's extended family also died in the camps with the exception of 1 person -- a second cousin, now in her mid-70s, who managed to find us online a few years ago.

Though my Father escapeed, it was short-lived; he died a few years later of a liver disease he picked up in a French camp. I was 4 & my sister was only 10 months old.

My Mother's immediate family (parents & siblings) all got out of Europe. But the rest of her extended family died in Nazi extermination camps or were murdered before they got to them.

In Europe my Father's family had been wealthy, but I grew up in extremely modest circumstances. We lived in a small rental apartment until I was a teenager, when a very partial monetary settlement for what had been stolen from my family helped, though by no means did it make us rich or even "upper" middle class.

My urban neighborhood was quite mixed, so that my circle as a kid included Chinese, black, Appalachian, etc. friends. & here's a fun fact: my best friend through most of those years became, much later, one of the 2-3 most prominent movie stars of our time! I'll never forget looking up at a movie screen one day in my early '30s & suddenly realizing, "whoa! that's Xxxxx!!"

My family bought a house in the suburbs when I was a teenager. The few years I lived there I spent a lot of time in the neighboring larger suburb which had a sizable black minority & also had a university. I was already a jazz & blues fanatic. Starting at about 15 I was back in the city at jazz & blues clubs 1 or 2 nights a week. I was writing by the time I was 14 as well, so I also frequented the "beatnik" & "folk" scenes -- to the degree that a twerpy little teenager could get away with it!!

2d fun fact: I bought Miles Davis a drink when I was 15. It's true.

Freedom of thought, diversity of experience, education for all, human (i.e. "civil" & "immigrant") rights -- these were the 'political' issues that meant something to me growing up & have continued to seem of the utmost importance. They came to me via my family experience but equally via my own cultural interests.

Although I studied (& studied with) plenty of conservative thinkers in college & grad school, I never had any flirtation with "conservatism" myself; I never saw any reason to. For a while, I'd have called myself a "Marxist," but then, over time, utopian theories of every stripe began to seem pointless to me.

As a voter, I'm a Democrat. Always have been & no doubt always will be. For the simple reason that I've consistently found that the Democratic party held positions closer to mine than the Republican party on the issues that matter most to me. Of course, there's always been plenty to critique in the Democratic party as well, & individual Democrats have taken stands aplenty with which I have disagreed deeply, while individual Republicans sometimes have taken stands I agree with.

I know plenty of conservatives: my brother-in-law is a well-known conservative economist. My sister is an economist as well. I've spent lots of time socially & in intellectual debate with any number of people in that world whose names some here would certainly know. Traditional conservatism is a respectable pov intellectually. It has points to make. It's not tied in any way to the stupid stuff one reads from Breitbart or other "alt.right" sources. Above all, it has no inherent relationship with any form of demagoguery or with Fascism. Or, for that matter, with Donald Trump who holds no conservative (or other) principles I can discern.

So, there you go. That's my politics & where they came from. I'm hoping to stimulate a similar narrative from you, nate.

[payitforward]

I am disappointed in certain posters responses to Nate. I just wrote what I thought was a carefully considered post explaining why shouting "racist racist" might make you feel better but doesn't accomplish anything, and you all basically ignored me. But maybe you guys are right.

Nate is who he is. He has friends on the intertubes whose job it is to produce well-reasoned *enough* arguments that when people respond "racist racist!" they can pat each other on the back and say, "see? We present a rational, well reasoned argument - *like they asked* - and their only response is "racist racist!" Therefore, we are correct."

Nate hates responding to me because I have enough knowledge of statistics to peel back the thin veneer of reasoning under his posts. So he doesn't respond to me anymore. And you know, at this point, does it even matter? I've crushed Nate's arguments again and again, but instead of being persuaded he's wrong, he just quits the board in a huff for awhile, waits for me to stop posting and then dives in again with some other racist BS.

For example, this table Nate presents, a cross tabulation that appears to show that blacks are inherently more violent than whites, by comparing homicides among whites and blacks across similar income levels. He doesn't post a link to the original article, just the table. So I know it's probably meaningless. He doesn't say what data is used. He doesn't make any attempt at all to explain why his data and reasoning is credible. He doesn't explain why income is a good cross-tab variable when the differences in *wealth* between the two groups is still considerable. He doesn't explain whether WIC and disability are counted as income. I could answer those questions myself without pestering Nate, *if he had posted the source,* but he didn't.

Then after making this extremely un-rigorous argument, he incredibly leaps to the conclusion that the difference in violence between blacks and whites is genetic, rather than, say, cultural. Nate, if you're reading this - *that's* what makes you a racist. No amount of pseudo-intellectual, allegedly "fact-based" argument can hide the incredible logical leaps your racist brain makes from the slightest hint of support to your argument to a genetically based root cause.

I understand the frustration of the board. The racist leap that Nate made is *Nate's fault.* Why is the burden of proof on us? Why do you need a Ph.D. economist to pick apart his arguments? Why give him the benefit of the doubt at all? Why not just shout "racist racist"? Particularly after Nate's credibility is so shattered, after having arguments easily picked apart, again and again, establishing a significant body of evidence of the racist motivations behind them?

Once someone has crossed over to the dark side of believing any racist idea, no matter how incredible, with no chance of being persuaded otherwise, what is the point of further argument? Is there anything at all to be gained?

Which is why I called him intellectually dishonest. I can excuse racism in some as ignorance. Meaning certain racists simply only know what they know. They lack the education, upbringing & spiritual development to know any better. If presented with new evidence or facts or simply the power of love, they may change their mind. Nate however, has his mind made up and is in the business of finding evidence to validate his inherent racial bias.

So arguing with Nate isn't going to solve anything. I'm not saying he isn't capable of change, I'm saying his predisposition is one where it's going to take more than a persuasive argument to open his mind.

Nothing in what either of you write above strikes me as incorrect. & I can see the reasons for frustration. Especially inasmuch as (as far as I can tell) Nate takes no opportunity whatever that he is offered to learn more about how e.g. geneticists actually look at issues like these. I.e. to explore perspectives that might threaten to overturn his POV.

At the same time, what makes this kind of fascinating is that Nate is so little like most convinced racists. E.g. I believe him when he says that he views individuals, when he meets them or interacts with them, simply as individuals, & that to him, as he says, a black person can be "dull or bright", pleasant or difficult, etc. He's open to that individual. You can see some of that pretty easily in the ways he relates in the other threads of this forum, the basketball threads.

That makes you interesting to me, nate -- you're an interesting guy & insofar as people who relate exclusively in a context like this can be "friends," I have that feeling about you. At the same time, you're an interesting *experience* (if that's the right word) for me as well. I've never known anyone with your views who, all the same, is the way I just described you with them as individuals. To me, that gives a dimension to knowing you of a kind I like -- a learning dimension.

(I was uncomfortable putting those thoughts and sentiments in the 3d person -- so I addressed them to nate.)

Obviously, nate's political philosophy (back to the 3d person -- tho I really don't like this; I just don't see a non-awkward alternative in writing) includes a lot more than his views on black people. I'm wondering where the most important commitments of that philosophy for are located?

That's why I asked about people's personal history in re: their politics. & why I'm hoping Nate will take up that question -- hoping that you will, Nate.

IOW, zonk & dat, I agree that arguing w/ nate is a waste of time -- though it's also necessary, as there's a responsibility not to let these kinds of ideas go unchallenged or they may attract followers they wouldn't otherwise attract.

One thing I do know: the more an idea is bound up with other ideas that one holds dear for any reason, the harder it is to let go of that idea. If there are elements of your political philosophy, nate, that have as it were entailments in re: your view of "races" & their "intelligence" (or other characteristics), that makes it harder than otherwise it might be to entertain challenges to that view of "races" etc. & this would be true for anyone on any side of any issue; it's not particular to one or another point of view.

To me, this fact makes it important for me to challenge my own views & to try to understand what those challenges mean. Doesn't mean I'm more willing than you or anyone else to let go of cherished notions. But... I do try!

[cammac]

I am disappointed in certain posters responses to Nate. I just wrote what I thought was a carefully considered post explaining why shouting "racist racist" might make you feel better but doesn't accomplish anything, and you all basically ignored me. But maybe you guys are right.

Nate is who he is. He has friends on the intertubes whose job it is to produce well-reasoned *enough* arguments that when people respond "racist racist!" they can pat each other on the back and say, "see? We present a rational, well reasoned argument - *like they asked* - and their only response is "racist racist!" Therefore, we are correct."

Nate hates responding to me because I have enough knowledge of statistics to peel back the thin veneer of reasoning under his posts. So he doesn't respond to me anymore. And you know, at this point, does it even matter? I've crushed Nate's arguments again and again, but instead of being persuaded he's wrong, he just quits the board in a huff for awhile, waits for me to stop posting and then dives in again with some other racist BS.

For example, this table Nate presents, a cross tabulation that appears to show that blacks are inherently more violent than whites, by comparing homicides among whites and blacks across similar income levels. He doesn't post a link to the original article, just the table. So I know it's probably meaningless. He doesn't say what data is used. He doesn't make any attempt at all to explain why his data and reasoning is credible. He doesn't explain why income is a good cross-tab variable when the differences in *wealth* between the two groups is still considerable. He doesn't explain whether WIC and disability are counted as income. I could answer those questions myself without pestering Nate, *if he had posted the source,* but he didn't.

Then after making this extremely un-rigorous argument, he incredibly leaps to the conclusion that the difference in violence between blacks and whites is genetic, rather than, say, cultural. Nate, if you're reading this - *that's* what makes you a racist. No amount of pseudo-intellectual, allegedly "fact-based" argument can hide the incredible logical leaps your racist brain makes from the slightest hint of support to your argument to a genetically based root cause.

I understand the frustration of the board. The racist leap that Nate made is *Nate's fault.* Why is the burden of proof on us? Why do you need a Ph.D. economist to pick apart his arguments? Why give him the benefit of the doubt at all? Why not just shout "racist racist"? Particularly after Nate's credibility is so shattered, after having arguments easily picked apart, again and again, establishing a significant body of evidence of the racist motivations behind them?

Once someone has crossed over to the dark side of believing any racist idea, no matter how incredible, with no chance of being persuaded otherwise, what is the point of further argument? Is there anything at all to be gained?

Which is why I called him intellectually dishonest. I can excuse racism in some as ignorance. Meaning certain racists simply only know what they know. They lack the education, upbringing & spiritual development to know any better. If presented with new evidence or facts or simply the power of love, they may change their mind. Nate however, has his mind made up and is in the business of finding evidence to validate his inherent racial bias.

So arguing with Nate isn't going to solve anything. I'm not saying he isn't capable of change, I'm saying his predisposition is one where it's going to take more than a persuasive argument to open his mind.

Nothing in what either of you write above strikes me as incorrect. & I can see the reasons for frustration. Especially inasmuch as (as far as I can tell) Nate takes no opportunity whatever that he is offered to learn more about how e.g. geneticists actually look at issues like these. I.e. to explore perspectives that might threaten to overturn his POV.

At the same time, what makes this kind of fascinating is that Nate is so little like most convinced racists. E.g. I believe him when he says that he views individuals, when he meets them or interacts with them, simply as individuals, & that to him, as he says, a black person can be "dull or bright", pleasant or difficult, etc. He's open to that individual. You can see some of that pretty easily in the ways he relates in the other threads of this forum, the basketball threads.

That makes you interesting to me, nate -- you're an interesting guy & insofar as people who relate exclusively in a context like this can be "friends," I have that feeling about you. At the same time, you're an interesting *experience* (if that's the right word) for me as well. I've never known anyone with your views who, all the same, is the way I just described you with them as individuals. To me, that gives a dimension to knowing you of a kind I like -- a learning dimension.

(I was uncomfortable putting those thoughts and sentiments in the 3d person -- so I addressed them to nate.)

Obviously, nate's political philosophy (back to the 3d person -- tho I really don't like this; I just don't see a non-awkward alternative in writing) includes a lot more than his views on black people. I'm wondering where the most important commitments of that philosophy for are located?

That's why I asked about people's personal history in re: their politics. & why I'm hoping Nate will take up that question -- hoping that you will, Nate.

IOW, zonk & dat, I agree that arguing w/ nate is a waste of time -- though it's also necessary, as there's a responsibility not to let these kinds of ideas go unchallenged or they may attract followers they wouldn't otherwise attract.

One thing I do know: the more an idea is bound up with other ideas that one holds dear for any reason, the harder it is to let go of that idea. If there are elements of your political philosophy, nate, that have as it were entailments in re: your view of "races" & their "intelligence" (or other characteristics), that makes it harder than otherwise it might be to entertain challenges to that view of "races" etc. & this would be true for anyone on any side of any issue; it's not particular to one or another point of view.

To me, this fact makes it important for me to challenge my own views & to try to understand what those challenges mean. Doesn't mean I'm more willing than you or anyone else to let go of cherished notions. But... I do try!

I think I could excuse Nate if he wasn't educated but he is and he also indicated before the election he was involved with the State Department (or a similar department) and was stationed for a time in Asia. Plus his use of statistics is useless since you can find statistics to back almost any position. When I compared Russia to USA it proved that a country which is mostly White and Asian is much more murderous than USA. But again that is only one statistic without taking a multitude of other factors into consideration.

My wife would be classified as a racist when we met simply because she had a Chinese stereotypical of Blacks that is prevalent in the China. She had never met Black people or interacted with them. We went on a vacation with a number of couples and one happened to be a Kenyan lady and she realized that she had been totally wrong in her previous observations.

[stilldropin20]

Maybe we should just tell them [Trump supporters] they're wrong and to rethink things instead of playing patty cake with them and acting like their views are special and totally reasonable?

My chief problem with Trump supporters is that most of them appear to be extremely gullible. He tells them that Obama tapped the phones at Trump Tower and despite evidence to the contrary they seem to believe it. Trump claims he had more people at his inauguration than Obama and, I suspect, many of his supporters believe that as well despite legit photos showing Obama with almost twice as many people. Trump says there were 3-4 million illegal votes cast in the election and that's why he lost the popular vote. Well, where's the evidence of that?

Trump lies on auto-pilot and it scares me that so many of his supporters are willing to accept--even embrace--reality.

People like that put the rest of us at risk.

The inauguration thing got me worried, or more worried I should say, about a trump presidency. The fact that he lied about it was not a surprise. What really bothered me was that he made such a big deal about something so trivial and wouldn't let it go. Clearly this was a sign of what was coming.

trump is like the bible. a necessary evil that is badly needed for the moment as an instrument of change. even for nothing more than change's sake. conventional politicians have been steering us into dire situations on multiple fronts abroad and here at home. and the media is allowing/encouraging the .001% of extremely far left and extremely far americans to make the rest of us feel more and more divided than we actually are. it has been a good direction we are going (perhaps ever?) but we should be wiser today than ay other era and we now have the ability to communicate directly to each other around the globe via the internet. we should do something with that like try to find common ground in lieu proving each other wrong and convincing each other "our way" is better. But that's a big reason why a 2 party system like our works. Human beings are extremely predictable.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

Here I go:

I come from a family of Viennese Jews. Those who managed to escape the Nazis got to the US in 1940.

On my Father's side, only he & 1 of his 2 sisters got out of Europe. His parents & his youngest sister, who was 18, were murdered in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. All the rest of my Father's extended family also died in the camps with the exception of 1 person -- a second cousin, now in her mid-70s, who managed to find us online a few years ago.

Though my Father escapeed, it was short-lived; he died a few years later of a liver disease he picked up in a French camp. I was 4 & my sister was only 10 months old.

My Mother's immediate family (parents & siblings) all got out of Europe. But the rest of her extended family died in Nazi extermination camps or were murdered before they got to them.

In Europe my Father's family had been wealthy, but I grew up in extremely modest circumstances. We lived in a small rental apartment until I was a teenager, when a very partial monetary settlement for what had been stolen from my family helped, though by no means did it make us rich or even "upper" middle class.

My urban neighborhood was quite mixed, so that my circle as a kid included Chinese, black, Appalachian, etc. friends. & here's a fun fact: my best friend through most of those years became, much later, one of the 2-3 most prominent movie stars of our time! I'll never forget looking up at a movie screen one day in my early '30s & suddenly realizing, "whoa! that's Xxxxx!!"

My family bought a house in the suburbs when I was a teenager. The few years I lived there I spent a lot of time in the neighboring larger suburb which had a sizable black minority & also had a university. I was already a jazz & blues fanatic. Starting at about 15 I was back in the city at jazz & blues clubs 1 or 2 nights a week. I was writing by the time I was 14 as well, so I also frequented the "beatnik" & "folk" scenes -- to the degree that a twerpy little teenager could get away with it!!

2d fun fact: I bought Miles Davis a drink when I was 15. It's true.

Freedom of thought, diversity of experience, education for all, human (i.e. "civil" & "immigrant") rights -- these were the 'political' issues that meant something to me growing up & have continued to seem of the utmost importance. They came to me via my family experience but equally via my own cultural interests.

Although I studied (& studied with) plenty of conservative thinkers in college & grad school, I never had any flirtation with "conservatism" myself; I never saw any reason to. For a while, I'd have called myself a "Marxist," but then, over time, utopian theories of every stripe began to seem pointless to me.

As a voter, I'm a Democrat. Always have been & no doubt always will be. For the simple reason that I've consistently found that the Democratic party held positions closer to mine than the Republican party on the issues that matter most to me. Of course, there's always been plenty to critique in the Democratic party as well, & individual Democrats have taken stands aplenty with which I have disagreed deeply, while individual Republicans sometimes have taken stands I agree with.

I know plenty of conservatives: my brother-in-law is a well-known conservative economist. My sister is an economist as well. I've spent lots of time socially & in intellectual debate with any number of people in that world whose names some here would certainly know. Traditional conservatism is a respectable pov intellectually. It has points to make. It's not tied in any way to the stupid stuff one reads from Breitbart or other "alt.right" sources. Above all, it has no inherent relationship with any form of demagoguery or with Fascism. Or, for that matter, with Donald Trump who holds no conservative (or other) principles I can discern.

So, there you go. That's my politics & where they came from. I'm hoping to stimulate a similar narrative from you, nate.

As the saying goes, you could write a book - a saying my grandmother used to use whenever I asked about her life. 3 of my 4 grandparents grew up in Belarus and were sent by older siblings to the US on boats as teenagers when Jews were getting exterminated. I'm second generation born in the US. They settled in the Bronx, and my father grew up in an apartment building where he became a good friend of Daniel Schorr's and they had a relative of the Marx Brothers. The Brothers would come by to the building every few months and entertain everyone in the building. One of their few relatives that made it alive out of Belarus served in the Air Force with Jimmy Stewart and flew 31 flights as a Navigator. You reminded me of him with your comment of befriending a famous movie star. But you can't be that old!

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[Zonkerbl]

Here I go:

I come from a family of Viennese Jews. Those who managed to escape the Nazis got to the US in 1940.

On my Father's side, only he & 1 of his 2 sisters got out of Europe. His parents & his youngest sister, who was 18, were murdered in the gas chambers at Auschwitz. All the rest of my Father's extended family also died in the camps with the exception of 1 person -- a second cousin, now in her mid-70s, who managed to find us online a few years ago.

Though my Father escapeed, it was short-lived; he died a few years later of a liver disease he picked up in a French camp. I was 4 & my sister was only 10 months old.

My Mother's immediate family (parents & siblings) all got out of Europe. But the rest of her extended family died in Nazi extermination camps or were murdered before they got to them.

In Europe my Father's family had been wealthy, but I grew up in extremely modest circumstances. We lived in a small rental apartment until I was a teenager, when a very partial monetary settlement for what had been stolen from my family helped, though by no means did it make us rich or even "upper" middle class.

My urban neighborhood was quite mixed, so that my circle as a kid included Chinese, black, Appalachian, etc. friends. & here's a fun fact: my best friend through most of those years became, much later, one of the 2-3 most prominent movie stars of our time! I'll never forget looking up at a movie screen one day in my early '30s & suddenly realizing, "whoa! that's Xxxxx!!"

My family bought a house in the suburbs when I was a teenager. The few years I lived there I spent a lot of time in the neighboring larger suburb which had a sizable black minority & also had a university. I was already a jazz & blues fanatic. Starting at about 15 I was back in the city at jazz & blues clubs 1 or 2 nights a week. I was writing by the time I was 14 as well, so I also frequented the "beatnik" & "folk" scenes -- to the degree that a twerpy little teenager could get away with it!!

2d fun fact: I bought Miles Davis a drink when I was 15. It's true.

Freedom of thought, diversity of experience, education for all, human (i.e. "civil" & "immigrant") rights -- these were the 'political' issues that meant something to me growing up & have continued to seem of the utmost importance. They came to me via my family experience but equally via my own cultural interests.

Although I studied (& studied with) plenty of conservative thinkers in college & grad school, I never had any flirtation with "conservatism" myself; I never saw any reason to. For a while, I'd have called myself a "Marxist," but then, over time, utopian theories of every stripe began to seem pointless to me.

As a voter, I'm a Democrat. Always have been & no doubt always will be. For the simple reason that I've consistently found that the Democratic party held positions closer to mine than the Republican party on the issues that matter most to me. Of course, there's always been plenty to critique in the Democratic party as well, & individual Democrats have taken stands aplenty with which I have disagreed deeply, while individual Republicans sometimes have taken stands I agree with.

I know plenty of conservatives: my brother-in-law is a well-known conservative economist. My sister is an economist as well. I've spent lots of time socially & in intellectual debate with any number of people in that world whose names some here would certainly know. Traditional conservatism is a respectable pov intellectually. It has points to make. It's not tied in any way to the stupid stuff one reads from Breitbart or other "alt.right" sources. Above all, it has no inherent relationship with any form of demagoguery or with Fascism. Or, for that matter, with Donald Trump who holds no conservative (or other) principles I can discern.

So, there you go. That's my politics & where they came from. I'm hoping to stimulate a similar narrative from you, nate.

As the saying goes, you could write a book - a saying my grandmother used to use whenever I asked about her life. 3 of my 4 grandparents grew up in Belarus and were sent by older siblings to the US on boats as teenagers when Jews were getting exterminated. I'm second generation born in the US. They settled in the Bronx, and my father grew up in an apartment building where he became a good friend of Daniel Schorr's and they had a relative of the Marx Brothers. The Brothers would come by to the building every few months and entertain everyone in the building. One of their few relatives that made it alive out of Belarus served in the Air Force with Jimmy Stewart and flew 31 flights as a Navigator. You reminded me of him with your comment of befriending a famous movie star. But you can't be that old!

My Jewish family on my Mother's side came over after the pogroms in Ukraine and Poland in 1905. My mom grew up in the Bronx in the fifties -- when I confronted her about how racist she is, she pointed out that the Bronx was a beautiful neighborhood until they built a bunch of projects there and the black folks all moved in and tore the place up, having no sense of community or respect for property. Her words, not mine. When I drove her through Anacostia she pointed to the black people walking up and down the sidewalks and said "for this to become a nice neighborhood, THOSE PEOPLE have to go." I've caught myself saying racist things unconsciously - I once let slip to my best friend's mom that I thought white kids made better quarterbacks in football because they're smarter. Still embarrasses me. I can't believe the side of my family that had to flee racist murderers ended up being the racist side.

I don't know as much about my father. I know he's half Scotch and half German, protestant, and that they all hate each other.

When I was in high school in Yellow Springs I used to hang out with this girl named Felicia Chappelle. Turns out she was Dave Chappelle's older sister.

[stilldropin20]

Trump claims he had more people at his inauguration than Obama and, I suspect, many of his supporters believe that as well despite legit photos showing Obama with almost twice as many people.

If you're comparing 2017 to 2009, I would say easily twice as many attended the latter, and I saw both. Granted, Trump support centers were farther away from DC, but Obama 2009 inauguration had closer to three times as many people, especially if you consider that so many people that were in DC for the 2017 inauguration were there to protest Trump.

i remember hearing these claims real time from the trump camp and remember the media twisting. And then of course followed what would become a petty doubling down by the president. Initially the trump camp was speaking in terms of COMBINED VIEWERSHIP. live streaming, social media, TV, and attendance. And then in terms of all the "web hits" of pre-recorded stuff from media or on youtube, social media etc, video and still pic. I'm pretty sure no inauguration has had even 1/2 the coverage as trump 2017 maybe not even 1/5th the combined coverage and viewership. Thats just my guess. I mean, we are all still talking about it right now. The troll game is strong with trump for sure. for his betterment and for worse. his trolling of things like this just creates even more views and even more people talking about for even longer.

I know that i, personally, only watched one part(about 10 minutes) of one inauguration (Obama) and ALL of another(Trump). and i watched clips of the trump inauguration over and over. the only reason i saw some clips of the obama inauguraiton is because various media outlets played it to compare it to Trump.

No inauguration has had as much worldwide coverage and exposure as the trump inauguration. Not. Even. Close. is my guess. just a guess, though.

[Zonkerbl]

Trump is a pathetic f@ckw@d who cares only about attention. He's good at attracting attention to himself by being a pathetic whiny baby who is also a pathological liar. He is a turd of a human being and everyone who voted for him is also a turd.

[payitforward]

Trump is a pathetic f@ckw@d who cares only about attention. He's good at attracting attention to himself by being a pathetic whiny baby who is also a pathological liar. He is a turd of a human being and everyone who voted for him is also a turd.

You're so extreme. You must be part of that .001%. Me I'm rational, moderate. I would never say that "everyone who voted for him is... a turd."

Maybe .001% of those who voted for him aren't turds. You know, the ones who pulled the wrong handle by mistake?

[dckingsfan]

Trump is a pathetic f@ckw@d who cares only about attention. He's good at attracting attention to himself by being a pathetic whiny baby who is also a pathological liar. He is a turd of a human being and everyone who voted for him is also a turd.

You're so extreme. You must be part of that .001%. Me I'm rational, moderate. I would never say that "everyone who voted for him is... a turd."

Maybe .001% of those who voted for him aren't turds. You know, the ones who pulled the wrong handle by mistake?

I might add - there were the people that were really Trump supporters - I can't figure them out.

Then there were the Rs that always for the R.

Then there were those that were voting against Hillary.

The Rs that always vote for the R are misguided like the Ds that always vote for the D. Turds? No, but probably misguided.

And those that vote against Hillary and the Clinton Industrial Complex, I don't know. Those that vote this way seem to be remorseful from what I have seen. Turds?

Either way Zonk - you and I know that the DNC is equally complicit in this mess.

[stilldropin20]

Trump is a pathetic f@ckw@d who cares only about attention. He's good at attracting attention to himself by being a pathetic whiny baby who is also a pathological liar. He is a turd of a human being and everyone who voted for him is also a turd.

wow. that is very divisive talk. you gain nothing from that type of position and you move no one to agree with anything you write. and you just put down about half of the country. likely about half of the board reading this.

i didn't vote for him. in fact i'm a 25 year registered democrat. i voted Bernie. i stood against everything hillary. I did not want to see her in office. I did vote for Bill clinton. And thought he was a decent president. But what the clintons have done to enrich themselves since he left office and she entered public office is disgusting. I could NOT support that.

The bottom line for me is that our country is not for sale. You cant enter politics (public office) "poor" and leave enrich. To that note, you cant go off on book tours, and speech tours while you have an active member of congress or cabinet or higher and sell off access. The country is not for sale.

So in that regard, Trump was the right choice for me. The country made the better decision. What the clintons have done to financially reward themselves (however legal the loopholes and back roads channels) via holding public office is disgusting to me. its one of the few things that makes me absolutely sick to me stomach in regards to politics.

Holding public office is a tough job. a dirty job. an ugly job. If the (american people) want to officially pay them more? fine. But they should not keep a single penny of any type of donations from 5 years before public office, during public office, and 10 years after public office. No money from giving speeches. No money from books. Nothing. Its too easy pay them off for access or for deals and doings that dont favor the american public.

say whatever you want about trump and much of it may be true and and i may agree with a lot of it. but he's not for sale. There is not reason for him to sell off the american people as he is already worth billions. The kind of money it would take to buy him is sooooo high (at least $200-300 million) that there is no way it could happen without a watchdog finding out. so it basically wont happen. Meanwhile the clinton's sold us out the uranium one deal (ultimately to Russia) for what looks like about 5-6 speaking (Bill Clinton )fees and foundation donations totaling 15-25 million per the (very liberal) NY Times piece from the 2015.

Trump may do things for his base. But at least his base is actually american. and his agenda is almost soley nationalistic. I can live with hiccups and bumps in the road and awkwardness of a non-politician that is at least making mistakes that are intended to benefit americans first. I bring up my personal feeling on this because I am not a trump supporter. at all. but i can at least get behind a politician that is attempting to put america first and not sell us off to foreign interests.

The clinton's could keep the money train going so now she is pathetically whining about the loss nearly a full year later. In a book tour. with the full motivation to further divide the country. She is being an even bigger petulant cry baby than trump. She clearly wasn't fit for the job.