Political Roundtable Part XVII

[verbal8]

bu bu Trump is all about the working class

He seems against both: work or having class

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter

meanwhile,

Read on Twitter

[DCZards]

Just off the top of my head, here is 5 if I were the Ds...

Message 1: sustainable government - that they are the party that is most likely to take on the cost drivers in healthcare, aren't tied to the military industrial complex (as much) and most want to see government succeed. They could easily point out that there are some in the R community that would like to see the federal government shrink quickly. And they can run on the fact that they were the last ones to have a balanced budget. But getting politicians like Bernie onboard is going to be tough.

Message 2: tax fairness and simplicity. I would run on wiping out all the carveouts. They would position themselves on not being the party of large donors. This tax bill should provide plenty of material for the cause. But would Ds be willing to give up their favorite carevouts?

Message 3: Growth. They need to position themselves on the party of jobs. But that means that they need to support both small and large businesses. They need to support smart sustainable immigration (and explain that we need this due to our demographics). That might mean that they need to think through their current dreamer above all else strategy. One problem with that, 3 of 4 Trump voters oppose birthright citizenship — automatic citizenship for children born on American soil to undocumented parents — while only 1 of 7 Clinton voters felt the same.

Message 4: big tent. They need to keep hammering that they are the party of all races (and sexes). But they need to not run on the identity politics (rampant at Universities) that maligns the white voter (again, party of all races). They need to welcome in people of faith elaborating on what they agree on rather than emphasizing what they don't agree on (abortion).

Message 5: smart on crime, smart on drugs: emphasize that crime is falling but our cost for incarceration are climbing and that is eating away at other spending - be concrete. Do you want someone in prison for marijuana use if it means that we don't fix the potholes in your roads?

I think these are sound message suggestions, although I might quibble with or change the emphasis of 2-3 of them. More importantly, I would add a few core messages that you left out. I think these messages would resonate with the grass roots and the party's base somewhat more than the 5 you've suggested above.

1. The Dems should make it clear that they are the party of social and economic justice, emphasizing the importance of closing the gap between the nation's haves and have-nots. The Bernie/Warren wing of the party would rally behind this, including I believe many millennials who I see as a core voting block for the the Dems in the future.

2. Dems need to continue their vocal support for safety net programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, programs that more and more Americans are covered. Yes, Dems should come up with concrete ideas for sustaining and funding these programs, but they should be clear that these are important lifesaving programs that need to be supported and maintained, especially for the good of our nation's poor and senior citizens.

3. The Dems need to continue to drive home their message around universal healthcare. This is a winning issue and one that the Repubs have had difficulty coming up with a coherent message around. Obamacare has made healthcare for all a rallying point for both progressives and those Republican voters who are covered by Obamacare and are savvy enough to understand that if Obamacare goes away so does their family's healthcare coverage.

4. Criminal justice reform needs to be a big part of the Dem message and platform. One that goes beyond simply the issue of incarcerating people for marijuana possession and other minor crimes. This includes reforming a court system that historically has been biased against minorities and the poor and ending the school-to-prison pipeline by supporting genuine and well thought out education reform.

[Pointgod]

My views do not perfectly align with the Democrats, but I'm gonna vote Democrat basically forever unless there is a cataclysmic political reorganization in my lifetime. I tell people I'm a Democrat while having many issues with the party because it's simply an efficient way of identifying where I stand.

And why would I bother telling everyone I'm a clear-eyed bold-thinking INDEPENDENT when there's only one way I'll ever vote? People say they're independent because they want to project having extremely nuanced opinions, unencumbered by bias or partisanship.

Obviously there are some exceptions to what I'm saying, but when 40% of the country identifies as Independent while one of the two major parties welcomes Nazis and pedophiles with open arms, um, maybe those people are being a little disingenuous?

Actually, that makes the point. You are a single issue voter around discrimination. Others could be single issue voters around abortion for example. And others may be single issue voters around another issue(s) that aren't covered by either party.

What is interesting is you are tacitly defining anyone who doesn't vote D all the time as supporters of pedophiles. This was the same tactic used by the right when they said that anyone that didn't support Rs was for killing babies.

Both sets of logic are not accurate.

So this is the Xxxtreme Centrist talk that goes off the rails quickly.

While I wouldn't say I'm a "single issue voter around discrimination", it should be mentioned that discrimination is a pretty damn good line to draw in the sand. The fact that you acknowledge that one party is anti-discrimination and the other is not, and yet you still fall in the middle shows how backwards this whole line of thinking is. Discrimination is really bad! It should be a dealbreaker for any serious non-deplorable person.

Are you actually sitting there debating between the anti-discrimination pro-equality party and the Nazi party that supports a 20% tax deduction for pass-through businesses? Maybe you should calibrate your priorities or something?

Couldn’t have said it better. I remember shortly after the election one of the Daily Show correspondents mentioned that not every Trump supporter is racist but for them racism isn’t a deal breaker. For a lot of Republicans they’re able to distance themselves from issues until it personally affects them.

[dckingsfan]

Actually, that makes the point. You are a single issue voter around discrimination. Others could be single issue voters around abortion for example. And others may be single issue voters around another issue(s) that aren't covered by either party.

What is interesting is you are tacitly defining anyone who doesn't vote D all the time as supporters of pedophiles. This was the same tactic used by the right when they said that anyone that didn't support Rs was for killing babies.

Both sets of logic are not accurate.

So this is the Xxxtreme Centrist talk that goes off the rails quickly.

While I wouldn't say I'm a "single issue voter around discrimination", it should be mentioned that discrimination is a pretty damn good line to draw in the sand. The fact that you acknowledge that one party is anti-discrimination and the other is not, and yet you still fall in the middle shows how backwards this whole line of thinking is. Discrimination is really bad! It should be a dealbreaker for any serious non-deplorable person.

Are you actually sitting there debating between the anti-discrimination pro-equality party and the Nazi party that supports a 20% tax deduction for pass-through businesses? Maybe you should calibrate your priorities or something?

Couldn’t have said it better. I remember shortly after the election one of the Daily Show correspondents mentioned that not every Trump supporter is racist but for them racism isn’t a deal breaker. For a lot of Republicans they’re able to distance themselves from issues until it personally affects them.

Well, there is the twisting that the Rs used so well in the abortion debate. You aren't against abortion so you are for killing babies. I didn't agree with them - so I am a baby killer. I don't agree with you - so I am a pedophile loving, baby killing Nazi.

This is the problem with tribalism - it has no logic it is straight emotion. One R is discriminates, therefore all Rs discriminate, therefore all Rs are evil. Strictly us against them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/opinion/the-retreat-to-tribalism.html

A funny thing happens,” Haidt said, “when you take young human beings, whose minds evolved for tribal warfare and us/them thinking, and you fill those minds full of binary dimensions. You tell them that one side in each binary is good and the other is bad. You turn on their ancient tribal circuits, preparing them for battle...

[Pointgod]

So this is the Xxxtreme Centrist talk that goes off the rails quickly.

While I wouldn't say I'm a "single issue voter around discrimination", it should be mentioned that discrimination is a pretty damn good line to draw in the sand. The fact that you acknowledge that one party is anti-discrimination and the other is not, and yet you still fall in the middle shows how backwards this whole line of thinking is. Discrimination is really bad! It should be a dealbreaker for any serious non-deplorable person.

Are you actually sitting there debating between the anti-discrimination pro-equality party and the Nazi party that supports a 20% tax deduction for pass-through businesses? Maybe you should calibrate your priorities or something?

Couldn’t have said it better. I remember shortly after the election one of the Daily Show correspondents mentioned that not every Trump supporter is racist but for them racism isn’t a deal breaker. For a lot of Republicans they’re able to distance themselves from issues until it personally affects them.

Well, there is the twisting that the Rs used so well in the abortion debate. You aren't against abortion so you are for killing babies. I didn't agree with them - so I am a baby killer. I don't agree with you - so I am a pedophile loving, baby killing Nazi.

This is the problem with tribalism - it has no logic it is straight emotion. One R is discriminates, therefore all Rs discriminate, therefore all Rs are evil. Strictly us against them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/opinion/the-retreat-to-tribalism.html

A funny thing happens,” Haidt said, “when you take young human beings, whose minds evolved for tribal warfare and us/them thinking, and you fill those minds full of binary dimensions. You tell them that one side in each binary is good and the other is bad. You turn on their ancient tribal circuits, preparing them for battle...

Lol that would be quite the distinction. Here’s the thing though when you hold yourself up as morally superior and the party of family values you rightfully need to get blasted when no one in your leadership steps up and says Don’t Vote For The Pedophile. Of course most Republicans don’t don’t support a man like Moore but the utter cowardice shown by the party should not be rewarded. Keep in mind Roy Moore was unfit to be a Senator even before allegations came out. I think it’s fair to characterize the actions or inaction of a majority of the party leadership as representative of the party’s position.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Couldn’t have said it better. I remember shortly after the election one of the Daily Show correspondents mentioned that not every Trump supporter is racist but for them racism isn’t a deal breaker. For a lot of Republicans they’re able to distance themselves from issues until it personally affects them.

The problem is that racism isn't the only "dealbreaker" on the table. If racism is going to be your dealbreaker, that's great, but it becomes less great if you suddenly start making all sorts of poor decisions in the name of eliminating racism as soon as possible. Sexism, poverty, religion, abortion, crime, etc. are all various deal breakers out there and all of them are being used as shields to defend many poor policies.

And this isn't an argument of "both sides." I believe clearly one party is at a worse state than the other at this point, when all the sides are weighed against one another, but this isn't a yes/no question despite the fact that the voting ballot forces a person to choose one, the other or neither (and have the choice of one or the other made for them anyway). I mean, dck and I clearly don't see eye to eye on everything, but I can absolutely see the logic of his argument. Whether or not he would explain it this way or not is beside the point, but it does stand logically that if government isn't run sustainably, that it will eventually be its own undoing and at that point any pretense at trying to eliminate racism is basically out the window. If you subscribe to that line of thinking, if you aren't a for sustainable government you are also racist despite the fact that you may even hold it as your central core issue. Again, what a person believes is extremely personal, and while not everyone believes logically and many are extremely self-centered and disingenuous in such discussions, that's entirely beside the point. There are more dimensions to all of this.

[Pointgod]

Couldn’t have said it better. I remember shortly after the election one of the Daily Show correspondents mentioned that not every Trump supporter is racist but for them racism isn’t a deal breaker. For a lot of Republicans they’re able to distance themselves from issues until it personally affects them.

The problem is that racism isn't the only "dealbreaker" on the table. If racism is going to be your dealbreaker, that's great, but it becomes less great if you suddenly start making all sorts of poor decisions in the name of eliminating racism as soon as possible. Sexism, poverty, religion, abortion, crime, etc. are all various deal breakers out there and all of them are being used as shields to defend many poor policies.

And this isn't an argument of "both sides." I believe clearly one party is at a worse state than the other at this point, when all the sides are weighed against one another, but this isn't a yes/no question despite the fact that the voting ballot forces a person to choose one, the other or neither (and have the choice of one or the other made for them anyway). I mean, dck and I clearly don't see eye to eye on everything, but I can absolutely see the logic of his argument. Whether or not he would explain it this way or not is beside the point, but it does stand logically that if government isn't run sustainably, that it will eventually be its own undoing and at that point any pretense at trying to eliminate racism is basically out the window. If you subscribe to that line of thinking, if you aren't a for sustainable government you are also racist despite the fact that you may even hold it as your central core issue. Again, what a person believes is extremely personal, and while not everyone believes logically and many are extremely self-centered and disingenuous in such discussions, that's entirely beside the point. There are more dimensions to all of this.

I think where you and dckings fan are misinterpreting gtn130s position is that you believe he’s voting mainly on the issue of racism not that it’s a disqualifying factor. He can speak for himself but I don’t think he’d vote for a Democratic candidate that was openly sexist, despite having a good record on racism. And guess what, the same people that will ignore racism are generally the same ones that ignore sexism, poverty, crime (I’ll leave religion and abortion separate because they are closely tied). The great thing about the Democratic Party is that people are willing to point out the nuances that you mention in your argument.

Your sustainable government point is an interesting one. Let’s leave local politics out of this but if you want a sustainable government you would never vote for the party that rallies against the government. Republican’s whole ideology is that government doesn’t work so why would you expect those representatives to work towards a stable government? It’s like saying you want to the person who’s solution to everything is to burn your house down to fix your roof. Logically that makes no sense. I know there are a lot of **** Democrats, but maybe a better answer is to support good Democratic candidates.

[dckingsfan]

Lol that would be quite the distinction. Here’s the thing though when you hold yourself up as morally superior and the party of family values you rightfully need to get blasted when no one in your leadership steps up and says Don’t Vote For The Pedophile.

Remember that we started this with Independents who didn't automatically go for Ds because Rs support pedophiles.

Of course most Republicans don’t don’t support a man like Moore but the utter cowardice shown a minoroity of the party should not be rewarded.

Just helping you there...

Keep in mind Roy Moore was unfit to be a Senator even before allegations came out. I think it’s fair to characterize the actions or inaction of a minority of the party leadership as representative of the party’s position.

Just helping - and no, that is where the logic in your jump is missing. And there might be a reason that Moore lost - why many Rs didn't show up even though they disdained the alternative?

[I_Like_Dirt]

not every Trump supporter is racist but for them racism isn’t a deal breaker

...the issue of racism not that it’s a disqualifying factor

I hope you can see the doublespeak you're using here.

And I really want to avoid this being about Republicans entirely. This gets more at the understanding of why people choose sides. Political parties are just ideas/tools that would be totally meaningless without people running them, supporting them and voting for them.

[gtn130]

I believe clearly one party is at a worse state than the other at this point, when all the sides are weighed against one another, but this isn't a yes/no question despite the fact that the voting ballot forces a person to choose one, the other or neither (and have the choice of one or the other made for them anyway).

I mean this is all that really matters here. I'm not saying everyone needs to be in lockstep with Democrat boilerplate platform dogma - not saying that at all. But you only have two options on election day, and one of those options is for the Nazi Pedophile Party that wants to take away your healthcare.

If you somehow trick your brain into believing that voting for Republicans in 2018 is a valid idea, you **** up.

[gtn130]

So this is the Xxxtreme Centrist talk that goes off the rails quickly.

While I wouldn't say I'm a "single issue voter around discrimination", it should be mentioned that discrimination is a pretty damn good line to draw in the sand. The fact that you acknowledge that one party is anti-discrimination and the other is not, and yet you still fall in the middle shows how backwards this whole line of thinking is. Discrimination is really bad! It should be a dealbreaker for any serious non-deplorable person.

Are you actually sitting there debating between the anti-discrimination pro-equality party and the Nazi party that supports a 20% tax deduction for pass-through businesses? Maybe you should calibrate your priorities or something?

Couldn’t have said it better. I remember shortly after the election one of the Daily Show correspondents mentioned that not every Trump supporter is racist but for them racism isn’t a deal breaker. For a lot of Republicans they’re able to distance themselves from issues until it personally affects them.

Well, there is the twisting that the Rs used so well in the abortion debate. You aren't against abortion so you are for killing babies. I didn't agree with them - so I am a baby killer. I don't agree with you - so I am a pedophile loving, baby killing Nazi.

This is the problem with tribalism - it has no logic it is straight emotion. One R is discriminates, therefore all Rs discriminate, therefore all Rs are evil. Strictly us against them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/opinion/the-retreat-to-tribalism.html

A funny thing happens,” Haidt said, “when you take young human beings, whose minds evolved for tribal warfare and us/them thinking, and you fill those minds full of binary dimensions. You tell them that one side in each binary is good and the other is bad. You turn on their ancient tribal circuits, preparing them for battle...

DC,

The RNC opened the doors for Roy Moore after the allegations came out.

Trump blamed 'many sides' for a Nazi murdering someone at a Nazi rally.

Those things really happened. This isn't mindless tribalism. If you can look past those things and vote to enable and empower the party that protects, supports, condones and participates in that kind of stuff - that's on you.

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

State Rep. Steve Alford (R) said at a “Legislative Coffee” session on Saturday that Jim Crow-era policies banning drugs such as pot were to protect other citizens from the drug use of black Americans.

“Basically any way you say it, marijuana is an entry drug into the higher drugs,” Alford said, as first reported by The Garden City Telegram. “What you really need to do is go back in the ’30s, when they outlawed all types of drugs in Kansas and across the United States.”

“What was the reason why they did that? One of the reasons why, I hate to say it, was that the African-Americans, they were basically users and they basically responded the worst to those drugs just because of their character makeup, their genetics and that,” he continued.

“And so basically what we’re trying to do is we’re trying to do a complete reverse, with people not remembering what has happened in the past.”

[dckingsfan]

Couldn’t have said it better. I remember shortly after the election one of the Daily Show correspondents mentioned that not every Trump supporter is racist but for them racism isn’t a deal breaker. For a lot of Republicans they’re able to distance themselves from issues until it personally affects them.

Well, there is the twisting that the Rs used so well in the abortion debate. You aren't against abortion so you are for killing babies. I didn't agree with them - so I am a baby killer. I don't agree with you - so I am a pedophile loving, baby killing Nazi.

This is the problem with tribalism - it has no logic it is straight emotion. One R is discriminates, therefore all Rs discriminate, therefore all Rs are evil. Strictly us against them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/01/opinion/the-retreat-to-tribalism.html

A funny thing happens,” Haidt said, “when you take young human beings, whose minds evolved for tribal warfare and us/them thinking, and you fill those minds full of binary dimensions. You tell them that one side in each binary is good and the other is bad. You turn on their ancient tribal circuits, preparing them for battle...

DC,

The RNC opened the doors for Roy Moore after the allegations came out.

Trump blamed 'many sides' for a Nazi murdering someone at a Nazi rally.

Those things really happened. This isn't mindless tribalism. If you can look past those things and vote to enable and empower the party that protects, supports, condones and participates in that kind of stuff - that's on you.

I would say a majority of Rs weren't for Moore, many came out publically and many more did it privately - and it showed at the ballot box.

Trump was the driver in both backing Moore and not condemning Nazis. But then - do we lump Trump with all Rs? I don't.

Again back to the tribalism and the us/them thinking. Are there racists in the R camp - yep - but no where near a majority. Are there racists in the D camp - sure.

But realistically - don't we need both sides to improve for the countries sake?

[stilldropin20]

Dont forget foreign policy matters. Trump has been the best on foreign policy since reagan. Obama was a clown. Gave away Billins to Iran. and sold out the Iranian people in 2009 when they wanted to revolt. Hopefully trump encourages them Trump has N and S Korea talking. It matters folks!

meanwhile, this guy! jesus christ was he terrible.

Read on Twitter

[dckingsfan]

Your sustainable government point is an interesting one. Let’s leave local politics out of this but if you want a sustainable government you would never vote for the party that rallies against the government. Republican’s whole ideology is that government doesn’t work so why would you expect those representatives to work towards a stable government? It’s like saying you want to the person who’s solution to everything is to burn your house down to fix your roof. Logically that makes no sense. I know there are a lot of **** Democrats, but maybe a better answer is to support good Democratic candidates.

I feel like I am in the defense of the Rs circling round and round. What is funny is that in other discussions I am doing the same for the Ds. But I disagree that the Rs entire ideology is that government doesn't work and we should get rid of it. Are there Rs that believe that - sure. But that isn't the vast majority.

Some Rs feel many policies are counter productive and want those policies to end. Do we ever see bad policy terminated - no. What we see is everyone wanting to tweak bad policy and then it gets worse and less sustainable. The guaranteed loan program is case and point - it has ruined many more lives than it has helped. The governments involvement in housing loans - and yet we are back to doing the same.

And there Some Rs just want to end everything outside of defense - and I have no defense for them.

But sustainable government is near and dear to my heart. You want to see the worst discrimination go to the local level where they are hurting for $$s because of bad or bloated government and tell me who gets hurt the worst. So, as an example: if there is a local candidate that is for sustainable government and another that is willing to kick the can down the road or hand out bad local contracts - I am voting for the former, regardless of party.

[stilldropin20]

grab the popcorn!

Read on Twitter

[stilldropin20]

Your sustainable government point is an interesting one. Let’s leave local politics out of this but if you want a sustainable government you would never vote for the party that rallies against the government. Republican’s whole ideology is that government doesn’t work so why would you expect those representatives to work towards a stable government? It’s like saying you want to the person who’s solution to everything is to burn your house down to fix your roof. Logically that makes no sense. I know there are a lot of **** Democrats, but maybe a better answer is to support good Democratic candidates.

I feel like I am in the defense of the Rs circling round and round. What is funny is that in other discussions I am doing the same for the Ds. But I disagree that the Rs entire ideology is that government doesn't work and we should get rid of it. Are there Rs that believe that - sure. But that isn't the vast majority.

Some Rs feel many policies are counter productive and want those policies to end. Do we ever see bad policy terminated - no. What we see is everyone wanting to tweak bad policy and then it gets worse and less sustainable. The guaranteed loan program is case and point - it has ruined many more lives than it has helped. The governments involvement in housing loans - and yet we are back to doing the same.

And there Some Rs just want to end everything outside of defense - and I have no defense for them.

But sustainable government is near and dear to my heart. You want to see the worst discrimination go to the local level where they are hurting for $$s because of bad or bloated government and tell me who gets hurt the worst. So, as an example: if there is a local candidate that is for sustainable government and another that is willing to kick the can down the road or hand out bad local contracts - I am voting for the former, regardless of party.

In regards to your sustainable local government don't you think the Rs tax plan addresses this? Where they are capping and attempted to fully remove salt?

Seems to me like R's tax reform is saying "if your local government is not working for you then move to a place where there is responsible and sustainable government." Or. make. your local politicians. work. for. you. Sustainably.

Sent from my SM-N920T using RealGM mobile app

[gtn130]

I would say a majority of Rs weren't for Moore, many came out publically and many more did it privately - and it showed at the ballot box.

That's an awfully charitable take considering the RNC gave Moore full support. Again, after the allegations came out, they offered full funding/backing for Moore.

On the other hand, Jeff Flake made a tweet, so #NotAllRepublicans I guess.

Trump was the driver in both backing Moore and not condemning Nazis. But then - do we lump Trump with all Rs? I don't.

How many Republicans condemned Moore's actions or Trump's actions after Charlottesville? Their silence on these issues should tell us what exactly?

Again back to the tribalism and the us/them thinking. Are there racists in the R camp - yep - but no where near a majority. Are there racists in the D camp - sure.

Do you actually believe there are an equal number of racists in both parties?

Have you watched Fox News in the last 15 years? Have you seen a Trump rally? Did you know Trump ran his campaign on deporting Muslims and building a border wall that Mexico will pay for? Have you seen Jeff Sessions' body of work? How about Breitbart and Steve Bannon?

I don't know what to tell you, man, if you think there are racists on both sides. Centrism is a helluva drug.

But realistically - don't we need both sides to improve for the countries sake?

No, we don't. We need two parties, but that doesn't mean we need the GOP.

DC, you're not making a strong case for Independents here. The GOP has drifted so far to the right that you're finding yourself defending abhorrent things in the name of centrism. This is a bad look for you, bro.

[stilldropin20]

Read on Twitter