Political Roundtable Part XXVI

[popper]

I’d like to but it’s up to D’s to nominate someone with rational policy positions. As I’ve said before, had D’s nominated Jim Web instead of HRC I would have voted D last time over orange man.

popper, I won't get into the laughably sanctimonious moralizing you're doing in this thread, but I will point out that what's quoted is some of the most transparent bull**** you've posted to date.

As usual, you want it every which way. You want to be the upstanding, respected, moderate fiscal conservative who supported slashing revenue by $1.5T, and you want to be the guy who is very upset about Trump and his racism, yet if Democrats don't nominate someone who is basically a conservative, you're gonna vote for Trump and help continue the enablement of putting kids in cages.

Stop with this bull****, man. You support Trump. Full stop. You don't like his tone, and you wish he'd stop saying the quiet parts loud. Ultimately you are very content with all of the morally reprehensible stuff Trump and the Republicans do - you just want them to be more subtle about it.

So politely **** off, dude. Only an idiot would sit here and listen to you screech about how offensive Trump is while you're grasping for any possible excuse to vote for him in the future.

ok gtn. I’ll leave you to it and try not to interrupt your ongoing delusions.

[Pointgod]

I got your point. Hence my question to Monte on how to get them to not vote for Trump again. Pretty sure in violent agreement on being #nevertrump. As an aside, I am happy to see that Paul Ryan has headed that direction as well. Maybe other Rs can go there with him?

But I also wanted to make my point - that there is a group that is vilifying anyone that doesn't agree with them. Proof? Take a look at AOC calling Pelosi out as a racist. Really? Pelosi is a racist?

AOC pointing out that it’s bad optics to single out women of color is not vilifying or calling Pelosi a racist. I think the whole spat is idiotic from all sides but that’s 100% bull to say Dems vilify anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

As for the bolded the point shouldn’t be to get Republicans to vote against Trump, it’s should be activating new voters or getting the **** that sat out in 2016 to vote for the Democratic candidate. Simply put you see what Trump has to offer and he’s only going to get worse if he gets 4 more years. At this point if you still support Trump regardless of who’d the Dems choose it’s simply beyond any type of rationale reasoning.

Of course AOC played the race card, saying that Pelosi is ""singling out" freshman congresswomen of color". I will just leave that one... and you might want to note that AOC's chief of staff's post that compared moderates to segregationists (he has since deleted the tweet) was in that same bucket. You might not like it but that is where we are at with that new group. AOC and that group are actually giving Trump's campaign hope. Unbelievably stupid.

And we disagree of course - I think there are many that voted for Trump that believe it was a mistake - so, I think it is both.

But getting others "that sat out in 2016" will require a D candidate that they will be excited about. That is just politics - you might not like that those are the politics in the US - but it is what it is. And Houston, we have a problem with our candidates... but we are a long way away - let's see who emerges.

Calling out Pelosi for going harder against women of color is than she does against Republicans isn’t calling her racists it’s pointing out the how it might be viewed by significant number of party members. I think that the whole infighting is stupidity from all the parties. Nancy Pelosi shouldn’t have singled out for the four women and in turn they shouldn’t have aired out their grievances on twitter. And I agree her chief of staff is an idiot for that tweet and should be fired.

I think the tea party comparison is a very interesting one, but the tea party was fueled by racial resentment of a black President considering that they exposed by dropping all of their supposed beliefs once they got into power. I’d argue the goals are different, but tactics are similar it will be interesting to see what happens to the far left of the party once Democrats gain power. Either way I don’t think the infighting is as big an issue as the media makes it seem, but it’s something that needs to be approached with pragmatism and in private but that’s just my two cents.

[pancakes3]

lotta dumb stuff being posted but i think the head scratchiest are the posts hating on "the squad," led by AOC.

i don't agree with a lot of what they do - including this "feud" with Pelosi, but it's crazy the degree of outrage they generate.

first off, there are actual racists who are openly affiliated with actual white supremacists sitting in the House. there are actual anti-semites who made actual antisemitic statements - recently, notably during the midterms where Soros was dragged on twitter. there are embezzlers who dip into campaign funds for personal use - still in office.

Matt Gaetz.
Steve King.
how about Gosar, who's such a POS that his own family denounced him during his 2018 midterm elections for being racist?
Jim Jordan
Duncan Hunter
Greg Gianforte - the guy who bodyslammed a reporter back in 2017? yeah he got re-elected.
even Thomas Massie

but somehow these four freshman congressmen are constantly making the headlines? called out for being dumb, hysterical, ego-maniacal or whatever?

[Pointgod]

Calling racists racist is the real true racism - dckingsfan

There you go - I am now a racist as well. Guess I should vote for Trump then? You see where this line of reason ends?

To defend gtn he wasn’t calling you racist. He pointed out to the fact that a lot of people take more issue with others calling out racism than the actual act of racism. I think where your signals got crossed in the discussion is that you were talking specifically about Nancy Pelosi being called racist, which I don’t think he’d agree that she is, but I’m not going to speak for him. I’ve seen you call out Trump explicitly for his racism, but he makes it so obvious that it’s easy. You seem to hold back from calling back other Republicans on their racism though.

[FAH1223]

Of course AOC played the race card, saying that Pelosi is ""singling out" freshman congresswomen of color". I will just leave that one... and you might want to note that AOC's chief of staff's post that compared moderates to segregationists (he has since deleted the tweet) was in that same bucket.

Dude, Trump literally just told them all to go back to the countries they came from. This is the guy putting migrant children in cages at the border. The fact that you're up in arms over AOC calling someone racist instead of actual racism says a lot about where your priorities are. Sorry man but you need to rethink this.

No, you need to rethink this. Nice that AOC and gang called out Trump. Not so much calling about Pelosi and Southern Democrats. But if you want to die on the AOC hill - be my guest.

She was wrong to use the race card. If I were her, I'd have said "look, I'm opposing this bill cause its bad policy, there's zero accountability to DHS, there's no checks on this $4 billion, and we shouldn't have voted on McConnell's bill until we go to a conference committee"

Also, using the race card against establishment Dems isn't going to work. They have mastered using identity to deflect from their bad policy positions. People like Greg Meeks who are in the hands of Wall Street do this all the time.

[dckingsfan]

lotta dumb stuff being posted but i think the head scratchiest are the posts hating on "the squad," led by AOC.

i don't agree with a lot of what they do - including this "feud" with Pelosi, but it's crazy the degree of outrage they generate.

first off, there are actual racists who are openly affiliated with actual white supremacists sitting in the House. there are actual anti-semites who made actual antisemitic statements - recently, notably during the midterms where Soros was dragged on twitter. there are embezzlers who dip into campaign funds for personal use - still in office.

Matt Gaetz.
Steve King.
how about Gosar, who's such a POS that his own family denounced him during his 2018 midterm elections for being racist?
Jim Jordan
Duncan Hunter
Greg Gianforte - the guy who bodyslammed a reporter back in 2017? yeah he got re-elected.
even Thomas Massie

but somehow these four freshman congressmen are constantly making the headlines? called out for being dumb, hysterical, ego-maniacal or whatever?

Pancakes - they are being called out for not voting with their party and calling others in their party racists. They aren't helping.

And that they are getting blasted because of their collective stupidity in not working with the Ds in power in the house doesn't mean we shouldn't blast others that are openly racist.

But when a group does something overtly stupid - we shouldn't then say - yeah but what about the other guys.

[dckingsfan]

Calling racists racist is the real true racism - dckingsfan

There you go - I am now a racist as well. Guess I should vote for Trump then? You see where this line of reason ends?

To defend gtn he wasn’t calling you racist. He pointed out to the fact that a lot of people take more issue with others calling out racism than the actual act of racism. I think where your signals got crossed in the discussion is that you were talking specifically about Nancy Pelosi being called racist, which I don’t think he’d agree that she is, but I’m not going to speak for him. I’ve seen you call out Trump explicitly for his racism, but he makes it so obvious that it’s easy. You seem to hold back from calling back other Republicans on their racism though.

You got most of it right from my POV except... I do call out Rs for the racism - just not ALL Rs. There is a reason that some people vote against Ds or not with Ds that has nothing to do with racism.

If you have the lens on - you won't see the difference, IMO.

Example: If you are a pro-lifer are you automatically racist?

[gtn130]

What AOC said wasn't her best or most accurate comment of her political career, but here's the thing:

Mislabeling someone as a racist when they aren't actually racist is 10000000000000000x better than being a racist. And yet, we're all here talking about AOC instead of migrant children being imprisoned at the border. Daoneandonly even thinks AOC and Trump are ***the same***. Dckingsfan thinks AOC et al are the equivalent of the Tea Party.

Calling someone racist when they aren't racist isn't actually that bad!!! Locking kids in cages is really bad!!!

[dckingsfan]

What AOC said wasn't her best or most accurate comment of her political career, but here's the thing:

Mislabeling someone as a racist when they aren't actually racist is 10000000000000000x better than being a racist. And yet, we're all here talking about AOC instead of migrant children being imprisoned at the border. Daoneandonly even thinks AOC and Trump are ***the same***. Dckingsfan thinks AOC et al are the equivalent of the Tea Party.

Calling someone racist when they aren't racist isn't actually that bad!!! Locking kids in cages is really bad!!!

So we can agree - Trump is a racist POS. Some in the R party are racist. We both want him gone.

AOC is helping him get reelected - in my mind that isn't good. And labeling the speaker just undermines the party - it isn't evil but it is really stupid.

And my nuance of Tea Party and that group of four is actually pretty accurate. Both are fighting (were fighting) against their respective speakers to undermine any actual work taking place. You are going to die on the AOC and group of four hill aren't you?

[I_Like_Dirt]

Example: If you are a pro-lifer are you automatically racist?

That sort of depends, honestly. How far is a person willing to go to further their preferred anti-abortion course of action? While people can and do vote on one issue regardless of what they personally believe, the world is actually much more complicated and the difference between not caring, or at least willing to overlook it to the nth degree for any perceived gain elsewhere, and actively being against something isn't necessarily all that different whether people want it to be or not.

Pro life is a tricky one, too, because it's so inherently short-sighted in the way the movement has looked. Beyond the overly simplistic view of wanting to ban abortion rather than prevent them, it focuses life on abortions only rather than those who are actually living, both in improving their lives, or even keeping them alive. Anyone who is "pro life" but isn't actively attacking environmental issues which is a much bigger issue where life is concerned at this point is missing the point entirely and yes, in a way and to a degree, they actually become anti-life and potentially racist to a degree, too, depending on how far they're willing to go in their push for criminalized abortion, even if they don't want to admit or accept it.

That said, I'd also suggest that racism in particular is something that needs to be completely re-evaluated. I actually think everyone is racist no matter how well intentioned (myself included) and the bigger issue is the degree to which people are racist rather than if they're racist or not. The whole issue has been centered around people needing to stop being racist and then flips to have people essentially deny that they're racist when they clearly are - everyone is. It's the fight towards equality that matters and shaping the discussion as a yes/no question is actively preventing progress. I actually think centrist Ds do a lot of harm in that respect, too, both in denying their attachments to racism while attempting to use it as a political tool against those who are arguably or even clearly more racist than them.

[dobrojim]

What AOC said wasn't her best or most accurate comment of her political career, but here's the thing:

Mislabeling someone as a racist when they aren't actually racist is 10000000000000000x better than being a racist. And yet, we're all here talking about AOC instead of migrant children being imprisoned at the border. Daoneandonly even thinks AOC and Trump are ***the same***. Dckingsfan thinks AOC et al are the equivalent of the Tea Party.

Calling someone racist when they aren't racist isn't actually that bad!!! Locking kids in cages is really bad!!!

So we can agree - Trump is a racist POS. Some in the R party are racist. We both want him gone.

AOC is helping him get reelected - in my mind that isn't good. And labeling the speaker just undermines the party - it isn't evil but it is really stupid.

And my nuance of Tea Party and that group of four is actually pretty accurate. Both are fighting (were fighting) against their respective speakers to undermine any actual work taking place. You are going to die on the AOC and group of four hill aren't you?

I think I can agree on those things, but I would go a bit further about the Pubs...
their collective silence about the clear racism on the part of a significant number of
their party members, elected and otherwise, is not something that can easily be excused.
They are cowards and enablers. Which is getting close to being just as bad.

[dobrojim]

Example: If you are a pro-lifer are you automatically racist?

That sort of depends, honestly. How far is a person willing to go to further their preferred anti-abortion course of action? While people can and do vote on one issue regardless of what they personally believe, the world is actually much more complicated and the difference between not caring, or at least willing to overlook it to the nth degree for any perceived gain elsewhere, and actively being against something isn't necessarily all that different whether people want it to be or not.

Pro life is a tricky one, too, because it's so inherently short-sighted in the way the movement has looked. Beyond the overly simplistic view of wanting to ban abortion rather than prevent them, it focuses life on abortions only rather than those who are actually living, both in improving their lives, or even keeping them alive. Anyone who is "pro life" but isn't actively attacking environmental issues which is a much bigger issue where life is concerned at this point is missing the point entirely and yes, in a way and to a degree, they actually become anti-life and potentially racist to a degree, too, depending on how far they're willing to go in their push for criminalized abortion, even if they don't want to admit or accept it.

That said, I'd also suggest that racism in particular is something that needs to be completely re-evaluated. I actually think everyone is racist no matter how well intentioned (myself included) and the bigger issue is the degree to which people are racist rather than if they're racist or not. The whole issue has been centered around people needing to stop being racist and then flips to have people essentially deny that they're racist when they clearly are - everyone is. It's the fight towards equality that matters and shaping the discussion as a yes/no question is actively preventing progress. I actually think centrist Ds do a lot of harm in that respect, too, both in denying their attachments to racism while attempting to use it as a political tool against those who are arguably or even clearly more racist than them.

Implicit bias.

https://books.google.com/books/about/White_Fragility.html?id=ZfQ3DwAAQBAJ

white people so want to not have to read ie be challenged by this book.
It makes them _very_ uncomfortable.

[montestewart]

Car insurance is like flood insurance but rather than subsidizing the carelessness of people who keep rebuilding in flood zones, we subsidize the disproportionate number of accidents caused by drunk drivers. But think if all the car accidents caused by people driving when le nodding off on gestion that were prevented by current drug laws

[Ruzious]

What AOC said wasn't her best or most accurate comment of her political career, but here's the thing:

Mislabeling someone as a racist when they aren't actually racist is 10000000000000000x better than being a racist. And yet, we're all here talking about AOC instead of migrant children being imprisoned at the border. Daoneandonly even thinks AOC and Trump are ***the same***. Dckingsfan thinks AOC et al are the equivalent of the Tea Party.

Calling someone racist when they aren't racist isn't actually that bad!!! Locking kids in cages is really bad!!!

Well, while I agree - there are obviously degrees of bad, but just because something isn't as bad as another - doesn't mean we shouldn't be critical of it. If you want AOC to be effective, she's got to work on not making enemies in her own party.

[gtn130]

Yes but the discourse isn’t proportionate to the degrees of bad. That’s my point

[dckingsfan]

Example: If you are a pro-lifer are you automatically racist?

That sort of depends, honestly. How far is a person willing to go to further their preferred anti-abortion course of action? While people can and do vote on one issue regardless of what they personally believe, the world is actually much more complicated and the difference between not caring, or at least willing to overlook it to the nth degree for any perceived gain elsewhere, and actively being against something isn't necessarily all that different whether people want it to be or not.

Pro life is a tricky one, too, because it's so inherently short-sighted in the way the movement has looked. Beyond the overly simplistic view of wanting to ban abortion rather than prevent them, it focuses life on abortions only rather than those who are actually living, both in improving their lives, or even keeping them alive. Anyone who is "pro life" but isn't actively attacking environmental issues which is a much bigger issue where life is concerned at this point is missing the point entirely and yes, in a way and to a degree, they actually become anti-life and potentially racist to a degree, too, depending on how far they're willing to go in their push for criminalized abortion, even if they don't want to admit or accept it.

That said, I'd also suggest that racism in particular is something that needs to be completely re-evaluated. I actually think everyone is racist no matter how well intentioned (myself included) and the bigger issue is the degree to which people are racist rather than if they're racist or not. The whole issue has been centered around people needing to stop being racist and then flips to have people essentially deny that they're racist when they clearly are - everyone is. It's the fight towards equality that matters and shaping the discussion as a yes/no question is actively preventing progress. I actually think centrist Ds do a lot of harm in that respect, too, both in denying their attachments to racism while attempting to use it as a political tool against those who are arguably or even clearly more racist than them.

When presented with competing hypotheses that make the same predictions, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions.

These is a single issue voter.

It isn't complicated. They aren't voting because they are racist.

My point is - some Rs are overtly racist. Some are not. All Rs are racist is then false.

[dckingsfan]

What AOC said wasn't her best or most accurate comment of her political career, but here's the thing:

Mislabeling someone as a racist when they aren't actually racist is 10000000000000000x better than being a racist. And yet, we're all here talking about AOC instead of migrant children being imprisoned at the border. Daoneandonly even thinks AOC and Trump are ***the same***. Dckingsfan thinks AOC et al are the equivalent of the Tea Party.

Calling someone racist when they aren't racist isn't actually that bad!!! Locking kids in cages is really bad!!!

So we can agree - Trump is a racist POS. Some in the R party are racist. We both want him gone.

AOC is helping him get reelected - in my mind that isn't good. And labeling the speaker just undermines the party - it isn't evil but it is really stupid.

And my nuance of Tea Party and that group of four is actually pretty accurate. Both are fighting (were fighting) against their respective speakers to undermine any actual work taking place. You are going to die on the AOC and group of four hill aren't you?

I think I can agree on those things, but I would go a bit further about the Pubs... their collective silence about the clear racism on the part of a significant number of their party members, elected and otherwise, is not something that can easily be excused.
They are cowards and enablers. Which is getting close to being just as bad.

In agreeing with you I cite Paul Ryan. He passed a tax bill that was fundamentally against his beliefs.

[dckingsfan]

Yes but the discourse isn’t proportionate to the degrees of bad. That’s my point

It's a very good point and a valid one. The two aren't on the same level.

But why does the press continually cover AOC? Do you think that AOC's relentless self-promotion has a bit to do with that?

[DCZards]

Yes but the discourse isn’t proportionate to the degrees of bad. That’s my point

Not only is the discourse not proportionate but neither are the people involved. Equating the impact and influence of the words and actions of four members of a 435-member House of Reps to that of the president of the United States is insane.

AOC and the so-called squad say and do things I disagree with, but it makes absolutely no sense to be melting down over their policies and statements when the freaking president of the country is making comments you'd expect to hear from a white supremacist.

The a**ho** in the White House should be the singular target of our outrage...and not some first year members of Congress.

[dckingsfan]

Yes but the discourse isn’t proportionate to the degrees of bad. That’s my point

Not only is the discourse not proportionate but neither are the people involved. Equating the impact and influence of the words and actions of four members of a 435-member House of Reps to that of the president of the United States is insane.

AOC and the so-called squad say and do things I disagree with, but it makes absolutely no sense to be melting down over their policies and statements when the freaking president of the country is making comments you'd expect to hear from a white supremacist.

The a**ho** in the White House should be the singular target of our outrage...and not some first year members of Congress.

Could I twist this a bit? How about AOC stays a bit on the sidelines so that we can focus on the POS in the White House? She intentionally put herself in the middle of this issue that took a good part of the heat off of the Administration.

BTW, I was a bit worried that my Tea Party comparison was a bit off but... AOC's chief of staff co-created the Justice Democrats PAC. Its principle purpose is to apply pressure to centrist Ds otherwise they will get "primaried". Sound a bit like the Tea Party?