The New American Politics thread

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Buster

Or c) as Sam Harris pointed out...that you are too infuriated by the idiocy if the regressive left and consider that as bad or worse than Trump's shenanigans

So the regressive left is creating bigots or people that feel bigotry is acceptable?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Aaaaanyhow, John McCain has come out and outright said Trump and his views do not represent the GOP. Trump has really been doubling down on attacking the family of a slain soldier and I imagine this will only serve to push more undecideds away from his special brand of hate fueled vitriol.

Yet he won't remove his support for Trump for president even when asked...

[Buster]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So the regressive left is creating bigots or people that feel bigotry is acceptable?

Harris seems more concerned by Trump's incompetence than anything.

[Tinordi]

That old argument that the left is responsible for all the bad people reacting against it is just so demented that it doesn't merit discussion besides basic derision.

No the "regressive left" didn't create bigots, the "regressive left" is a reaction to bigotry not the other way around.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Yet he won't remove his support for Trump for president even when asked...

Of course, the Republican party is filled with spineless cowards whose principles end where their pockets begin.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So the regressive left is creating bigots or people that feel bigotry is acceptable?

Its not worth it. He just brings the same point up over and over again. Even though I don't think there has been one post in the entire thread advocating the positions of the so called regressive left. The troll is strong with him though.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

Of course, the Republican party is filled with spineless cowards whose principles end where their pockets begin.

That's not unique to one party

[Tinordi]

I *understand* the thinking of Republican candidates in that if they denounce Trump and withdraw their support then they're committing an act of self-banishment. From then on they're alone in the woods, without a base, without a tether. So they naturally feel it's very dangerous, reckless even to stick their neck out to have minimal actual impact of Trump's potential voters.

But frankly, I don't care. You are running for public office to serve your country you spineless suits. You're to defend the republic not to do what's best for you. Your callow doublespeak of denouncing Trump from the safety of the gallery will be reflected in the history books. It's for that that I actually grew alot of respect for Ted Cruz. I personally despise him and his politics but I respect how he rose above party politics.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

A constitutional convention is a pretty pie in the sky thing to worry about. Even if they get 2/3s of the state legislators, 3/4 of the state legislator's have to ratify it. Also, state level Republicans in more traditionally blue states don't often share the same ideologies as the Federal Republican party.

Completely disagree. A constitutional convention is a great strategy to drive through radical change. You are also grossly under-rating this strategy, especially with the money that the Kochs have invested in state level politics. I also think you are missing the traction that the Kochs manage to get in their bought and paid for states. Traditional swings states have been the targets and the Kochs have been very successful at getting their guy elected. Brownback (KS), Walker (WI) and Christie (NJ) have been their biggest wins, but you add in Jindal (LA), Pence (IA), and Branstad (IO), you are seeing a major chunk of those soft states go their way. Four of those six are from states that have traditionally been swing states and left leaning in policy. As we have seen, once a Koch boy gets in office, that changes. And the Koch’s aren’t stopping there. They are going after Republicans they think are soft, so they can drive policy through. The Koch’s have already begun targeting two of those soft Republican governors in Haslam (TN), using Americans for Prosperity to hammer him on taking fed money to fund his state’s healthcare exchange, and Kasich (OH), using the American Future Fund to hammer him on conservative bonafides.

I think you may also be overlooking the importance of the American Legislative Exchange Council and their impact on policy formation. ALEC continues to pay dividends for the Koch brothers as the policy and legislation created in this body finds its way into law at the state level.

This is the way these guys think. They play the slow con, but they have a plan and they execute it well. I would not scoff at the suggestion of a constitutional convention to invoke their policy wishes. The Democrats have already suggested that certain amendments are needed, so owning the state legislatures makes controlling those amendments the easiest.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This is definitely an interesting point that really needs to be fleshed out. When you say that "liberals" need to unify - unify around what? What are the absolute crucial, central points of being a "liberal" that you think everyone should rally behind?

This is the tough part. Liberals have such a broad platform that it is difficult to find consensus on certain points and then expect policy and message discipline. Liberals need to do what conservatives have done and identify their core values and work to protect those. You can see that there are no identified true core values on the left as there is infighting over some of the most basic stuff.

I ask because I think this is where you're going to run into trouble. No one is going to want to "unify" under a banner that doesn't reflect the political beliefs they think are the most important or the ethic that speaks to them. Instead, most of the "liberals" you're admonishing - and I think you mean the left; a huge swath of them aren't liberals - are instead going to do what most Bernie supporters are likely to do. On election day, they'll either hold their noses and vote for the person who comes closest to representing their world view (read: Hillary), or they'll refuse to vote for anyone who doesn't reflect their most cherished beliefs. And each time they get a chance, they'll mobilize in favour of getting a candidate to vote for who does reflect those beliefs.

Completely agree with what you are saying. The problem is that liberals have not been able to have one of those Big Tent meetings where they can define these core values. Speaking in a generalization, liberals are very weak on defining what is important to them in the larger context, and then assuming ownership of it. They lack the discipline to dig in where required and wage the battles.

Maybe you think that'll lead to more Republican victory but that seems like exactly how the system is supposed to work and it's hard to fault them for it.

The Republicans are just better organized in this regard. It really is about making a decision on a values statement and then standing by that, through thick or thin.

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Aren't we witnessing the unraveling of the conservative coalition?

If anything, small-l liberals across both parties need to stop letting the dogmatic ideologues at both extremes - the identity-politics left and the bible-thumping right - hijack their party policy, and propose moderate platforms that will be tolerable to Americans who are willing to accept compromise in the interests of actually getting stuff done.

It is funny, but I think we’re seeing the opposite. I think we’re seeing a kick in the nuts to the Republican party, but conservatives are sticking to their guns and rallying around their guy, even if that guy is an egocentric sociopath. The important thing to conservatives is he’s their egocentric sociopath. Interestingly enough, their candidate does not represent their core values, based on his actions and behaviors, but they still blindly support him in spades. Again, discipline is extremely important in politics, and the conservatives continue to show resolve in everything they do, regardless if it is right or wrong.

I agree with your take on what needs to be done, finding compromise and such, but the expectations of the conservatives is no on compromise. They want a flat out win at every turn. Anything less is a show of weakness. That is part of their core values and that is what they believe. That is where Trump is killing it. He tells them how great he is and how effective he is, and they believe it. He is the strong man they are hoping for. Reagan spins in his grave.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

^ I don't think it would drive votes to Trump by making that statement. All it would do is annoy people who are not bigoted, but those same people are willfully ignoring the obvious elephant in the room by maintaining their support for Trump.

I am completely comfortable in saying that if you support Trump you are either: A) a bigot, or B) comfortable enough with bigotry to be complicit with it.

Or believe the other parts of the platform are worth the sacrifice of certain values. (I think that is distinct from B). I think those are the marginal voters you need to fight over. The people who you risk offending with the statement are the people who might listen to a rational conversation.

So saying trump has these bigoted ideas is good. Applying that to his supporters blanketed without first listening to them will hurt you at the margins. It also ends any potential discussion you could have with them. So there is no benefit and only potential harm.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

That's not unique to one party

And? When this gets brought up it feels very golden mean fallacy-ish. No kidding both parties let their wallet talk but one party in this election has had an overwhelmingly large amount of politicians who very vocally proclaimed how they would never support Trump but that tune has changed now. McCain's comment today is the closest any one of them has come to showing any amount of backbone.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Bagor

So the regressive left is creating bigots or people that feel bigotry is acceptable?

There's actually quite a few good articles on who some of the Trump supporters are.

Rightly or wrongly, there's a large number of uneducated whites that have gotten poorer over the years and the Republican party's constant failures have been stinging insults to the only thing they have left: respect.

Think of it this way: these people feel like they get discriminated by those in the left as dumb hillbillies. It's ok to discriminate because they are not any kind of minority and feel left out and angry. They've become poorer. They talk like Trump and feel he's finally hitting back against the "elites".

I think someone does need to address this. The factory closures aren't because of politicians. Coal didn't die because of politicians. Immigrants aren't stealing their jobs. However, their need is real and their frustrations aren't being heard. They're in the middle of crippling addiction issues, disintegrating families and disappearing opportunities. It's lauded to talk about the problems in the ghetto's (not that it's helped), but it feels to them like it's ok to forget about the hillbillies in the trailer court. It would behoove Clinton to get behind that and destroy Trump's calls for blaming government, immigrants and media for all their problems

[Cali Panthers Fan]

Originally Posted by GGG

Or believe the other parts of the platform are worth the sacrifice of certain values. (I think that is distinct from B). I think those are the marginal voters you need to fight over. The people who you risk offending with the statement are the people who might listen to a rational conversation.

So saying trump has these bigoted ideas is good. Applying that to his supporters blanketed without first listening to them will hurt you at the margins. It also ends any potential discussion you could have with them. So there is no benefit and only potential harm.

That's the problem. You cannot sacrifice a stand against bigotry if you call yourself an American. It goes against the very principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. It's entirely UN-American to support Trump, and I will continue to call out any Trump supporter as a traitor to American values. I'm not even anti-conservative or anti-Republican. I'm anti-bigotry. I don't care what you have to say about anything if it comes from that place. It's a non-starter for me, and it should be for anyone that espouses to the beliefs of the United States (and countless other modern countries).

You say that you risk alienating them and removing any hope of a rational conversation. I say to you that they have already lost all rational thought by ignoring the very dangerous ideologies that Trump proposes. These are the same people who are upset that Obama and the left doesn't call it "islamic terrorism", yet are unwilling to call Trump what he is (for the record I have no problem calling it islamic terrorism).

It's time to hold Trump supporters accountable for what they are supporting. Perhaps if we say it enough, they'll understand that it's not just rhetoric, it's accurately describing his position.

[octothorp]

I can't help thinking that Khan has already done more, long-term, to prevent home-grown Islamic terrorism than any politician, simply by putting a face to patriotic American Muslims. It achieves two things: it forces other Americans to challenge their preconceived notions and maybe be a little more empathetic, but it also offers a model for engagement for other Muslim Americans who share his perspective, if not his compelling personal story. Not that engagement is always going to happen on this sort of high-profile level, but just that you'll be respected and lauded for speaking about patriotism and faith in America, regardless of what that faith is. And maybe, just maybe, it gives a few of those particularly high-risk American Muslims pause instead of engaging with more extremist chapters of their faith.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

No the "regressive left" didn't create bigots, the "regressive left" is a reaction to bigotry not the other way around.

They feed into each other. Dogmatic extremism fuels dogmatic extremism, and alienates the centre. The bewildering folly and illiberal pieties of the identity politics left eventually drove me to the centre. Why would I self-identity with the kinds of illiberal zealots who champion no platforming, check your privilege, and language policing?

Citizens motivated by reason, empiricism, and rigorous skepticism are no longer welcome on either the left or the right. And a great many genuine liberals now side with the right on many issues rather than shut off half of their brain and most of their critical instincts in order to join the church of the new moralists on the left.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

And? When this gets brought up it feels very golden mean fallacy. One party in this election has a very large amount of politicians who very vocally proclaimed how they would never support Trump but that tune has changed now. McCain's content today is the closest any one of them has come to showing any amount of backbone.

I'm with you there. Democrats have the monopoly on honest politicians and I'm not being facetious. There's still far too few. I used to be behind Clinton too, but just too much dishonesty. Not the conspiratorial kind, just plain old lying. Like drop the "there was no classified information on those emails" when the FBI has already testified under oath that there was.

Why can't she just give the likely answer "I made a serious error. I didn't realize there was classified information in those emails. I certainly will not make that mistake again"?

On a logarithmic scale Trump is orders of magnitude worse, but it still shouldn't just be acceptable. You have a candidate who's done amazing things for veterans, kids, mothers and countless charitable endeavours. Just be human ffs and admit mistakes. Maybe it's her handlers, maybe her, I don't know. But it's tiresome

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I can't help thinking that Khan has already done more, long-term, to prevent home-grown Islamic terrorism than any politician, simply by putting a face to patriotic American Muslims. It achieves two things: it forces other Americans to challenge their preconceived notions and maybe be a little more empathetic, but it also offers a model for engagement for other Muslim Americans who share his perspective, if not his compelling personal story. Not that engagement is always going to happen on this sort of high-profile level, but just that you'll be respected and lauded for speaking about patriotism and faith in America, regardless of what that faith is. And maybe, just maybe, it gives a few of those particularly high-risk American Muslims pause instead of engaging with more extremist chapters of their faith.

Never thought of that. Great point!

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

They feed into each other. Dogmatic extremism fuels dogmatic extremism, and alienates the centre. The bewildering folly and illiberal pieties of the identity politics left eventually drove me to the centre. Why would I self-identity with the kinds of illiberal zealots who champion no platforming, check your privilege, and language policing?

Citizens motivated by reason, empiricism, and rigorous skepticism are no longer welcome on either the left or the right. And a great many genuine liberals now side with the right on many issues rather than shut off half of their brain and most of their critical instincts in order to join the church of the new moralists on the left.

The bigots voting for Trump couldn't tell a micro-aggression from a micro-machine. The bigots voting for Trump aren't fueled by a phenomenom taking place largely on liberal college campuses which is entirely anodyne and orthogonal to what's motivating them.

The bigots voting for Trump are voting for a person who will stand up to a much more base politics of political correctness. They're galvanized by a politics of political correctness that says it's not okay to call all muslim's terrorists. They're reacting against a politics of political correctness where they're aggrieved by the loss of Merry Christmas. The political correctness they're rising up against is the politics that wants to naturalize Mexican immigrants living in the US who have had children here and doesn't, instead, call them rapists.

Lets disabuse ourselves of the motivations of Trump voters. The regressive left stuff is a sideshow of a deeper politics of the left that has little or nothing to do with the motivations of Trump voters. Those voters are reacting to much more base changes in race and identity politics. Stuff that we thought we moved on from in the 90s. But we haven't.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Cali Panthers Fan

That's the problem. You cannot sacrifice a stand against bigotry if you call yourself an American. It goes against the very principles outlined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution/Bill of Rights. It's entirely UN-American to support Trump, and I will continue to call out any Trump supporter as a traitor to American values. I'm not even anti-conservative or anti-Republican. I'm anti-bigotry. I don't care what you have to say about anything if it comes from that place. It's a non-starter for me, and it should be for anyone that espouses to the beliefs of the United States (and countless other modern countries).

You say that you risk alienating them and removing any hope of a rational conversation. I say to you that they have already lost all rational thought by ignoring the very dangerous ideologies that Trump proposes. These are the same people who are upset that Obama and the left doesn't call it "islamic terrorism", yet are unwilling to call Trump what he is (for the record I have no problem calling it islamic terrorism).

It's time to hold Trump supporters accountable for what they are supporting. Perhaps if we say it enough, they'll understand that it's not just rhetoric, it's accurately describing his position.

I don't think these are the same people. Your going after the margins, the soft support. Your not going after the true believer. By all means call trump a bigot and ask how can you support a bigot. But don't start the conversation by calling a trump supporter a bigot. You are failing at Venn diagrams if you no.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Trump appears to be unable to extricate himself from the Khizr Khan issue. I have to think this petulant display on his part is very costly...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/01/politi...day/index.html