The 2016 US American Election Thread

[PsYcNeT]

All these true American Conservatives need to start a YouTube channel and stop writing BORRRRRING books. For reals.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Thank you for one example of a stupid thing one republican said.

Here's the thing. I'm pro-choice. However, the reason that pro-life people on the right are pro-life is not because they want to subjugate women. It's because they think abortion is killing babies. That is not a crazy view of the world, because it's hard to decide when a fetus or baby suddenly has moral value. There's no particularly good answer to the question, "why is it suddenly no longer okay to kill this thing after it's been developing for X weeks?" It's a difficult moral question with reasonable positions on both sides. I understand their concerns on this point.

The same, to varying degrees, goes for all of the other positions. Even the voter fraud thing, I think, is a matter of the GOP cynically trying to position itself to more easily win elections rather than to disenfranchise poor minorities because they're a bunch of racists.

Reminder: They are anti-abortion, not pro-life. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" support the death penalty.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Reminder: They are anti-abortion, not pro-life. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" support the death penalty.

Oh this analogy is the worst one. Clearly abortion and the death penalty are completely different things.

[PsYcNeT]

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The same, to varying degrees, goes for all of the other positions. Even the voter fraud thing, I think, is a matter of the GOP cynically trying to position itself to more easily win elections rather than to disenfranchise poor minorities because they're a bunch of racists.

If a policy disproportionately impacts minorities you don't get to dismiss it as just trying to win. You can get into buster style arguments about racism and intent but most will see those policies for what they truly are.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

If a policy disproportionately impacts minorities you don't get to dismiss it as just trying to win. You can get into buster style arguments about racism and intent but most will see those policies for what they truly are.

Identity politics is truly one of the stupidest trends going on these days. I could cynically argue that the above rule is only evoked in cases when political capital is at stake.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Reminder: They are anti-abortion, not pro-life. The vast majority of "pro-lifers" support the death penalty.

Oh for f... Seriously, can you not act like you're running for something for a minute? There's a distinction between being against murdering what you see as an innocent baby and executing a criminal. This is about as fair as labeling my pro-choice stance "pro-infanticide".

And people wonder why the different sides can't talk to each other... you've just demonstrated the moralistic, uncharitable oversimplification complex that I was parodying in the first place.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

If a policy disproportionately impacts minorities you don't get to dismiss it as just trying to win.

I can, yeah. A policy that is not intended to impact a minority because they're a minority is not motivated by hatred and is therefore not a racist policy.

The right way to address this is to note that the reason that "disenfranchising minorities" and "trying to win" overlap so significantly for the GOP is that other policies they've historically supported have put them in a position where those minorities overwhelmingly vote democrat.

[PsYcNeT]

Yeah murdering babies is bad, but supporting actual living babies is also bad.

So, uh, sorry babies in poverty.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

Identity politics is truly one of the stupidest trends going on these days. I could cynically argue that the above rule is only evoked in cases when political capital is at stake.

Please make an effective argument for voter ID laws using any credible facts showing voter fraud has ever existed in the way conservatives portray it and that it does not disproportionately affect minorities. I'll wait.

You can attempt to dismiss it as identity politics because that's the only way you can dismiss it. Unfortunately in this case reality disagrees with the conservative talking point.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Yeah murdering babies is bad, but supporting actual living babies is also bad.

So, uh, sorry babies in poverty.

Tax credits or direct subsidies for families is a central component to any conservative platform.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by peter12

Tax credits or direct subsidies for families is a central component to any conservative platform.

This isn't the right argument. The argument should be, these things are not linked. The position "people shouldn't kill other people" does not contradict the position "the government shouldn't be in the business of providing social assistance to anyone".

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

This isn't the right argument. The argument should be, these things are not linked. The position "people shouldn't kill other people" does not contradict the position "the government shouldn't be in the business of providing social assistance to anyone".

Well, that is a fair point, and I'll take it.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by peter12

Tax credits or direct subsidies for families is a central component to any conservative platform.

Just not planned parenthood...

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I can, yeah. A policy that is not intended to impact a minority because they're a minority is not motivated by hatred and is therefore not a racist policy.

Do you know why the Civil Rights Act was concerned with actual impact on minorities for 'pre-clearance' instead of stated intent?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

Identity politics is truly one of the stupidest trends going on these days. I could cynically argue that the above rule is only evoked in cases when political capital is at stake.

Identity politics was pretty lousy circa Jim Crow too.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by peter12

Tax credits or direct subsidies for families is a central component to any conservative platform.

Which is why your intellectual heavyweight George Will supports the ACA

edit: what a peculiar response

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Which is why your intellectual heavyweight George Will supports the ACA.

I'm not a fan of George Will at all, but you would be wrong not to credit him as a genuine intellectual discussing conservativism in the public sphere.

[photon]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

voter ID laws

I guess I'm so used to Canada and our simplicity, anything to do with voter ID laws or any other things done that aren't blatantly obvious moves to make it easier for everyone and increase the # of voters I still can hardly process... it just feels so incredibly wrong.

http://www.salon.com/2016/10/25/wisc...ts-would-vote/

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Oh for f... Seriously, can you not act like you're running for something for a minute? There's a distinction between being against murdering what you see as an innocent baby and executing a criminal. This is about as fair as labeling my pro-choice stance "pro-infanticide".

And people wonder why the different sides can't talk to each other... you've just demonstrated the moralistic, uncharitable oversimplification complex that I was parodying in the first place.

Innocent people have been executed before, not just criminals. Beyond that you have anti-abortion activists who have in the past and will undoubtedly in the future murder abortion doctors (and "pro lifers" who condone those things). Anti-abortion is the more accurate term whether you like it or not. They clearly are willing to have life taken away if they deem the life unworthy, for whatever reason they'd like.