All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[aja_christopher]

The charge of racism is a significant charge because it carries great moral weight, and left-wing critics have made this accusation too freely in the past.

But not so significant that you'll actually address it when it's obvious.

Or stop your politicians from using it to attempt to suppress the civil and voting rights of people of color -- including your fellow American citizens, like the ones you are actually discussing this topic with on this forum.

I'll ask you -- where has civility gotten us with you in this discussion?

Scratch that -- the real question is how does discussing this with you do anything to prevent your party from engaging in racist, fascist, criminal behavior?

Realistically speaking, your opinion means little to nothing compared to the actual abuses being committed by your party, like denying children medical care.

[SquirrelMan]

There are going to be several positions.

People are going to use motivated reasoning to suggest that their candidate is okay, and come up with excuses. This is complicated by the imprecision with the word racism. Conor Friedersdorf showed the problem "A question about the word "racism" in journalism: if you had 280 characters or less to write a *New York Times* style guide entry that editors and writers would diligently consult and defer to when deciding whether or not to use the word, what definition would you put forth?" We essentially use multiple definitions, focusing on result, motive and beliefs.

Some of the Republicans would believe that the reaction to Trump's comments is greatly exaggerated, that it is important that he ended his comment with "and then come back." So they would see this as a continuing pattern of flawed claims of racism by the liberal media. The charge of racism is a significant charge because it carries great moral weight, and left-wing critics have made this accusation too freely in the past.

There is also a sore spot for populists and conservatives when it comes to liberal immigrants and children of immigrants. They are more likely to believe that immigrants should completely assimilate, and that any liberal values demonstrate a failure to understand the problems with the country they fled in the first place. This is not a view I endorse. A view on the left that comes from a similar place is the suggestion that people who have been through something must support massive government support for anyone else in a similar position (IE- that the children of immigrants should support new immigrants who will be public charges, that people who have succeeded despite disabilities should be amiable to subsidized health care for much more able-bodied individuals.)

Or maybe the 94 percent of GOP supporters who still are with Trump were just waiting for an opportunity to let all the racism and fascism out?

[Theleviathan]

It's still escalating with Newt Gingrich -- Trump is just a lot more blunt in his racism.

------
"Newt Gingrich Defends Racist Tweets: Trump ‘Better Off’ When He Shows How ‘Anti-American’ Congresswomen Are"

"Appearing Monday morning on Fox & Friends, Gingrich argued that the president is smart to put the quartet of Democratic House members in the spotlight — no matter what he does to put them there.

“I think the president believes the more he can get the country to look at the so-called squad, the more he can get them to realize how radical they are, and how fundamentally anti-American their views are, in the long run, the better off he is,” Gingrich said. “I think he would like to see them the front page of the Democratic Party. And I think he thinks anything he does to elevate them is to his net advantage.”

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/newt-def...resswomen-are/

Newt's legacy is going to be on the level of McCarthy I think. History, if we can reverse this, will look back at his toxicity as the beginning of a dark period for America. Him and the Limbaugh/Right Wing radio nut jobs.

We do need more problem solving, unity, and working together, but I think that issue is a symptom. It isn't the core concern.

[SquirrelMan]

When people say that the accusation of racism was thrown out excessively in the past, it just means that it was used against cases of racism they find acceptable.

[jetengine]

I wasnt Civil to Mets.

I called him a void of emotion, got that post deleted and banned for a week for it. Frankly its pretty tame compared to the tone of some of these posts in response to his endless bullshitting, goalpost moving and weak attempts at ignorance

[aja_christopher]

Newt's legacy is going to be on the level of McCarthy I think. History, if we can reverse this, will look back at his toxicity as the beginning of a dark period for America. Him and the Limbaugh/Right Wing radio nut jobs.

We do need more problem solving, unity, and working together, but I think that issue is a symptom. It isn't the core concern.

Obama tried that and we saw where that got him -- it's what we need, but it's not what the Republicans are willing to do.

It's likewise why I say discussion with Mets is an exercise in futility -- nothing he says will change the nature of the party he is defending.

Which is why -- again -- I say they need to be voted out of office and the criminals need to be prosecuted.

[Kusanagi]

There are going to be several positions.

People are going to use motivated reasoning to suggest that their candidate is okay, and come up with excuses. This is complicated by the imprecision with the word racism. Conor Friedersdorf showed the problem "A question about the word "racism" in journalism: if you had 280 characters or less to write a *New York Times* style guide entry that editors and writers would diligently consult and defer to when deciding whether or not to use the word, what definition would you put forth?" We essentially use multiple definitions, focusing on result, motive and beliefs.

Some of the Republicans would believe that the reaction to Trump's comments is greatly exaggerated, that it is important that he ended his comment with "and then come back." So they would see this as a continuing pattern of flawed claims of racism by the liberal media. The charge of racism is a significant charge because it carries great moral weight, and left-wing critics have made this accusation too freely in the past.

There is also a sore spot for populists and conservatives when it comes to liberal immigrants and children of immigrants. They are more likely to believe that immigrants should completely assimilate, and that any liberal values demonstrate a failure to understand the problems with the country they fled in the first place. This is not a view I endorse. A view on the left that comes from a similar place is the suggestion that people who have been through something must support massive government support for anyone else in a similar position (IE- that the children of immigrants should support new immigrants who will be public charges, that people who have succeeded despite disabilities should be amiable to subsidized health care for much more able-bodied individuals.)

I'm sure this has already been posted, but it needs reposting

Kansas Senator Kris Kobach can't answer when asked if he'd support a racist

That's where a large portion of the republican party is. If Trump burned a cross on the White House lawn, they'd say he was just expressing his religious freedoms and he had no knowledge of cross burnings historical significance, and it of course had nothing to do with racism.

The whole "we'll he said they could come back so it isn't racist" implies that the USA isn't their home! Anything else stated is a pathetic attempt to dance around the subject.

The question we have to deal with going forward is how many republicans are doing this because Trump's their guy and they don't want to earn his or his base's ire, and how many sincerely believe in what he says.

[Theleviathan]

Obama tried that and we saw where that got him -- it's what we need, but it's not what the Republicans are willing to do.

It's likewise why I say discussion with Mets is an exercise in futility -- nothing he says will change the nature of the party he is defending.

Which is why -- again -- I say they need to be voted out of office and the criminals need to be prosecuted.

I completely agree. Unfortunately, isolated Republicans find ways to defend their votes with a lot of cover about policy, or rhetoric, or whatever. The reality is that Republicanism has become something of a cult. The only way we're going to carve out the cancer and establish a more acceptable conservative party is to utterly demolish this one in elections. It has to pay the price for this at the polls, if it doesn't it will only be further emboldened.

When I talk to Republicans I try to point out how this toxicity has escalated and how they may be good, rational, well meaning people in general. But if they stand by and try to justify their votes for these people, it will only get worse. They are enabling evil, anti-democratic, destructive, racist, lying, nonsensical cancer to infect our country. By the time they realize the monster they've created it may be too late. I admit, it doesn't seem to get far. I don't know what else to say.

[Theleviathan]

I wasnt Civil to Mets.

I called him a void of emotion, got that post deleted and banned for a week for it. Frankly its pretty tame compared to the tone of some of these posts in response to his endless bullshitting, goalpost moving and weak attempts at ignorance

I admit, this issue confuses the hell out of me on this forum. So, just wanted to say you aren't the only one scratching your head.

[kidfresh512]

I completely agree. Unfortunately, isolated Republicans find ways to defend their votes with a lot of cover about policy, or rhetoric, or whatever. The reality is that Republicanism has become something of a cult. The only way we're going to carve out the cancer and establish a more acceptable conservative party is to utterly demolish this one in elections. It has to pay the price for this at the polls, if it doesn't it will only be further emboldened.

When I talk to Republicans I try to point out how this toxicity has escalated and how they may be good, rational, well meaning people in general. But if they stand by and try to justify their votes for these people, it will only get worse. They are enabling evil, anti-democratic, destructive, racist, lying, nonsensical cancer to infect our country. By the time they realize the monster they've created it may be too late. I admit, it doesn't seem to get far. I don't know what else to say.

Absolutely. right now the GOP see no consequences for their bullshit. Whether you look at polling and they see trump numbers near 45% after EVERYTHING he's done. Or even higher on GOP polls. His base popularity. The only reason the child separation policy "ended" was because there started to be movement even in the GOP that that was too far. They don't respond until their base starts saying hold up....

And that's a low marker with everything he's done and said and how they have been lied too. Fox News telling them everything is wonderful and no ones a racist except the libs obviously. One of their headlines "Send her back chant starts liberal media firestorm" Why isn't ALL media equally reporting how horrible group racism is? Fox making it seem like they are under siege by unjust attacks.

They must be decimated in the election and have real power shift to have them start doing "soul searching" that's the only thing that will work. And its what everyone who is sick of this administration regardless of which of the 20 candidates running wins the Democratic nomination.

[numberthirty]

I think it's more because they are afraid of Harris because she knows that she can -- and has said she will -- prosecute them for their crimes if she gets elected and cowards and bullies usually don't try to attack people they fear unless they have to.



They'll attack her more if she becomes the frontrunner but for now -- like most cowards -- they are going for the easier targets like the "radical socialists".

Also, note that even though you might call her a "blue dog" she comes from one of the most progressive states in America, especially when it comes to civil rights and medical care -- there's a world of difference between a Mississippi Democrat and a California Democrat (and Mississippi and California voters) which is why it's often inaccurate to try to define the party with labels like "blue dog" and "moderate" based on personal judgement alone.

It's probably a lot simpler than that.

Right now, they are running about a "Draw..." with Harris in a lot of polling.

Why would you waste time that you can't get back going after someone you are tying when there are three other potential opponents that have you beat in the same polling?

[Tami]

Here is an older video from 1993

Trump's Manipulation of the Media

[Malvolio]

I remember reading a book in a history class in college, entitled Civilities and Civil Rights. It was about how some of the conservative arguments against the Civil Rights movement were that the leaders of the movement were too loud or too vulgar. Because yeah, they were taken so seriously when they were polite in their demands. This is not a new argument. This is something they've been doing for a long time. Ignore a polite demand. Then when you make the demand a little more loudly, they tell you to calm down or to stop being so angry. Sorry but that noise doesn't work any more.

[Jack Dracula]

As an effort to break the cycle of "everybody pile on" with civility, I'll try and read into that a bit. If I were to work in government in Washington, I could definitely see being extremely frustrated with the complete inability to work through problems with compromise. You can't do the work of the people right now because one party has completely shut that avenue down.

It's a fair thing to be concerned about. Perhaps not as cataclysmic, but on a daily basis (if you're truly trying to serve your country) I could see how that impediment would loom large.

It's a legitimate concern, but the blame lies in once place and it escalated starting with Newt Gingrich IMO.

I'll see your Newt Gingrich and raise you Tom Delay, Dennis Hastert and Grover Norquist.
But yes, the movement in the GOP to abandon ethics and the spirit of compromise began with Gingrich.

[aja_christopher]

Why would you waste time that you can't get back going after someone you are tying when there are three other potential opponents that have you beat in the same polling?

If that was their logic then Trump wouldn't be attacking Ilhan, Cortez, or non-threats like Bette Midler, Rosie O'Donnell and nearly everyone else but Harris.

Trump hasn't even tried to give her a nickname yet -- you can act like it's out of a lack of concern politically, but that's never stopped him before.

You spend more time attacking Harris than Trump does so it's clear where your bias lies, regardless.