If dig doesn't mind me posting a bit of a conversation we had the other day...

digamma [12:23 PM]
i was in teh bay area over the weekend and went to a taco stand (incredible btw)

there were two 60+ dudes in matching red polos and "Keep America Great Hats"
they seemed so proud of themselves

digamma [12:24 PM]
yet, they're about to order street tacos from a bunch of brown people and then yell about building a wall
i truly don't get it

cuervo72 [12:26 PM]
no tacos for you!
wait, taco vendors are not the same as Christian bakers

digamma [12:28 PM]
it's very [difficult] to describe trump policy as anything other than appealing to racism and bigotry, and that's being generous
i know i'm preaching to the choir here.

cuervo72 [12:29 PM]
I'm not even sure it's always racism

I think people just want to be immature assholes w/o being called on it
they're middle-schoolers who don't want to have to keep up the adult face

digamma [12:34 PM]
the red hats?

cuervo72 [12:34 PM]
yeah

digamma [12:36 PM]
let's go to a rally, drink some beer and make fun of some people

cuervo72 [12:37 PM]
outside of the beer (for most, anyway) isn't that what middle-schoolers do?
"I'm going to wear this red hat because you said I couldn't."
they're really lame rebels
don't get me wrong, some of them are virulent racists

Just think. We could have had taco trucks on every corner. Instead we got this.

STATEMENT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE

President Donald J. Trump feels strongly that North Korea is under tremendous pressure from China because of our major trade disputes with the Chinese Government. At the same time, we also know that China is providing North Korea with...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2018

Click through and read the whole crazy thing. It's hard to summarize all the bananas in it.

Also, if he's now admitting the twitter account is for official government statements, of course, he can't block citizens.

Or delete tweets.

Geez now he's complaining about Google putting Obama's State of the Union on their front page, but not his.

Hillary got the nod because the Democrats sat on their laurels after Obama got elected and didn't build up other candidates. They stopped focusing on smaller races and put all their eggs in the Presiden't basket. Not to mention felt they needed to raise more money and thus got into bed with every big corporation just like the Republicans. That leads to a tough party to get passionate about.

Trump got the nod because the Republican Party has mostly been about racial politics since the Civil Rights era and they finally found a candidate who dropped the dogwhistles and just flat out said what they wanted to hear. It's decades of Fox News and right-wing radio molding the perfect candidate for that audience.

Is this based off something he saw on Lou Dobbs or because he realized he got fucking owned by North Korea?

There must be some real heroic stuff going on behind the scenes to keep things from completely going off the rails, and preventing Trump from doing what he'd really like to do in that office.

The crowded field with no standouts really helped him. If it had been Trump, Cruz, and Kasich from the beginning I seriously doubt Trump gets the nomination. The never trumpers weren't able to get behind a single candidate, though, and Trump was given more targets to bully and make fun of. Which plays to his base perfectly.

Probably something he saw on Fox News because he's already declared victory in North Korea and that's all his base remembers. His base is already championing the new NAFTA agreement.

Obama's biggest failure was his refusal to see himself as the leader of a political party as well as a leader of the nation. The Democrats got killed over his eight years, in no small part because he never seriously advocated for the party.

That was kind of a rhetorical question :)

But yeah, arrogance and racism

How? I cannot speak to Nixon, but Ford was essentially apologizing for Watergate, when he wasn’t falling down. Regan campaigned on taxes and being tough on the Soviets. Bush I ran on being an extension of Regan. Dole ran because it was his turn.Bush II was a compassionate conservative and the war on terror. McCain was another it’s my turn candidate. Romney was a moderate who was ridiculed for saying Russia and Putin are not nice guys. Trump is well Trump.

So where in any of that are the racial politics? Now if you want to say there was a wing of the party that was voting due to race during the Obama years? I’ll grant you that, but there were a lot who did the same thing in 08, but voted for him.

With the occasional welfare queen thrown in.

(Apparently, there WAS a real basis for his welfare queen story, and this lady was a real trip. And may or may not have actually been black.)

Reagan went to Mississippi and spoke about state's rights.

His campaign manager, Lee Atwater said this:


There's Jesse Helms' famous campaign ad.

And Bush1's Willie Horton ad.

Bush2 started rumors about McCain's adopted child from Bangledesh.

And we could go on and on.

Now I don't believe all of them, or all Republicans are racists, far from it. But, as I've said for years, too many GOP electeds have been fine with ignoring or encouraging racists so as to get their votes. Trump doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's inconceivable that Ike would have been followed by Trump. The ground needed to be tilled and fertilized first.

Nixon used the Southern Strategy and was one of the first to prominently use dog-whistle terminology. He touted "states rights" which was a way to appeal to those who didn't like the civil rights movement. He nominated two judges to the Supreme Court who were vocal in the anti-civil rights stance. Courted people like Strom Thurmond so he could get the segregationists that voted for Wallace in 68.

Both Reagan and HW used Lee Atwater as a strategist who in his own words explained their strategy:


This was one of the centerpieces to Reagan's campaign. He was going to cut your taxes because those black welfare queens were sitting around doing nothing with your hard earned money.

Heck, Reagan launched his campaign right outside Philadelphia, Mississippi. A tiny place that just so happened to be the spot where the KKK famously murdered 3 civil rights activists (Mississippi Burning). There he gave a speech to the white crowd about state's rights. A clear play to the audiences hatred of the Civil Rights Act (which Reagan opposed) and the return of Jim Crow segregation. The message was clear and even people involved with his administration admitted later on that the goal was to get those Dixiecrat voters.

In office he tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act, opposed MLK Day being a holiday, and tried to give private schools that racially discriminated their tax exempt status back. These were things he proudly campaigned on later on. Heck in 1984 he went back to that town in Mississippi and stated "The South will rise again!".

H.W. Bush had the famous Willie Horton ad. His son famously spoke at Bob Jones University which at the time had ban on interracial dating. Worth noting that Reagan, Dole, and a slew of other Republican candidates spoke at this school. And who could forget the infamous push poll in South Carolina that insinuated McCain's adopted daughter was an illegitimate love child.

When it comes to Obama's run, we can look to claims he wasn't born in the United States for the simple reason he was black. Claims he was taught in a radical madrasa. Or the veiled racial attacks Sarah Palin made in 2008.

As for Trump, I'm not sure how you can say race wasn't a role with a straight face. The biggest voice behind the Birther movement. The Central Park jogger case. Did you follow his campaign at all? Do you think his re-tweeting and expounding views of white supremacists were a rogue intern that got a hold of his Twitter account? Heck even in the primary he went after Jeb for having a Mexican wife.


All this shouldn't be new information. It was literally dubbed the "Southern Strategy". They understood they could get a large racist element of society on their side through these wedge issues.

Obviously campaigns have many issues they champion but there's also been a catering (overt or covert) to that racist demographic that makes up a large percent of the population.

That's the irony of it. Nixon for instance was actually a bigger supporter of Civil Rights than Kennedy. But he felt the best way to win was to get those Dixiecrats on his side.

It's worth noting that candidates in the modern era rarely go out and say stuff themselves anymore. It's what their surrogates are for. And the advances of media have allowed people like Limbaugh to do the dirty work for them.

I still think one of the things that made Trump stand out is that he didn't leave it to his surrogates. Sure Alex Jones and company led an important charge, but it was likely refreshing to that base to have someone just say what they believe. Someone who will say blacks, hispanics, and Muslims are inferior. To promote white supremacists and their conspiracy theories openly. It kind of gave him a "man of the people" aura which I think carried him to victory in both the primary and general election.

I think this goes back to the binary lesser of two evils concept, which I consider a fallacy but let's remember that it's been consistently advocated by a majority of this board. Under that thought, all you are really doing is comparing Trump and Clinton. Nothing else matters. How objectively bad each is, is irrelevant. The only consideration is who is worse. And under that situation, it's not hard to get to a point where you can excuse voting for literally anything. There is no even consideration of 'I won't for them because they are a racist' or whatever. It's all a comparison, and when you starting talking about shifting SCOTUS for a generation, the people I work with who were predicting a civil war(and not at all being sarcastic or melodramatic) if Hillary won and took away their guns, etc. I mean if you take Jon's view that being a democrat is a bigger threat than being part of ISIS, the other candidate could be David Duke and you're still going to say 'well, at least they're not (fill in the blank)'


Others have said this kind of thing recently, I'm choosing only your statement soley for brevity's sake. I can think of a lot of ways it could be worse. Obvious one is he could have launched a simultaneous nuclear strike on half the globe. He could be more competent, and therefore more effective in implemented his bad ideas. He could have imposed martial law, declared himself emperor for life and created a full-on constitutional crisis in the process, shut down the media outlets he doesn't like instead of just blustering about them, etc. Trump's terrible, but he's nowhere near nightmare-scenario territory.


The interesting thing to me about historical realities like this are the assumptions that go along with it. There's a lot of that still going on, including with Trump, as people try to divine the motivation behind what he says that's not included in the actual words. Years ago, when I was a conservative on economic issues, I asked on another forum how one could express those kinds of beliefs without using terms deemed racist codewords. Nobody could give me an example of how to do it. You can't just say things like 'disadvantaged through no fault of their own' or 'bottom end of the economic ladder' or whatever because a certain number of people are going to assume social darwinism, you're just racist against minorities, etc. even if it's just about believing that the welfare state destroys the family structure and having a different opinion on what policies are best for giving the most people to most opportunity. And of course the same issue is there for various perspectives on various issues; Kerry struggled with it as a presidential candidate vis a vis foreign policy and the war on terror. I don't think we have any chance for healthy civil discourse as long as such assumptions are made.

It's not an assumption. The people behind the strategy literally came out and said what they were doing. There is a famous interview with Atwater where he explains it.

The RNC came out and apologized for it in 2005.

What assumption is there when the party admits to it and apologizes for it?

Like do you think Reagan chose to give a states rights speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi to kick start his campaign randomly? Who do you think that speech was aimed at?

I mean I think people interpret things the wrong way a lot but I think his intention was pretty clear.

Don't forget that Reagan also worked extremely hard to push back on affirmative action and civil rights, beginning the "anti-white" movement that Trump is just making a lot more open. Reagan's War On Drugs has had enormous repercussions in the African american community and there were intentional measures taken in the early stages of the War On Drugs that made it intentionally dis-proportionally attack and impact blacks.


It just took awhile, as albionmoonlight said, for our politicians on the right to change from saying its about something else even though we can all see they're only attacking the poor and very often the poor inner city black person... to where we are now, where our president will openly say racist things and re-tweet literal nazi's and white nationalists, and many, many other politicians at a congressional level on the right may have the decency not to actively promote white nationalism, but they're very happy to go on their radio shows, to sit side by side at conventions and have public photo opportunities with the leaders of openly and actively racist movements across the country.

I try very hard not to pre-judge any individual trump voter. I attack the propaganda machine that is Fox News heavily but if I'm in an open mindset I'm not going to pre-judge any trump voter. I really try not to. At the same time I do make rants in other threads about how the things Jon says are moving scarily closer to mainstream and I stand by that.

I think the party and its platform, especially the far right wing of it that has taken so much control in the last 15'ish years, that party's leadership and top level members now feel comfortable being openly racist. Anyone who doesn't think that a lot of what we're seeing right now is a backlash against an election of a black president is naive imo.

I called it a historical reality, not an assumption. I'm not sure how I can be clearer on it. Are there better words I should use?

The Problems with First Past the Post Voting Explained - YouTube


I love this video, and followups that explain how other systems are better. I think its incredibly accurate for the US.

It is a well-done video, but I don't really swallow the main assumption. I think the last presidential primary on the Republican side is a great example of why. People had the choices of many candidates much different than Trump. They chose him. Not that Bush, Kasich, Cruz, Rubio, etc. were fantastic candidates, but as their fortunes waxed and waned there were a lot of opportunities -- and millions cast their votes for Trump again and again. Primary choice and the fact that it really isn't just math -- people have every option of picking differently than the video describes, they just choose not to -- end up with us where we are. I think the hard truth of modern American politics is not a broken system; that's a red herring IMO. It's that the electorate has exactly the government we/it deserve, which always happens in a society with free elections. As painful as it is to face, it's a reflection of who we have become.

What I got from what you said was that "people assume you are a racist when you support policies that history has shown are racist". You also say that you can still be against those things and not be racist. Maybe that's true, but I don't find it disingenuous to label someone a racist that supports racist policies before I hear their reasoning.

And I think what a lot of other people are saying is how sad it is that such obvious racism isn't an automatic disqualifier for people.

It reminds me of Marge Schott talking about Hitler (I know, I'm sorry)... "he was good in the beginning, but went too far."

So Trump gave you a tax cut. Great, congrats. Does it really matter in the grand scheme? Is that what matters most to society now? That's the sad part. Saying "I'm against it, but not enough to not support him" is pretty hard to swallow when we're talking this level of overt racism. It is a virulent backlash to the perceived overrun of political correctness. It's like "if you guys thought we were assholes before, you ain't seen nothin' yet!" We are literally rolling back society to a point where it is ok to make 40+% of citizenry second-class citizens. If that's ok with you, that's fucked up.

Even if it is ok with you in the name of gun rights or government overreach or WHATEVER your top hot-button issue is. Human dignity should really trump all of that, but I guess it doesn't for a whole mess of people.

Traveling this am and waiting on a plane to board thats already behind. SO Im not going to dive in as deep as I might otherwise would.


In short, my support of Trump was darn near solely for the SCOTUS posts that were likely to be filled in the next 4. Its not popular here, but I remain a Christian Im not a hard line hard edge literal doctrine guy, but it is still the guiding lamp post in my life. My fear around a Clinton election was primarily based upon the fact of whom she would appoint and the generational implications.


We can go line by line item by item, but from a theological standpoint that is still my basis of decision.


I'll also add this. I was unimpressed, admittedly, by Trump leading up to the election. But he's been even worse than I perceived in a number of areas since election. Yet still, here we are. I still prefer this devil I know to the only other option I was given.

But if this is the thing that determines your vote, you would have voted for Trump over literally any other Democrat.

I am baffled how someone can call themselves a Christian ( and you are far from the only one doing this) yet support someone who so obviously hates anyone that isn't a white male.

Abortion rights?

So as a Christian, what does that mean to you? On, say, the subject of refugees?

Leviticus 19:33-34 says "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt."

Trump's Administration has been working actively to deny refugee status to asylum supplicants, and has been indiscriminately separating children from their parents at the border. Trump's Administration has lost some of the children it took, and tried in court to put the burden on the ACLU to reunite the families.

Okay, so what about aid to the poor?

Matthew 25:37-40 says "Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you?’ And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’"

And, sure, okay, you're going to rules lawyer and say "BUT THE BIBLE DOESN'T SAY THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB." Regardless, those are programs that have been in place for generations; this year, Trump asked Congress to cut three billion in housing assistance, three billion in heating assistance, and to cut SNAP by 40% over the next ten years. At the same time, he asked for something like an extra $60 billion in FY 2019 military spending. Oh, and he signed a tax bill that gives individuals a temporary tax break so corporations could get a permanent one; ten years out, about half of all filers will pay more in taxes than they did last year, and whatever individual benefit remains, about 80% will be going to filers making more than $1 million.

How's Trump doing with the "least of these my brothers"?

Oh, but the jurists he appoints are probably going to side with a Christian's right to discriminate against people whose "lifestyles I don't agree with," even if that discrimination takes place within the context of government services (he's a big fan of Kim Davis, recall); is that the "generational implications" you were most worried about, then? Not how this nation treats the poor and the refugee, but whether or not religious freedom means "I don't have to follow the law if I don't like whose genitals you stimulate"?

It's a really breathtaking form of pick-and-choose hypocrisy for when "Christian" principles in government matter, don't you think? "Government has no business being involved in aid to the indigent when the faithful could do that" on the one hand and "but the faithful should be able to wield the power of civil service to punish those in 'living in sin.'"

I'm kind of confused by this response. The Republican primary seems to be perfectly illustrated in the video. Trump initially polled in the 20s and 30s in primaries and as candidates fell away his numbers increased because of a lack of additional choices. Call it math, strategy, circumstance, whatever, I wonder how a rank choice system may have changed things.

And yet, Ronald Reagan signed a liberal abortion bill as governor of California in 1967, and throughout the 60s and 70s, abortion not only wasn't a hot-button issue for evangelicals, but the Southern Baptists resolved [b]before[/i] Roe to work towards legislation that would "allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother."

Abortion as an issue for the religious right (Catholics, who have been pretty consistent on the issue, excluded) really only arose in the last 40 years.

Here's a fun read, if you're interested: The Real Origins of the Religious Right - POLITICO Magazine

I feel like the way that members of the GOP have handled the last 2 years have fully stripped away any pretense of being the party of family values. This is simply now about fear and oppression. Gays are scary. Transgender individuals are REALLY scary. Every single thing about Donald Trump screams godless heathen. He is so filled with hate, rage, hypocrisy. The man doesn't have an ounce of compassion in his body and he attempts to govern the same way he speaks and acts personally. He praises dictators, he makes fun of those that show compassion, those people are WEAK. He's paying off porn stars left and right, he's an adulturer (and before you point to clinton let me personally say I don't care about this personally but many claim to), "grab em by the pussy" and "of course he's said the n word and of course its on tape" ... what's left for Trump for those who claim to govern based on their christian principles?

The baffling thing for me remains - Mike Pence is RIGHT THERE. Everything about him screams Christian to an extreme degree. Why in the world did the party not impeach Donald Trump and run through all kinds of legislation with Pence? Why are so many people dying on this hill? Why are so many people throwing away their entire value set for this man?

Voting against Hillary doesn't land us here. But defending Donald Trump at every single turn does. "Family Values" is a sham. Trump voices the GOP's fear of people who aren't straight white males, and he makes them richer. The end.


disclaimer that I'm talking about the politicians running the show, I'm not assigning these traits to every Trump Voter.

My favorite poll from the election was one that broke down the electorate by religion. The most likely group to support Trump were self-described Evangelicals but within that group, the highest support for Trump came from those with the lowest self-reported church attendance.

edit: Then's there's this from Cook Political's most recent polling:

Some really good, logical, well thought out arguments from some people in here today. Really good points.

Currently pinned to my Twitter profile...

I know I've got log upon log to get out of my own eye, so pray for me. That said, the deep-down truth is that I believe die-hard Trump-supporting "Christians" fall into 1 of 4 categories:

1, Cowards
2. Those with little/no Biblical understanding
3. Reprobates
4. All the above.

— Ben Lewis (@benelou) August 21, 2018

(To clarify #3, I didn't have enough characters to say "Unregenerate sinners," so I used reprobate in the Calvinistic sense.

Dola, and if #1 isn't clear...

By His Grace on Twitter: "NO! No no no no no no no NO!!! I have EVERYTHING I need in Christ, and because of that, I am afraid of NOTHING. Do NOT let fear control your vote EVER. Do what is right, and trust the rest to God...… https://t.co/KoehuF6ayH"


and this thread


Ben Lewis on Twitter: "I strongly suspect that the relentless pursuit of perceived “safety� (be it physical, economic, or otherwise) is the most pervasive idol/graven image that Americans (most Christians included) have worshipped in the 21st Century to date."

I've been thinking about this A LOT over the past year. Why die for Trump when you can just get rid of him pretty easily, if you think about it. He has already done so much that any member of the opposite party would have been impeached for at this point, and rightfully so.

I think the reason is because when he does come crashing down, whether it is now or through election, the rest of the party can basically act like they were being held hostage for the previous years and then say they will get back to being what a "real" Republican is, which is back to the dog whistle politics and the entitlements grandstanding and whatnot... except being even less centrist than before because it is now proven that this will win you elections in some places under the right set of circumstances.

But the truth is it really doesn't matter, for 40% of the electorate. Trump has already blown well past whatever previously reasonable standards we had, and most have not only not just said nothing, but most have approved of his policy. I've gotten to the point where real societal upheaval with generalized violence seems more likely than not to me thanks to the rage and hatred that has been built up against "the system" that has now gone mainstream. People keep saying this is just the fringe that is being sensationalized by a press in search of ratings. But when you see otherwise rational people's reaction to things like the flag protests and caged children... you see how easily people can be brought over to one side. I just don't see how at some point there won't be some kind of reckoning. I just hope it's not too violent.

I absolutely think we are better off with Trump than Clinton. I imagine your rage is real, I don't want to dismiss it, but since you asked...

Trump is Bull Connor. MLK and the desegregation movement was successful, in large part, because of Bull Connor. SNCC was unsuccessful in Albany because the local leaders were disciplined and avoided the media. Bull was seeking reelection so was doubling down on his hate to appeal to his fanatical base.

To me, Bush was Albany. Getting away with Patriot Act, torture, false wars, planting false info with press, cronyism with enron and fema, blowing up the debt and deregulating wall street.

Not sure what Trump has gotten away with. Only things passed were purely at the discretion of congress. No wall, no healthcare repeal, no jailed Hiliary

Russian manufactured asbestos with his picture on it, and a saying that says approved by the 45th President of the United States, and a loosening of EPA standards on asbestos use in manufacturing in the US. That's a good place to start.

One of the things I've seen proposed is that Republicans know that the loonies who are into all the Trump hate stuff are the fuel of the party, and that if they piss those people off, sure, they're not going to vote Democrat or anything, but they will vote against the anti-Trump offenders in the primaries and they will reduce their economic and general voting support for the party.

I don't think it's worth it. Republicans don't need to cater to the lowest common denominator, especially as the Democrat party moves further to the left. There's such a meaty middle who is afraid/turned off by Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez wing of the party (and a lot of the new names popping and making news are further to the left than Sanders.) I'd much rather go after those people than those who will turn on you if you're not racist enough. Though, from their perspective, that approach led to the failures to McCain and Romney and Bush I and Dole (though it worked for Reagan and Bush II). On the other hand, those remaining in the party with souls could sleep better at night, if that's worth anything.

Based on the NRA stuff I think you have to consider the possibility that Russia is infiltrated in much of the GOP power structure. At best, there are a lot of people that don't know how deep the rot runs. When it comes crashing down they might be able to pin it all on Trump and move on, but that's a lot harder if it's someone like Pence.

There's also some prisoner's dilemma o this and nobody wants to go first and potentially get screwed.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Trump cancels pay raises for most federal employees set to take effect in January, citing budget.

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) August 30, 2018

You are a shithead, Williamson.

As a disclaimer, I'm registered Republican but I'm not a vote R only kind of guy.

The most interesting observation I see from the fallout of the 2016 election is how the GOP became the "Trump Party" and I kind of expected it to be honest. However, I didn't expect the embrace to be as large as it was. I live in a red state and there are people who are running for Congress and their whole platform is "I support Trump." That is easily the worst platform to run on in my opinion. I'm sure guys like this will get good support in my state but I can't vote for someone who only stands behind a man, and that man only stands for himself. Trump has no principles and he only is out for himself. The fact that he has become the face of the Republican party and they have embraced him so much leaves me with the feeling that the Republican party doesn't stand for much these days and only goes along with Trump.

They need to have someone else run for President in 2020 and I don't see that happening. I'm curious to see if somehow we have a third party form because honestly I'm tired of the Republicans and the Democrats only move further towards the left each day.

Second disclaimer, did not vote for Trump if you couldn't tell.

I really don't understand how you could get that from what I wrote. It's more along the lines of 'some people assume you are a racist for supporting policies that some people have supported for racist reasons'. I mean I guess you can call all of what is generally known in America as traditional conservative economic thought racist if you want to, but that's totally wrong and ignores a great many things, not the least of which is that it's been around a heck of a lot longer than the Southern Strategy. I'm open again to other ways I could express this kind of thing, but did it also seem that I was going to the 'all liberals are traitors' well with the Kerry example? The whole point is assumptions in policy areas where the ugly motivation assigned is most definitely not the case quite often.

So for those saying it was about policies and/or distrust of Hillary, where is your line?

I mean, under your argument, if David Duke ran the exact same campaign as Trump, and was against Hillary, would you have voted for him? What type of person would it take for you to vote for Hillary or a third party?

For this analogue to hold, the next Republican primary would have significantly fewer choices as the options gradually dwindle with each cycle. Yet that's not what we are seeing happen. The point I was making with the primaries is that each time we have on of these(pretty much whenever either party doesn't have an incumbent), the 'owl', 'snake', etc. voters have a chance to convince the rest that their candidate is better. Every party evolves over time. Clinton isn't the same as Obama who wasn't the same as Kerry, same with Trump/Romney/McCain/Bush etc. There's always a full opportunity for people to decide to pick someone quite different than the person they picked last time around, and different aspects of the party gain/lose influence. It's not static like the video claims and choice is increasing, not decreasing.

Living in California at that time, and hearing a lot of the other items, I was on board with him. I did forget that he started his campaign in Philadelphia, MS, and have never listened to either of his speeches there.

I look at his cutting of taxes, tackling stagflation, being strong on the Soviets, as why I would have voted for him had I been old enough. Also, he changed the national psyche from what had come before, especially from the malaise of Carter.

With regards to cutting welfare, and the welfare queens, my experience with that in Memphis was that it was predominately a black issue, that said, I did know some whites on welfare as well. The neighborhood I lived in myself, had a roughly 50/50 split racially, but the back street which had not been redeveloped as it was supposed to be was poor (think $150k starter homes and then a road of primarily shacks), and that was 80% black. That street had a crack house, had a couple of gang or drug related killings, and the police regularly had a stakeout in the area trying to nail the suppliers.

My reason for not backing long term welfare has been the impact it has on people. My personal experience, when someone gives me something, it is not as important as something I have earned or worked for. College is a great example, I screwed around my first two years, not completely, but I did not buckle down as much as I could have. I offered to help pay for some of it, but my parents refused. It was not until my father had a cancer battle that I pulled up the boot straps and realized I had to get moving, I might have had to support my mother in the near future. I had also learned that when I relied on myself, whatever I was doing, it turned out much better than when I relied on someone else to help.

This was reinforced by my environment, in Memphis, what projects there were, were all run down and dilapidated. The minorities where I lived had well maintained yards, and acted more or less like I did. Of course, several of them were the children of former NFL players or major black entertainers.
One of my friends godparents was Isaac Hayes.

In California, most of my friends were minorities. My best friends were Argentinian, Filipino, mixed Mexican/Black, and mixed Black/White. In Memphis while in school, I was not as popular as I could have been because I had no issue interacting with what black students we had (the area I went to school from 4th grade through high school was 95% white).

What I learned from my time in Memphis was economics played a much larger role than race in how you were going to act. One of my friends from 6th grade on in Memphis wound up running the IT department for a major hospital in MN. He listened to Michael Savage and bought into a lot of what he had to say. He was much harder on other blacks than I was because he went through some of the same challenges as those less fortunate. His father walked out on the family when he was in 6th or 7th grade. He was smart enough to realize that he was possibly going to fall off the wagon after high school. So he enrolled in the military, did his 4 years, went to college, and got a CS degree. His stance, and one I had similarly arrived at previously, was for the less fortunate, going through the military, taking advantage of the GI Bill, would provide a great springboard for the rest of your life. It provides discipline and a middle class (granted, lower middle class for most) income as well as job skills that could set you up for the next stage of your life.

So I might be tone deaf, in part because I think people think similarly to the way I do. Of course, as you get older you realize this is not the case. When I was 27, I was put in charge of one of the inventory teams at work as an auditor. My entire crew was black. Whenever, I was doing spot checks, I was accused of being racist and making them do it because I was in charge. Rather than argue, I asked them to get out of the way, and did one or two of the recounts. When they realized I was just trying to get the job done as it was supposed to be done, they went ahead and did what was required. The problem was, there were other people there that during previous inventories jerked them around because they thought it was funny.

So when you have stuff like Willie Horton, etc., come up, I did not immediately think, ah, this is code to heighten my fear of blacks, I looked at it as Dukakis backed a poorly designed furlough system.

I did not vote for Obama because I disagreed with his policies.

The one person that I did not vote for because of who they were was Hilary Clinton. I did not like the job she did as Sec. of State, and I heard too many stories about her when I traveled in AR extensively from 98-2002. I was not a fan of how she handled Bill's infidelities. If you are with a serial cheater, either you do not respect yourself, or you are in it strictly for the

As I have mentioned before, I voted for Trump because he listed his Supreme Court short list, which was important to me. I also hoped that the devil we did not know, would be better than the devil we do know. In the next election, I have no idea what I am going to do. The problem is, I do not see the Democrats running a fiscal conservative. Then again, the Republicans have not either since '88.

Been pulled off this enough due to work and will probably continue to stray from the original intent, so I will post this and get back to doing what I need to.

I don't disagree as much temporally from election cycle to election cycle, but the voters in later primaries had fewer choices than the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire. Money, strategeries, etc. coalesced around the early leaders. Maybe the video is missing a transition statement for it to be a perfect comparison to our primary system, I'll grant that, but the first past the post primaries really reduce choice beyond the first couple of primary dates.

In the general election, it's a little baked once you arrive at a two party system because of the way the rules and the money are set up. third parties get crowded out by one of the big two.

We have rank choice voting in all local elections here and it works really well, provides for a more positive campaign where candidates talk about issues and how they can solve them rather than how awful the other guy or gal is.

I'd be all for seeing it on a broader basis.

I get most of the rest of your post, I may disagree with most of your conclusions but I appreciate the discourse. But how can you possibly mention Hillary being a victim of adultery and not having any respect for her reaction... when the alternative is Donald Trump? :(

FWIW, good discussion from all sides.

The odd thing with abortion is that it is at it's lowest point since the Roe vs Wade ruling. The advent of sex education and increased access to birth control has worked.

It's why I still contend that Pro-Life is really not about abortion. They've opposed both sex education and contraceptives. You can argue their efforts lead to many more abortions every year.

Truth is that it's about women and sex. People upset that others are having it. Whether that's through jealousy or their own insecurities is another story.

This needs to be repeated. This has been a good FOFC day

Men have generally struggled with the thought of women having sex for enjoyment.

I struggle to understand how someone can be pro life but not want expanded Healthcare or expanded social programs for low income families. You want a fetus to go full term but give zero shits about what happens afterwards. You can't call that pro life.

If you don't want to look at things like the Willie Horton ad, look at the nearly two decade long campaign to restrict voting access for minorities. Don't forget that the Bush2 US attorneys scandal was about forcing them to publicly investigate voter fraud. As soon as the Supreme Court eliminated preclearance states rushed to put restrictions on registration and voting. There are a ton of examples like the recent Georgia county that tried to close seven of nine polling locations in heavily black areas.

You can argue that intent here is more partisan than racial, but the only way to restrict voting and be relatively certain it hurts Democrats far more than Republicans is to target minorities and college voters. Whether the intent is racial or not, the plan and the outcome has been to clearly make it more difficult for Blacks and Hispanics to register and vote.

The GOP electeds know the outcome is racially biased, but as with so many other items, they don't care because it makes it more likely they win.

There's soooo much evidence that the GOP, at best, tolerates racism that I can't see how a rational person can deny it.

Yeah with the current projected inflation increases I'm essentially taking a decent pay cut next year.

This is a typical on Facebook pretty much daily on my feeds:

"Mike Mau this country would be fucked if trump was out period! Never had more jobs never had economy like it has been in yrs! I’m assuming your democratic and watch out country go to shit! My eyes all the pussies go democratic or welfare why is out country screwed democratic party"

"Mike Mau is there enough to put trump at guilt nope! Like anything I m life I say shouldn’t be public till conviction cause all it does is ruin a persons life media is what’s wrong with this country and parents who don punish there kids"

"Just saying is trump even in it yet! And people run there mouth! If he is convicted then run your mouth! So sick of bs every democratic person is out for him! Why? Cause he is not politically speaking and says what he believes and made this country great again so whine and protest like all the other people! We went through Obama which was worst 8 yrs in American history. But Democratic Party will blame on bush! What’s wrong with this country is Democratic Party poor me blame everything on others �� done arguing he gets impeached watch country go to depression my words"

You have a narrow view on the term welfare. You're basing it on food stamps and perhaps a monthly check to help cover costs. But if we're talking about "earning" things, we have to be broader in that view.

For instance, if you live in a wealthy suburb, you will attend a much better school as someone in a poor neighborhood. Is this not a form of welfare (or perhaps a handout is a better term)? The child certainly didn't "earn" access to a better school system. They didn't "earn" the future opportunities for college that this would bring.

You mentioned your parents being able to pay your college which is something many students don't have the luxury of. They either have to take out huge loans or work during the school year. That seems like something you didn't "earn". And sure it came from your parents, but it's still a handout.

I understand the whole bootstraps argument and would believe in it if this was a level playing field. But you're spotting a team's opponent 30 points and then questioning why they aren't winning that game. Yes there are times when a team can come back and win that game, but it's still an enormous disadvantage to overcome.

There are many forms of "welfare" in this country. Why didn't Reagan talk about the massive agricultural subsidies we give farmers? What about huge tax break wealthy individuals get from their rate on capital gains? Or the estate tax that allows you to give tax free income to people who didn't "earn it"? Where is the same outrage from Republican voters when states hand over billions in tax subsidies to large profitable companies? Or pay defense contractors for systems and products the country doesn't need simply because it creates jobs in a certain district? Perhaps because the people those handouts went to fit a certain demographic.

The point is that welfare and handouts are everywhere in this country. Whether it be through the government or a wealthy parent. And that we cherry pick a few because it aims to make people feel better about themselves.

Truth is that the higher rate of food stamps in the black community is likely do to the very short time they've been close to equal footing as everyone else. Little over 50 years ago segregation was still a thing. A few generations back they were enslaved. You have years of being unable to legally vote that is still being worked on today. Considering the lack of generational economic mobility in this country, it's not a surprise that a segment of the population which were treated as second-class citizens may not yet overcome that disadvantage in the course of 1 or 2 generations.

If you want to preach a system where people "earn" what they get, then you have to have a system where the playing field is level.

I don't know if I'd consider myself Pro-Life because of it's stigma toward women. But I personally hate abortion. I think it's one of the saddest things someone could do and I wish people didn't feel like they had to be in that position in the first place.

That's why I'm for sex education. Why I'm for free contraceptives to all that want it. Make it as easy as possible to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

And as for the money argument, it's much cheaper to pay for contraceptives than the child of an unwanted pregnancy. Rates of crime, incarceration, and so on are much higher. So if a few hundred bucks saves our government the millions in costs through the justice system that an unwanted child in a bad situation might bring, that would seem to be a fiscal victory.

But like you said, this is about women having sex and it making some people very uncomfortable.

I kind of agree with this. His damage to the country lies more with our relations overseas and with the increase of hate based on race and ethnicity. The Russia infiltration into the party is concerning but that can be wiped out in an election cycle. You'd think the next President would look to be much tougher on Russia just for the sake of public relations.

People like Cheney and Kissinger make Trump look like a saint.

Probably the saving grace is that Trump is more obsessed with what cable news says about him than actually passing policy. People complain about him watching Fox News all day, but would you rather have him engaged in the Presidency?

This is my feed almost every single day...and between the spelling and grammar issues, it's not hard to figure out who the majority of "die-hard" Trump supporters are.

(There are exceptions, obviously.)

What it does, however, is make me even less sensitive to the argument that the GOP won in 2016 because it appealed to white, working class voters who had been left behind.

The country didn't leave you behind, you half-educated morons. You didn't keep up. I remember you from high school, yes, and while I was working my ass off for scholarships, taking on college debt, working my way through school at all levels, you were partying your way through the weekends and reveling in gridiron glory, Al Bundy style, and assuming that would be your whole life.

You were, you see, one of the inevitable losers in a capitalist economic system, because you stopped adapting to change. Now you want a handout and are angry that you're not getting it. (And here you think the handouts are going to us debt-laden college kids. All about that personal responsibility, right?)

Oh, don't get me wrong. I've got plenty of screeds for corporate interests who have slanted the game in their favor. That's not a party politics issue, as far as I'm concerned. That's a political class issue, but none of those dumb fuckers are going to take it to heart until they're up against the wall when the revolution comes. We're all swirling down the drain...the more competitive among us are just swirling a little slower.

Because however she was as a Senator in a blue state and a Sec State in a blue government, she was absolute shit at campaigning nationally, and we as a nation paid for her arrogance. She got rocked by Obama early in '08 and could never recover and despite having the DNC having the finger on the scale in '16 couldn't finish off Sanders. Then in a general election assumes she has the Midwest locked up and spends her last weeks trying to flip Georgia and Arizona to "run up the score"


Ignoring a 30 year smear campaign against her, she's just not a good campaigner.

Yep, Clinton's failure brought this baboon into office. The second she lost she should have disappeared into retirement. Instead I have to hear her BS excuses on why it's someone else's fault she couldn't beat a fool like Trump as she champions her shit book. Cause money.

And yeah, she was my choice as well and I completely believe 95% of the knocks on her are vapor from a decades long smear campaign. Regardless,
the loser needs to just go away now. There's nothing constructive to be had from her squawking.

Exactly. I stopped arguing with these guys last year even though it takes a lot not to.. theres just no point anymore. Whatever trump says is gospel as indicated by him saying the country would go in the shitter if he was to be impeached.

Well Mike Pence would then be president, I don't think Trump is wrong on this one :p .

The unfortunate thing is that his policies may very well be putting us in the shitter, but we'll coast long enough for things to hold out until he's out of office. And boy, will we hear it when he's out of office.

(That's something else I was talking about the other day - most presidents are ok at staying out of the public eye and for the most part letting their successors do their thing. I really don't see Trump not continuing to draw attention to himself.)

Hopefully for everyone’s sake he just dies off quickly and the stain he’s brought out and covered the country with can start to heal. If he’s still around post-office he’s just going to continue being a story and continue to divide and distract from whatever the next President tries to accomplish.

Oh, absolutely. If you teach a girl how to take control of her fertility, she will; that's not even, strictly speaking, a teen pregnancy thing. Women who learn about that but aren't sexually active as teenagers will remember what they learned when they're young adults and start down that path.

It's really no different than Vacation Bible School: teach 'em young, and they'll remember as adults. It's just, y'know, different subject matter.


Pretty much. Show me somebody who supports strengthening food and housing security, and helping needy parents get affordable, accessible child care, while at the same time opposing abortion, and I'll show you someone who's genuinely pro-life. The problem, to me, is that way too many of those who claim "pro-life" think that ends with "banning abortion and everything will be perfect forever." It doesn't work that way. Banning abortion will have consequences, and I don't mean "you should have kept your legs together." It impacts society, and it reverberates generationally. If you want to reduce abortion, you need to educate girls and you need to provide a robust safety net so that at-risk pregnant women don't turn to abortion out of desperation.

This from Trump is getting a lot of deserved mockery,


But it's also a clear window into the worldview of a lot of Trump voters. They have earned their government checks and Dems want to steal their money and give it to minorities that didn't earn it.

dola

There's a pretty high stakes deadline on the NAFTA talks with Canada today. Yesterday there were reports something would get signed, but today that's in question. Trump couldn't resist shit talking about how the U.S. wasn't making any compromises and Canada was losing, and a reporter got the comments. Now that they are public the Canadians are resisting signing the deal.

Best negotiator ever.

In hindsight, the fact that Trump is a bad negotiator seems so obvious. He's never had to negotiate. He was born rich. And he only did deals where his money gave him leverage over the other guy. And when he couldn't even do that right, he declared bankruptcy.

The guy's never had to do an arms-length negotiation in his life. So, yeah, he sucks at it as badly as someone like I would.

He appears to be doing the same thing Thatcher did in England - he's funding the now by selling the future.

In Thatchers case she nationalised all the profit making industries which were government owned and gave short-term money to voters as bribes (sold under-priced so easy money from stock purchases, tax changes and cheap housing).

In Trumps case he's inflated the market by giving tax cuts to corporations - this will seem 'great' until the deficit gets to a level where things are no longer sustainable and serious cuts have to be done.

My expectations is that he and the Republicans will ignore this totally until the Democrats get into power and then blame them for the deficit .... and the cuts/tax raises they have to do to get things under control will then eventually fuel the Republicans being re-elected at some point in the future.

The GOP has been clear about the plan, cause a fiscal crisis and use it to cut entitlements. It's the how to for getting to Norquist's idea of a government small enough to drown in the bath tub.

I agree with this decision in principle but don't think the US should eliminate all the aid but should greatly reduce it. I get people here can bring up inconsistencies in Trump's FP and there are other more worthy areas that can be cut. But why is the US the largest contributor?

Large majority of Palestinians don't like us, I'm sure the aid is appreciated by those that are directly affected, but Palestinians as a whole won't ever appreciate us because of many (arguably) valid reasons. SA has stepped up to the plate but article didn't have a breakdown of "other nations". I'm pretty sure the other ME countries can chip in to help more.

Why be the biggest contributor to a country/people that is not friendly when there is no strategic interest? Why give a handout to them when its not appreciated? I rather use the funds on other countries/people or causes that can move the dial.

Palestinians brand US aid cut to UN group 'a flagrant assault' - BBC News

I like this re: RMD with the caveat the tax/deficit implications are not known yet. Sure it advantages the wealthy (but they'll always have tax advisers to minimize their retirement taxes anyway). It helps upper/middle class savers too like me.

Very likely it'll keep money in the stock market which is a good thing.

I would up the pre-tax contribution amounts to encourage more saving.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/31/trum...ive-order.html

Would you rather be supplying aid to the Palestinians and maintaining a sphere of influence and communication with them, or would you rather save the money, but lose your influence and watch Russia fill that void. Do you think they would be easier to work with in achieving a peaceful, negotiated settlement with option 1, or option 2?

dola


It should come as no surprise, that surprise! baby boomers are looking for ways to tweak rules that benefit them, and only them (RE minimum distributions past age 70), as they have for the last 40 years.

How about a couple more options.

Redirect the aid to Egypt or Jordan, both in the same sphere of influence and are somewhat friendly to the US strategic interests.

Re: easier to work with in achieving a peaceful settlement, helping the Palestinians with this aid won't help that. Helping Jordan and Egypt might with the pressure/influence they have in the region.

Shouldn't blame Baby Boomers as a whole but I agree that it only directly benefits them. However, more money in the stock market indirectly benefits everyone.

The other part was helping small companies band together to offer more retirement options. So it's not all one-sided.

No, not even close to everyone.

Trump and his folks are geniuses when it comes to manipulating the media. In any other administration these changes would have barely merited a couple of paragraphs buried somewhere in the business section. Trump, though, has a signing ceremony and suddenly a trivial regulatory change and a study to examine proposed changes become news.

The U.S. already gives a shit ton of money.to Egypt to not invade Israel. I would imagine they give a fair bit to Jordan, too.

These countries are not friendly with us just "cuz," ya know.

Sure. I guess money works with them (and furthers our strategic goals).

Really enjoyed a round of golf with President @realDonaldTrump today.

President Trump shot a 73 in windy and wet conditions!

— Lindsey Graham (@LindseyGrahamSC) October 9, 2017

To put this in context, a 73 over 18 holes would have easily qualified Trump for the VA Senior Championship at any of the qualifying courses where tournaments were held. Keep in mind seniors golf is age 50 and over. Trump is 71 and obese. But he shot a 73. In wind and rain.

Considering the amount of time he spends golfing it makes sense.

There may have been a few mulligans in there, but apparently Trump was a 4 handicap at one point and won a bunch of club tournaments.

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how...ump-the-golfer

And I've only golfed a handful of times, but isn't there the element where a really good amateur can occasionally get a pro-level score, but doing so consistently is what separates people talent-wise?

Man I cannot wait until Trump and Kim Jong-il get to play a round of golf in Hell together

After a reported score of 68 last November, Trump lowered his handicap to 2.5.

I have no doubt that he's a good golfer for his age. I have great doubt he's one of the best senior amateurs in the country.

Trump's got nothing on Kim

Kim Jong-Il once carded 38-under par at Pyongyang Golf Course

Two long running, Obama era, investigations of two very popular Republican Congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge, just ahead of the Mid-Terms, by the Jeff Sessions Justice Department. Two easy wins now in doubt because there is not enough time. Good job Jeff......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 3, 2018

He's telling the AG to ignore crimes if they're committed by Republicans.

Guess he also forgot he was President in 2017

I guess people have had enough of Steve Bannon; He was announced to be one of the guests at some festival the New Yorker is hosting. People started pulling out left and right and finally they had to uninvite him. Ari Melber got a lot of flak recently for an interview he did with Bannon.



The New Yorker cancels Steve Bannon's festival appearance after growing backlash

Yes. There are a few caveats though, most amateurs do not play with strict adherence to the rules. It is not uncommon to see a guy on the edge of the rough kick his ball over a few inches, lift and replace a shot in the rough, etc.

When I worked at a golf course as a kid, we had a saying, how do you know when a golfer is lying? His lips are moving.

Super excited to see Trump supporters claiming this is some no name trying to make a buck and a name for himself by lying to the people of 'Merica!

Kavanaugh not getting a warm reception from Senate Democrats and protestors in his confirmation hearing. Good

I'm not a fan of the protesters disrupting the hearing. All they are doing is fueling the fire for people on the right to claim the left is no better. There are obviously fringes of both sides, but for the left to be seen in such a public forum acting that way isn't a good look.

Except the 2016 election finally proved beyond all doubt that there is no constituency for decorum and respect for institutions. There is no middle to convince, only partisans to inspire. Unfortunately I think this is what smart politics will look like for a while, loud and pointless spectacles that show the base how hard you’re fighting to stop the other side.