We are all Slave now.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I completely reject this fucked up notion that I have to somehow tiptoe around the fact that, for example, a not insignificant percentage of Trump supporters are racist xenophobic assholes because, if I actually articulate that, I am being a judgmental liberal elite driving people into Trump's arms. I just saw a video where a women, basically using Trump's exact words, yelled at a U.S. citizen of Mexican descent, saying Mexicans were rapists, animals, and drug dealers.

https://twitter.com/KenidraRWoods_/s...43243181027330

If some more moderate conservatives are going to embrace Trump, and his explicit emboldening of racial and ethnic hatred, because they see coastal arrogance as the greater evil, or because it hurts their fragile self-esteem to be told that some of their view are unacceptable, then they can rot in whatever fucking hell their moronic religion proselytizes about.

Not sure of your ability to speak on issues of national and international import. Can you see Canada from your porch? i can.

[Adder]

Colorado civil rights authorities saying mean things about a baker who won't bake a gay cake = unlawful religious discrimination.

Long, repeated record of saying you're going to ban Muslims from the country followed by actually doing it = not unlawful religious discrimination.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Colorado civil rights authorities saying mean things about a baker who won't bake a gay cake = unlawful religious discrimination.

Long, repeated record of saying you're going to ban Muslims from the country followed by actually doing it = not unlawful religious discrimination.

Stealing that Supreme Court seat is really working out well for Republicans.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Actually, the Hillary forces are pretty much winning everything in sight on the Democratic Party side these days. The Berners are falling flat. Have you missed the last 18 months of elections?

Of course, you know by now that Buckley was a fixture of my childhood, and someone I interacted with quite a bit. He was an elite and effete snob, and an out-of-the-closet racist, who would have been quite comfortable with the authoritarianism expressed by Trump. He wasn't complaining about the Harvard faculty thinking they were better than him, he was pointing out that he was better than them, and fully capable of manipulating random names in the phone book.

I never met him, but Buckley was a friend of a family member of mine.

My point wasn't that Buckley objected to people who thought themselves smarter than him. My point was that he doubted the intelligence of the progressives and thought himself smarter then them. We're in agreement on Buckley's view.

You are correct that the Hillary people are winning. But they aren't getting the media attention. The attention is going to the strident progressives.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

That article is bullshit that proves my point. It's not clear whether the NYT reporter who wrote that article knew it, but Gina Anders is a longtime conservative activist. She is not changing her mind about anything because of "caricature." She worked on Ron Paul's campaign, for Christ's sake.

This is bullshit that proves SEC's point. If you think Ron Paul is a modern "conservative," or anything akin to a Trumpkin, you need Poli Sci 101.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Total fucking nonsense.

I'm in a purple state. Anti-Trump Exhaustion is huge.

"I hate the guy. But I hate the endless criticism more."

"I hate the guy, but I like where the economy seems to be going."

"I wish the media would stop covering him and his critics. It's all you fucking hear. Enough already."

This pretty much paraphrases 80% of what I hear about the issue here. It's a "pox on both of their houses" sentiment. I know you don't like that because you see it as false equivalence, but that's where people are at.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is bullshit that proves SEC's point. If you think Ron Paul is a modern "conservative," or anything akin to a Trumpkin, you need Poli Sci 101.

The question here is not whether Ron Paul is a conservative, but you are very wrong if you try to write him and his ilk out of the movement. The point here is that, contra you and the NYT, the fact that Gina Anders is sticking by Trump tells you nothing about whether liberal scolding changes anyone's minds. Here is part of her bio, cached from two weeks ago from the site of the PAC she worked for, before someone decided to scrub her from that page (huh -- I wonder why?):

Having long been passionate about American politics, she became active in Dr. Ron Paul’s presidential campaign in 2012, and completed the Foundation for Applied Conservative Leadership’s basic- and advanced-level training in grass roots activism. Gina also served as Co-Coordinator for the Campaign for Liberty in West Virginia before founding the Liberty Political Action Committee of West Virginia.

An avid liberty activist and Constitutional scholar, Gina puts her skills and experience in advocacy and sales to work to fight for the individual rights of every West Virginian as enshrined in our Constitution.

Yes, Sebby, there is a swing voter who was ready to vote for Democrats until Sarah Sanders couldn't eat at the Red Hen and I described modern conservatism. Brilliant. Democrats should certain worry about whether they are offending Gina Anders and other PAC operatives like her -- that is the path to regaining political power.

And please, share that Poli Sci 101. For starters, why don't you tell me how many Ron Paul fans voted for Republicans in the last cycle, and how many voted for Democrats. Explain to me that many, many differences between Ron Paul supporters and modern conservatives. Clearly I have a lot to learn.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm in a purple state. Anti-Trump Exhaustion is huge.

"I hate the guy. But I hate the endless criticism more."

"I hate the guy, but I like where the economy seems to be going."

"I wish the media would stop covering him and his critics. It's all you fucking hear. Enough already."

This pretty much paraphrases 80% of what I hear about the issue here. It's a "pox on both of their houses" sentiment. I know you don't like that because you see it as false equivalence, but that's where people are at.

I don't see it as false equivalence. When someone says, "I hate the guy. But I hate the endless criticism more.", what they are saying is, I'm fundamentally a conservative, and will stick by him, but Trump isn't a very good leader. Someone who hates the endless criticism of Trump IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND.

If someone says, "I hate the guy, but I like where the economy seems to be going.", and doesn't note that the ECONOMY WENT IN THE SAME DIRECTION FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS UNDER OBAMA, what they are saying is that they are fundamentally a conservative, and will stick by him, but Trump isn't a very good leader. Someone who gives Trump credit for what the economy has been doing is demonstrating the political equivalent of fundamental attribution error.

If someone says, "I wish the media would stop covering him and his critics. It's all you fucking hear. Enough already.", they are either not interested in politics, which is a lot of people, or what they are saying is, I'm fundamentally a conservative, and will stick by him, but boy is he a fuck-up and I'd rather not hear about it any more.

In short, anyone who complains about having to hear from Trump's critics is identifying as basically pro-Trump. Yes, there are people who say those things. They are not swing voters.

Now tell me about a cocktail party you were at recently.

eta: Remember all the stories in the NYT in 2010 about how Obama voters were sticking by him, and about how Republicans needed to quit the angry talk and try to persuade them to change their minds? Yeah, me neither.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I
Now tell me about a cocktail party you were at recently.

off my corner, ho!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

off my corner, ho!

Look, we're in a new world where we're embracing civility and this is not appropriate.

Please spell out "whore" next time.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Look, we're in a new world where we're embracing civility and this is not appropriate.

Please spell out "whore" next time.

"I can't believe there's a President who has sex with porn stars and wants a space army and I still hate him."

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

"I can't believe there's a President who has sex with porn stars and wants a space army and I still hate him."

Fake news and fake tits!

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If someone says, "I wish the media would stop covering him and his critics. It's all you fucking hear. Enough already.", they are either not interested in politics, which is a lot of people, or what they are saying is, I'm fundamentally a conservative, and will stick by him, but boy is he a fuck-up and I'd rather not hear about it any more.

Not really disagreeing, but the one thing that he does very well is entirely consume the news cycle and I definitely sympathize with complaints about constantly hearing about him.

That the media and the rest of us keep falling for it is why he's going to get re-elected, but at least it doesn't seem to have coattails for the midterms, if the various specials are a guide.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

This part really is remarkable. The idea seems to be that it's ok not to have your own moral compass, and just to react to others.

Come on. That was a complete load of horseshit. Waters is something assholes get to point at to justify their bullshit. "She's encouraging intolerance! I can't vote for any party that has someone like her! I'll continue voting for assholes who ban Muslims, destroy families seeking asylum, cage children, roll back civil rights at an alarming rate, stomp on the LGBT community, steal Supreme Court seats, are caught up in fraud, scandal and treason, have diminished our standing across the world, etc., instead."

It's complete bullshit. Anyone who says their mind was changed based on what Waters said is lying through their crooked, rotten (most likely racist) teeth.

I completely disagree with refusing service to Sanders and shouting these racist, fascist assholes down when they're trying to live their lives. But where's the line at which government action results in personal repercussions? If they executed immigrants at the border as a deterrent are we then past the point where "people should be allowed to have different political viewpoints such that they aren't subject to personal harassment?" When do you start expecting real backlash on a personal level?

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The battle of the moment is between two groups with authoritarian bent. The Trumpkins wish to take us back to a '50s that never was. The progressives who've supplanted liberals and moderates as the bullhorn of the Democrats are busybodies who want all of us to live according to their rules. The latter is far more benign than the former, but does anyone wish to live under the tyranny of any group that thinks "it knows best"? I know I don't.

Your desire to create a world in which false equivalence is perfectly acceptable is absolutely mind-boggling.

One side wants to destroy everything, has Nazis marching in the streets, puts children in cages, believes that any black of Latino person who wants even a basic level of fair and safe treatment is a traitor to the country, etc.

The other side is asking to be treated with the respect that white, heterosexual people enjoy at such a level that, when they examine those other people asking for it, they think they're fucking crazy.

TM