We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

They exist, they just don't matter in elections.

Except they do. Trump won by a razor thin margin. Without a sizable number of principled conservatives deciding to hold their noses and vote for him as the lesser of two evils, he would not be President.

I live in a purple state that went for Trump. I couldn’t hope to guess at the number of moderate conservatives who pulled the lever for Trump using the legitimate rationale (if you’re a conservative) that as fucked up as he was, he was closer to a conservative than Hillary.

There was also a belief among conservatives who voted for Trump that Hillary was a stealth progressive. I never understood this, as Clintonism is anything but progressive (it’s moderate, triangulating, etc.). But I heard that critique a lot. My guess is, it accrued from her past advocacy for health care reform similar to single payer.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I'm not sure who I disagree with more, Adder saying that conservatism is defined by prejudice or you arguing that it's anything but.

I didn’t say that. Certain conservatives are driven by bigotry. But it’s not all of them. In fact, it’s not even close to all of them. Adder said something that necessarily assumes they are all driven by bigotry. That’s clearly absurd. He’s since walked it back.

But let me be clear: A percentage of conservatives are primarily enthused toward this ideology by bigotry. I’d never state otherwise. To do that would also be absurd.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

In the last seven decades, two presidencies have been arguably invalid: JFK and Bush 43’s first term. In those cases, credible claims of tampering existed. In both, the claims have been refuted with evidence. But still, these two are the only arguable claims.

You realize you're arguing with yourself, yes?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I didn’t say that. Certain conservatives are driven by bigotry. But it’s not all of them. In fact, it’s not even close to all of them. Adder said something that necessarily assumes they are all driven by bigotry. That’s clearly absurd. He’s since walked it back.

But let me be clear: A percentage of conservatives are primarily enthused toward this ideology by bigotry. I’d never state otherwise. To do that would also be absurd.

Conservative candidates almost uniformly, with very few exceptions, either are bigoted or pander to bigots, and there is no critical mass of "conservative" supporters who object.

Conservatism today, regardless of what a few people may want to profess at Sebbian cocktail parties, pushes an agenda of bigotry. If you want to be conservative, you wear that, you are that, take responsibility for it.

And don't get me started on Conservative judges.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I didn’t say that. Certain conservatives are driven by bigotry. But it’s not all of them. In fact, it’s not even close to all of them. Adder said something that necessarily assumes they are all driven by bigotry. That’s clearly absurd. He’s since walked it back.

But let me be clear: A percentage of conservatives are primarily enthused toward this ideology by bigotry. I’d never state otherwise. To do that would also be absurd.

Now it's clear. Adder says some conservatives are motivated by bigotry and you say some aren't.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Conservative candidates almost uniformly, with very few exceptions, either are bigoted or pander to bigots, and there is no critical mass of "conservative" supporters who object.

Conservatism today, regardless of what a few people may want to profess at Sebbian cocktail parties, pushes an agenda of bigotry. If you want to be conservative, you wear that, you are that, take responsibility for it.

And don't get me started on Conservative judges.

Perhaps nationally, but not on a local level, do you think? michigan's governor was a "business republican." We were a mess from our prior liberal governor (not saying all lib govs are bad, but Grandholm was horrible). Kids graduating left. There were no jobs here. Now people are moving to the state, which is crazy- and he is stepping down- and i worry about the apparently hair brained gov coming in.

I think a more universal statement might be that Rs don't look at the relative impact of decisions on minorities, as an example.

The prior govenor did something no Dem could have done- we had several big cities in serious financial trouble. They were majority black cities, yet the white govenor stepped in and appointed a person to take over control of the cities. From one standpoint he was trying to fix cities that were truly broken- example the residents of Detroit had little or no basic services. Snow wasn't cleared, garbage often wasn't etc. Wouldn't fixing the cities "help" the minority residents?

But on the other hand think about the negative impact on the people in a city that they need outside control?

In one instance it worked rmarkably well- Detroit is becoming vibrant- and local control has returned- services are returning- and the prior residents are benefitting- of course now we are seeing gentrification- which is somewhat amazing, but problematic.

In one instance it blew up- the "outside control" led to the Flint water crisis. and even if you can look at the city and agree that the outside control did need to step in, that outside control has to come with substantial care for the reaities of those w/o representation people. Once the water problem surfaced it should have been a four alarm fire of needing to get fixed- the steps leading to creating the problem are almost forgivable, but the early response was grossly negligent if not flat out showing a flavor of bigotry against the poor.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Perhaps nationally, but not on a local level, do you think? michigan's governor was a "business republican." We were a mess from our prior liberal governor (not saying all lib govs are bad, but Grandholm was horrible). Kids graduating left. There were no jobs here. Now people are moving to the state, which is crazy- and he is stepping down- and i worry about the apparently hair brained gov coming in.

I think a more universal statement might be that Rs don't look at the relative impact of decisions on minorities, as an example.

The prior govenor did something no Dem could have done- we had several big cities in serious financial trouble. They were majority black cities, yet the white govenor stepped in and appointed a person to take over control of the cities. From one standpoint he was trying to fix cities that were truly broken- example the residents of Detroit had little or no basic services. Snow wasn't cleared, garbage often wasn't etc. Wouldn't fixing the cities "help" the minority residents?

But on the other hand think about the negative impact on the people in a city that they need outside control?

In one instance it worked rmarkably well- Detroit is becoming vibrant- and local control has returned- services are returning- and the prior residents are benefitting- of course now we are seeing gentrification- which is somewhat amazing, but problematic.

In one instance is blew up- the "outside control" led to the Flint water crisis. and even if you can look at the city and agree that the outside control did need to step in, that outside control has to come with substantial care for the reaities of those w/o representation people. Once the water problem surfaced it should have been a four alarm fire of needing to get fixed- the steps leading to creating the problem are almost forgivable, but the early response was grossly negligent if not flat out showing a flavor of bigotry against the poor.

We have a so-called "liberal" Republican in Mass. His first instinct on any issue involving race, whether immigration or transportation or housing, is usually pretty awful. Then there are the beginnings of a small uproar, or an aide gets to him as he speaks, and he remembers what state he is in, and he swtiches courses and backs off. But you can see all his instincts are tinged with racism. He's just a bigot trying to hide it, or, if you give him the benefit of the doubt, trying to repress and overcome it (don't give him the benefit of the doubt).

His appointees run the gamut. He had to stop putting his appointee to head the Mass. Tech. Collaborative in front of industry groups because the tech industry has lots of Asian immigrants in it and his guy is basically a white supremacist and says lots of embarrassing things (also gets his facts wrong, and its a bad industry in which to screw up your stats). On the other hand, the guy's boss is great, so he now covers those meetings.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I think a more universal statement might be that Rs don't look at the relative impact of decisions on minorities, as an example.

I don't care what a universal statement of Rs beliefs in general might be, I care about what policies their elected officials have and who they elect, and you may find a few exceptions, but this ain't the Republican party whose northern members voted for the Voting Rights Act, this is the Republican party whose judges are overturning the Voting Rights Act.

It's a fucking racist party.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I don't care what a universal statement of Rs beliefs in general might be, I care about what policies their elected officials have and who they elect, and you may find a few exceptions, but this ain't the Republican party whose northern members voted for the Voting Rights Act, this is the Republican party whose judges are overturning the Voting Rights Act.

It's a fucking racist party.

Ummm, I'm not entirely sure what take away I even take away from what i wrote, but you might consider taking a step back? Adder himself admits not every R everywhere is going on bigotry. Nuance is not just a river in Egypt.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Perhaps nationally, but not on a local level, do you think? michigan's governor was a "business republican." We were a mess from our prior liberal governor (not saying all lib govs are bad, but Grandholm was horrible). Kids graduating left. There were no jobs here. Now people are moving to the state, which is crazy- and he is stepping down- and i worry about the apparently hair brained gov coming in.

I think a more universal statement might be that Rs don't look at the relative impact of decisions on minorities, as an example.

The prior govenor did something no Dem could have done- we had several big cities in serious financial trouble. They were majority black cities, yet the white govenor stepped in and appointed a person to take over control of the cities. From one standpoint he was trying to fix cities that were truly broken- example the residents of Detroit had little or no basic services. Snow wasn't cleared, garbage often wasn't etc. Wouldn't fixing the cities "help" the minority residents?

But on the other hand think about the negative impact on the people in a city that they need outside control?

In one instance it worked rmarkably well- Detroit is becoming vibrant- and local control has returned- services are returning- and the prior residents are benefitting- of course now we are seeing gentrification- which is somewhat amazing, but problematic.

In one instance it blew up- the "outside control" led to the Flint water crisis. and even if you can look at the city and agree that the outside control did need to step in, that outside control has to come with substantial care for the reaities of those w/o representation people. Once the water problem surfaced it should have been a four alarm fire of needing to get fixed- the steps leading to creating the problem are almost forgivable, but the early response was grossly negligent if not flat out showing a flavor of bigotry against the poor.

"Business Republicans" are something different from conservatives, and there is more room for them at the state and local level, especially in states that lean blue where a Republican can win by picking up Democratic votes.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Nuance is not just a river in Egypt.

This may be your best work.

ETA: what Ty said re “business Republicans.”

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Business Republicans" are something different from conservatives, and there is more room for them at the state and local level, especially in states that lean blue where a Republican can win by picking up Democratic votes.

I remember when "business republicans" existed.

I mean, other than at cocktail parties.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

...of course Less also thought it made sense to fuck Paigow, so ymmv?

You are conflating me with Slave. I only figuratively skullfucked her, and got no friction.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

You are conflating me with Slave. I only figuratively skullfucked her, and got no friction.

whifferooski

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

"Business Republicans" are something different from conservatives, and there is more room for them at the state and local level, especially in states that lean blue where a Republican can win by picking up Democratic votes.

I agree. But these business Republicans tend to vote with conservatives because that’s the only way to get the economic policies they desire.

For some bizarre reason, social tolerance and pro-business economic policy are not linked in our two party system. Which is strange. Tolerance is a much better environment for growth than bigotry. And regarding the left, it’s seriously bizarre to favor social freedoms but desire policies that allow the govt to take more of the population’s money and have greater legal and regulatory power over people.