Politics 2: Electric Boogaloo — Page 609

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

It irks me when people conflate the opinions of some Republicans with the opinions of all Republicans, or some conservatives with all conservatives, or holding some views with holding all views. It really irks me that, just because there are racist Republicans or uneducated conservatives or a moron Republican for a president, that so many liberals feel that they are so obviously right on every issue that there is no debate about anything.

You’re great at these non-responses.

Said the king of needless responses.

Could you please illustrate how I am great at non-responses? First, a non-response would have to hold no substance or bearing on the subject at hand, or it would have to evade the point of the initial topic. Second, if I’m good at it, you likely have several examples. If you could point to just a few, I would appreciate it.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Fallacy fallacy. Nice.

We can play the fallacy game all day long. Ultimately, nothing would result of it.

fallacy fallacy? I don’t know that I have heard of that fallacy before, could you explain it?

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Fallacy fallacy. Nice.

We can play the fallacy game all day long. Ultimately, nothing would result of it.

Except that you actually did create an either/or fallacy. But you’re right, if you insist on pointless games, nothing will result from it.

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?

I assume a percentage are for the same reasons in Frink’s story or for other medical reasons

I assume a percentage just couldn’t make up their minds until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage has to do with rape.

Perhaps there is a percentage that had a sudden drastic economic change in their lives past 20 weeks to the effect that they change their minds on wanting a child.

Perhaps a percentage of women were in a medical situation (like a coma or something) where they were not mentally able to make decisions until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage is for reasons I can’t think of right now.

the exact value of each percentage? I do not know.

I wasn’t asking for an exact percentage. The whole point of the question is to find out what people think the percentages are.

To be honest, I have no idea what the percentages are. Perhaps there are no biased statics that can help with those numbers?

The CDC collects and (I believe) publishes data. You could look it up.

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Well many Republicans did support Trump, and I think he is a scumbag.

I think he’s a scumbag too, and for that reason, I left the party. But is it really down to exactly those two items? No, the reality of the situation is that many Republicans do not like him, but they felt he at least was better aligned with their views than Hillary on issues that were important to them, abortion being a fine example.

And many people are ignorant and do not believe that Trump really says or does the things he says and does. They believe that the media is actually portraying the president in a negative light simply to make him look bad. We were given a terrible choice in our last presidential election cycle, and some people falsely saw him as the lesser of two evils. When you have an electoral system that only gives two parties a reasonable chance of winning, it makes it difficult to choose someone who really stands for the same things you do.

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

chyron8472 said:

darth_ender said:

conservatism has done a lot of good for the country.

I’m not attacking you for saying this, but from my perspective conservatism has many misguided ideas like using supply-side economics (which historically doesn’t work), or removing regulations that protect businesses from hurting or taking advantage of people (a recent example of which is Net Neutrality).

I am genuinely interested in having examples of how conservatism has helped this country, and as a Democrat I’d like to hear it from someone who isn’t full of Fox News talking points. (Also I’m not saying that liberalism is somehow superior.)

In a room full of people who do not believe that certain conservative principles are worthwhile, it’s hard to argue for the value of certain conservative strengths. I agree with CatBus that ACA was actually a good conservative move, even if most Republicans are opposed to it. I don’t have the time to go into depth or do the research, but there are good conservative principles that even the Democrats support, whether they realize it or not.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Of course, when you happily subject yourself to either/or fallacies, you might just feel that way, so…

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Of course, when you happily subject yourself to either/or fallacies, you might just feel that way, so…

hillary never said half the country was deplorables. she said half of those supporting trump were. (or something like that) and for the record. yes i did agree with her. wasn’t a smart thing to say in a political race though.

dahmage said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Of course, when you happily subject yourself to either/or fallacies, you might just feel that way, so…

hillary never said half the country was deplorables. she said half of those supporting trump were. (or something like that) and for the record. yes i did agree with her. wasn’t a smart thing to say in a political race though.

You’re right, she did say half of Trump’s supporters filled what she termed a “basket full of deplorables.” I concede that point.

However, there are a lot of people who don’t share my views on pretty serious topics. To consider everyone with whom I strongly disagreed a deplorable is pretty arrogant. My dad, for instance, is a Trumpt supporter. He is also mildly racist, in the sense that he does hold some archaic views. But he is not antagonistic, would never protest equal treatment, would never condone separation of the races, etc. He does not see Trump as such a guy, either. He believes Trump’s s***hole comment, for instance, was taken out of context and was not racist in intent or view.

Now, I think my dad is actually a really good human being. Yes, he’s older, holds older views, some of which could be termed racist. However, if you think my dad is a deplorable individual, then it reveals more about your arrogance and the arrogance of any liberals who feel they are somehow better people because they don’t recognize their own biases and bigotry.

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Sorry, you missed again. Firstly, that was something Clinton said once, while Trump’s racism has been confirmed by every second of his existence.

I am sorry, but Hillary has revealed her arrogance and contempt for conservatives more than once.

Secondly, you misunderstand my position. I said that if you voted for Trump, you’re a racist or fine with voting for a racist. Under this statement, you cannot make the example you made—key word: “share.”

Actually, you said this:

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

The slightly different wording, plus the additional sentence that follows, creates a very different meaning, don’t you think?

CatBus said:

darth_ender said:

Warbler said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

TV’s Frink said:

NeverarGreat said:

darth_ender said:

-Blacks gaining the right to eat in any restaurant they want

Oh, you mean those laws that were limited to the Southern states and were first introduced by the Democrat Party, and even when Republicans later began to support those laws, it was still isolated to the South.

It irks me when people conflate the Democratic party of the late 20th - 21st century and the pre-realignment Democratic party that originally represented rural America and the South. In short, the Democratic party was socially conservative until Roosevelt, and even then it took until the civil rights movement for conservative southern Democrats to abandon the party for the Republican ticket.

Not to mention conflating the old Republican party with the present-day Republican party. The Republican party ended slavery? Yay! That Republican party no longer exists.

Now all Republicans are racists! It’s so simple to put them all in a box instead of using my head a bit! Yay!

The vast majority of Republicans supported a racist for the head of their party. If you do that, you’re either a racist or someone who’s fine with racism. At some point, there’s no difference.

Either/or fallacy. Nice.

Well many Republicans did support Trump, and I think he is a scumbag.

I think he’s a scumbag too, and for that reason, I left the party. But is it really down to exactly those two items? No, the reality of the situation is that many Republicans do not like him, but they felt he at least was better aligned with their views than Hillary on issues that were important to them, abortion being a fine example.

And many people are ignorant and do not believe that Trump really says or does the things he says and does. They believe that the media is actually portraying the president in a negative light simply to make him look bad. We were given a terrible choice in our last presidential election cycle, and some people falsely saw him as the lesser of two evils. When you have an electoral system that only gives two parties a reasonable chance of winning, it makes it difficult to choose someone who really stands for the same things you do.

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

It doesn’t take much tweaking to turn that statement true, however. Either you support him because he’s a racist or you support him because you believe the issues he’ll advance are important enough that his racism is an acceptable risk. Winston Churchill was a raving anti-Semite, Susan B Anthony was racist as shit, Thomas Jefferson owned and raped his wife’s half-sister. But people supported their causes and history still treats these people kindly because we still do.

I think the problem people on the Left have with Trump is that we thought society moved on a little bit further on racial issues than we really had, so we thought these historical examples didn’t apply to the present. Turns out, not so much.

There are slight differences, though. Trump made racism the centerpiece of his political campaign, and had no other coherent policy positions other than racism, so supporting him to advance a policy position that wasn’t inherently racist was an act of faith, rather than weighing the relative values of concrete ideals.

But you have to also understand how things are perceived. Gosh, I am not even trying to defend Trump; I can’t stand the man and I think he has permanently damaged conservative causes, as the prevailing opinion of this thread demonstrates. But this popular view that the majority of his supporter are racists as well is unfair, or at least mischaracterizing. The example of my father in an earlier post shows that many people didn’t support Trump out of racism. Yes, he has some minor racist tendencies, but he certainly wouldn’t support those extreme groups who feel empowered by Trump. To illustrate, I literally saw my father cry only once in all my childhood (he’s a bit more emotional now, but back then, he was a tough guy). The one time he cried was when he was watching To Kill a Mockingbird after Tom Robinson was killed. Is my father a deplorable?

From my own perspective, I oppose illegal immigration. However, I don’t support a wall that costs inordinate amounts of money, damages the ecology, and sends a nasty message to Mexico. I support immigration reform that allows for easier legal immigration, while enforcing laws that preserve our national security. Am I a racist? If you think I am, don’t tell my Latina wife.

Many conservatives enjoy the bombastic, oversimplification of the Trumps and Limbaughs and Hannitys of the world. They don’t see the building of a wall as inherently racist. They see it as a means of preserving law and order and security.

My point to this is that, while Trump is clearly a racist, I believe the majority of his supporters have deluded themselves into believing he is not. This is not because they too are racists (or at least not tremendously so). This is more because of their confirmation bias that has led them to believe that Trump is being misinterpreted by the media and he just is a little too outspoken.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Warbler said:

yhwx said:

Quick question to the pro-lifers here: For what reason do you think women are getting abortions past 20 weeks?

I assume a percentage are for the same reasons in Frink’s story or for other medical reasons

I assume a percentage just couldn’t make up their minds until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage has to do with rape.

Perhaps there is a percentage that had a sudden drastic economic change in their lives past 20 weeks to the effect that they change their minds on wanting a child.

Perhaps a percentage of women were in a medical situation (like a coma or something) where they were not mentally able to make decisions until after 20 weeks

I assume a percentage is for reasons I can’t think of right now.

the exact value of each percentage? I do not know.

I wasn’t asking for an exact percentage. The whole point of the question is to find out what people think the percentages are.

To be honest, I have no idea what the percentages are. Perhaps there are no biased statics that can help with those numbers?

The CDC collects and (I believe) publishes data. You could look it up.

Perhaps I will sometime. But I wasn’t the one asking the question.

chyron8472 said:

But it wasn’t just Trump v. Hillary.
It was Trump v. Cruz v. Kasich v. Rubio v. Carson v. Bush v. Christie… et al.

v. Clinton v. Sanders.

It still baffles me how Trump managed to rise to the top among all the other better Republican candidates.

You are exactly right, sir. This is why I left. Because I do feel that the base has gotten away from our true principles, whether consciously or not.

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

That is not what I said. But Republicans were not forced to support Trump. They could have gone third party. They could have wrote someone in.

darth_ender said:

dahmage said:

darth_ender said:

yhwx said:

darth_ender said:

But no, it must be “either you’re racist or you’re fine with a racist.”

If you voted for him, then yes, racism wasn’t a big enough factor for you to stop voting for him. Thus, you’re fine with voting for a racist. Sorry.

That’s like saying, “If you voted for Hillary, than you share her views that half the country is deplorable.”

Of course, when you happily subject yourself to either/or fallacies, you might just feel that way, so…

hillary never said half the country was deplorables. she said half of those supporting trump were. (or something like that) and for the record. yes i did agree with her. wasn’t a smart thing to say in a political race though.

You’re right, she did say half of Trump’s supporters filled what she termed a “basket full of deplorables.” I concede that point.

However, there are a lot of people who don’t share my views on pretty serious topics. To consider everyone with whom I strongly disagreed a deplorable is pretty arrogant. My dad, for instance, is a Trumpt supporter. He is also mildly racist, in the sense that he does hold some archaic views. But he is not antagonistic, would never protest equal treatment, would never condone separation of the races, etc. He does not see Trump as such a guy, either. He believes Trump’s s***hole comment, for instance, was taken out of context and was not racist in intent or view.

Now, I think my dad is actually a really good human being. Yes, he’s older, holds older views, some of which could be termed racist. However, if you think my dad is a deplorable individual, then it reveals more about your arrogance and the arrogance of any liberals who feel they are somehow better people because they don’t recognize their own biases and bigotry.

I just want to make two things clear. It is a pretty arrogant thing to call others deplorable I am well aware of that. But there is also some degree to which there are deplorable people whether or not they want to have that label. When I say I agree with what Hillary said I think what I mean is that there are some people who are supporting Trump for all the bad reasons. Calling it a basket of deplorables is hyperbole from a frustrated liberal.

Secondly I in no way called everyone who voted for Trump deplorable and I would thank you to not assume that I’m calling your dad deplorable.