@Dee those examples are not politics but people being vicious to each other. I am not telling anyone how to feel about anything, merely expressing an opinion and giving advice. Not that I agree with them, but unless someone has managed to repeal the First Amendment then white supremacists still have the right to speak their views publicly, no matter how distasteful those views may be.
That is one of my few character flaws--I argue for the rights of *all* people, even the ones who disagree with me.
@Mathsorcerer The thing is, Trump has made those things part of his politics, through the things he said in his official capacity as a candidate for president, by not effectively condemning the violence at his rallies or the things said on social media by his followers, by endorsing some of those things himself by retweeting them.
The right to speak your views is different from that speech being tolerated and accepted as "mainstream" even when that speech is specifically targeted toward oppressing other people.
It's kitsch to say that the right of free speech is worth protecting even when it's something you don't like. It's ignorant to say that the KKK should be allowed a place in the cultural pantheon of America. I'm not talking about government censorship here, I'm talking cultural shifts. Just as it's not culturally acceptable to fly the Nazi flag in your yard, it shouldn't be culturally acceptable to join the KKK. Because the KKK is a terrorist organization.
That's the element that shifted with this election, that may shift even further during Trump's presidency. The Civil Rights movement was only fifty years ago; a hundred years before that, slavery was legal. There are people alive today who remember Jim Crow. There are people who experience racism even today.
Heck, there are people who spent years promoting the rumor that Barack Obama was born in Kenya just because he's black. And their leader just got elected president.
That's the element that shifted with this election, that may shift even further during Trump's presidency. The Civil Rights movement was only fifty years ago; a hundred years before that, slavery was legal. There are people alive today who remember Jim Crow. There are people who experience racism even today.
A case in point would be the guy who attacked a black protester at a Trump rally in (South?) Carolina. The fella was in his '70s. In his day, a politically active black man would simply be murdered in public. Trump's reaction was to offer to pay the man's legal fees (though I think he later walked that back).
It's kitsch to say that the right of free speech is worth protecting even when it's something you don't like. It's ignorant to say that the KKK should be allowed a place in the cultural pantheon of America. I'm not talking about government censorship here, I'm talking cultural shifts. Just as it's not culturally acceptable to fly the Nazi flag in your yard, it shouldn't be culturally acceptable to join the KKK. Because the KKK is a terrorist organization.
I don't care about cultural acceptability; I care about people's rights and those are more important than being "acceptable". It still legal to smoke cigarettes (at least in some places) even though it isn't acceptable any more. You may consider such a position to be "ignorant"--an adjective which never applies to me--but unfortunately you are simply incorrect. It is interesting that you mention Jim Crow laws because one political party was instrumental in implementing the vast majority of them and it isn't the one you might have thought it was. It isn't mine, of course, but then I self-identify as Libertarian (but not so much that I actually give them money or officially join).
A better example of "ignorant" would be the people who wrote in "Harambe" as their choice for President, all 11,000 of them (an approximate number, to be certain, but many more than there should have been).
Speaking of violence at rallies, who is condemning the violence which is occurring at current protest rallies?
I didn't vote for him. I am merely advising that things aren't going to be as bad as some suspect.
The Democratic and Republican parties are not the same today as they were fifty years ago. Their values have reversed as they attempted to court their constituents.
It's cute that you say you're never ignorant, but you are ignoring the pain being expressed by the people Trump's words have oppressed. Or if you're not ignoring its existence, you're ignoring its importance.
So, yes. That's ignorant. Show some empathy for the folks who are hurting, whose votes are being ignored due to a slavery-era institution that is about to select for the country's leadership a man who's been endorsed by the KKK and neo nazis.
Words oppress only if you choose to let them. If anyone is hurting right now it isn't because of Trump given that he is not in power and is not helping to shape any policies at this time. The time to lodge legitimate complaints against him will be 21 January 2017, at which point all problems become his fault (as they do for every other person assuming that office).
Which "slavery-era" institution? The Electoral College? If by "slavery era" institution you mean "any institution which was created during a time in which slavery was legal in this country" then we would have to include everything--Congress, the Supreme Court, post offices, the military, etc. I am already on record as arguing against the Electoral College as it currently exists but, to date, I am the *only* person coming up with alternative solutions in an attempt to fix the system while everyone else is just complaining about it. Well, except the voters in Maine--they are trying to do something about it, as well.
The people in this thread are venting. Just because you don't see their counterproposals doesn't mean they aren't making them.
Maine's ballot measure is a great start. I'm a strong believer in fixing the electoral system so that we can improve our democracy long-term. I've advocated for that for years, and yes, people voting third party are a part of the reason why.
But for the people who are hurting, the reason they're hurting isn't because they're thin skinned. Saying it's their fault they're terrified is more than a little disrespectful, and borderline sociopathic.
First I am "ignorant"; now I am "disrespectful" and "sociopathic". Fascinating, especially given that I am not the source of the problem. Those assessments are irrelevant. If blame for a Trump Presidency is to be placed anywhere then look to the voters in the swing States of Iowa, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Under the current system, any two of them going the other way would have reversed the results of the election. What do voters in those States need? What do they consider important? Democrats need to answer those questions if they hope to regain those States in 2018 and 2020.
Either people are in control of their own emotions or they are not. Which one is it? There were many people who were similarly fearful in 2008 and 2012 (not me, but then politics is insufficient to make me fearful) but their fears were completely unfounded. The real tragedy would be to let fear guide all those who feel disaffected by the results of this election.
No President has been "my President" since 1992, when I voted for Bill Clinton. Since then, I have cast my ballot more intelligently to no avail. In that time I have watched the two major political parties merge until there is neither blue nor red, only two slightly different shades of purple.
If you're offended by my calling your comments ignorant and disrespectful and sociopathic, when I explain to you why I feel those terms are accurate, is that your fault for being offended, my fault for calling it what it is, or your fault for making hose comments in the first place?
That's a serious question, by the way. Those words are nothing compared to the oppression experienced by the groups I mentioned. If their existential worries are an overreaction, where does anyone draw the line?
Okay, so let's talk about the difference between 2008/2012 and 2016, because there's a false equivalency being drawn here.
In 2008/2012, people were afraid that Obama was going to take away the guns, that he was going to create death panels. Obama never said he was going to do either of those things; it was his opponents that spread rumors, sowing fear and suspicion among Republicans.
In 2016, people are afraid that Trump is going to deport millions of undocumented immigrants through the use of a "deportation force", that he'll bring back torture, that he'll enact nation-wide stop-and-frisk policies. People are afraid that Trump will appoint Supreme Court justices that won't balk at taking away women's rights to legal and safe abortions. People are afraid that gay marriage will become illegal again, that conversion therapy may become a legal, mainstream practice. People are afraid that white supremacists will become bolder about expressing their hatred, that they'll become bolder in putting that hatred into action.
The difference in 2016 is that all those fears are based on things Donald Trump himself has said, they're based on things his running mate has done, they're based on the things the alt-right and the KKK and self-titled white supremacists have said and done.
Trump's campaign liked to talk about how Hillary's campaign ads were so negative. But what they omitted from those complaints was the fact that all of Hillary's negative campaign ads used Trump's own words to convey their message.
It's not the same thing. It's not remotely the same thing.
Yes, let's reform the electoral system. I would love to see the two-party system vanish behind ranked ballots, I would love to see politics become less polarized. I would love to see the electoral college formally disbanded. I would love to see term limits in Congress, to encourage new ideas.
I'm also deeply concerned about what the next year or two years or four years are going to look like in this country, because of the man who's about to take the oval office. I'm frightened for my black and Latinx friends who live in Southern and border states, I'm worried for my married gay and lesbian friends whose marriages may suddenly be threatened, I'm worried for trans men and women and boys and girls who are about to see even more bullying and violence than before, I'm worried for my son going to school with other children who look to their nation's highest office for guidance in how to behave, who may be learning the wrong lessons from the person they see there.
Those are the things I'm worried about as a straight white cisgender middle-class male. I have the privilege of not being fearful for my own safety or well-being.
There's a lot of people for whom that fear is personal. It's not an irrational fear peddled by political propaganda; it's a knowing fear, the kind that comes from decades and centuries of evidence.
If you're offended by my calling your comments ignorant and disrespectful and sociopathic, when I explain to you why I feel those terms are accurate, is that your fault for being offended, my fault for calling it what it is, or your fault for making hose comments in the first place?
That's a serious question, by the way. Those words are nothing compared to the oppression experienced by the groups I mentioned. If their existential worries are an overreaction, where does anyone draw the line?
So why would some Americans want to vote for a candidate that takes money from countries that oppress women, kill Gays and start wars for profit?
If you're offended by my calling your comments ignorant and disrespectful and sociopathic, when I explain to you why I feel those terms are accurate, is that your fault for being offended, my fault for calling it what it is, or your fault for making hose comments in the first place?
That's a serious question, by the way. Those words are nothing compared to the oppression experienced by the groups I mentioned. If their existential worries are an overreaction, where does anyone draw the line?
So why would some Americans want to vote for a candidate that takes money from countries that oppress women, kill Gays and start wars for profit?
One reason is that the foundation that took those donations, more likely than not, used them to help those same oppressed people.
Another reason is that those funds didn't represent any kind of obligation from the Clinton family beyond meetings.
The truth is that the vast majority of the Clinton Foundation's funds are spend directly in their charitable efforts, and the Clintons themselves don't receive salaries from the foundation. (There's some ethical complications with Bill Clinton maybe receiving payments from foundation donors, but legally speaking those payments didn't come from the Foundation. Like many things having to do with the Clinton family, it's messy, and gross, but it's not as bad as it's often made out to be.)
I'm not sure how any of this relates to the post you quoted, though. Can you offer a bit of clarification?
EDIT: And, yes, those donations from Saudi Arabia are complicated, and they don't sound good, and that's frustrating. I don't know enough to say with confidence what they represent, except to say that it's one thing to receive funds from a problematic source, and another to send funds to a problematic destination. Still not great, but different.
I was not offended, merely intrigued. Remember--I cannot be offended unless I choose to be.
If any of those things you mention come about--mass deportations (which are impossible given the logistics of the situation), a return to torturing prisoners, a rollback of abortion or marriage rights, conversion therapy (that's that quack non-science of trying to "convert" people away from homosexuality, right? ) becoming a norm, racial violence being carried out in the street--I will be right there alongside other people arguing and fighting against such things because those are violations and restrictions of freedoms.
In other politically-related news, I am still trying to figure out if CalExit is real or some sort of troll.
Also, who else thinks that Puerto Rico should become the 51st State? Or should it become completely independent?
EDIT: And, yes, those donations from Saudi Arabia are complicated, and they don't sound good, and that's frustrating. I don't know enough to say with confidence what they represent, except to say that it's one thing to receive funds from a problematic source, and another to send funds to a problematic destination. Still not great, but different.
They do send. Instead of placing sanctions on these countries and not dealing with them until they change we trade and share cultures.
Im not arguing with anyone, I'm trying to figure out the logic of the American people. Child slavery is a huge concern but people shop at walmart and purchase Iphones. I don't get.
I was not offended, merely intrigued. Remember--I cannot be offended unless I choose to be.
If any of those things you mention come about--mass deportations (which are impossible given the logistics of the situation), a return to torturing prisoners, a rollback of abortion or marriage rights, conversion therapy (that's that quack non-science of trying to "convert" people away from homosexuality, right? ) becoming a norm, racial violence being carried out in the street--I will be right there alongside other people arguing and fighting against such things because those are violations and restrictions of freedoms.
In other politically-related news, I am still trying to figure out if CalExit is real or some sort of troll.
Also, who else thinks that Puerto Rico should become the 51st State? Or should it become completely independent?
That's good to hear. That's the piece that a lot of people take offense to: the suggestion that "everything's going to be okay" without the promise that "if it turns out not to be okay I'll fight to protect you". So that commitment means a lot.
About CalExit, I suspect it's real but probably not going anywhere. California's too big a state, and its northern half has too much trouble agreeing with its southern half, for that kind of movement to get any real traction.
And no, I don't think Puerto Rico should be the 51st state. I think it should be the 52nd (I think DC should be 51st). Though really, I think both should become states immediately, so maybe they can both be 51st?
I meant it when I said I look out for everyone, even the people I generally dislike.
Puerto Rico needs more immediate attention than DC itself. The economic restructuring and oversight committee are slaps in the face of people who are equal citizens of the United States. The $70 billion debt could be dealt with much more cleanly and efficiently if only Puerto Rico had access to finance options available to States via Congress. As things stand now, the hedge funds are bleeding Puerto Rico to death.
I meant it when I said I look out for everyone, even the people I generally dislike.
Puerto Rico needs more immediate attention than DC itself. The economic restructuring and oversight committee are slaps in the face of people who are equal citizens of the United States. The $70 billion debt could be dealt with much more cleanly and efficiently if only Puerto Rico had access to finance options available to States via Congress. As things stand now, the hedge funds are bleeding Puerto Rico to death.
I 1000% agree. The only reason I say DC should be a state first (though "a state too" would be more accurate) is that it's closer to being a state already.
What Puerto Rico needs is better protection under the law. Statehood would do that, but so would undoing the nonsense laws and regulations that have made it a victim in the first place. Which is more likely to happen?
Comments
Folks, be careful about how you discuss things like that. Remember that this is Beamdog's forum, and everything you say is public.
I get that people are mad and upset and scared, but let's agree that violence isn't the answer.
http://www.dorktower.com/
This actually makes me want to dig out my Twilight 2000 game.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/10/us/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0
Was my joke really that lame ?
...I need a drink.
The cheese doesn't even go all the way to the crust! and where's the Italian sausage and green peppers?
That is one of my few character flaws--I argue for the rights of *all* people, even the ones who disagree with me.
The right to speak your views is different from that speech being tolerated and accepted as "mainstream" even when that speech is specifically targeted toward oppressing other people.
It's kitsch to say that the right of free speech is worth protecting even when it's something you don't like. It's ignorant to say that the KKK should be allowed a place in the cultural pantheon of America. I'm not talking about government censorship here, I'm talking cultural shifts. Just as it's not culturally acceptable to fly the Nazi flag in your yard, it shouldn't be culturally acceptable to join the KKK. Because the KKK is a terrorist organization.
That's the element that shifted with this election, that may shift even further during Trump's presidency. The Civil Rights movement was only fifty years ago; a hundred years before that, slavery was legal. There are people alive today who remember Jim Crow. There are people who experience racism even today.
Heck, there are people who spent years promoting the rumor that Barack Obama was born in Kenya just because he's black. And their leader just got elected president.
Why do you think that is?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-09/private-prison-stocks-are-surging-after-trump-s-win
A better example of "ignorant" would be the people who wrote in "Harambe" as their choice for President, all 11,000 of them (an approximate number, to be certain, but many more than there should have been).
Speaking of violence at rallies, who is condemning the violence which is occurring at current protest rallies?
I didn't vote for him. I am merely advising that things aren't going to be as bad as some suspect.
It's cute that you say you're never ignorant, but you are ignoring the pain being expressed by the people Trump's words have oppressed. Or if you're not ignoring its existence, you're ignoring its importance.
So, yes. That's ignorant. Show some empathy for the folks who are hurting, whose votes are being ignored due to a slavery-era institution that is about to select for the country's leadership a man who's been endorsed by the KKK and neo nazis.
Words oppress only if you choose to let them. If anyone is hurting right now it isn't because of Trump given that he is not in power and is not helping to shape any policies at this time. The time to lodge legitimate complaints against him will be 21 January 2017, at which point all problems become his fault (as they do for every other person assuming that office).
Which "slavery-era" institution? The Electoral College? If by "slavery era" institution you mean "any institution which was created during a time in which slavery was legal in this country" then we would have to include everything--Congress, the Supreme Court, post offices, the military, etc. I am already on record as arguing against the Electoral College as it currently exists but, to date, I am the *only* person coming up with alternative solutions in an attempt to fix the system while everyone else is just complaining about it. Well, except the voters in Maine--they are trying to do something about it, as well.
Maine's ballot measure is a great start. I'm a strong believer in fixing the electoral system so that we can improve our democracy long-term. I've advocated for that for years, and yes, people voting third party are a part of the reason why.
But for the people who are hurting, the reason they're hurting isn't because they're thin skinned. Saying it's their fault they're terrified is more than a little disrespectful, and borderline sociopathic.
Either people are in control of their own emotions or they are not. Which one is it? There were many people who were similarly fearful in 2008 and 2012 (not me, but then politics is insufficient to make me fearful) but their fears were completely unfounded. The real tragedy would be to let fear guide all those who feel disaffected by the results of this election.
No President has been "my President" since 1992, when I voted for Bill Clinton. Since then, I have cast my ballot more intelligently to no avail. In that time I have watched the two major political parties merge until there is neither blue nor red, only two slightly different shades of purple.
That's a serious question, by the way. Those words are nothing compared to the oppression experienced by the groups I mentioned. If their existential worries are an overreaction, where does anyone draw the line?
In 2008/2012, people were afraid that Obama was going to take away the guns, that he was going to create death panels. Obama never said he was going to do either of those things; it was his opponents that spread rumors, sowing fear and suspicion among Republicans.
In 2016, people are afraid that Trump is going to deport millions of undocumented immigrants through the use of a "deportation force", that he'll bring back torture, that he'll enact nation-wide stop-and-frisk policies. People are afraid that Trump will appoint Supreme Court justices that won't balk at taking away women's rights to legal and safe abortions. People are afraid that gay marriage will become illegal again, that conversion therapy may become a legal, mainstream practice. People are afraid that white supremacists will become bolder about expressing their hatred, that they'll become bolder in putting that hatred into action.
The difference in 2016 is that all those fears are based on things Donald Trump himself has said, they're based on things his running mate has done, they're based on the things the alt-right and the KKK and self-titled white supremacists have said and done.
Trump's campaign liked to talk about how Hillary's campaign ads were so negative. But what they omitted from those complaints was the fact that all of Hillary's negative campaign ads used Trump's own words to convey their message.
It's not the same thing. It's not remotely the same thing.
Yes, let's reform the electoral system. I would love to see the two-party system vanish behind ranked ballots, I would love to see politics become less polarized. I would love to see the electoral college formally disbanded. I would love to see term limits in Congress, to encourage new ideas.
I'm also deeply concerned about what the next year or two years or four years are going to look like in this country, because of the man who's about to take the oval office. I'm frightened for my black and Latinx friends who live in Southern and border states, I'm worried for my married gay and lesbian friends whose marriages may suddenly be threatened, I'm worried for trans men and women and boys and girls who are about to see even more bullying and violence than before, I'm worried for my son going to school with other children who look to their nation's highest office for guidance in how to behave, who may be learning the wrong lessons from the person they see there.
Those are the things I'm worried about as a straight white cisgender middle-class male. I have the privilege of not being fearful for my own safety or well-being.
There's a lot of people for whom that fear is personal. It's not an irrational fear peddled by political propaganda; it's a knowing fear, the kind that comes from decades and centuries of evidence.
Another reason is that those funds didn't represent any kind of obligation from the Clinton family beyond meetings.
The truth is that the vast majority of the Clinton Foundation's funds are spend directly in their charitable efforts, and the Clintons themselves don't receive salaries from the foundation. (There's some ethical complications with Bill Clinton maybe receiving payments from foundation donors, but legally speaking those payments didn't come from the Foundation. Like many things having to do with the Clinton family, it's messy, and gross, but it's not as bad as it's often made out to be.)
I'm not sure how any of this relates to the post you quoted, though. Can you offer a bit of clarification?
EDIT: And, yes, those donations from Saudi Arabia are complicated, and they don't sound good, and that's frustrating. I don't know enough to say with confidence what they represent, except to say that it's one thing to receive funds from a problematic source, and another to send funds to a problematic destination. Still not great, but different.
If any of those things you mention come about--mass deportations (which are impossible given the logistics of the situation), a return to torturing prisoners, a rollback of abortion or marriage rights, conversion therapy (that's that quack non-science of trying to "convert" people away from homosexuality, right? ) becoming a norm, racial violence being carried out in the street--I will be right there alongside other people arguing and fighting against such things because those are violations and restrictions of freedoms.
In other politically-related news, I am still trying to figure out if CalExit is real or some sort of troll.
Also, who else thinks that Puerto Rico should become the 51st State? Or should it become completely independent?
Im not arguing with anyone, I'm trying to figure out the logic of the American people.
Child slavery is a huge concern but people shop at walmart and purchase Iphones. I don't get.
About CalExit, I suspect it's real but probably not going anywhere. California's too big a state, and its northern half has too much trouble agreeing with its southern half, for that kind of movement to get any real traction.
And no, I don't think Puerto Rico should be the 51st state. I think it should be the 52nd (I think DC should be 51st). Though really, I think both should become states immediately, so maybe they can both be 51st?
Or, more accurately, no one cares about them enough to not buy things at the cheapest store, to not buy the best phone.
Puerto Rico needs more immediate attention than DC itself. The economic restructuring and oversight committee are slaps in the face of people who are equal citizens of the United States. The $70 billion debt could be dealt with much more cleanly and efficiently if only Puerto Rico had access to finance options available to States via Congress. As things stand now, the hedge funds are bleeding Puerto Rico to death.
What Puerto Rico needs is better protection under the law. Statehood would do that, but so would undoing the nonsense laws and regulations that have made it a victim in the first place. Which is more likely to happen?
I can see adopting DC as a State. It is another entity existing in political limbo, able to do some things but not others.