|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 10 2017 01:11 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2017 01:09 Wulfey_LA wrote:
You should stop viewing the religious right as some sort of religious organization. They value patriarchal values of men leading the household and women having a place in society that is different and subordinate to men. Trump embodies patriarchal values in the extreme. He does whatever he wants with women and the women in his life say yes or they are exiled. He keeps the children as his own unless they are disloyal (Tiffany Trump). In that light, the Religious Right has every reason to support Trump. The morality stuff was always just a cudgel to be used against either non-patriarchal men or women who didn't follow their directions. I saw a lot of women defending Trump's grabbing comments as "normal" and "what all men do" on Facebook. It was super creepy to realize there are entire sub-societies in our country that see sexual assault as just kind of a normal thing that men do because men are built differently than women. They really do accept this idea that men can't control themselves sometimes and will assault women. They don't blame the men.
Having lived in areas where a lot of women think like this, it's sadly because the men in their lives *do* act like this. So it unfortunately is normal to them. Those ideas you list, that men are built differently, wired for sexual assault, or can't control themselves? For a lot of folks those are culturally held norms that are hard to break from.
They were raised with those ideas being commonplace. Their husbands act like that, their brothers act like that, and their sons will act like that. Attributing it to nature or "just the way things are" is a lot easier than working to change the culture around you, especially when you've been raised to feel that it's not your place to do so.
This becomes especially difficult when the criticism of Trump's words or the culture associated with it is coming from a more liberal media that they're already predisposed to dislike. It can feel like a personal attack on their values, and it's easy to get defensive. It's an easier pill to swallow than listening to some liberal woman across the country telling you how to think/feel or that the men in your life are monsters.
|
If Democrats repeat the mistake of snubbing the religious in America again, they'll bouy another in the line of Trump. It's the very definition of a disconnected coastal elite to view religious faithful as some backwards, sexist-patriarchal society that deserves marginalization and extinction. The message is "We hate you and everything you love, but please listen to us as we tell you what Christians should do and think to avoid being hypocrites." And they'll send the occasional reporter there to report on how their Trump vote was all about racial animosity and misogyny, confirming the preexisting media caricatures for their detached audience.
|
On June 10 2017 01:29 Danglars wrote:
If Democrats repeat the mistake of snubbing the religious in America again, they'll bouy another in the line of Trump. It's the very definition of a disconnected coastal elite to view religious faithful as some backwards, sexist-patriarchal society that deserves marginalization and extinction. The message is "We hate you and everything you love, but please listen to us as we tell you what Christians should do and think to avoid being hypocrites." And they'll send the occasional reporter there to report on how their Trump vote was all about racial animosity and misogyny, confirming the preexisting media caricatures for their detached audience.
Is this addressing the normalization of sexual assault in rural communities?
|
United States43737 Posts
You can be a faithful member of a religious group without being an awful human being. They don't necessarily have to associate opposition to the awful stuff they believe in with opposition to their religion, they could just stop. Look at the Mormons. For the longest time it was Mormon canon that black people were fundamentally evil. Then one day they decided that they weren't going to die on that hill and turn it into a battle over religious freedom and here we are.
|
On June 10 2017 01:35 KwarK wrote:
You can be a faithful members of a religious group without being an awful human being. They don't necessarily have to associate opposition to the awful stuff they believe in with opposition to their religion, they could just stop. Look at the Mormons. For the longest time it was Mormon canon that black people were fundamentally evil. Then one day they decided that they weren't going to die on that hill and turn it into a battle over religious freedom and here we are.
And its not like modern Christian faith looks the way it did 800 years ago. The idea that Christians have made an effort to modernize is not new. Let's remember what "marriage" used to mean for women.
|
On June 10 2017 01:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2017 22:10 zlefin wrote:On June 09 2017 14:42 Danglars wrote:On June 09 2017 14:20 ChristianS wrote:
Here's where I think conservatives are crazy to be celebrating about the hearings: their cause for celebration is that we didn't see smoking gun evidence of collusion or obstruction of justice. That's an insanely low bar. It wasn't even that the accusations were dropped or disproven. We know pretty much the same stuff we knew before, but some stuff we know more certainly (i.e. confirmed directly from Comey rather than anonymous sources), some stuff we know in more detail (e.g. "honest loyalty"), and some more explosive allegations didn't happen (e.g. "Comey sez Trump threatened his wife if he didn't burn the evidence"). If anyone thought this would be resolved after today, they were wrong.
If Trump's guilty, that's very good news for Trump. If he's not, that's bad news for Trump. Because if it was resolved, he could put this behind him, but with the water still murky, this promises to drag on a great deal longer. Liberals and some conservatives will say there's enough evidence of wrongdoing, conservatives will say there's not, and the stalemate will lead to more investigation, which will mean it will return to the foreground again and again and again.
It's like the emails last year. It wasn't just about how bad the scandal was, it was the longevity of the story. That one scandal dominated coverage for basically the entire year, whereas a lot of other big scandals fell out of the news cycle and didn't have such a big impact on the election. The Khan thing, Judge Curiel, even the Access Hollywood tape had a big impact on the polls when they landed, and then faded away, whereas the emails kept coming up again and again (with one last hit in the form of the Comey letter).
That's what this scandal is for Trump - and with Comey's testimony, he can't even deflect to criticizing the media at the moment. His accuser is James Comey, who's got about as good a reputation as anybody can have right now. Trump's advocates aren't even bothering to argue why what he did was good or just or proper. The best they can argue is that based solely on the actions described Trump can't quite be convicted of a felony. Yes this is celebrating with a very low bar. Quick reminder that even his supporters in this thread have very little good to hope for from the man (on the whole), so I'll take the good I can get. A lot of that is at the margins ... I'll break out the good stuff if he doesn't squander this in tweeting by the end of the week. if you have little hope, wouldn't it be better to just invoke article 25 and remove him, so you can have Pence who can get in some actual progress for your goals? The 25th amendment (the relevant part of that amendment) should only serve for medical incapacitation e.g. stroke and not a political device.
certainly it's best for a stroke; but there's ground enough to claim (mild) insanity here, shaky grounds of course, but enough to provide plausible cover. it's not purely a political device; there is grounds enough present to fit the wording of the amendment. especially by the standards trump would use 
At any rate, it's far easier to do than an impeachment.
main point is that your legislative goals would be far greater accomplished if you ditch trump and bring in pence.
also, this is politics; should doesn't count for much. If should mattered, then Trump shouldn't have been president, period. yet here we are.
|
On June 10 2017 01:29 Danglars wrote:
If Democrats repeat the mistake of snubbing the religious in America again, they'll bouy another in the line of Trump. It's the very definition of a disconnected coastal elite to view religious faithful as some backwards, sexist-patriarchal society that deserves marginalization and extinction. The message is "We hate you and everything you love, but please listen to us as we tell you what Christians should do and think to avoid being hypocrites." And they'll send the occasional reporter there to report on how their Trump vote was all about racial animosity and misogyny, confirming the preexisting media caricatures for their detached audience.
they're not being viewed that way for being faithful; plent yof faithful are highly religious without being sexist-patriarchal. but in some cases the religion is mostly a cover-excuse; and at any rate some of those groups in question are highly sexist; and they're being called highly sexist and patriarchal because they are; not because of religion.
it mostly depends on which religious groups really; and they caricature the Democrat side just as much; as you describe them as a disconnected coastal elite; which is simply the same kind of canard. You'll never get the votes of those decent people by calling them a disconnected coastal elite
|
United States43737 Posts
I've never been much concerned by being called elite. It means we're both on the same page about the difference between myself and the speaker.
|
On June 10 2017 01:45 KwarK wrote:
I've never been much concerned by being called elite. It means we're both on the same page about the difference between myself and the speaker.
Scathing. I'm gonna use that from now on.
|
I do think it's interesting that people default to "religious right" when they're generally talking about "Christian right" or to be more precise "evangelical Christian right." There are tons of religious people that are conservative that aren't part of what is generally described as the "religious right" (let alone all the religious people who aren't conservative at all).
Conflating religion with Christendom is pretty reprehensible but it seems to have happened completely (witness that mayor wanting us to smite those heathen Muslim terrorist beasts).
|
Underneath the snark about Democrats, Danglars has a point the "fly over" part of the country being ignored by and mocked by the coasts. The reporters I follow have admitted that most news outlets have done a poor job of covering those regions in the past 5-10 years. I think those regions have a long history of mocking the liberals on the coast too. My inlaws the mid-west are friendly in person, but they talk a whole lot of shit about New England and the out of touch liberals. I don't have a solution for this one, but this article was a good read:
We’re Not in a Civil War, but We Are Drifting Toward Divorce
|
On June 10 2017 01:54 TheTenthDoc wrote:
I do think it's interesting that people default to "religious right" when they're generally talking about "Christian right" or to be more precise "evangelical Christian right." There are tons of religious people that are conservative that aren't part of what is generally described as the "religious right" (let alone all the religious people who aren't conservative at all).
I think people are distinguishing between that and the young internet right who are only concerned with things like SJWs, legal marijuana, upsetting liberals, and just generally raging against the machine.
|
On June 09 2017 23:26 NewSunshine wrote:
Honestly the biggest surprise for me is that people are sticking by Trump as a Republican. He's not a Republican, nor is he a politician, which by now is sufficiently evident. He ran his campaign as a Republican because he had to, owing to the overwhelming rigidity of our 2-party system. But he's not a Republican. Thus, seeing our Republican-filled government, as well as Republican supporters, unconditionally supporting him, even as he sinks further and further, makes no sense to me. They could easily abandon him and maintain partisan solidarity, if that's all they cared about.
Even in this thread you see people blindly supporting Trump because they think the alternative is some horrible Democrat. They think it's better to have "their guy" in office, and are elated that there wasn't some kind of smoking gun evidence presented yesterday, but that was never going to happen, it was just one person's testimony. And the fact that you care more about having Trump retain office, than actually having a credible and respectable leader in charge of our nation, is the most deeply sad fact of all.
Party before nation after all, it appears.
You and others will have to switch to legitimate criticism if you seek common cause and not partisan victories. His requests of Comey to let Flynn go, made one-on-one, was entirely inappropriate and I condemn him for it. No need to invent law to call it criminal. You can criticize him all day on supporting AHCA and I will also condemn it. I didn't like his budget either. And, as an aside, he isn't really much of a Republican at all and many of his policies are more in line with a liberal Democrat.
He's still president and I think he's likely to serve his full term if he so chooses. He has two major campaign promises in line with Republican agendas past and present left unfulfilled. I'm in it to hopefully see those completed through the legislature and his signature. I like some of his posture towards a politicized news reporting class. I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
|
|
|
If only any of that meant anything to this administration.
|
On June 10 2017 02:01 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:If only any of that meant anything to this administration.
I will be surprised if they follow through with the threat. Trump's attorney is in over his head and I bet that he knows it. The threat to bring a complaint against Comey was standard practice for Trump as a private citizen. So I'm willing to give Trump's attorney the benefit of the doubt that he was not aware that would be obstruction now that Trump is POTUS. Like most professional fields, there is no way any attorney can know all aspects of law. It is why they focus on specific fields.
|
apparently empty legal threats are a habit.
|
He also threatened to sue the NYTimes, the NYT welcomed him and nothing happened. This year I think.
|
That is the other issue. Trump’s attorney is not one of the heavy hitters in Washington or NYC. The NYT would have brought in some very capable attorneys on that case. The guy is going to advocate for his client, but I doubt he feels comfortable in his role. Or he could be an idiot attorney. The world is full of those.
|
On June 10 2017 01:57 Danglars wrote:
I think the best thing to do is criticize him for things that deserve criticism and applaud him for things that deserve praise. Calling his supporters blind is admitting to blindness yourself.
I used the words "blindly supporting", describing the action and not the person. And the primary person in the thread to which I was referring was you, "taking whatever good you could find". You're the one supporting a president and celebrating because he wasn't incriminated worse than he was yesterday, which was still pretty badly. There comes a point where someone just doesn't deserve to be defended anymore. What has he done that's positive that I'm supposed to applaud? I can give credit where it's due, but I don't see any.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
