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 November 30 2017 03:27 Velr wrote: So.. Because hollywood is a cesspool. Something everyone knew, its ok to vote for a guy that wasn't allowed into malls because he stalked teenagers? A guy that was so obvious at it the police knew... Everyone knew?
So very christian of you.
Never said it was okay. Who did you mean to respond to? I’ll PM him a link.
On November 29 2017 23:43 Danglars wrote: [quote] Opposition to Obama on policy was called racist. Then you got somebody that doesn’t flee from the term. He didn’t moderate his agenda in the face of legislative backlash, but used executive orders. Trump can’t do jack in terms of legislation, but has signed executive orders making the first dents in the regulatory state for a generation. Obama embraced minority+women identity politics (particularly in the second term), Trump embraces white identity politics. Obama represented the liberal ideal of right side of history/March of progress, and Trump was the greatest repudiation of the leftist vision possible. Obama exploited and grew the cracks in American society for political gain, and Trump capitalized on them.
I wanted a less fitting successor (primary process), but one better for my agenda, and thought Trump couldn’t win.
and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing.
best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah.
i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me.
If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint.
Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism).
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans.
I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here.
Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency.
"narrower ideological identification" lolz.
Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.”
So basically conservatism is better because you say "what about rural grievances" before advocating for policies that do nothing to address rural grievances (and in many cases increase the issues), however I shouldn't talk to you about it because it bores you. Got it.
I understand that the conservative politicians have to pretend that they're on the side of the rural people cause that's where they get the votes, but you aren't running for anything, you should be able to embrace how the core conservative ideas function.
On November 30 2017 02:40 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote: Can someone explain why the news media keeps going after Weinstien, Spacey, Lauer, Franken etc when they should be focusing on bringing trump down? Yes these people made mistakes but their money and influence could be beneficially used to provide change for gun control and climate change regulations that literally affect billions of peoples lives. Demonizing your supporters seems counterproductive but I guess the media deems it necessary?
It shores up the “War on Women” narrative (Dem Party is better for women), allows them to attack Moore without hypocrisy, and shows rapists and molestors aren’t tolerated despite the sanctity of their political stances and donations.
I like how your response has no inclusion of anything along the lines of, "this is a thing that women actually care a lot about"
and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing.
best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah.
i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me.
If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint.
Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism).
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans.
I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here.
Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency.
"narrower ideological identification" lolz.
Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.”
the side that admitted there were real problems was the dems; it's the reps who laughed them away.
And then they voted in Trump, the rep that laughed them away.
Then they voted in huge legislative sweeps for Republicans, the reps that laughed them away.
You’re bringing some serious alternative facts here. Sure you aren’t in the Trump White House?
On November 30 2017 03:31 Velr wrote: Your president just embraced the child stalker and his party isn't dropping him (he still runs as R) but the other side is laughing it away? Are you actually serious right now?
He won the primary. What primary process are you imagining where he doesn’t run as R?
If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint.
Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism).
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans.
I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here.
Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency.
"narrower ideological identification" lolz.
Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.”
the side that admitted there were real problems was the dems; it's the reps who laughed them away.
And then they voted in Trump, the rep that laughed them away.
Then they voted in huge legislative sweeps for Republicans, the reps that laughed them away.
You’re bringing some serious alternative facts here. Sure you aren’t in the Trump White House?
it's funny how often you accuse others of the same thing you do: bringing in alternative facts and alternate reality. but keep up the trolling. and yes, they were stupid, they voted against the people who were actually trying to help them, because of the lies the reps manufactured to convince some fools to hurt themselves. which you'd know if you weren't one of them.
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Garrison Keillor, the former host of "A Prairie Home Companion," says he's been fired by Minnesota Public Radio over allegations of improper behavior.
Keillor told The Associated Press of his firing in an email. In a follow-up statement, he says he was fired over "a story that I think is more interesting and more complicated than the version MPR heard."
He didn't give details of the allegation. Minnesota Public Radio didn't immediately respond to messages.
Keillor retired last year from his longtime radio show, but still produced "The Writer's Almanac" for syndication.
and sincerely, this is the best possible outcome you think? imo that’s very embarrassing.
best outcome would’ve been maybe a president with enough integrity to have american identity politics. and again, you know, qualified, at a minimum. we could ask for more too, but apparently we are setting our bar low enough to trip over. to call that ‘best’? hah.
i hate actually saying this because it’s already been said a dozen times, but the only way your post makes any sense as a real belief is starting with the position of being totally drowning in white grievance. that your definition of ‘best’ is ‘taking back the country from minorities and women’ has just got to be a joke. ur trolllin me. fk you got me.
If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint.
Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism).
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans.
I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here.
Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency.
"narrower ideological identification" lolz.
Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.”
So basically conservatism is better because you say "what about rural grievances" before advocating for policies that do nothing to address rural grievances (and in many cases increase the issues), however I shouldn't talk to you about it because it bores you. Got it.
I understand that the conservative politicians have to pretend that they're on the side of the rural people cause that's where they get the votes, but you aren't running for anything, you should be able to embrace how the core conservative ideas function.
There’s really no reason to argue with you that the conservative approach is better when you demonstrate your engagement is “Americans can’t embrace my policies because Socialism.” You’ll need to broaden your horizons first. I’m really fine leaving you to believe your preconceived notions because that’s pretty much all we come back to every time. Oh, and your policies ignore half of America and hurt the people they pretend to be aimed to help. The affected persons wised up, and this was in no small reason due to how terrible your policies were in the first place.
...as long as we’re just slinging lines back and forth
On November 30 2017 02:40 urmomdresslikafloozy wrote: Can someone explain why the news media keeps going after Weinstien, Spacey, Lauer, Franken etc when they should be focusing on bringing trump down? Yes these people made mistakes but their money and influence could be beneficially used to provide change for gun control and climate change regulations that literally affect billions of peoples lives. Demonizing your supporters seems counterproductive but I guess the media deems it necessary?
It shores up the “War on Women” narrative (Dem Party is better for women), allows them to attack Moore without hypocrisy, and shows rapists and molestors aren’t tolerated despite the sanctity of their political stances and donations.
I like how your response has no inclusion of anything along the lines of, "this is a thing that women actually care a lot about"
Sorry. Women care about people in power getting away with sexual assault. It looks like severa have been getting away with it for years, particularly those that staked proud positions on women’s rights.
I thought that was pretty explicit in “shows rapists and molestors aren’t tolerated” Who did you think that would impact, because now I’m puzzled?
On November 30 2017 03:38 Velr wrote: I talked about the asshole in alabama still being embraced by your president and your party
Sorry, did you have a response on the primary? Or who thought it was ok?
Hell, half the party leadership opposes him (ever heard of McConnell, the senate leader) and Trump can’t even mention him by name ... just says how bad Jones would be. You have a very odd way of using “embraced,” but maybe that’s lost in translation.
On November 30 2017 03:48 Velr wrote: The guy you voted for shows that one side openly embraces them.
Read more exit polls. Voters thought he was unfit for that and other reasons, but by means of the choice presented, reluctantly agreed there wasn’t a choice free from abuse.
Maybe run a better candidate next time? There’s a thought. It’s much better than wishing one side embraced abusers, or wishing that was even close to true.
Pretty sure I'm the closest it comes to blowing off rural America and white people being oppressed and I've repeatedly said that they have some legitimate grievances.
Many of them rise directly out of the strategy to pit poor whites and poor minorities against each other by establishing a (sometimes codified) pecking order between them that placed poor whites above other poor people and it's slow erosion as a result of a combination of factors such as increased minority political and economic leadership participation, expanded exploitation in search of more profits, and competing globally in a market that favors short term profit over medium term social order.
But some are just because the overwhelming majority of Democrats lead completely different lives and can't relate to their issues and so when serving their corporate masters they don't know how, let alone see the reason to address them.
If you talk about problems in largely white and rural communities, coastal elites and mass media dismiss it as “white grievance.” Well, look whose chickens came home to roost. I feel sorry for the country, but I don’t have the least bit of pity for that sort of person/viewpoint.
Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism).
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans.
I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here.
Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency.
"narrower ideological identification" lolz.
Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.”
So basically conservatism is better because you say "what about rural grievances" before advocating for policies that do nothing to address rural grievances (and in many cases increase the issues), however I shouldn't talk to you about it because it bores you. Got it.
I understand that the conservative politicians have to pretend that they're on the side of the rural people cause that's where they get the votes, but you aren't running for anything, you should be able to embrace how the core conservative ideas function.
There’s really no reason to argue with you that the conservative approach is better when you demonstrate your engagement is “Americans can’t embrace my policies because Socialism.” You’ll need to broaden your horizons first. I’m really fine leaving you to believe your preconceived notions because that’s pretty much all we come back to every time. Oh, and your policies ignore half of America and hurt the people they pretend to be aimed to help. The affected persons wised up, and this was in no small reason due to how terrible your policies were in the first place.
...as long as we’re just slinging lines back and forth
I have made no attempt to offer a policy for you to embrace. I have only posited that any policy that could be offered to address rural grievances would be made against, not by, republicans, and that they would use words like "Socialism" to argue against it. I think that vision is in keeping with the core beliefs of conservatism, bootstraps, less spending, and so on, and your incapacity to answer that in any other way than "That's a talking point and I hate that, here's some other talking points about minorities and white people that I'd like to shift the conversation to" reinforces my idea that your support for rural grievances is only of facade and that you would totally be okay with republicans opposing someone like, say, Bernie Sanders, doing something to address rural grievances.
On November 30 2017 03:38 Velr wrote: I talked about the asshole in alabama still being embraced by your president and your party
Sorry, did you have a response on the primary? Or who thought it was ok?
Hell, half the party leadership opposes him (ever heard of McConnell, the senate leader) and Trump can’t even mention him by name ... just says how bad Jones would be. You have a very odd way of using “embraced,” but maybe that’s lost in translation.
They could impeach him tomorrow for grifting off the presidency if they weren't supporting him doing it in exchange for avoiding the shame of impeaching their own president.
Whether they are "embracing" him doesn't really matter. Finding his displays of incompetence and grifting acceptable is a large enough indictment on it's own.
On November 30 2017 03:53 GreenHorizons wrote: Pretty sure I'm the closest it comes to blowing off rural America and white people being oppressed and I've repeatedly said that they have some legitimate grievances.
Many of them rise directly out of the strategy to pit poor whites and poor minorities against each other by establishing a (sometimes codified) pecking order between them that placed poor whites above other poor people and it's slow erosion as a result of a combination of factors such as increased minority political and economic leadership participation, expanded exploitation in search of more profits, and competing globally in a market that favors short term profit over medium term social order.
But some are just because the overwhelming majority of Democrats lead completely different lives and can't relate to their issues and so when serving their corporate masters they don't know how, let alone see the reason to address them.
The candidate you supported, Bernie Sanders, was much closer than Hillary to showing rural whites weren’t some afterthought in his political planning. I have no doubt he would’ve campaigned in a certain historically blue state that Hillary neglected.
Quite the distance between the amount of times you're annoyed that their grievances are being dismissed and the amount of times you'd advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances (cause you know, that'd be Socialism).
Imagine my shock that a liberal thinks conservative (or in Trump’s case, nationalist populist) policies don’t help Americans.
I'm not a liberal and that's quite the deflection you're trying to pull here.
Ouch. Welcome to politics. You think, whatever your narrower ideological identification, that I don’t advocate for policies that would actually address their grievances, like those would that are generally called Socialism. That’s usually a liberal position: our policies are the right policies for the white working class, and yours are wrong. The other side insults them for calling them socialist, but are wrong.
Well correct me if I'm wrong but I hear conservatism is more about the bootstraps and all. You could do stuff to help them but that takes money, and if you put money in that that's money that's not coming back for your tax cuts, your military spending, and your anti-immigration efficiency.
"narrower ideological identification" lolz.
Boring talking points. Like I said, at least one side admitted they were real problems, the other laughed them away. We’re not coming together on what policies would best help the white working class with that kind of start. You recognize only minority and women victims and white oppressors, after all. That would be the first solution, if it’s even possible in today’s climate. I don’t need the second and third restatement that “my policies aren’t socialism and work, your policies don’t work or help.”
So basically conservatism is better because you say "what about rural grievances" before advocating for policies that do nothing to address rural grievances (and in many cases increase the issues), however I shouldn't talk to you about it because it bores you. Got it.
I understand that the conservative politicians have to pretend that they're on the side of the rural people cause that's where they get the votes, but you aren't running for anything, you should be able to embrace how the core conservative ideas function.
There’s really no reason to argue with you that the conservative approach is better when you demonstrate your engagement is “Americans can’t embrace my policies because Socialism.” You’ll need to broaden your horizons first. I’m really fine leaving you to believe your preconceived notions because that’s pretty much all we come back to every time. Oh, and your policies ignore half of America and hurt the people they pretend to be aimed to help. The affected persons wised up, and this was in no small reason due to how terrible your policies were in the first place.
...as long as we’re just slinging lines back and forth
I have made no attempt to offer a policy for you to embrace. I have only posited that any policy that could be offered to address rural grievances would be made against, not by, republicans, and that they would use words like "Socialism" to argue against it. I think that vision is in keeping with the core beliefs of conservatism, bootstraps, less spending, and so on, and your incapacity to answer that in any other way than "That's a talking point and I hate that, here's some other talking points about minorities and white people that I'd like to shift the conversation to" reinforces my idea that your support for rural grievances is only of facade and that you would totally be okay with republicans opposing someone like, say, Bernie Sanders, doing something to address rural grievances.
Go on and continue to believe what you originally believed about conservatives and what policies really help the poor and middle America. I’ll save my time arguing in favor of my policies and against yours for someone less inclined to troll Socialism and lefty memes about conservatism. I get some enjoyment from reading the usual “throw money at the problem, hope it sticks” and “the dumb Americans labeled my ideas Socialism, waah” liberal/progressive throwaway lines. It’s a very neat system, and it kind of reminds people there’s really no point to arguing further. You just wait for the next current event to contrast how it fits or contrasts with the political and economic systems and smile and walk along.
Bernie’s message was perhaps so much more powerful, if not successful at reaching a conservative establishment-loving audience, because it didn’t make a habit of using racial tensions for political points. The idea of equality and fair economic conditions is a much more universal message than crying racist at everything that moves in order to score a few political points. Hillary too was much more acceptable a candidate when she talked about the issues and policy than when she helped shit up the environment with all that “racist sexist bigot” bullshit.
EPT
