|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States24466 Posts
Next year I'm going to have to draft a formal letter to JD Vance. What timeline is this...?
|
On November 08 2024 10:40 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 07:19 Falling wrote:What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now. Well, while you are building up your narrative of what is going on TL, make sure to not include my posts as part of the pattern of Lib/Dems as I am neither a liberal nor a democrat, nor am I walking back from my position on Trump as I do not believe I ever called Trump a fascist or Hitlerian or anything like it, but you can fact check me on that if you want. I do still think he is demonstrably too corrupt and too unconcerned about the separation of powers in federalism/ the branches of government to ever vote for. I do think it's silly to find Trump an unacceptable person to vote for but a reasonably acceptable person to give control of the most lethal military in the world after he said he would be a day 1 dictator. It may avoid charges of hypocrisy, but strikes me as pretty irresponsible EDIT: Especially after the Supreme Court already gave him immunity to do practically anything he wants legally The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one. However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you?
If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him).
Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening.
If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone.
|
On November 08 2024 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 10:40 Falling wrote:On November 08 2024 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 07:19 Falling wrote:What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now. Well, while you are building up your narrative of what is going on TL, make sure to not include my posts as part of the pattern of Lib/Dems as I am neither a liberal nor a democrat, nor am I walking back from my position on Trump as I do not believe I ever called Trump a fascist or Hitlerian or anything like it, but you can fact check me on that if you want. I do still think he is demonstrably too corrupt and too unconcerned about the separation of powers in federalism/ the branches of government to ever vote for. I do think it's silly to find Trump an unacceptable person to vote for but a reasonably acceptable person to give control of the most lethal military in the world after he said he would be a day 1 dictator. It may avoid charges of hypocrisy, but strikes me as pretty irresponsible EDIT: Especially after the Supreme Court already gave him immunity to do practically anything he wants legally The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one. However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you? If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him). Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening. If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone.
I just quote this post, but GH to put last few pages of your posts in context of your usual stance:
Liberals will descend to fascism - now you advocating for Democrats to become a fascist to stop Trump.
Lesser evilism = bad, but Democrats becoming fascist is better than Trump becoming president, therefore in this case lesser evilism good.
Sort of makes sense - you can then claim "told you Democrats will become fascists".
You come across much more dictatorial than Trump ever did (bolded parts). You are not afraid that Trump can become dictator, you are angry that you wont (or whatever Secretary you happened to be infatuated with).
|
On November 07 2024 18:19 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2024 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 04:53 Introvert wrote:
I have a bit of anecdata... at work taking to a 30 yr old, devout Catholic Mexican-American woman. She didn't vote, but when I brought it up she said after asking me who I wanted to win, before I even finished volunteered that Kamala was "terrible, like really bad." Said her brother voted Trump because of the economy, one sister and brother in law voted Trump also, and another sister and brother in law were also (?) Dems but undecided. "I asked why were they thinking about voting for her, she is against everything you believe."
Atm, Trump is doing far, far better with Hispanics and Catholics ever before. Sure, much of that is the economy (her brother's vote).
But...
Devout Christians knew she wasn't on their side, knew she'd use the power of the state to coerce their schools and hospitals. It might be why Trump is getting 40% in CA rn.
This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history.
And finally, Trump outran the rest of the GOP everywhere. This again is giving vibes to the last century, the FDR coalition didn't crack all at once (you could argue it's still cracking) but Republicans started winning the South with the presidency before it trickled down. There is a change happening here, and it's fascinating to watch. He is not an anchor, at least not this year.
Of course we have to remember thet much of this is because Kamala Harris sucks, too. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? that the US should be a secular country? Do you think that perhaps these devout Christians actually want a Christian nationalist state that imposes their Christian values on everyone else? And also, Trump is the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins, he fills every single one of them. lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. I question any devout Christian that would vote for such a man. You seem confused, perhaps. I don't know why you are going on about "Christian nationalism" (even Harris had the presence of mind to not say something like that) but I'm saying Catholics know Kamala wasn't on their side. It doesn't have anything to do with a theocracy (you are getting it mixed up because in left-wing discourse it's specifically Evangelicalism that is supposed to bring out a new Christian Nationalism. Conservative Catholics are instead just doing something like "ignoring the history of social justice in the Church"  ) Stuff like abortion bans is, generally, christians imposing their values on others. Im fine with people who think abortions are a bad thing, they are completely free to not have one. But sure lets put that to one side, my biggest wtf how with Christians voting for is this 'Kamala isnt on my side' but the serial adulterer who has cheated on every single one of his wives, who tear gasses protestors so he can pose outside a church he never visits with a bible he has never read and in fact sells a grift bible that guy surely is the embodiment of christian values. The notion that a man who tramples on every single supposed christian value is their guy just makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless your goal is not to follow christian values for your own sake but are willing to look past any an all fault to impose your supposed values on others by any means necessary. And yes these are not your values, I think, but someone elses. But my god it makes no sense if you take their supposed belief at face value.
That's a lot of words when I really don't think you have the trouble understanding what's going on. People are voting for the person they think will implement the polices they like. The character of the person matters, but that's a question for each individual. ultimately I find it just as silly to think Christians should vote for a someone who think Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform an abortion or some other procedure just because that person isn't an adulterer. Surely that's even more stupid.
On November 07 2024 18:34 Godwrath wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 16:02 Introvert wrote:
I didn't vote for Trump so I'm not in a mood to make a case on his economic policy atm. I will only say that A) "expertise" has really taken a hit recently and B) Kamala Harris absolutely *had* to lose and the sound, undeniable defeat she suffered and manner in which it occurred will be a great good for the future of the country on its own. Can you describe why it will be good for the future of the country in its own ?
Kind of what I mentioned earlier.
This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history.
Sure the economy matters but it's also a repudiation of the Biden administration's lawlessness, from their border policy to student loan forgiveness. A rejection of their lawfare campaign. The way they conducted themselves to stop him needed to fail. And, at least to some degree a rejection of the identity politics they have attempted to wield for years.
They set so many bad precedents, it needed to fail as I *hope* it will actually bring about a more moderate politics driven by appealing to people instead of identity groups. When Hillary lost they could blame the Electoral College. But this year Harris lost ground from Biden everywhere and lost the popular vote while Trump had a historically good performance with almost every group. It will hopefully make Dems realize they can't just call people names and count on ethnic solidarity to earn votes. And maybe they will have to be at least a little bit less condescending. There's a real chance to learn from the fact that they lost so much off of the Hispanic vote share, for example. Or that Trump improved noticeably with black men. If this pattern is the beginning of something going forward, it will change how both parties act and speak about each other and everyone else.
|
On November 08 2024 11:51 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 18:19 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2024 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 04:53 Introvert wrote:
I have a bit of anecdata... at work taking to a 30 yr old, devout Catholic Mexican-American woman. She didn't vote, but when I brought it up she said after asking me who I wanted to win, before I even finished volunteered that Kamala was "terrible, like really bad." Said her brother voted Trump because of the economy, one sister and brother in law voted Trump also, and another sister and brother in law were also (?) Dems but undecided. "I asked why were they thinking about voting for her, she is against everything you believe."
Atm, Trump is doing far, far better with Hispanics and Catholics ever before. Sure, much of that is the economy (her brother's vote).
But...
Devout Christians knew she wasn't on their side, knew she'd use the power of the state to coerce their schools and hospitals. It might be why Trump is getting 40% in CA rn.
This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history.
And finally, Trump outran the rest of the GOP everywhere. This again is giving vibes to the last century, the FDR coalition didn't crack all at once (you could argue it's still cracking) but Republicans started winning the South with the presidency before it trickled down. There is a change happening here, and it's fascinating to watch. He is not an anchor, at least not this year.
Of course we have to remember thet much of this is because Kamala Harris sucks, too. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? that the US should be a secular country? Do you think that perhaps these devout Christians actually want a Christian nationalist state that imposes their Christian values on everyone else? And also, Trump is the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins, he fills every single one of them. lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. I question any devout Christian that would vote for such a man. You seem confused, perhaps. I don't know why you are going on about "Christian nationalism" (even Harris had the presence of mind to not say something like that) but I'm saying Catholics know Kamala wasn't on their side. It doesn't have anything to do with a theocracy (you are getting it mixed up because in left-wing discourse it's specifically Evangelicalism that is supposed to bring out a new Christian Nationalism. Conservative Catholics are instead just doing something like "ignoring the history of social justice in the Church" ) Stuff like abortion bans is, generally, christians imposing their values on others. Im fine with people who think abortions are a bad thing, they are completely free to not have one. But sure lets put that to one side, my biggest wtf how with Christians voting for is this 'Kamala isnt on my side' but the serial adulterer who has cheated on every single one of his wives, who tear gasses protestors so he can pose outside a church he never visits with a bible he has never read and in fact sells a grift bible that guy surely is the embodiment of christian values. The notion that a man who tramples on every single supposed christian value is their guy just makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless your goal is not to follow christian values for your own sake but are willing to look past any an all fault to impose your supposed values on others by any means necessary. And yes these are not your values, I think, but someone elses. But my god it makes no sense if you take their supposed belief at face value. That's a lot of words when I really don't think you have the trouble understanding what's going on. People are voting for the person they think will implement the polices they like. The character of the person matters, but that's a question for each individual. ultimately I find it just as silly to think Christians should vote for a someone who think Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform an abortion or some other procedure just because that person isn't an adulterer. Surely that's even more stupid. Show nested quote +On November 07 2024 18:34 Godwrath wrote:On November 07 2024 16:02 Introvert wrote:
I didn't vote for Trump so I'm not in a mood to make a case on his economic policy atm. I will only say that A) "expertise" has really taken a hit recently and B) Kamala Harris absolutely *had* to lose and the sound, undeniable defeat she suffered and manner in which it occurred will be a great good for the future of the country on its own. Can you describe why it will be good for the future of the country in its own ? Kind of what I mentioned earlier. Show nested quote +This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history. Sure the economy matters but it's also a repudiation of the Biden administration's lawlessness, from their border policy to student loan forgiveness. A rejection of their lawfare campaign. The way they conducted themselves to stop him needed to fail. And, at least to some degree a rejection of the identity politics they have attempted to wield for years. They set so many bad precedents, it needed to fail as I *hope* it will actually bring about a more moderate politics driven by appealing to people instead of identity groups. When Hillary lost they could blame the Electoral College. But this year Harris lost ground from Biden everywhere and lost the popular vote while Trump had a historically good performance with almost every group. It will hopefully make Dems realize they can't just call people names and count on ethnic solidarity to earn votes. And maybe they will have to be at least a little bit less condescending. There's a real chance to learn from the fact that they lost so much off of the Hispanic vote share, for example. Or that Trump improved noticeably with black men. If this pattern is the beginning of something going forward, it will change how both parties act and speak about each other and everyone else.
To bolded, is this actual policy or just an extrapolation from the idea that dems generally don't want to allow abortion bans?
|
On November 08 2024 11:46 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 10:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 10:40 Falling wrote:On November 08 2024 08:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 08 2024 07:19 Falling wrote:What is terrifying to me is that libs/Dems are just going to retcon the "Trump is a fascist that will destroy democracy" thing, as we see happening now. Well, while you are building up your narrative of what is going on TL, make sure to not include my posts as part of the pattern of Lib/Dems as I am neither a liberal nor a democrat, nor am I walking back from my position on Trump as I do not believe I ever called Trump a fascist or Hitlerian or anything like it, but you can fact check me on that if you want. I do still think he is demonstrably too corrupt and too unconcerned about the separation of powers in federalism/ the branches of government to ever vote for. I do think it's silly to find Trump an unacceptable person to vote for but a reasonably acceptable person to give control of the most lethal military in the world after he said he would be a day 1 dictator. It may avoid charges of hypocrisy, but strikes me as pretty irresponsible EDIT: Especially after the Supreme Court already gave him immunity to do practically anything he wants legally The dictator on day one rhetoric is yet another reason why I am a never-Trumper (from afar as I can't vote, for obvious reasons.) It's disqualifying even if it was just a metaphor or however it might sanewashed by Trump loyalists. I don't see any way to be consistent and call oneself a believer in limited government who is conserving the constitution, not as a principled conservative, not even as a pragmatic one. However, until and unless he becomes a dictator on day one, I think it is premature to treat him as a dictator though the electorate did indeed give him control to the most lethal military in the world. But it was not me who is giving him anything. I think it is premature because generally speaking I think the most effective way to remove a dictator is to shoot or otherwise kill them though I guess you could forcibly remove him instead. I'm not prepared to do any of that Minority Report style. Are you? If you actually believe he attempted an insurrection, then taking care of him might have been the first thing Biden should have done as president and let the immunity thing come to the court that way (if the CIA/FBI/NSA/ST6/whatev somehow was traced back to him). Then, once Biden knew he would be immune from prosecution for pursuing justice for treason, that was another pivotal chance passed. Now, he knows this treasonous insurrectionist (set aside the fascism for the moment if one wishes) is going to get what he was after during his treasonous insurrection attempt, and he's got a chance to stop that from happening. If I believed Trump was a treasonous insurrectionist (let alone also a fascist with the whole project 2025 crew in tow) as a never-Trump conservative (dunno if that's a close enough descriptor for you) I would support Biden enacting patriotic justice based on that alone. I just quote this post, but GH to put last few pages of your posts in context of your usual stance: Liberals will descend to fascism - now you advocating for Democrats to become a fascist to stop Trump. Lesser evilism = bad, but Democrats becoming fascist is better than Trump becoming president, therefore in this case lesser evilism good. Sort of makes sense - you can then claim "told you Democrats will become fascists". You come across much more dictatorial than Trump ever did (bolded parts). You are not afraid that Trump can become dictator, you are angry that you wont (or whatever Secretary you happened to be infatuated with).
Arresting a guy for leading a coup is not fascism, it's just following the laws. Plenty of randos in the crowd that stormed the capitol got criminal charges.
The way I see it, there's a huge disconnect in messaging and actions of the Dems. Either Trump is all the things they say he is, and then them not dealing with him is a massive failure to uphold the law and security of the country; or he is not, in fact, all the things they say he is and they're just trying to push people into voting for them because 'big bad orange will get ya' otherwise.
|
United States41464 Posts
It's the first. They trusted in institutions that couldn't be relied upon.
|
On November 08 2024 12:46 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 11:51 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2024 18:19 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2024 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 04:53 Introvert wrote:
I have a bit of anecdata... at work taking to a 30 yr old, devout Catholic Mexican-American woman. She didn't vote, but when I brought it up she said after asking me who I wanted to win, before I even finished volunteered that Kamala was "terrible, like really bad." Said her brother voted Trump because of the economy, one sister and brother in law voted Trump also, and another sister and brother in law were also (?) Dems but undecided. "I asked why were they thinking about voting for her, she is against everything you believe."
Atm, Trump is doing far, far better with Hispanics and Catholics ever before. Sure, much of that is the economy (her brother's vote).
But...
Devout Christians knew she wasn't on their side, knew she'd use the power of the state to coerce their schools and hospitals. It might be why Trump is getting 40% in CA rn.
This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history.
And finally, Trump outran the rest of the GOP everywhere. This again is giving vibes to the last century, the FDR coalition didn't crack all at once (you could argue it's still cracking) but Republicans started winning the South with the presidency before it trickled down. There is a change happening here, and it's fascinating to watch. He is not an anchor, at least not this year.
Of course we have to remember thet much of this is because Kamala Harris sucks, too. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? that the US should be a secular country? Do you think that perhaps these devout Christians actually want a Christian nationalist state that imposes their Christian values on everyone else? And also, Trump is the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins, he fills every single one of them. lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. I question any devout Christian that would vote for such a man. You seem confused, perhaps. I don't know why you are going on about "Christian nationalism" (even Harris had the presence of mind to not say something like that) but I'm saying Catholics know Kamala wasn't on their side. It doesn't have anything to do with a theocracy (you are getting it mixed up because in left-wing discourse it's specifically Evangelicalism that is supposed to bring out a new Christian Nationalism. Conservative Catholics are instead just doing something like "ignoring the history of social justice in the Church" ) Stuff like abortion bans is, generally, christians imposing their values on others. Im fine with people who think abortions are a bad thing, they are completely free to not have one. But sure lets put that to one side, my biggest wtf how with Christians voting for is this 'Kamala isnt on my side' but the serial adulterer who has cheated on every single one of his wives, who tear gasses protestors so he can pose outside a church he never visits with a bible he has never read and in fact sells a grift bible that guy surely is the embodiment of christian values. The notion that a man who tramples on every single supposed christian value is their guy just makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless your goal is not to follow christian values for your own sake but are willing to look past any an all fault to impose your supposed values on others by any means necessary. And yes these are not your values, I think, but someone elses. But my god it makes no sense if you take their supposed belief at face value. That's a lot of words when I really don't think you have the trouble understanding what's going on. People are voting for the person they think will implement the polices they like. The character of the person matters, but that's a question for each individual. ultimately I find it just as silly to think Christians should vote for a someone who think Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform an abortion or some other procedure just because that person isn't an adulterer. Surely that's even more stupid. On November 07 2024 18:34 Godwrath wrote:On November 07 2024 16:02 Introvert wrote:
I didn't vote for Trump so I'm not in a mood to make a case on his economic policy atm. I will only say that A) "expertise" has really taken a hit recently and B) Kamala Harris absolutely *had* to lose and the sound, undeniable defeat she suffered and manner in which it occurred will be a great good for the future of the country on its own. Can you describe why it will be good for the future of the country in its own ? Kind of what I mentioned earlier. This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history. Sure the economy matters but it's also a repudiation of the Biden administration's lawlessness, from their border policy to student loan forgiveness. A rejection of their lawfare campaign. The way they conducted themselves to stop him needed to fail. And, at least to some degree a rejection of the identity politics they have attempted to wield for years. They set so many bad precedents, it needed to fail as I *hope* it will actually bring about a more moderate politics driven by appealing to people instead of identity groups. When Hillary lost they could blame the Electoral College. But this year Harris lost ground from Biden everywhere and lost the popular vote while Trump had a historically good performance with almost every group. It will hopefully make Dems realize they can't just call people names and count on ethnic solidarity to earn votes. And maybe they will have to be at least a little bit less condescending. There's a real chance to learn from the fact that they lost so much off of the Hispanic vote share, for example. Or that Trump improved noticeably with black men. If this pattern is the beginning of something going forward, it will change how both parties act and speak about each other and everyone else. To bolded, is this actual policy or just an extrapolation from the idea that dems generally don't want to allow abortion bans?
A few months ago Harris was asked if there should be any religious exemptions for her abortion policies and she said no. In the senate she supported a bill re-wording language in federal law that the Supreme Court ruled would allow Catholic hospitals to not cover certain drugs, including abortifacients, in their healthcare plans (it was Obama's DOJ that sued the hospital). It's not just abortion but that's the most notable one. There are a few other incidents in her past but the interview is the main one for the presidential race, as well as some questions she has asked Catholic judicial nominees as a senator that I alluded to earlier. She wouldn't even entertain the idea of any sort of compromise. You can disagree with that of course, as I'm sure you do, but certainly you can imagine the electoral effect it could have.
I think in general the swing the Catholic vote is yet another things dems will have to think about, I believe white Catholics are a kind of bellwether, they normally vote for the winner in presidential elections.
|
Northern Ireland22702 Posts
Catholic hospitals are a thing still over there?
Are we talking small clinics or sizeable ones that serve big chunks of a city?
|
On November 08 2024 14:29 WombaT wrote:
Catholic hospitals are a thing still over there?
Are we talking small clinics or sizeable ones that serve big chunks of a city?
Yes, don't know exact numbers but I think there are over 500 and a bunch are in California. Including big ones. There are actually more of them now than 20 years ago.
|
On November 08 2024 14:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 12:46 Fleetfeet wrote:On November 08 2024 11:51 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2024 18:19 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 10:42 Introvert wrote:On November 07 2024 05:43 Gorsameth wrote:On November 07 2024 04:53 Introvert wrote:
I have a bit of anecdata... at work taking to a 30 yr old, devout Catholic Mexican-American woman. She didn't vote, but when I brought it up she said after asking me who I wanted to win, before I even finished volunteered that Kamala was "terrible, like really bad." Said her brother voted Trump because of the economy, one sister and brother in law voted Trump also, and another sister and brother in law were also (?) Dems but undecided. "I asked why were they thinking about voting for her, she is against everything you believe."
Atm, Trump is doing far, far better with Hispanics and Catholics ever before. Sure, much of that is the economy (her brother's vote).
But...
Devout Christians knew she wasn't on their side, knew she'd use the power of the state to coerce their schools and hospitals. It might be why Trump is getting 40% in CA rn.
This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history.
And finally, Trump outran the rest of the GOP everywhere. This again is giving vibes to the last century, the FDR coalition didn't crack all at once (you could argue it's still cracking) but Republicans started winning the South with the presidency before it trickled down. There is a change happening here, and it's fascinating to watch. He is not an anchor, at least not this year.
Of course we have to remember thet much of this is because Kamala Harris sucks, too. Do you believe in the separation of church and state? that the US should be a secular country? Do you think that perhaps these devout Christians actually want a Christian nationalist state that imposes their Christian values on everyone else? And also, Trump is the living embodiment of the 7 deadly sins, he fills every single one of them. lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride. I question any devout Christian that would vote for such a man. You seem confused, perhaps. I don't know why you are going on about "Christian nationalism" (even Harris had the presence of mind to not say something like that) but I'm saying Catholics know Kamala wasn't on their side. It doesn't have anything to do with a theocracy (you are getting it mixed up because in left-wing discourse it's specifically Evangelicalism that is supposed to bring out a new Christian Nationalism. Conservative Catholics are instead just doing something like "ignoring the history of social justice in the Church" ) Stuff like abortion bans is, generally, christians imposing their values on others. Im fine with people who think abortions are a bad thing, they are completely free to not have one. But sure lets put that to one side, my biggest wtf how with Christians voting for is this 'Kamala isnt on my side' but the serial adulterer who has cheated on every single one of his wives, who tear gasses protestors so he can pose outside a church he never visits with a bible he has never read and in fact sells a grift bible that guy surely is the embodiment of christian values. The notion that a man who tramples on every single supposed christian value is their guy just makes absolutely no sense to me. Unless your goal is not to follow christian values for your own sake but are willing to look past any an all fault to impose your supposed values on others by any means necessary. And yes these are not your values, I think, but someone elses. But my god it makes no sense if you take their supposed belief at face value. That's a lot of words when I really don't think you have the trouble understanding what's going on. People are voting for the person they think will implement the polices they like. The character of the person matters, but that's a question for each individual. ultimately I find it just as silly to think Christians should vote for a someone who think Catholic hospitals should be forced to perform an abortion or some other procedure just because that person isn't an adulterer. Surely that's even more stupid. On November 07 2024 18:34 Godwrath wrote:On November 07 2024 16:02 Introvert wrote:
I didn't vote for Trump so I'm not in a mood to make a case on his economic policy atm. I will only say that A) "expertise" has really taken a hit recently and B) Kamala Harris absolutely *had* to lose and the sound, undeniable defeat she suffered and manner in which it occurred will be a great good for the future of the country on its own. Can you describe why it will be good for the future of the country in its own ? Kind of what I mentioned earlier. This actually gives me hope, nit only might we finally witness the end of the "coalition of the ascendant" thst dems have been trying to make happen for two decades now, but it seems like the categorical rejection of Harris really is a blow against Dems lurch to the left on so many social and cultural issues. Some dem senate candidates will win or almost win where Trump won, but they stayed away from Harris like the plague (Rosen in NV and Baldwin in WI). They have to at least appear more moderate. Iirc Casey in PA was running ads about working with Trump. There is no silver lining in the presidential race, she and what people thought she stood for was rejected by the most diverse Republican vote in modern history. Sure the economy matters but it's also a repudiation of the Biden administration's lawlessness, from their border policy to student loan forgiveness. A rejection of their lawfare campaign. The way they conducted themselves to stop him needed to fail. And, at least to some degree a rejection of the identity politics they have attempted to wield for years. They set so many bad precedents, it needed to fail as I *hope* it will actually bring about a more moderate politics driven by appealing to people instead of identity groups. When Hillary lost they could blame the Electoral College. But this year Harris lost ground from Biden everywhere and lost the popular vote while Trump had a historically good performance with almost every group. It will hopefully make Dems realize they can't just call people names and count on ethnic solidarity to earn votes. And maybe they will have to be at least a little bit less condescending. There's a real chance to learn from the fact that they lost so much off of the Hispanic vote share, for example. Or that Trump improved noticeably with black men. If this pattern is the beginning of something going forward, it will change how both parties act and speak about each other and everyone else. To bolded, is this actual policy or just an extrapolation from the idea that dems generally don't want to allow abortion bans? A few months ago Harris was asked if there should be any religious exemptions for her abortion policies and she said no. In the senate she supported a bill re-wording language in federal law that the Supreme Court ruled would allow Catholic hospitals to not cover certain drugs, including abortifacients, in their healthcare plans (it was Obama's DOJ that sued the hospital). It's not just abortion but that's the most notable one. There are a few other incidents in her past but the interview is the main one for the presidential race, as well as some questions she has asked Catholic judicial nominees as a senator that I alluded to earlier. She wouldn't even entertain the idea of any sort of compromise. You can disagree with that of course, as I'm sure you do, but certainly you can imagine the electoral effect it could have. I think in general the swing the Catholic vote is yet another things dems will have to think about, I believe white Catholics are a kind of bellwether, they normally vote for the winner in presidential elections.
Thanks, I appreciate the sourcing. It's very easy to get lost in what was actually said / what is actually policy and what isn't.
|
Northern Ireland22702 Posts
On November 08 2024 14:40 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2024 14:29 WombaT wrote:
Catholic hospitals are a thing still over there?
Are we talking small clinics or sizeable ones that serve big chunks of a city? Yes, don't know exact numbers but I think there are over 500 and a bunch are in California. Including big ones. There are actually more of them now than 20 years ago.
Ah cheers, that does somewhat complicate things.
I’m generally in favour of religious opt-outs, provided they’re some kind of optional or non-essential service, or an alternative option for an essential service otherwise catered for. Or how state-funded they are.
In this instance I’m classifying the hospital part as the essential service incidentally and not the abortion services specifically.
So my opinion will bounce around quite a bit depending on some of these factors. If a Catholic hospital is the only gig in town so to speak, then its stance becomes a de facto practical outlawing, or at least inconveniencing of those seeking abortions. If it’s one of many options, it isn’t so I’ve no great issue.
If it’s fully funded by the secular state, well ya gotta get with the program. If not, you’ve got more leeway.
We don’t have Catholic hospitals over here (historic remnants of them yes), but we do certainly have Catholic schools. I’ll have a different position on quite how Catholic they can go depending on whether they’re a privately funded one or a state funded institution
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
