Jpowors

Not the new Donald Trump Presidency thread

51,440 posts in this topic

On 9/11/2019 at 0:04 PM, Psychic Gibbon said:

Addressing the needs of voters is more important to them than being perceived as a moderate?

giphy.gif

The very, very basic thing about politics is that it's all about power. In order to maintain power you need to scratch the back of those who give you that power. In democratic systems, the backs that need to be scratched are the voters and to do so you need to provide material benefits that address their needs.

That, for example, is how when you ignore or feed into the problems you can lose the Midwest to a demagogue who blames scapegoats and how a Republican can win a Congressional race by poaching a subset of voters that were reliably Democratic. If you do not offer what the voters need then you'd have to be immensely inept or insane to expect them to vote for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scrunchomarx said:

So that’s what bill Barr was doing

From what I know, Fox News viewers ******* hate Shepard Smith. Could be a pressure campaign from Barr or someone else to remove him but I'm more inclined to believe it's due to the viewers turning on him since he burst their bubble every so often.

Sn4tteRBoxXeR and AF89 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Serge said:

I said earlier I don't think Democrats should pursue evangelicals, but most Americans are still Christian, and Christians very often convert several times in their life to other kinds of Christianity. Sometimes people stick with a version because they're comfortable with it; other times they realize that's why they needed to make a change.

Sanders gives a version of leftist Democratic politics primarily focused on improving people's lives. He's a rational response to an irrational era. He might even become genuinely endearing for the same reasons Trump was endearing. By that I mean that the media absolutely ******* hates him. Most people hate political media now. He ought to have widening appeal as a useful iconoclast more than someone strongly tied to the Democrats and the liberal media.

I gave Bernie Sanders short shrift there.  Honestly, his main approach to things is one I see as productive and far more likely to find mainstream Christian support.  Not likely majority support, especially among evangelicals, but he can pick off a whole lot more voters who won't view him as being actively opposed to who they are.

 

41 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

He didn't care about the social issues they supposedly hold dear during the primary. They flocked to him nonetheless.

It has nothing to do with respect. It has everything to do with him wanting what they actually care about when you remove the veil of social conservative issues and viewing him as a fighter for those things. The fact that he's an imperfect vessel doesn't matter in the slightest and it never really did prior to him.

You still think it's about the issues.  It isn't.  They flocked to him because he doesn't treat them like an enemy.  He isn't looking for ways to punish them for wrongthink.

Serge likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

I understand that. However, that wasn't the argument put forward.

I was really more responding to this (which I failed to quote).

37 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

I voted for Hillary for the SCOTUS picks. Unless the candidate is willing to pack the court then it doesn't really make a difference now since they already have a majority.

 

 

Again, not trying to convince you of anything, and even with the courts I'd have a very, very hard time voting for Biden at this point.  Hope it doesn't come to that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

From what I know, Fox News viewers ******* hate Shepard Smith. Could be a pressure campaign from Barr or someone else to remove him but I'm more inclined to believe it's due to the viewers turning on him since he burst their bubble every so often.

Doesn't his show run during nap time though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

From what I know, Fox News viewers ******* hate Shepard Smith. Could be a pressure campaign from Barr or someone else to remove him but I'm more inclined to believe it's due to the viewers turning on him since he burst their bubble every so often.

He was a true enemy of the people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

I gave Bernie Sanders short shrift there.  Honestly, his main approach to things is one I see as productive and far more likely to find mainstream Christian support.  Not likely majority support, especially among evangelicals, but he can pick off a whole lot more voters who won't view him as being actively opposed to who they are.

 

You still think it's about the issues.  It isn't.  They flocked to him because he doesn't treat them like an enemy.  He isn't looking for ways to punish them for wrongthink.

That argument would float if evangelicals weren't ruby red or if that was a recent development. Instead, when Republicans don't uphold their own version of political correctness they don't vote Democratic or stay at home. So, the whole respect thing is a sunk ship.

Instead, it's about knowing the GOP is the best vehicle for change that they want and that they will have nowhere near the same amount of clout within the Democratic Party. It is thus far easier to twist the arms of imperfect GOP candidates and overlook stuff that never really mattered than it is to push the rock up the Democratic hill. Likewise, it is more convenient to use someone who has demonstrated that he's willing to brawl for those aims, even if they're nowhere close to ideal, than it is to get the perfect candidate who is viewed as a weakling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, achilles return said:

and i agree with @bdog 29, it's kinda of silly to compare it to republican contempt for black and brown people, which is just racism. disdain for evangelicals is usually centered around their garbage politics and morals. 

 

Exactly. The fact that he's so sure of that stupid ******* hypothesis that he keeps posting it really irks me. It's asinine on its face. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bdog 29 said:

Exactly. The fact that he's so sure of that stupid ******* hypothesis that he keeps posting it really irks me. It's asinine on its face. 

no you don't understand, it's about punishing wrongthink. it's not like politics has any material consequences for anyone. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

That argument would float if evangelicals weren't ruby red or if that was a recent development. Instead, when Republicans don't uphold their own version of political correctness they don't vote Democratic or stay at home. So, the whole respect thing is a sunk ship.

Instead, it's about knowing the GOP is the best vehicle for change that they want and that they will have nowhere near the same amount of clout within the Democratic Party. It is thus far easier to twist the arms of imperfect GOP candidates and overlook stuff that never really mattered than it is to push the rock up the Democratic hill.

You have some idea of what evangelicals "really" want.  You keep saying it.  What do you think that thing is?

The Catholic vote has been reliably Democrat for quite some time now, because Democrats were able to tip the cap to them on most of the social issues they care about.  Devout Catholics take issue with abortion, for example, but Bill Clinton glossed it as "safe, legal and rare."  And Democrats largely left them alone.

The last president -- who in his first campaign did a masterful job of reaching out to evangelicals, not writing off any voters -- kept up a dogged campaign to make the Little Sisters of the Poor pay for abortifacient contraceptive coverage, which embodies two things Catholic social policy and Catholic theology is opposed to.  That's how you lose the reached.  I'm not at all saying evangelicals are going to have a turnaround anytime soon.  If Republicans started today courting black voters and being critical of those within their party who peddle soft racism and patronize them, blacks aren't going to start voting Republican either.  So my point isn't that Democrats need to court evangelical voters to win their support short-term.  My point is there are good and valid reasons why evangelicals are "ruby red" as you put it.  Those reasons have been well earned by Democrats, just as the reasons blacks don't vote Republican are well earned by Republicans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, achilles return said:

no you don't understand, it's about punishing wrongthink. it's not like politics has any material consequences for anyone. 

Yeah, that's an idea only an insulated white guy who never interacts with black people would think is legit.

"Why do all those black folks keep voting for Democrats? Is it because the alternative will do everything in their power to make their lives worse?" 

"Nah, it's because they show them respect."

It's a different, more palatable flavor of the "they vote for them because they get free stuff" kool-aid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'll ask again since it was pointedly ignored the first time - why is it ok to write off beto's audience as a lunatic fringe but paramount that we rationalize evangelical support for heinous policies as the result of some sort of "lack of respect" from democrats? the entire conversation feels so absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, achilles return said:

no you don't understand, it's about punishing wrongthink. it's not like politics has any material consequences for anyone. 

You're not stupid. So I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're saying stupid things.

A presidential candidate just said he wants to selectively eliminate tax exemptions from religious organizations who oppose same sex marriage.  That is a viewpoint based discrimination.  It is also a government imposition of theological views, in that those religious organizations who hold the government's favored view still get tax breaks, while those who do not must pay taxes.  One wonders if Beto would also like to increase their taxes.  And that, in addition to violating the Free Exercise clause, also is tantamount to establishment, since the government is giving preferential treatment based solely on which religious views one holds.

You may agree with punishing wrongthink.  If that's the case, at least have the balls to admit it instead of pretending I'm out here in left field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

I gave Bernie Sanders short shrift there.  Honestly, his main approach to things is one I see as productive and far more likely to find mainstream Christian support.  Not likely majority support, especially among evangelicals, but he can pick off a whole lot more voters who won't view him as being actively opposed to who they are.

 

You still think it's about the issues.  It isn't.  They flocked to him because he doesn't treat them like an enemy.  He isn't looking for ways to punish them for wrongthink.

Yeah, I mean there's like a hundred million people that didn't vote in 2016, and most of them are regular people with regular people problems. Trump is vilified in the mainstream media to the point that it's become less pleasant to engage the media in general. Bernie ought to be genuinely appealing to people that don't strongly identify with either party and want someone who is going to fight for the people as opposed to himself. He should have a lot of appeal for being someone that doesn't play the media's game and also doesn't intentionally stir up the media to hide his **** like Trump. If he won the nomination he might do pretty well with people who don't normally participate in politics even to the point of responding to polls. Biden's going to do worse than whatever the polls say he'll do and Warren's a compromise candidate who does not yet have a usable response to Trump calling her Pocahontas. Bernie's politics have the scariest name, but a socialist in the White House isn't as scary as it was even three years ago, and they're gonna call everyone a socialist, anyway. I really feel like he'd be the best in the general right now.

JDaveG and Carter like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, achilles return said:

i'll ask again since it was pointedly ignored the first time - why is it ok to write off beto's audience as a lunatic fringe but paramount that we rationalize evangelical support for heinous policies as the result of some sort of "lack of respect" from democrats? the entire conversation feels so absurd.

I haven't asked you to rationalize anything.  You were previously being ignored because you are arguing against strawmen while simultaneously climbing your high horse.  I responded to you just now because, unlike the idiot you're playing grab *** with (who I have on ignore), I still have enough respect for you to think you'll take a step back and listen to what I'm saying instead of trying to fit it into a caricature you have created in your head.  But I'm real close to just leaving it to @Serge.  Y'all won't even listen to him.  There's really no reason to think you'd listen to me, even though I bet I know a whole lot more evangelicals than you do.  

What I'm saying has the ability to help the causes you support. You're too busy crapping on evangelicals and getting mad at me because I'm telling you the truth about why they hate Democrats to see that.

@Psychic Gibbon mentioned that politics is chiefly power.  Donald Trump is the president right now because he picked off enough disaffected Catholics and blue collar white workers to win the entire thing.  He didn't have to win them all over.  He just had to speak to them in ways that no Republican had in decades.  A good Democrat could do the same thing with evangelicals -- Bernie was mentioned above, and I still contend Bernie Sanders wins in 2016 if he had gotten the nomination.  

But if you want Beto and Booker and the rest of them to control the narrative, keep doing what you're doing, and you'll keep getting what you're getting.  ****, you support Sanders, and yet you have enough of a need to defend Beto Effing O'Rourke that you want to argue these points with me, because as much as he doesn't blow your skirt up, you really, really, really don't like evangelicals.

They don't like you either.  I'm trying to help you figure out why.

Serge likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Boner said:

The back and forth between Jdave and Achilles is a million times better when you pretend that they are father and son.

9e9703f7531e18a6672790734f9543e5.jpg

Serge likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

The Catholic vote has been reliably Democrat for quite some time now, because Democrats were able to tip the cap to them on most of the social issues they care about.  Devout Catholics take issue with abortion, for example, but Bill Clinton glossed it as "safe, legal and rare."  And Democrats largely left them alone.

So I don't know where you get your "facts" but you might want to reconsider that source...catholic-vote3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the substance of what Beto said, it was really ******* stupid. Because it gives white evangelicals more ammo to claim they're discriminated against in the culture wars. So even if this never happens, they'll always go back to that one as an example of how the government is out to get Christians.

It did no one any good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, JDaveG said:

You have some idea of what evangelicals "really" want.  You keep saying it.  What do you think that thing is?

The Catholic vote has been reliably Democrat for quite some time now, because Democrats were able to tip the cap to them on most of the social issues they care about.  Devout Catholics take issue with abortion, for example, but Bill Clinton glossed it as "safe, legal and rare."  And Democrats largely left them alone.

The last president -- who in his first campaign did a masterful job of reaching out to evangelicals, not writing off any voters -- kept up a dogged campaign to make the Little Sisters of the Poor pay for abortifacient contraceptive coverage, which embodies two things Catholic social policy and Catholic theology is opposed to.  That's how you lose the reached.  I'm not at all saying evangelicals are going to have a turnaround anytime soon.  If Republicans started today courting black voters and being critical of those within their party who peddle soft racism and patronize them, blacks aren't going to start voting Republican either.  So my point isn't that Democrats need to court evangelical voters to win their support short-term.  My point is there are good and valid reasons why evangelicals are "ruby red" as you put it.  Those reasons have been well earned by Democrats, just as the reasons blacks don't vote Republican are well earned by Republicans.

Speaking from personal experience within the Catholic Church and knowing electoral history, devout Catholics tend to be reliably Republican due to the reasons you mentioned after they were pried from the Democrats during the 80s thanks to Reagan's push to court and mobilize religious voters. I think something around 80% of Catholics who identify as white conservatives vote Republican, for example. The ones who are wooed by stuff like that Clinton quote are usually pro-choice Dems who just don't want to admit it due to social and religious pressure. Those kinds of arguments, however, give them an out when arguing for it. Obviously this doesn't cover everyone, since non-white Catholics tend to gravitate toward the Dems for non-religious reasons, but it covers a significant chunk of them.

As for what evangelicals really want, it's pretty simple: Family values and what not was always virtue signaling. They never, ever actually cared about that stuff. They care about culture war stuff like gay marriage though it's mostly used as a stick to get the masses to the polls. The carrot, which is related to the culture war stuff, is maintenance of cultural and economic power (eg. tax breaks, draconian law and order). That's why the culture war stuff is an effective stick: The more they lose ground there the more they can whip up the base to vote so they can hold the line.

This isn't to say that's unique to evangelicals, since you can see that within most voting blocs, but it's definitely not about Trump simply respecting them more.

bdog 29 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sn4tteRBoxXeR said:

So I don't know where you get your "facts" but you might want to reconsider that source...catholic-vote3.jpg

One election the Catholics went for Republicans in 27 years.

Man, I was WAY off!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JDaveG said:

One election the Catholics went for Republicans in 27 years.

Man, I was WAY off!

Dude it's proof that you are saying things that you are flat wrong about. And then when that's brought up to you as being a flaw in  your argument, you come back with sarcasm instead of admitting that you just used ******** to "make a point."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, JDaveG said:

You're not stupid. So I'm having a hard time figuring out why you're saying stupid things.

A presidential candidate just said he wants to selectively eliminate tax exemptions from religious organizations who oppose same sex marriage.  That is a viewpoint based discrimination.  It is also a government imposition of theological views, in that those religious organizations who hold the government's favored view still get tax breaks, while those who do not must pay taxes.  One wonders if Beto would also like to increase their taxes.  And that, in addition to violating the Free Exercise clause, also is tantamount to establishment, since the government is giving preferential treatment based solely on which religious views one holds.

You may agree with punishing wrongthink.  If that's the case, at least have the balls to admit it instead of pretending I'm out here in left field.

i don't agree with beto. i don't have strong opinions tax exemption status at all, but i certainly wouldn't accept arbitrarily treating religious organizations differently based on their viewpoints. but i can sympathize with his frustration of being a southerner who has been surrounded by self-righteous people that have inflicted monumental suffering on others through their political choices. 

the thing is, you didn't stop at beto. you extended your conversation far beyond him - first to warren (who didn't say anything remotely offensively to anyone that isn't a homophobe), and then to all democrats:

Quote

There isn't one person running as a Democrat who shows an ounce of concern for them.

and given your entire argument has centered around respect or the lack of it, it seems completely self-defeating to start off by calling some select group of voters a "lunatic fringe". how can you pretend to be taken sincerely, if you act like the only one who's allowed to make judgement about who does and doesn't deserve contempt for their political views? 

WOR likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now