| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Ted Cruz
Hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha
You could tell Pence radio career set him up to be a natural speaker. Im looking forward to the debates now. Hopefully we get some meat this time around, last election the debates were a joke.
you would have better luck hoping for a winning lottery ticket
It's important to remember how much Johnson and (primarily) Nixon changed the party dynamic. Before the Southern Strategy, the Republicans were the closest thing we had to good guys—a part with a spotty record on social justice, as opposed to an outright dreadful one. Then Nixon worked out how to dogwhistle like a pro and everything flipped. Democrats are the ones being pressed to be more courageous and proactive about civil rights these days, while Republicans like Cruz just try to hold onto the bigots Nixon earned them and alienate basically everyone else in their party in the process.
It's worth remembering just how little a party affiliation can mean if you skip ahead a few years. The meanings of "Republican" and "Democrat" are about as consistent as the meaning of "literally"—more-or-less reliable, but you have to watch out for big shifts.
Let's not go to far with it. Before LBJ, both parties were lousy on race. The Republicans had solid support among black voters (such as there were) and the Democrats held the Solid South largely because of legacy from the Civil War, not because of any great differences in policy.
The Democrats were far better on other social justice issues: particularly labor and unions, even before FDR, Democrats were the working man's party and Republicans were the business party.
Hence "spotty record". Republicans got into the habit of taking the black vote for granted at a certain point. They were like the Democrats now: Not actually that great about justice issues, but way better PR about it, and a good sight more passive.
I'll concede the labor and union stuff, though. "Social justice" often forgets about economic disparity. It's a blind spot.
I really liked Chris Cristie's witch trial for Hillary. There is just something about a large mob of lunatics chanting "Guilty! Guilty! Guilty!" that makes me feel good about democracy.Sadly, all I could think about watching that was whether it would sound any different if the crowd were filled with holdout Sanders supporters...
We* would be more likely to chant "Prepare the tumbrils! Prepare the tumbrils!"
---
*I actually was never a Sanders supporter.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to wonder if we all share some responsibility for Trump's viability as a candidate. Has daily political discourse become so hyperbolic that words like "fascist" and "criminal" have lost any real meaning?
Opposition to things like racism, sexism, and demagoguery should be non-partisan. :(
Yeah, it's not a happy time to be a conservative in America (or just about anywhere, for that matter). If you put yourself in their shoes, things are pretty bleak and have been for a while. The world at large doesn't put up with them and their beliefs anymore. Where they were once at least tolerated, they're shamed and marginalized instead. I'm sure they feel like their zone of comfort is rapidly shrinking around them, and I'm sure that's scary as hell to a lot of conservatives.
None of this is to say they don't deserve the experience they're going through. They absolutely do deserve it. But it's easy to understand why they're angry, why they're frustrated, why they feel like nothing is going their way, and why they want someone capable of throwing a punch in their name, even if it's just punching a metaphorical wall.
Yeah but it's like the person that keeps dating the "wrong" person that eventually wants to date you. You should pause and ask yourself, "Have I become one of the 'wrong' people now?"
I mean if the person has a track record that is horrible and is interested in you consider that maybe you are one of the ones that is bad too.
Conservatives keep finding themselves in the company of bad people and people making bad decisions and never seem to wonder what the says about themselves.
No one ever asks that question unless something forces them to face the possibility. It's a non-partisan human behavior.
I feel odd then. I have literally faced that situation, and realized perhaps I didn't want to go down that road and moved on.
Can't say I haven't occasionally found myself in a place I didn't want to be and not proud of how I got there but self reflection has (and likely will) save me more than just about anything else ever has.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Before I do anything, I ask myself "would a stupid person do that" if the answer is "yes" I don't do it" - Dwight Schrutte, The Office.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Watching the professional politicians do their shtick, I always flash on one of Yeats' lines:
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
At this point, I'm relatively certain that if someone pulled the fire alarm before tonight got underway and no one got to speak, RNC staff would consider it a good night.
But I got extra popcorn!
They haven't even let Rand Paul plagiarize Milania Trump plagiarizing Michelle Obama.
Yet.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, was gleeful to drop more hatred and fear on Muslims, continuing the theme of conflating them with terrorists. He says he cried with the "grieving moms, dads, brothers, and sisters" of the Orlando victims. He was eager to exploit their grief for this sh!tshow of a political convention...
...yet he never mentioned that those victims were mostly LGBT individuals, and he made no mention of the grief of the victims' spouses and significant others. >:(
But I got extra popcorn!
You can never have enough!
I don't even like popcorn. :-D
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
So my favorite moment from the convention last night was Ted Cruz getting nearly universally boo'ed for urging people to "vote your conscience" - an interesting response from a crowd that thinks they hold the 'moral' high ground.
Though keep in mind, it's also Ted Cruz saying that.
The republican primary process coming down to Cruz v. Trump was part of what made it pretty disturbing.
Because it was essentially the hyper-religious sleazeball bigot v. the secular sleazeball bigot.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, that wasn't me granting any kind of endorsement for Cruz or ascribing noble motives to his speech. :)
I don't want this thread to get locked so I'll refrain from sharing my candid opinion of Cruz.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of honest questions here...
What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?
And what does wanting to secure our borders with any kind of wall (be it an actual physical one or electronic one) have to do with racism as well?
I mean, most any country in the world will arrest and deport a person (at best) who crosses into their country illegally.
Yet it seems that there are those that appear to not want any restrictions at all placed on coming into ours, and say that it is a bad thing to want to know (via documentation) just who is coming in.
I've heard it said before when the right speaks on the topic of illegal immigration that this country was founded on immigration, totally ignoring that the person specifically said "illegal" immigration. I am sure there are those on the right that really do want to just totally close this country off and be an isolationist nation, but the vast majority of those on the right just want to stop those crossing into our country illegally; and if it takes a wall to do that (because nothing else seems to work), why is that a bad thing? Such a wall is not meant to stop immigration, just illegal immigration.
A begrudging respect for Ted Cruz was not what I was expecting out of the GOP convention. As much as I despise the man, I do respect him for his comments on not being a "servile puppy". Though he never was one to follow the rest of the GOP, rarely is he in the right when doing so.
|
A couple of honest questions here...
What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?
This is not exactly an honest question, as I don't think anyone in this thread has drawn that connection.
You can tell Trump is a racist because of how he talks about illegal immigrants from Mexico (rapists!), not that he talks about the issue.
A couple of honest questions here...
What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?
And what does wanting to secure our borders with any kind of wall (be it an actual physical one or electronic one) have to do with racism as well?
I mean, most any country in the world will arrest and deport a person (at best) who crosses into their country illegally.
Yet it seems that there are those that appear to not want any restrictions at all placed on coming into ours, and say that it is a bad thing to want to know (via documentation) just who is coming in.
I've heard it said before when the right speaks on the topic of illegal immigration that this country was founded on immigration, totally ignoring that the person specifically said "illegal" immigration. I am sure there are those on the right that really do want to just totally close this country off and be an isolationist nation, but the vast majority of those on the right just want to stop those crossing into our country illegally; and if it takes a wall to do that (because nothing else seems to work), why is that a bad thing? Such a wall is not meant to stop immigration, just illegal immigration.
9 times out of 10 the person saying it thinks anyone of hispanic decent is an illegal.
A wall wont actually be effective. There is way too much land for it to work in any kind of realistic scenario, and the costs are astronomical.
It ignores the reality of the situation, that there are already millions of people in this country illegally and that it is not feasible to deport them. We don't have the infrastructure or manpower to do it.
It is generally motivated by complaints about them stealing jobs, which probably wouldn't happen if the person saying it was actually good at and willing to do the job in the first place.
In the rare cases where they actually are stealing work, it is because they can't find normal jobs so they are forced to resort to places that are willing to do it illegally, which will generally be places looking to undercut US labor laws. Allowing them to work legally will reduce the black market and actually put US workers on the same footing, and generate tax revenue that can be used to alleviate the many issues caused by large numbers of people hiding from the government.
In general, it is a terrible solution to a problem that would be fairly easily solved by letting the people stay legally.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of honest questions here...
What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?
And what does wanting to secure our borders with any kind of wall (be it an actual physical one or electronic one) have to do with racism as well?
I mean, most any country in the world will arrest and deport a person (at best) who crosses into their country illegally.
Yet it seems that there are those that appear to not want any restrictions at all placed on coming into ours, and say that it is a bad thing to want to know (via documentation) just who is coming in.
I've heard it said before when the right speaks on the topic of illegal immigration that this country was founded on immigration, totally ignoring that the person specifically said "illegal" immigration. I am sure there are those on the right that really do want to just totally close this country off and be an isolationist nation, but the vast majority of those on the right just want to stop those crossing into our country illegally; and if it takes a wall to do that (because nothing else seems to work), why is that a bad thing? Such a wall is not meant to stop immigration, just illegal immigration.
Apologies in advance if I get too gead-bitey-offey, as this is near and dear to my heart.
1. Most illegal immigrants are not Mexican. Trump says otherwise.
2. Most ilegal immigrants get in via work visas and then overstaying. A wall does nothing to prevent that, and it does even less to prevent the flow of drugs.
3. More people immigrate TO Mexico from the US than vice versa.
4. Immigrants are less likely to commit crimes than their native born counterparts. From Trump: "They're bringing crime...they're rapists..."
5. Trump has both underestimated the cost of his little pet project and has nowhere to get the money from, odd for a supposedly fiscally responsible candidate.
In conclusion: Trump is using lies and fear to grow his xenophobic, authoritarian power base, and demonizing an "other" is an easy way to do that. He's done it to Hispanics, he's done it to Muslims, and I would be surprised if he didn't do it to anyone else.
This "Great Wall" is merely the most obvious example.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
RE: Ted Cruz
Hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha hahaha
I've just read that some are calling Cruz's speech "The Ted Wedding."
Cruz: {twisting the knife} "Heidi sends her regards."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A couple of honest questions here...
What does wanting to stop illegal (and that is THE key term here), illegal immigration have to do with racism?
This is not exactly an honest question, as I don't think anyone in this thread has drawn that connection.
You can tell Trump is a racist because of how he talks about illegal immigrants from Mexico (rapists!), not that he talks about the issue.
This. Essentially, Trump promotes policy against entire groups of people (like Muslims) based on pure generalizations, which is racist.
May I ask an honest question? Republicans are always trying to limit the size of government and control spending. Building a wall on the southern boarder would cost at least 20 billion dollars and require that same investment every few years to maintain. There is no guarantee the wall will even be able to prevent illegal entry, as even Trump himself said rope and ladders would get over it. What makes this particular project not a huge, if not the hugest, boondoggle in government history?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is not exactly an honest question, as I don't think anyone in this thread has drawn that connection.It is an honest question.
I did not ask it because I saw anyone here drawing that conclusion (though I have seen the word racist applied to those on the right in this thread).
Apologies for questioning your intentions, but your series of questions did seem rather leading. A little more context might have made it more clear what you were hoping to understand more about.
Do you understand a little better the perspective that considers Trump and the policies he advocates blatantly racist? (I think lucky7 was the most comprehensive if I had to pick one)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A begrudging respect for Ted Cruz was not what I was expecting out of the GOP convention. As much as I despise the man, I do respect him for his comments on not being a "servile puppy". Though he never was one to follow the rest of the GOP, rarely is he in the right when doing so.If it makes you feel better, don't think of it as a principled stand, but as a political gamble that Trump will fail horribly and opposing him now will stand Cruz in good stead for his 2020 presidential bid.
Oh, yeah. It was pretty transparent (to the point that it almost sounded like a acceptance speech), but it was the most _interesting_ (and presidential-sounding, where was this fire during the primary season?) speech in the convention so far, even with the exploitation and a couple other cringeworthy elements.
The sad thing, from my perspective anyway, was there were a couple points in his speech where I thought he was going to flip the entire table and basically crash the Republican party (and there are enough non-present dissenters with influence to back him). He was a few sentences away from changing the entire game. I was disappointed he didn't, though I get that he wasn't will to take the short term cost- but the long terms benefits could have been amazing.
Though given that only issue on the table for this entire convention is 'Not Hillary,' I can see why his money is on a 2020 run.
May I ask an honest question? Republicans are always trying to limit the size of government and control spending. Building a wall on the southern boarder would cost at least 20 billion dollars and require that same investment every few years to maintain. There is no guarantee the wall will even be able to prevent illegal entry, as even Trump himself said rope and ladders would get over it. What makes this particular project not a huge, if not the hugest, boondoggle in government history?
Because it isn't viable or sincere. Just like the Republican stance on limiting government and spending. It is purely rhetorical blather, not something that actually gets implemented.
Republican spending and small government philosophy is... interesting. It only counts for specific areas of government (arts, humanities, education, healthcare) and not others (military, R&D, Intelligence). It's always worth noting that the 'not others' categories tend to be more expensive and require more oversight.
|
|
This is not exactly an honest question, as I don't think anyone in this thread has drawn that connection.It is an honest question.
I did not ask it because I saw anyone here drawing that conclusion (though I have seen the word racist applied to those on the right in this thread).
Apologies for questioning your intentions, but your series of questions did seem rather leading. A little more context might have made it more clear what you were hoping to understand more about.
Do you understand a little better the perspective that considers Trump and the policies he advocates blatantly racist? (I think lucky7 was the most comprehensive if I had to pick one)
Thanks!
|
|
I thank you for your answers Caineach and lucky7. :-)
You both bring up the issue of those that are already here and securing our boarders now won't solve that. While you are absolutely correct, dealing with those that are already here really is a separate issue.
While there are a few on the right that would absolutely love to have all of those that are here (illegally) deported, the issue of stopping illegal immigration is not about those that are here already, but to stop any more from getting in via illegal means.
Funny thing is, "not Obama" was all Rommney had on the table and it failed him. You would think the GOP would attempt another approach.
Though given that only issue on the table for this entire convention is 'Not Hillary,' I can see why his money is on a 2020 run.
They can't. The 'Big Tent' of the GOP has devolved into mutually antipathic groups that don't agree on much of anything. Social Conservatives vs Economic Conservatives vs Religious Right vs Tea Partiers, vs 'We-think-we're-Libertarians.' And if they want to actually _win_, they've got to move away from really right wing issues to more moderate stances that the independent voters (who have decided every election in the last twenty years) will actually be willing to swallow. Juggling the base and the attracting other voters is actually really hard for Republicans.
Especially given the actual content of some of their speeches. When Walker mentioned that police should be 'revered,' I actually flinched and mentally crossed 'attract black voters' off the list.
|
|
What makes this particular project not a huge, if not the hugest, boondoggle in government history?
I can only speak for myself, but I think that if we as a nation were to take a serious as well as an honest look at addressing our boarders, and the real costs involved with the proposed solutions, we just might be able to come up with a viable solution to the problem.
|
Funny thing is, "not Obama" was all Rommney had on the table and it failed him. You would think the GOP would attempt another approach.
Though given that only issue on the table for this entire convention is 'Not Hillary,' I can see why his money is on a 2020 run.
Or to make it a bipartisan critcism, "not Bush" was all Kerry had in '04, also not resulting in a win. In each case, an exageration.
Still, I think most people on both sides of the politcal spectrum would like to actually hear ideas of what will be done, instead of the constant belittling of the other side which has become our political discourse.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can only speak for myself, but I think that if we as a nation were to take a serious as well as an honest look at addressing our boarders, and the real costs involved with the proposed solutions, we just might be able to come up with a viable solution to the problem.
But it won't be a wall, right?
|
|
I can only speak for myself, but I think that if we as a nation were to take a serious as well as an honest look at addressing our boarders, and the real costs involved with the proposed solutions, we just might be able to come up with a viable solution to the problem.But it won't be a wall, right?
What about greeting baskets?