The All Things Political Topic

[Chairchucker]

3 hours ago, BruceVC said:

I base my views on politics around the policies of parties and outcomes, I dont subscribe to identity politics or personality politics

Having read a number of your posts over the years, I've not found this to be true. You certainly subscribed to identity politics when it came to hand wringing over CRT, for example.

I think the character of a leader matters, and can flow on to the rest of the population. White supremacist propaganda on college campuses tripled in 2017, for example. (https://www.adl.org/resources/report/white-supremacist-propaganda-surges-campus) There was also a 4% increase in the number of hate groups. (https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/02/21/year-hate-trump-buoyed-white-supremacists-2017-sparking-backlash-among-black-nationalist) and a 17% increase in hate crimes. (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-hate-crime-statistics-released-111318) so it seems that, in fact, having an openly racist president is bad for the country as a whole. (Although he's said that he's probably the least racist person there is, so presumably you'll be taking him at his word rather than examining his words and actions.)

Let's also look at some of the other outcomes.

Trump added a few conservative justices to the supreme court which had the outcomes of rolling back Roe vs Wade and ruling that a president was literally above the law.

Many prominent Republicans are science denying buffoons who think that climate change is a Democrat hoax, which has led to the Environmental Protection Agency being a bit of a joke. The Department of Agriculture were explicitly banned from using the word 'Climate Change.' https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails It seems that's a ban that a few Republicans have followed.

Trump signed executive orders aimed at gutting obamacare, putting a ban on travel from a number of muslim majority countries, (but oddly not Saudi Arabia, a country with whom he did business) removing two regulations on businesses for every additional one that is added, (wtf, how would this even work?) limiting the separation of church and state by limiting the actions that can be taken against religious organisations engaged in political campaign activities, withdrawing federal protection for trans students, reducing the rights of federal employees, (including making them easier to fire) making it easier for oil and gas companies to lay pipelines, and scaling back environmental reviews when building highway, among other.

Trump and the Republican party are very bad for women, people of colour, trans people, and the environment.

 

EDIT: they're bad for everyone, but those are some of the 'highlights'

Edited July 11 by Chairchucker

[BruceVC]

8 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Having read a number of your posts over the years, I've not found this to be true. You certainly subscribed to identity politics when it came to hand wringing over CRT, for example.

I think the character of a leader matters, and can flow on to the rest of the population. White supremacist propaganda on college campuses tripled in 2017, for example. (https://www.adl.org/resources/report/white-supremacist-propaganda-surges-campus) There was also a 4% increase in the number of hate groups. (https://www.splcenter.org/news/2018/02/21/year-hate-trump-buoyed-white-supremacists-2017-sparking-backlash-among-black-nationalist) and a 17% increase in hate crimes. (https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2017-hate-crime-statistics-released-111318) so it seems that, in fact, having an openly racist president is bad for the country as a whole. (Although he's said that he's probably the least racist person there is, so presumably you'll be taking him at his word rather than examining his words and actions.)

Let's also look at some of the other outcomes.

Trump added a few conservative justices to the supreme court which had the outcomes of rolling back Roe vs Wade and ruling that a president was literally above the law.

Many prominent Republicans are science denying buffoons who think that climate change is a Democrat hoax, which has led to the Environmental Protection Agency being a bit of a joke. The Department of Agriculture were explicitly banned from using the word 'Climate Change.' https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails It seems that's a ban that a few Republicans have followed.

Trump signed executive orders aimed at gutting obamacare, putting a ban on travel from a number of muslim majority countries, (but oddly not Saudi Arabia, a country with whom he did business) removing two regulations on businesses for every additional one that is added, (wtf, how would this even work?) limiting the separation of church and state by limiting the actions that can be taken against religious organisations engaged in political campaign activities, withdrawing federal protection for trans students, reducing the rights of federal employees, (including making them easier to fire) making it easier for oil and gas companies to lay pipelines, and scaling back environmental reviews when building highway, among other.

Trump and the Republican party are very bad for women, people of colour, trans people, and the environment.

 

EDIT: they're bad for everyone, but those are some of the 'highlights'

And yet despite all this "evidence " of Trump\GOP being racist you are ignoring the reality of  how people  of colour are increasingly voting for the GOP

Why would they do that if they believed the GOP was racist. Why dont you rather understand this reality instead of posting  reasons around what you think are reasons people of colour wont or shouldnt vote for the GOP?

No need to play the race card when there are  numerous studies and analysis done on the question " why black people vote for the GOP " or something similar 

Here is another link that provides answers, read it to understand this question and I would encourage you to do your own research and post a link that answers the same type of question 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/why-are-black-voters-backing-donald-trump-in-record-numbers

Im not saying you wrong about some of the issues you have with Trump. Some of these are legitimate

Im saying its not accurate to have a generalized or selective  view of " Trump is racist " so people wont\shouldnt  vote for him because thats not how many Americans and people of colour see the GOP or a Trump vote 

 

 

 

[Chairchucker]

Black people voting for Trump is not evidence against him being racist, any more than women voting against him is evidence against him being a rapist. (Which he is.)

[Chairchucker]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Here is another link that provides answers, read it to understand this question and I would encourage you to do your own research and post a link that answers the same type of question 

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/3/18/why-are-black-voters-backing-donald-trump-in-record-numbers

 

Did you even read this yourself? It doesn't support your position in the slightest.

[BruceVC]

28 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

Did you even read this yourself? It doesn't support your position in the slightest.

Yes I did read it but if you dont  mind try to be more specific about what you think my view is or how a link doesn't support what Im saying 

My view has not changed in any of the posts I have made, Im saying that the  view that Trump\GOP  is "racist\fascist " is an opinion and its not shared by all people of colour who vote for GOP around there voting decisions 

They are voting for the GOP for reasons and policies that resonate with them . Here is the original link I posted and it goes into more details about this 

https://theconversation.com/what-early-2024-polls-are-revealing-about-voters-of-color-and-the-gop-and-its-not-all-about-donald-trump-227534

" Two explanations have emerged to explain Trump’s growth in support among voters of color.The first is based on the faulty assumption, made by some Democratic strategists that the increasing racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. electorate would automatically benefit Democratic candidates. This assumption rests on the idea that voters of color are inherently progressive on issues such as education, social services, health care and criminal justice reform. According to this line of thinking, Trump’s polling numbers are mostly the result of poor messaging by the Democrats – a failure to remind voters of color that their interests align with Joe Biden, not Trump.The second explanation is that voters of color are inherently conservative, particularly working-class Black and Latino men, who identify more closely with the political right on issues such as immigration, law and order and cultural conservativism." 

 

 

 

[Malcador]

Black and Latinos are inherently conservative?

[BruceVC]

6 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Black and Latinos are inherently conservative?

Some are, look at the general lack of support for LGBT rights

Its not great in  Africa or many  African American communities

It doesnt apply to everyone but its not uncommon 

 

 

 

[Malcador]

Just am pointing out the poor choice of word by the author.  Political leanings isn't something innate.

[Hurlshort]

2 hours ago, Malcador said:

Just am pointing out the poor choice of word by the author.  Political leanings isn't something innate.

No, but Black and Latino communities are often religious, and religion tends to lean conservative. The Catholic Church has a lot of sway with Latino voters.

[HoonDing]

[majestic]

 

[Malcador]

5 hours ago, Hurlshort said:

No, but Black and Latino communities are often religious, and religion tends to lean conservative. The Catholic Church has a lot of sway with Latino voters.

Didn't posit otherwise. "Inherent" is definitely wrong term

Poor Biden, getting BBC alerts on his gaffes now

https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/ce78zklp77wo

 

 

[Lexx]

This is not going to end well.

[Malcador]

Just now, Lexx said:

This is not going to end well.

Can't be that bad. At least if we all die in a nuclear war, I don't have to attend my 7am meetings...

[Zoraptor]

42 minutes ago, Malcador said:

Poor Biden, getting BBC alerts on his gaffes now

Introducing Zelensky as Putin is a fairly significant gaffe worthy of some sort of coverage. Maybe not 6+ breaking newsbits worth though.

[Gorth]

Yeah, naming Putin as the ruler of Ukraine was somewhat of a faux pas 

[Malcador]

Trudeau once said "Russia must win".  Proof of a conspiracy to sell out Ukraine.

[Zoraptor]

Kind of interesting that we also got 'Vice President Trump' from Biden today as well. If his only issue was mixing up friends' and enemies' names it'd all be a bit of a laugh.

[HoonDing]

Joe beat Medicare. He will also beat Ukraine.

Also, England will win the Euros.

[BruceVC]

11 hours ago, Malcador said:

Can't be that bad. At least if we all die in a nuclear war, I don't have to attend my 7am meetings...

Malc do you think Biden should step down in the interests of Dems having a better chance of winning?

I have mentioned this before but if the Dems really believe that " Trump represents the greatest threat to Democracy the US has ever faced" then he should go  immediately 

No debate whatsoever considering the view that the future of US Democracy is on the line 

[Pidesco]

7 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Malc do you think Biden should step down in the interests of Dems having a better chance of winning?

I have mentioned this before but if the Dems really believe that " Trump represents the greatest threat to Democracy the US has ever faced" then he should go  immediately 

No debate whatsoever considering the view that the future of US Democracy is on the line 

It's not a view, it is just a statement of fact. The only way one can consider this is not a fight for democracy and the rule of law in the US is if you believe the fight has already been lost. Between the fall of Roe v Wade, the ruling on Presidential immunity for official acts, and the gutting of chevron deference, perhaps the game is already done, even if Trump loses the election.

 

I guess that to roll back what has already happened, then the next election would have to give the dems the presidency, the house and a 60 seat majority in the Senate.

But I'd really like someone more knowledgeable than me to chime in.

[Lexx]

Thing is, they will just keep on slowly eroding everything. Even if they won't succeed in the next 2 years, maybe they will in 10. At this point it's just a matter of time unless there's some big reverse shift in politics happening, imo.

[Pidesco]

37 minutes ago, Lexx said:

Thing is, they will just keep on slowly eroding everything. Even if they won't succeed in the next 2 years, maybe they will in 10. At this point it's just a matter of time unless there's some big reverse shift in politics happening, imo.

I don't see how Biden getting reelected is that big reverse shift or even how there's a path towards it, at all, beyond an outright cataclysm resetting things in some way.

Basically, my worry is that the political course we are in is already inevitable, and that we cannot hope for better beyond delaying it, especially when big financial interests have already significantly compromised the systems in place originally designed to avoid what is already happening.

[Lexx]

1 hour ago, Pidesco said:

I don't see how Biden getting reelected is that big reverse shift

It's not. This stuff will keep on going for a while.

[uuuhhii]

this is like some people still talk about climate change like some looming future cataclysm that will just sit in its boss room and wait for humanity to grind out just a few more industrial level

it already happened decade ago

same with usa deterioration by conservative ideal

 

Edited July 13 by uuuhhii