Ten oz

Just now, StringJunky said:

No, but racism in general. 

I don't think floating reparations specifically addresses racism in the U.S. very well. Even as symbols it is far weaker than Trump's Wall, Muslim Ban, and demand everyone stand for the anthem are far more powerful. 

Just now, StringJunky said:

The way to honour the enslaved is to be ruthless about racism.

I don't think the 2020 election is or should be about slavery. 

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Warren is leading an issues first campaign. We’ll see how it works out. 

Today, for example, she called for an end to the electoral college. 

Also, affordable housing. Breaking up tech giants. Then today, financial reparations for the families of former slaves. 

Affordable housing is the only issue there I agree with.

Ending the electoral college isn't something a Presidential candidate should tackle IMO. It is something Congress should tackle. A player mid game shouldn't be the one rewriting the rules. 

I have seen different people discussing breaking up tech giants but I don't really understand on what grounds that would be done. While very influential none are monopolies. No one is forced to use Facebook, Twitter, or Amazon (companies most cited by Warren) and they have competitors. I don't understand what those companies are doing other than being super successful which would require the govt to step in. I have concerns about the way their platforms can be used to manipulation the public but those concerns extend to all online media and not merely the popular one. 

Financial reparations for the families of former slaves seems utterly ridiculous in an environment where we can't even agree police shouldn't be shooting unarmed decedents or former slaves. Rather than floating fantasy land pipe dreams I rather see candidates address the hard issues actually being faced in communities of color. Warren isn't the only candidate guilty of this. 

4 hours ago, StringJunky said:

That seems a bit weird, considering how long ago that was. Certainly, some kind of memorial effort would be good.

In my opinion some politicians aren't comfortable speaking directly to the issues facing communities of color. Even candidates of color have this problem as the majority of voters are not of color. Rather than make measured real world proposals which may potentially kick off discussions they don't want to have it is easier sometimes to just make large gestures of support rooted in symbolism. I think candidates are attempting to avoid the divisive discussions surrounding Black Lives Matters, kneeling during the anthem, and so on. Right wing trolls have prominently sought their ground in those discussions and I guess many candidates are afraid to kick that hornets nest. 

Many of the current Democratic Candidates are voicing various forms of reparations. It might be worth starting a thread specifically about reparations at some point to discuss them all. 

@J.C.MacSwell you are playing with context now. My original post which began our back and forth stated that Trump supporters are "fine with" his treatment of McCain. The qoute you posted referencing blame was in response to a post by MigL, not you, and was of a more general nature.

Trump supporters are the reason President Trump exists. The key word there being President. I was accurately saying his supporters elected him. 

23 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

If you followed it you would realize it was with regard to Ten oz.s contention (whether correct or not, doesn't matter) that Trump supporters are responsible for Trump's comments denigrating McCain.

Also. I regret to inform you that Trump is still alive...

I said they were "fine with it". 

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

The point of Trump's tweet is now we're arguing about McCain and conservatives instead of the Mueller report. Weapons of mass distraction...

While true doesn't say something fairly damning about those who support Trump that dragging a dead war heroes name threw the mud is a safe distraction tactic? 

Trump is more careful when condemning Nazis than he is talking trash about McCain. 

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Some would say yes, some no. Of the ones who say no, what if they were shown a better alternative? What if that alternative came without the insults?

In my opinion it is far more insulting to assume them misinformed, in need of alternatives, or etc. I am respecting them enough to take them at face value and object accordingly without assuming or projecting special needs. 

They (U.S. Conservatives) aren't children. 

1 minute ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Clearly they need a better alternative...not insults.

Do they feel they need an alternative? 

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

But how far do you go in blaming D Trump supporters for his actions ?

Considering he wouldn't hold elected office without them I blame them a lot. President Trump doesn't exist minus his supporters. 

22 minutes ago, MigL said:

Or, for that matter, if they were so concerned about the outcome, why didn't Democrats and people who voted for H Clinton try to sway other's opinions to vote against D Trump ?

Trump lost the popular vote by millions. Seems to me Democrats did what they could. 

24 minutes ago, MigL said:

You see how quickly it gets ridiculous when you start playing the blame game.
You convince people by educating them, not by blaming them.

Educating them about what. Michelle Malkin called McCain a "sell out" during a speech on stage at CPAC just last month. Conservatives here in the U.S. see the disrespect being thrown at McCain and clearly don't care. 

13 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Disagreeing with Democrat's approach and tactics is hardly a call to censor them. 

One can disagree with Democrats all they want. I am against universal income, free college, and several other policies currently being discussed by some Democrats. One can have an honest discussion about those things. However one cannot have an honest discussion with liars and those who support liars. One can't have an honest discussion with those who denigrate the names of the recently deceased. John McCain is dead and not around to defend his name. 

2 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

No. I don't think Trump having gotten elected is justification for insults toward the right, or toward Trump's base, nor will I think it is justified if Trump gets in again, or replaced by a Democrat, in 2020.

No? Look at how many people from Trump's campaign have been proven guilty in court of crimes related to his election, look at all the lies Trump tells, and etc. It is immoral for his supporters to stand by him. 

41 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Given Trump's support among his base remains unchanged, they're all good with despotism, apparently.

As It applies to McCain, this being a McCain thread, Trump supporters aren't moved by his insults towards McCain. Trump supporters are aware that he insults a dead man and aren't moved by it. 

4 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

First it's "ugly bunch of people", and now "good intentions"?  Which is it?

Unable or unwilling to  provide them with a viable option you feel the need to insult them? Why don't you stick with "basket of deplorables". That worked out well.

So the ends justify the means then? 

7 hours ago, naitche said:

The shame of it for the left is the idea that if you are not with us, you must be against us. Dissent with some aspects of  policy on the left  sees people shut out and silenced, denied any space there.

There are really only 2 choices. Having good intention doesn't exonerate bad outcomes.

A persons choice of which side to support, if a choice must be made, is subjective.  I think its a huge mistake for Left thinking people to assume its objective. That the mass of humanity supporting the opposition in elections are supporting a similarly singular ideology as a fixed identity.

 

Elected officials only exist, get elected, via their supporters. The idea of limited options isn't a viable excuse for giving one support those exercising bad behavior. People are responsible for the choices they make and the crap they support. 

7 hours ago, iNow said:

What you describe is a problem neither isolated to nor demonstrated by just one side of the aisle. 

I don’t think it’s fair to suggest all Trump voters are okay with what Trump is saying about McCain.

It is, however, fair to question their intentions, motivations, and even integrity if they continue supporting and voting for him despite these and other offenses so common with him. 

Trump denigrated McCain's service while campaigning prior to the 2016 election. Mocked his time as a POW saying he preferred soldiers who weren't captured and called him a loser for failing to win in 2008. Everyone who voted for Trump in 2016 did so aware of his insults against McCain. Since that time and since McCain's death the insults have continued and Trump's approval rating while low overall remains steady. His approval among Republicans is very high. I think it is absolutely fair to suggest Trump voters are okay with what he says about McCain. At the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this year, attended by tens of thousands of self described Conservatives, Michelle Malkin called McCain a "sell out" during a speech to a cheering audience. Insulting McCain is the new normal on the right. 

39 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Let's not beat around the bush here, the alternative direction you've cited... is terrorism.

The NZ shooter murdered fifty people after he wrote a 16,000 word hate manifesto, invoking Trump.

If the shoe were on the other foot... conservatives would scream radical Islamic terrorism from the rooftops.

It's radical white nationalist terrorism. Why can't they just say it?

Seems to me many simply don't want to change their behavior. Admitting the role their rhetoric plays would logically pressure change. So instead we get denial and deflection.

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

You've failed to give them a better alternative. Most support him despite his...let's be kind and call them "antics", not because of them.

Of course "despicable behaviour" is more accurate, but the point stands.

How many dark chapters in history do you believe have been justified this way? Having good intention doesn't exonerate bad outcomes. 

25 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

I don't recall "all those who support Trump" doing that.

How does supporting him differ from encouraging and or accepting his behavior? 

4 minutes ago, iNow said:

And then within 1 hour called South Americans heading northward towards the US as “invaders,” the EXACT label used to describe Muslims by the Christchurch shooter 

It is worse than that. Trump initially posted a link to a Beitbart interview as the news of the White Nationalist Terrorist attack broke. In the interview Trump cites his supporters among known armed organizations like Police, Military, and Biker gangs as tougher than liberals. The Tweet was deleted. I am sure many of Trump's apologists will claim his mention of armed organizations and toughness had nothing to do with violence and attempt to clarify what he meant as relating to something else but this sort of thing keeps happening.  

Quote

 

President Trump deleted a tweet Friday linking to the conservative Breitbart News featuring an interview in which he suggested his supporters could "play it tough" if need be. The deletion came after the terror attack that left 49 victims dead at mosques in New Zealand. 

The tweet was deleted mid-morning, according to analysis using the Internet archiving system Wayback Machine. Mr. Trump hadn't linked directly to the interview with him, but to Breitbart's homepage, which had prominently featured the interview at the time. The interview took place and was posted before the attack. 

The president rarely deletes tweets except to fix grammatical or punctuation errors.  

Mr. Trump had told Breitbart his supporters, including the military and police, don't play as tough as their political opponents, but can be tougher if they need to be. The president's comments came in response to a Breitbart question about his announced executive order intended to guarantee free speech on college campuses. 

"So here's the thing—it's so terrible what's happening," Mr. Trump told the publication. "You know, the left plays a tougher game, it's very funny. I actually think that the people on the right are tougher, but they don't play it tougher. Okay? I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don't play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad. But the left plays it cuter and tougher. Like with all the nonsense that they do in Congress … with all this invest[igations]—that's all they want to do is –you know, they do things that are nasty. Republicans never played this." Link

 

8 minutes ago, Airbrush said:

He would not lose votes from his base.  His supporters will just brush it aside with disbelief or rationalize it.  "That is just Trump being Trump.  He's funny... He's just exaggerating.....big deal....we want a street fighter....someone who acts tough."

The consequences are stacking up. Obama and Clinton were each President for 8yrs and no one went on murder sprees citing them as inspiration. Trump has been President for 2yrs and there have been numerous violent acts here in the U.S. and aboard where murderers have either directly citing Trump as their inspiration or are know to have been radicalized by the group in hate speech since Trump's election. A couple lone lunatics doesn't make a trend but we are beyond that now. Just in the lat 5 months we have seen the 5 below examples:

Robert Bowers known as a staunch Conservative and White Nationalist on social media murdered 11 people attending synagogue in PA Oct. 18'. Gregory Bush who friends and associates described as having become increasingly vitriolic during the 2016 presidential campaign tried to enter the First Baptist Church of Jeffersontown during a service and murder people but was unable to because the doors were locked and then walked to a near by grocery store and murdered 2 shoppers. Cesar Sayoc who drove around in a pro Trump van and frequently posted pro Trump propaganda on social media mailed bombs to Obama, Clinton, Soros, CNN, and etc, etc, etc Oct. 18. Christopher Hasson was a self proclaimed White Nationalist who was arrested for plotting to murder at least 20 elected officials (all Democrats) Feb. 19'. This week in Christchurch New Zealand Brenton Tarrant a self proclaimed White Nationalist citing Trump as lived stream himself on Facebook murdering Muslims. 

9 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Strong stuff!

As oppose to repeatedly attacking a dead man which is WEAK stuff. 

Trump has disrespected John McCain 2 days in a row calling McCain a dark stain and last in class at the Naval Academy. Link

It is this sort of total disregard of basic decency that has elevated the divisive political climate we are in. John McCain was a Republican and spent over 3 decades in the Senate representing Republicans. Now that he is dead and of no use Trump is trashing his name and all those who support Trump are fine with it. They are an ugly bunch of people. 

In part as an apparent extension of the political climate in the U.S. a White supremacist murdered 49 people in New Zealand. 

Quote

 

The accused New Zealand mosque shooter hailed President Trump as a "symbol of renewed white identity" and blasted former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush as "boring" in a lengthy manifestoreportedly written before the murder of at least 49 people Friday.

In a 74-page document called "The Great Replacement," the 28-year-old Australian laid out plans to ambush worshipers at a pair of Christchurch-area mosques, and expressed hope the attack would spark a second civil war in the United States.

"Were/are you a supporter of Donald Trump?" he asked himself. "As a symbol of renewed white identity and common purpose? Sure. As a policy maker and leader? Dear god no." Link

 

2 hours ago, Vexen said:

My progress is underwhelming.

Underwhelming in what sense? What a person places value on plays a big role in how they feel about progress in their lives. 

39 minutes ago, swansont said:

My statement made no mention of Syria, did not quote a statement that included Syria. It was not related to Syria.

 

The statement you quoted of mine referenced the way Warren handles issues important to me and as posted that includes Syria. I cannot speak to which issues matter to you or how well you do or do not feel Warren addresses them. 

20 minutes ago, swansont said:

Unlike other candidates...

As it relates to Syria Cory Booker and Kamala Harris have spoken more clearly regarding the complexity of the situation in my opinion. While I do not necessarily agree with Amy Klobuchar's more hawkish foreign policy positions I do respect that she appears to have well developed thoughts on the matter. Something I don't feel Warren has shown. Warren tends to lean on slogans about ending endless wars choosing to critique what's wrong with what's been done rather that outline what must be done. 

This is a subjective conversation. I cannot prove definitively proof that Warren isn't effectively communicating her message. You asked for some examples and I provided them. It is just the way it seems to me. Warren doesn't appear to have enough flushed positions for a Presidential campaign and has hamstrung herself with the Native heritage stuff by taking the bait from the right. While many Republicans succeed running on nationalist platforms exclusively focused on things like tax reform I expect far more from Democratic candidates. 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

Has this actually come up since she's declared she's running?

Yes it has. Just last month same week as her formal announcement the Washington Post ran an article about her registering for the TX as a native back in 86'. She made various responses to that. It is a distraction of her own creation. 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

it that she hasn't disagreed with Trump, or that your position is that the US should stay in Syria? My own opinion is that I wouldn't respect a candidate that's running on a "disagree with anything Trump did" (which paradoxically, would be mimicking Trump/GOP position of "do the opposite of what the dems want, even if you previously agreed with the policy")  

In my opinion it isn't a simple matter of staying or going. Whether or not Assad remains, Russia's influence, use of WMDs, relations with Turkey, and the refugee crisis are all issues which matter and must be addressed. The scenarios are vast. Warren hasn't spoken to that. Like Trump she has provided a simplistic position on an immensely complicated issue. Children are dying, families are seeking refuge, Assad is using chemical weapons, and etc. Whether U.S. troops stay or go doesn't in itself resolve those things. 

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I've seen her interviewed a number of places. If you agree with what she says, you must have heard the message somewhere.

The amount of time any candidate gets is finite. Warren has wasted a lot of the time afforded her on things I think are silly or wrong. I am aware of her positions because I have followed her career. Had I not known much about her prior to now nothing she has done recently would have been very informative. Her foriegn policy positions are vague (an issue I care about a great deal) and she has invited the silly heritage garbage through her own actions.

I do not dislike Warren. I just feel she isn't campaigning well. She has terrific policy ideas regarding tax reform, banking regulations, and social safety nets. However she is to easily brought off message by minutiae and doesn't seem to have clear positions on important matters beyond those she is most vocal about. 

23 minutes ago, iNow said:

I’m fairly certain she agrees with that, too

Sure, it is a self inflicted wound though. She invited the discussion. 

She also probably has various caveats for pulling out of Syria too based on the intelligence and recommendation of military officials but she hasn't done a very good job outlining them.