The Fora: A Higher Education Community

There is a battle for the soul of the Republican party.

On one side, are traditional Republicans like Ben Sasse* who have rejected QAnon and other idiotic conspiracy theories, in favor of institutionalism and conservative principles. On the other side, are folks like Greene at the extreme end and Cruz at the slightly less extreme (but still extreme) end, who worship Trump, spend their days gin up the base with conspiracies and grievances for political gain, and have apparently decided that democracy isn't such a good system after all.

There are a lot of Republicans in Congress on the crazy side, but many of these people would presumably be very happy to turn in their tin foil hats if they thought doing so was politically sensible. However, the party base seems to largely have embraced Trumpism in all of its looniest forms -- but maybe they are malleable (it was only eight years ago that Romney was the Presidential nominee).

Problems is, that both of these strategies seem to have failed electorally, at least on the national level: McCain lost, Romney lost, Trump won by a hair in 2016, but lost in 2020, with House and Senate going as well. Overall, the Republicans have won the popular vote once since 1992.  So do the Republicans embrace one of these electorally questionable strategies or can they forge a new path?

* https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/01/conspiracy-theories-will-doom-republican-party/617707/

The odd thing is that lately, there's very little political sensibility involved on the Trumpist side. One example: Arizona.  For a couple of years now they have embraced the "spar with McCain's ghost" strategy. Even after that lost them two senate seats *and* the state in the last Presidential election for the first time in decades, they decided to double down an censure Cindy McCain.

I dunno, maybe they were never sensible, but now it seems that all political calculation is out the window other than doubling down on the "base," which now is not much more than making excuses for a terroristic insurrection.

I continue to suspect that Trump has a J.Edgar.Hoover-like file on every single one of the Repubs and that only a few--like Romney--are 'clean' enough to be safe in opposing him.

It's the only logical thing I can come up with that explains the level of idiocy in--even now, for example--wanting him censured, but not doing it themselves in the Senate.

Until he's institutionalized or pops his clogs, that threat is not going away, and skews all other options.

M.

No place but down?

The degree of culpability among Republicans elected or appointed to federal positions is astounding:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/trump-election-lie.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/31/us/trump-election-lie.html)

'Away' would be nice.

Quote from: mamselle on February 01, 2021, 08:46:49 AM
I continue to suspect that Trump has a J.Edgar.Hoover-like file on every single one of the Repubs and that only a few--like Romney--are 'clean' enough to be safe in opposing him.

It's the only logical thing I can come up with that explains the level of idiocy in--even now, for example--wanting him censured, but not doing it themselves in the Senate.

Until he's institutionalized or pops his clogs, that threat is not going away, and skews all other options.

M.

General consensus in South Carolina is the Lindsey is vulnerable to blackmail.  As for the others:  They will do anything for power.

Quote from: nebo113 on February 02, 2021, 05:55:10 AM

Quote from: mamselle on February 01, 2021, 08:46:49 AM
I continue to suspect that Trump has a J.Edgar.Hoover-like file on every single one of the Repubs and that only a few--like Romney--are 'clean' enough to be safe in opposing him.

It's the only logical thing I can come up with that explains the level of idiocy in--even now, for example--wanting him censured, but not doing it themselves in the Senate.

Until he's institutionalized or pops his clogs, that threat is not going away, and skews all other options.

M.

General consensus in South Carolina is the Lindsey is vulnerable to blackmail.  As for the others:  They will do anything for power.

I think the cat's out of the bag where Miss Lindsey is concerned. (Yes, that's how he's known to a certain kind of South Carolina voter. Sue me.) My own guess is that the issue is not blackmail but the nomination system. Trump supporters are a majority of Republican voters in nearly every state or district. Thus, opposing him is an easy way to get "primaried."

But let's not pretend that this is purely a Republican phenomenon. AOC regularly threatens to send her minions to "primary" Democrats who don't toe the line (e.g., support policies that are markedly to the left of that which is broadly popular or passable). How I miss the smoke-filled room!

They get a lot of help from the democrats, who, by choosing the weak-willed Joe Biden, are letting the noisiest and most demanding of the left to impose their agenda on the party. All of which insures that the trumpets will be back, fortified, with one candidate or another. Trump, Kim Klacik, Trumps Jr. or someone. Because, as Bill Maher has pointed out, many Americans look at this anything-goes platform and quietly decide 'these people are nuts.'

Gingrich:        https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/newt-gingrich-joe-biden-trumpism-asset-elites

Maher:       https://etcanada.com/news/680198/bill-maher-says-cancel-culture-has-become-so-crazy-that-were-going-to-have-to-cancel-god/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgrZAPUvKyA

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 10:04:21 AM
'Away' would be nice.

Then the United States will have only a single national-level political party.  A one-party system is not good for democracy in the long term.

Quote from: apl68 on February 15, 2021, 08:27:49 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 10:04:21 AM
'Away' would be nice.

Then the United States will have only a single national-level political party.  A one-party system is not good for democracy in the long term.

I'm kind of curious what the people who think it was morally wrong to vote Republican think should have happened in November. Should everyone have simply voted for Biden? Should everyone who would have voted Republican just have stayed home? 

Quote from: apl68 on February 15, 2021, 08:27:49 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 10:04:21 AM
'Away' would be nice.

Then the United States will have only a single national-level political party.  A one-party system is not good for democracy in the long term.

Nah. They could (and should) be replaced by something else.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 15, 2021, 08:45:56 AM

Quote from: apl68 on February 15, 2021, 08:27:49 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 10:04:21 AM
'Away' would be nice.

Then the United States will have only a single national-level political party.  A one-party system is not good for democracy in the long term.

Nah. They could (and should) be replaced by something else.

I live in a solidly blue state and our political world is divided now by two sub-parties: Moderates and Progressives. Human nature is such that they always take sides.

In other news, the big divide is that Republicans in Washington are completely isolated from the voters in their states. Americans support the stimulus or want it bigger; want gun control; public health care; etc etc etc. But a few donors are holding a few Senators by the short hairs.

I'm putting this on the Democrats as well. Get rid of the filibuster and get stuff done - stop blaming the R's! Unless, of course, the same donors are pushing the same agendas on both and all of this is just kabuki?

Quote from: writingprof on February 02, 2021, 06:02:26 AM
I think the cat's out of the bag where Miss Lindsey is concerned. (Yes, that's how he's known to a certain kind of South Carolina voter. Sue me.) My own guess is that the issue is not blackmail but the nomination system. Trump supporters are a majority of Republican voters in nearly every state or district. Thus, opposing him is an easy way to get "primaried."

LOL, a friend of mine posted that he started to look for Lady Gaga's handle and when he entered #ladyg..., Lindsey Graham's name popped up first.

This is at least the second article I've seen on a Republican Senator who voted for removal to be censured in their state...

So, they're devouring their own, now....

   https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/15/richard-burr-north-carolina-censure-469027

What's happened to voting your conscience?

Oh...

M.
   

Republicans have a few branches: (1) Traditional Rs, (2) authoritarians, (3) conspiracy idiots. Putting aside that two of these branches actively tried to overturn democracy after Trump lost the election, the problem for Republicans is that neither Trump-style lunacy or Romney-style appear to be good strategies electorally.

So where does the party go from here, and how does the party get its activist base to come back to earth? Given the answers to this thread so far, it seems like nobody here has much of a clue (I don't know either).

It's all Nixon's doing. Calling them the "Silent Majority" gave them credibility and a sense of place in the political world.

One wishes they'd remained a bit more silent....or less enamored of the No-Nothings....

M.

I remember a spate of "Where do Democrats go from here?" articles in both 2004 and 2016, as well as previous iterations of the question concerning Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Where do Republicans go from here? To the presidency and congressional majorities, eventually, for a time, after giving Democrats their turn to fail for a while. That is the inevitable outcome of a two-party system mixed with intractable national problems.

Quote from: writingprof on February 15, 2021, 12:45:33 PM
I remember a spate of "Where do Democrats go from here?" articles in both 2004 and 2016, as well as previous iterations of the question concerning Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Where do Republicans go from here? To the presidency and congressional majorities, eventually, for a time, after giving Democrats their turn to fail for a while. That is the inevitable outcome of a two-party system mixed with intractable national problems.

Sure, these questions always occur after elections, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth asking and answering. And this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

QuoteAnd this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

Seventy four million Republican voters believe in democracy and are not politically violent. Those who were closer to Trump will not go away.

Democrats have a problem with rules and with political violence.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 15, 2021, 12:57:33 PM

Quote from: writingprof on February 15, 2021, 12:45:33 PM
I remember a spate of "Where do Democrats go from here?" articles in both 2004 and 2016, as well as previous iterations of the question concerning Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Where do Republicans go from here? To the presidency and congressional majorities, eventually, for a time, after giving Democrats their turn to fail for a while. That is the inevitable outcome of a two-party system mixed with intractable national problems.

Sure, these questions always occur after elections, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth asking and answering. And this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

Give me a break. To the extent that Republicans have to decide as much, the situation is not unique. Some of us are old enough to remember Democrats in 1968. More importantly, the contention that any such "decision" is pending is absurd and hysterical--the rhetorical equivalent of crocodile tears.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 15, 2021, 08:45:56 AM

Quote from: apl68 on February 15, 2021, 08:27:49 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 10:04:21 AM
'Away' would be nice.

Then the United States will have only a single national-level political party.  A one-party system is not good for democracy in the long term.

Nah. They could (and should) be replaced by something else.

Impossible. As long as people have to come into contact with liberals there will be conservatives.

Only one of the 7 senators who voted to impeach face re-election in the next 2 years. Burr in NC is retiring, so the censure means nothing to him.

If they were smart and organized, I would say now is the opportunity for the Libertarians to make a push to become significant. A party of limited government with socially liberal values would appeal to many. However, the last time I looked the Libertarians were arguing over eliminating Driver's licenses, so I don't see that level of outreach happening any time soon.

QuoteSome of us are old enough to remember Democrats in 1968.

I was working in fast food at the time of the convention, 18 years old. Came home, greasy, sweaty and dirty, after a 10 hour shift, put on the TV and got a beer. Saw the riot.

Asked myself why I was working.

Quote from: dismalist on February 15, 2021, 01:08:30 PM

QuoteAnd this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

Seventy four million Republican voters believe in democracy and are not politically violent. Those who were closer to Trump will not go away.

Democrats have a problem with rules and with political violence.

Sorry, but no. The leader of the Republican party tried to overturn the results of a free and fair election, and he found support from over 100 Representatives, many local party officials, and quite a few senators. Among the party's activist base, there are a lot of idiotic conspiracy theories and a lot of support for authoritarianism.

Democrats have their problems, but unlike the Republicans the lunatic wing of the Democratic party is (a) not as crazy, (b) not as large, and (c) not in charge of anything. 

Quote from: writingprof on February 15, 2021, 01:09:48 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 15, 2021, 12:57:33 PM

Quote from: writingprof on February 15, 2021, 12:45:33 PM
I remember a spate of "Where do Democrats go from here?" articles in both 2004 and 2016, as well as previous iterations of the question concerning Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Where do Republicans go from here? To the presidency and congressional majorities, eventually, for a time, after giving Democrats their turn to fail for a while. That is the inevitable outcome of a two-party system mixed with intractable national problems.

Sure, these questions always occur after elections, but that doesn't mean they aren't worth asking and answering. And this is a unique situation: Republicans literally having to decide if where they stand on democracy and political violence.

Give me a break. To the extent that Republicans have to decide as much, the situation is not unique. Some of us are old enough to remember Democrats in 1968. More importantly, the contention that any such "decision" is pending is absurd and hysterical--the rhetorical equivalent of crocodile tears.

I'm not aware of any Democratic president in 1968 who tried to overturn American democracy. 

Look, the Republican party has a problem with authoritarianism. You can say it is nbd that party leadership tried to overturn American democracy and make absurd comparisons to Democrats in 2004, or you can deal with the reality of the situation, which is that the Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak, that doesn't have a clear path back to winning electoral majorities.

Quotethe Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak

That's perhaps an alternate reality or measuring by a new rod.

Quote from: dismalist on February 15, 2021, 04:44:42 PM

Quotethe Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak

That's perhaps an alternate reality or measuring by a new rod.

You are the one living in an alternative reality if you can't see that  trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair election constitutes an authoritarian streak.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 15, 2021, 04:24:49 PM


I'm not aware of any Democratic president in 1968 who tried to overturn American democracy. 

Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (the Indian Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act). I guess that counts as successully overturning American democracy in the same way that 'interpreting the law' = 'acting illegally' (https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/09/how-the-right-wing-legal-machine-actually-works), .

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 15, 2021, 05:41:53 PM

Quote from: dismalist on February 15, 2021, 04:44:42 PM

Quotethe Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak

That's perhaps an alternate reality or measuring by a new rod.

You are the one living in an alternative reality if you can't see that  trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair election constitutes an authoritarian streak.

That's not the 74 million voters, at all. These won't go away.

Quote
Democrats have their problems, but unlike the Republicans the lunatic wing of the Democratic party is (a) not as crazy, (b) not as large, and (c) not in charge of anything. 

Let's wait and see. Anyone who gets to teach little children that (1) there are inherent problems with whiteness and we need to learn how to be 'antiracist' everyday in everything we think say and do, according to someone's limited and one-sided idea of what that would entail, and (2) it's time to start thinking about which gender you want to belong to
is in charge of a lot, very dangerous, and needs to be isolated/marginalized, not reasoned with.
Also, a noisy handful of far-left lunatics are getting a very wide berth among the higher education elite and are emboldened by tenure protections. And that will only get worse. Conservatives can also have tenure but they are far outnumbered. The combined attributes of PhD, publishing of books and tenure can add up to a lot of authority.
The left, if not the hard-left, is a clear majority of Hollywood, half or more of the media and most of talk-show television.

con't

One man's opinion, apropos of this thread: https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2021/02/16/opening_statement_for_the_center_for_the_american_way_of_life_660266.html

I would vote for Mitt Romney but I doubt he'll run. Remember, the guy who appealed to racism in an effort to beat Obama in 2012, is not really a person, but more of a corporation with a life-support system, who wants everyone to be unemployed, and more recently inspired six other republicans to vote to impeach DJT, something none of us have ever done, by the way. He would be a little younger than Joe Biden is now and appears quite fit and healthy. Not even a weight problem. I wouldn't vote for him for what he would do as much as for what he would prevent.

Quote from: dismalist on February 15, 2021, 06:17:07 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 15, 2021, 05:41:53 PM

Quote from: dismalist on February 15, 2021, 04:44:42 PM

Quotethe Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak

That's perhaps an alternate reality or measuring by a new rod.

You are the one living in an alternative reality if you can't see that  trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair election constitutes an authoritarian streak.

That's not the 74 million voters, at all. These won't go away.

I'm sure many of these folks are very fine people, but they supported an authoritarian who tried to destroy American democracy by installing himself as president even after losing the election. And 74m is a lot of people, but not enough to win an electoral majority, which is what this thread is actually about.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 04:23:37 AM

Quote
Democrats have their problems, but unlike the Republicans the lunatic wing of the Democratic party is (a) not as crazy, (b) not as large, and (c) not in charge of anything. 

Let's wait and see. Anyone who gets to teach little children that (1) there are inherent problems with whiteness and we need to learn how to be 'antiracist' everyday in everything we think say and do, according to someone's limited and one-sided idea of what that would entail, and (2) it's time to start thinking about which gender you want to belong to
is in charge of a lot, very dangerous, and needs to be isolated/marginalized, not reasoned with.
Also, a noisy handful of far-left lunatics are getting a very wide berth among the higher education elite and are emboldened by tenure protections. And that will only get worse. Conservatives can also have tenure but they are far outnumbered. The combined attributes of PhD, publishing of books and tenure can add up to a lot of authority.
The left, if not the hard-left, is a clear majority of Hollywood, half or more of the media and most of talk-show television.

One day the Democrats may have a problem comparable to what Rs are facing now (although I don't see the same level of insanity from people who *gasp* want to prevent racism, as I do from these morons who literally believe that Trump is secretly fighting a cabal of Satan worshiping pedophiles), but the 2020 election suggests that both the Democratic voters and their leading politicians are pretty moderate.

And we have plenty of threads where you an others go on about how awful liberals are. This is a thread intended to discuss the challenges facing the conservative party.

For some reason today's democrats think that preventing racism is something they just thought up recently. It is not, and neither is it something where someone may simply announce they are eminently qualified to dictate how something like that should be done.

Quotebut the 2020 election suggests that both the Democratic voters and their leading politicians are pretty moderate.

So says a liberal academic.

QuoteAnd we have plenty of threads where you an others go on about how awful liberals are. This is a thread intended to discuss the challenges facing the conservative party.

Which is disingenuous to begin with.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 07:36:26 AM
For some reason today's democrats think that preventing racism is something they just thought up recently. It is not, and neither is it something where someone may simply announce they are eminently qualified to dictate how something like that should be done.

Quotebut the 2020 election suggests that both the Democratic voters and their leading politicians are pretty moderate.

So says a liberal academic.

Ad hominem

Try sticking to substance, Mahagonny

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 07:36:26 AM

QuoteAnd we have plenty of threads where you an others go on about how awful liberals are. This is a thread intended to discuss the challenges facing the conservative party.

Which is disingenuous to begin with.

Not really. I genuinely want a sane Republican party that supports and abides by the democratic process, and I'm genuinely curious about how Rs will move forward. If you don't care to discuss these matters, and instead want to do your usual rants about BLM and tenure, then why not start your own thread?

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 16, 2021, 07:44:44 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 07:36:26 AM
For some reason today's democrats think that preventing racism is something they just thought up recently. It is not, and neither is it something where someone may simply announce they are eminently qualified to dictate how something like that should be done.

Quotebut the 2020 election suggests that both the Democratic voters and their leading politicians are pretty moderate.

So says a liberal academic.

Ad hominem

Try sticking to substance, Mahagonny

Not at all. I mean no disrespect to you, but I suspect you live in a bubble as a result of, likely, the people you socialize with, your preferred news outlets, movies, etc. Which would mean your perspective might likely be of a certain kind.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 07:54:47 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 16, 2021, 07:44:44 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 07:36:26 AM
For some reason today's democrats think that preventing racism is something they just thought up recently. It is not, and neither is it something where someone may simply announce they are eminently qualified to dictate how something like that should be done.

Quotebut the 2020 election suggests that both the Democratic voters and their leading politicians are pretty moderate.

So says a liberal academic.

Ad hominem

Try sticking to substance, Mahagonny

Not at all. I mean no disrespect to you, but I suspect you live in a bubble as a result of, likely, the people you socialize with, your preferred news outlets, movies, etc. Which would mean your perspective might likely be of a certain kind.

Sure, of course we are all ethnocentric, so to speak, and this informs our opinions. But it doesn't make opinions worthless, especially those informed by data (and if you think any opinion is worthless if it comes from a person with a political ideology, then you might as well log off yourself).

The reality is that Democrats ran a lot of candidates in the primary, and those most to the left did not do well. Biden is a moderate (or is at least seen that way) and he won. This shows you two things: Democratic voters prefer moderates, and a moderate is the leader of the party. This is not my bubble, this is reality.

Aside from that, the results of 2020 were acknowledged among democratic party strategists to be disappointing compared to what they hoped for and expected. Strongly suggesting they still don't have their finger on the nation's pulse.

on edit: I don't deny that the psychological bullying and self-righteousness of the 'anti-racism' mob have gotten a big foothold recently and I don't deny that we're plenty worried about it. So, congratulations.

Quote from: dismalist on February 15, 2021, 06:17:07 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 15, 2021, 05:41:53 PM

Quote from: dismalist on February 15, 2021, 04:44:42 PM

Quotethe Republicans have become a far right party, with an authoritarian streak

That's perhaps an alternate reality or measuring by a new rod.

You are the one living in an alternative reality if you can't see that  trying to overthrow the results of a free and fair election constitutes an authoritarian streak.

That's not the 74 million voters, at all. These won't go away.

How many of these 74 million are genuinely good people who happen to agree with the Republicans on most issues and are willing to look past Trump and the Proud Boys to make progress on issues they genuinely care about?

^ good question and prompts me to ask one.

How many of those who voted for Joe Biden are good people, and by good I mean not only basically nice, but well enough adjusted to want to build good lives together and individually instead of looking for ways to play victim?

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 08:03:02 AM
Aside from that, the results of 2020 were acknowledged among democratic party strategists to be disappointing compared to what they hoped for and expected. Strongly suggesting they still don't have their finger on the nation's pulse.

on edit: I don't deny that the psychological bullying and self-righteousness of the 'anti-racism' mob have gotten a big foothold recently and I don't deny that we're plenty worried about it. So, congratulations.

Great, thanks for that out of date take on the election and accompanying rant about anti-racism, which is entirely unrelated to the topic of this thread. Lots of great food for thought.

Do you have anything relevant to say about the topic of this thread? Did you read the Sasse op-ed linked to in the opening post? Tell us what you think about Rs moving forward.

"moderate" is relative. With the republicans moving farther and farther to the right, in order to remain viable, people like Biden appear even more and more moderate.

As for where Republicans go from here, their only course for survival is to move farther to the right. They can't win in the center (Bush Sr. couldn't win a 2nd term even with the patriotic boost of beating up on the hapless Iraqi army, Bob Dole lost, McCain lost, Romney lost, and Dubya was barely a win made possible only by courting the far right vote through white-washed xenophobia). But Republicans have found some success moving farther to the right. They will continue to go that direction because it's really their only option. An enigmatic future is a better option than going where one has lost several times before.

The traditional Republican party of fiscal conservatives is dead. The new Republican base loves the benefits of "big government," too, and doesn't care about deficit spending or national debt. Since the traditional Republicans are defined by the their views on the role of government, but do not offer overt cultural identity politics for the new Republican base, they have very little to offer other than a champion to overturn Roe vs Wade.

A better strategy for Republicans is to shore up, defend, and manipulate further, the Republican advantage in the electoral college. This can be achieved through state-level legislatures, many of which are controlled by Republicans in swing states.

No matter what happens in the short-term, history will remember the Republican party as the party that supported the over-turning of an election through violent means.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 16, 2021, 08:28:00 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 08:03:02 AM
Aside from that, the results of 2020 were acknowledged among democratic party strategists to be disappointing compared to what they hoped for and expected. Strongly suggesting they still don't have their finger on the nation's pulse.

on edit: I don't deny that the psychological bullying and self-righteousness of the 'anti-racism' mob have gotten a big foothold recently and I don't deny that we're plenty worried about it. So, congratulations.

Great, thanks for that out of date take on the election and accompanying rant about anti-racism, which is entirely unrelated to the topic of this thread. Lots of great food for thought.

Wrong again. Anti-'antiracism' and a widely agreed upon astonishment and disgust for the most vocal proponents of the 'antiracism' and 'woke' movements (including and maybe even especially the most educated ones) are current foundations for coalition and will play a role in where the republicans steer themselves next. Preventing bad people from getting control of government is a platform, and it's never been stronger than now during my lifetime. Remember perhaps, Bob Dole: 'a good day in government is usually not getting a good thing to happen. More often it's preventing a bad thing from happening.'
Given Trump's abrasive personality it should have been a cinch to landslide him. Didn't happen.

Quote
Not really. I genuinely want a sane Republican party that supports and abides by the democratic process, and I'm genuinely curious about how Rs will move forward. If you don't care to discuss these matters, and instead want to do your usual rants about BLM and tenure, then why not start your own thread?

I've been asked not to, although that may not deter me for long. Why don't you start a forum where only liberals may log in?

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 09:05:28 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 16, 2021, 08:28:00 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 08:03:02 AM
Aside from that, the results of 2020 were acknowledged among democratic party strategists to be disappointing compared to what they hoped for and expected. Strongly suggesting they still don't have their finger on the nation's pulse.

on edit: I don't deny that the psychological bullying and self-righteousness of the 'anti-racism' mob have gotten a big foothold recently and I don't deny that we're plenty worried about it. So, congratulations.

Great, thanks for that out of date take on the election and accompanying rant about anti-racism, which is entirely unrelated to the topic of this thread. Lots of great food for thought.

Wrong again. Anti-'antiracism' and a widely agreed upon astonishment and disgust for the most vocal proponents of the 'antiracism' and 'woke' movements (including and maybe even especially the most educated ones) are current foundations for coalition and will play a role in where the republicans steer themselves next. Preventing bad people from getting control of government is a platform, and it's never been stronger than now during my lifetime. Remember perhaps, Bob Dole: 'a good day in government is usually not getting a good thing to happen. More often it's preventing a bad thing from happening.'
Given Trump's abrasive personality it should have been a cinch to landslide him. Didn't happen.

Ok. So the Republican Party's strategy should be running on a platform of preventing bad people from getting control of the government. That is sort of reasonable, but how do they achieve this goal when the party's most popular figure is someone who most people think is a bad person (Trump), and when much of party leadership has cast their lot with far-right authoritarianism?

And to be clear, I'm not trying to attack the Republicans here, I'm just saying that they have a dilemma and asking how they get to where you want them to go.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 16, 2021, 09:05:28 AM

Quote
Not really. I genuinely want a sane Republican party that supports and abides by the democratic process, and I'm genuinely curious about how Rs will move forward. If you don't care to discuss these matters, and instead want to do your usual rants about BLM and tenure, then why not start your own thread?

I've been asked not to, although that may not deter me for long. Why don't you start a forum where only liberals may log in?

I want to hear from conservatives - I have literally just asked you for your opinion on the conservative party. I just wish it didn't take an act of God to make you break character to respond to the thread topic.

I'll just leave this here.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/16/trump-attacks-mcconnell-in-fiery-statement-469150

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 16, 2021, 04:14:05 PM
I'll just leave this here.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/16/trump-attacks-mcconnell-in-fiery-statement-469150

I believe I could make a pact with you and others of your style to jump on Trump with both feet if we could see eye to eye on a couple other things.

I side with McConnell in any Trump-McConnell showdown. Cocaine Mitch is the most important conservative politician of his time.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 16, 2021, 04:14:05 PM
I'll just leave this here.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/02/16/trump-attacks-mcconnell-in-fiery-statement-469150

Yeah, and he made fun of Ted Cruz' wife. Now they are besties.

Quote from: apl68 on February 15, 2021, 08:27:49 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 10:04:21 AM
'Away' would be nice.

Then the United States will have only a single national-level political party.  A one-party system is not good for democracy in the long term.

A wise old friend of foreign extraction and less prone to American biases pointed out to me the futility of those who place their hopes upon getting their own party to control government.  Even with one party in charge they would split into a left wing and a right wing.   I am reminded of the Chicago city council in the 1980's with the battles between Mayor Washington and Alderman Vrdolyak.  There you had one single party with a huge divide.   

It looks like Ted Cruz has gone to Cancun.

He is reportedly coming back because of the backlash.

Sure the optics are bad, and Ted would be exactly the person to not think of that. But is it really different from taking a bath then sleeping in your own bed with your cat when there are the homeless?

Quote from: mahagonny on February 18, 2021, 02:39:33 PM
Sure the optics are bad, and Ted would be exactly the person to not think of that. But is it really different from taking a bath then sleeping in your own bed with your cat when there are the homeless?

When you take a bath and sleep with your cat you aren't helping to spread a deadly disease.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2021, 03:00:22 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 18, 2021, 02:39:33 PM
Sure the optics are bad, and Ted would be exactly the person to not think of that. But is it really different from taking a bath then sleeping in your own bed with your cat when there are the homeless?

When you take a bath and sleep with your cat you aren't helping to spread a deadly disease.

Aah, no, Ted was wearing a mask!

Here's an answer to my question: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/02/ted-cruz-no-hypocrite/618060/

And to the question 'where do republicans go from here' I would answer 'not where Ted goes.' Although there should be ways to promote less government regulation, republicans would need someone who isn't tone-deaf to do it.

Ronald Reagan's dislike for federal bureaucracy (mentioned in the linked article) was kind of like Donald Trump's dislike for political correctness. It was an over-the-top dislike, but it was still something to vote for rather than to vote democratic, because what the democrats were up to was even worse, and you could understand where the dislike came from even if you weren't that over the top with it.

Headline in today's Post https://nypost.com/: "That's cold, man". Cruz apparently left his dog behind in his freezing house. His wife was texting friends recommending that they leave Houston for warmer climes.

The Post, a conservative paper has been having fun with this story. I can only read the headlines as the stories themselves are behind a paywall. I think you get to read six free articles a month.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 18, 2021, 03:00:22 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 18, 2021, 02:39:33 PM
Sure the optics are bad, and Ted would be exactly the person to not think of that. But is it really different from taking a bath then sleeping in your own bed with your cat when there are the homeless?

When you take a bath and sleep with your cat you aren't helping to spread a deadly disease.

One of us has got the story wrong. It may be me, since I'm not really following it. But I'm pretty certain that he's being criticized for leaving Texas during a crisis, not for spreading COVID.

Quote from: Langue_doc on February 19, 2021, 06:39:22 AM
Headline in today's Post https://nypost.com/: "That's cold, man". Cruz apparently left his dog behind in his freezing house. His wife was texting friends recommending that they leave Houston for warmer climes.

The Post, a conservative paper has been having fun with this story. I can only read the headlines as the stories themselves are behind a paywall. I think you get to read six free articles a month.

Mitt Romney wouldn't approve. A kind hearted person would have strapped the dog on top of the car, then driven to the vacation destination. hee hee
Cruz blames the trip on his daughters, proving that no gaffe causes so much damage that you can't add another one to compound it. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/ted-cruz-cancun-texas-storm-b1804308.html
Reminds me of the university president who explained away his lavish salary by explaining it wasn't for him, it was for his family.
on edit: but the Atlantic article makes sense to me. The mistake would be not that he wouldn't have helped if he could, but more he didn't imagine that he could.

Quote from: writingprof on February 19, 2021, 07:57:24 AM

When you take a bath and sleep with your cat you aren't helping to spread a deadly disease.

One of us has got the story wrong. It may be me, since I'm not really following it. But I'm pretty certain that he's being criticized for leaving Texas during a crisis, not for spreading COVID.
[/quote]

spreading republican cooties

"Flying Ted" is leading them to Cancun!! 

I hope in 2024 the republicans run a black man or woman. There is energy out there. Of course the democrats can call him or her an Uncle Tom, but arguing against that starts with the powerful sight of a free black person with conservative ideas. So then debate between a black conservative and the democrat would be more compelling. The democrats would then have to say the party of racism is led by a black. And that would ultimately make it harder for the democratic establishment to corral large numbers of black votes through the victimization narrative and bunch of silly government 'remedies.'

Quote from: mahagonny on February 20, 2021, 08:53:52 AM
I hope in 2024 the republicans run a black man or woman. There is energy out there. Of course the democrats can call him or her an Uncle Tom, but arguing against that starts with the powerful sight of a free black person with conservative ideas. So then debate between a black conservative and the democrat would be more compelling. The democrats would then have to say the party of racism is led by a black. And that would ultimately make it harder for the democratic establishment to corral large numbers of black votes through the victimization narrative and bunch of silly government 'remedies.'

Dream on. I, too, would like to see Republicans nominate an African-American, but that's never going to happen for the Republican nominee for president.

The stunt that you describe is already done on the local level and regional level, in places where a Republican has little chance of winning under any circumstance. Kim Klacik is one good example. Republicans had NO CHANCE of winning the Maryland congressional district that includes Baltimore. So, Kim Klacik ran a campaign as an African-American woman representing the Republican party. Even though she had NO CHANCE of winning her congressional district, it gave Republicans everywhere exactly what you describe. She was paraded at the convention and given a spotlight by the RNC, as proof that Republicans are not racist. Although she had no relevance in the congressional election where she ran, she was used as a tool to woo African-American votes for the contests outside of her congressional district, in larger national contests like the presidency and more competitive congressional districts in other states. Even more importantly, she was a comforting symbol to white Republican voters, as she could be used as proof that Republicans are not racist, and that casting a vote for a Republican was not part of a referendum on race.

Smart move, if you ask me.

The presidency, however, dream on. That will never happen, because the presidency is the ultimate symbol of power, and the far right Republican base, who now controls the Republican party, will never accept an African American president.

Quote from: lightning on February 20, 2021, 09:20:58 AM
Dream on. I, too, would like to see Republicans nominate an African-American, but that's never going to happen for the Republican nominee for president.

[. . .]

The presidency, however, dream on. That will never happen, because the presidency is the ultimate symbol of power, and the far right Republican base, who now controls the Republican party, will never accept an African American president.

This post reveals that you fundamentally misunderstand your enemy. The "far-right Republican base" is indeed casually racist. So is the far-left Democratic base, and so are moderates of both parties, independents, and nearly all human beings in the world, past and present. What you fail to recognize is that the Trumpian hatred of globalism, the mainstream media, and the cultural "elite" is far more powerful than the crass, silly, and half-ironic racism to which you allude. Given the right field of primary opponents, a black candidate could absolutely speak the language of Trump and emerge with the nomination. I can practically hear the unreconstructed segment of the conservative electorate justifying their choice: "I don't like that [racial slur], but I'm voting for her."

I say all this as a lifelong conservative, Republican, and Southerner who has spent his life around racists (and "racists").

Quote from: lightning on February 20, 2021, 09:20:58 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 20, 2021, 08:53:52 AM
I hope in 2024 the republicans run a black man or woman. There is energy out there. Of course the democrats can call him or her an Uncle Tom, but arguing against that starts with the powerful sight of a free black person with conservative ideas. So then debate between a black conservative and the democrat would be more compelling. The democrats would then have to say the party of racism is led by a black. And that would ultimately make it harder for the democratic establishment to corral large numbers of black votes through the victimization narrative and bunch of silly government 'remedies.'

Dream on. I, too, would like to see Republicans nominate an African-American, but that's never going to happen for the Republican nominee for president.

The stunt that you describe is already done on the local level and regional level, in places where a Republican has little chance of winning under any circumstance. Kim Klacik is one good example. Republicans had NO CHANCE of winning the Maryland congressional district that includes Baltimore. So, Kim Klacik ran a campaign as an African-American woman representing the Republican party. Even though she had NO CHANCE of winning her congressional district, it gave Republicans everywhere exactly what you describe. She was paraded at the convention and given a spotlight by the RNC, as proof that Republicans are not racist. Although she had no relevance in the congressional election where she ran, she was used as a tool to woo African-American votes for the contests outside of her congressional district, in larger national contests like the presidency and more competitive congressional districts in other states. Even more importantly, she was a comforting symbol to white Republican voters, as she could be used as proof that Republicans are not racist, and that casting a vote for a Republican was not part of a referendum on race.

Smart move, if you ask me.

The presidency, however, dream on. That will never happen, because the presidency is the ultimate symbol of power, and the far right Republican base, who now controls the Republican party, will never accept an African American president.

That's just the thing though. It wouldn't be a stunt. It would just an American who happens to be black promoting the values that have made their life a success and a good reason to live in this country. A natural process of assimilation and  focussing on your life, your goals, your options, your work and not your racial identity or your perceived enemies. Or you could think of it as a translation. A white person says the same things and they're racist John McCain, Mitt Romney, et al. The fact that it's seen as stunt would show that the the person who thinks that wants the blacks to stay in their place. The democratic party's plantation.

Quote from: lightning on February 20, 2021, 09:20:58 AM
Dream on. I, too, would like to see Republicans nominate an African-American, but that's never going to happen for the Republican nominee for president.

Correct take. Conservatives in this thread are living on Mars if they think Republican primary voters will nominate an AA.

Quote from: writingprof on February 20, 2021, 09:52:53 AM
The "far-right Republican base" is indeed casually racist. So is the far-left Democratic base, and so are moderates of both parties, independents, and nearly all human beings in the world, past and present.

Republicans and conservatives must acknowledge the problem if they want to actually deal with it. Instead we get these lame efforts to brush aside rampant racism in the base and in the party.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 20, 2021, 12:32:18 PM

Quote from: lightning on February 20, 2021, 09:20:58 AM
Dream on. I, too, would like to see Republicans nominate an African-American, but that's never going to happen for the Republican nominee for president.

Correct take. Conservatives in this thread are living on Mars if they think Republican primary voters will nominate an AA.

Quote from: writingprof on February 20, 2021, 09:52:53 AM
The "far-right Republican base" is indeed casually racist. So is the far-left Democratic base, and so are moderates of both parties, independents, and nearly all human beings in the world, past and present.

Republicans and conservatives must acknowledge the problem if they want to actually deal with it. Instead we get these lame efforts to brush aside rampant racism in the base and in the party.

This is what the party thinks who believes that candidate Hillary Clinton, a feminist, in 2016 was striking a huge blow for women's rights whereas Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, a chemist, in 1979, was meaningless. Just because we haven't yet had a woman president doesn't mean we couldn't have.
3, 2, 1...'incoherent.'

QuoteInstead we get these lame efforts to brush aside rampant racism in the base and in the party.

And Russia.

Quote from: dismalist on February 20, 2021, 01:57:45 PM

QuoteInstead we get these lame efforts to brush aside rampant racism in the base and in the party.

And Russia.

LOL.

Quote from: dismalist on February 20, 2021, 01:57:45 PM

QuoteInstead we get these lame efforts to brush aside rampant racism in the base and in the party.

And Russia.

Pretty sad that this is the best response that our conservative posters can muster.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 20, 2021, 04:16:44 PM

Quote from: dismalist on February 20, 2021, 01:57:45 PM

QuoteInstead we get these lame efforts to brush aside rampant racism in the base and in the party.

And Russia.

Pretty sad that this is the best response that our conservative posters can muster.

I made my actual argument at the top of page five and know with total certainty that I'm right. If the rest of you disagree, I'm happy to make grim jokes while you live and die in ignorance. That is very close to the essence of conservatism.

Quote from: writingprof on February 20, 2021, 09:52:53 AM

Quote from: lightning on February 20, 2021, 09:20:58 AM
Dream on. I, too, would like to see Republicans nominate an African-American, but that's never going to happen for the Republican nominee for president.

[. . .]

The presidency, however, dream on. That will never happen, because the presidency is the ultimate symbol of power, and the far right Republican base, who now controls the Republican party, will never accept an African American president.

This post reveals that you fundamentally misunderstand your enemy. The "far-right Republican base" is indeed casually racist. So is the far-left Democratic base, and so are moderates of both parties, independents, and nearly all human beings in the world, past and present. What you fail to recognize is that the Trumpian hatred of globalism, the mainstream media, and the cultural "elite" is far more powerful than the crass, silly, and half-ironic racism to which you allude. Given the right field of primary opponents, a black candidate could absolutely speak the language of Trump and emerge with the nomination. I can practically hear the unreconstructed segment of the conservative electorate justifying their choice: "I don't like that [racial slur], but I'm voting for her."

I say all this as a lifelong conservative, Republican, and Southerner who has spent his life around racists (and "racists").

No s**t racists are everywhere, but only one party's presidential candidate made it central to their election/re-election platform.


As for the Trump voters' hatred of the mainstream media, you can't use that boogeyman argument anymore. Media has been fragmented since the rise of social media, and the Trump voters have chosen their own media, and vilified anyone that doesn't agree with them. In this case, the "mainstream" media.

Trump voter's hatred of globalism? The democratic supported unions were against globalism. It was the Corporate (Capitalist) enterprise backed by Republicans that drove globalism down our throats. Yes, Democrats went along. But ironically, it was the Republican base that couldn't handle globalism, and were left behind in the dust.

As for cultural "elite," Trump voters hate you.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 20, 2021, 12:22:17 PM

Quote from: lightning on February 20, 2021, 09:20:58 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 20, 2021, 08:53:52 AM
I hope in 2024 the republicans run a black man or woman. There is energy out there. Of course the democrats can call him or her an Uncle Tom, but arguing against that starts with the powerful sight of a free black person with conservative ideas. So then debate between a black conservative and the democrat would be more compelling. The democrats would then have to say the party of racism is led by a black. And that would ultimately make it harder for the democratic establishment to corral large numbers of black votes through the victimization narrative and bunch of silly government 'remedies.'

Dream on. I, too, would like to see Republicans nominate an African-American, but that's never going to happen for the Republican nominee for president.

The stunt that you describe is already done on the local level and regional level, in places where a Republican has little chance of winning under any circumstance. Kim Klacik is one good example. Republicans had NO CHANCE of winning the Maryland congressional district that includes Baltimore. So, Kim Klacik ran a campaign as an African-American woman representing the Republican party. Even though she had NO CHANCE of winning her congressional district, it gave Republicans everywhere exactly what you describe. She was paraded at the convention and given a spotlight by the RNC, as proof that Republicans are not racist. Although she had no relevance in the congressional election where she ran, she was used as a tool to woo African-American votes for the contests outside of her congressional district, in larger national contests like the presidency and more competitive congressional districts in other states. Even more importantly, she was a comforting symbol to white Republican voters, as she could be used as proof that Republicans are not racist, and that casting a vote for a Republican was not part of a referendum on race.

Smart move, if you ask me.

The presidency, however, dream on. That will never happen, because the presidency is the ultimate symbol of power, and the far right Republican base, who now controls the Republican party, will never accept an African American president.

That's just the thing though. It wouldn't be a stunt. It would just an American who happens to be black promoting the values that have made their life a success and a good reason to live in this country. A natural process of assimilation and  focussing on your life, your goals, your options, your work and not your racial identity or your perceived enemies. Or you could think of it as a translation. A white person says the same things and they're racist John McCain, Mitt Romney, et al. The fact that it's seen as stunt would show that the the person who thinks that wants the blacks to stay in their place. The democratic party's plantation.

Unlike, you, Kim Klacik's district saw right through her.

Mission accomplished though, for the Republican party. It was good optics for the Republican party, even though it was a doomed effort. It was also good for you. The fact that you got an opportunity to say that I think that "the blacks to stay in their place" allows you a temporary mini-soapbox in your mind, and a mini-victory (in your mind) amidst the deluge of losses.

The Kim Klacik maneuver directly answers the original post. This is where the Republican party should go, in terms of tactics.

Quote from: writingprof on February 20, 2021, 05:47:50 PM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 20, 2021, 04:16:44 PM

Quote from: dismalist on February 20, 2021, 01:57:45 PM

QuoteInstead we get these lame efforts to brush aside rampant racism in the base and in the party.

And Russia.

Pretty sad that this is the best response that our conservative posters can muster.

I made my actual argument at the top of page five and know with total certainty that I'm right. If the rest of you disagree, I'm happy to make grim jokes while you live and die in ignorance. That is very close to the essence of conservatism.

You're wrong. An African American can certainly adopt the language of the far-right Trump base, but they will never be nominated.

You will only be right, if an African American is nominated by the Republican party for president. Check in with me in four years, if you dare.

My life is great, and there is nothing that any politician or supporter of a politician can do to majorly screw up my life. THAT is even closer to the essence of conservatism. So take your shots.

I'm a former Republican and a former southerner, but I'm still around racists (at least I'm around racists that don't wear it on their sleeve and might even feel ashamed of being racist--unlike in the South where they don't even know that they are racist or worse, fly the Stars and Bars proudly across the street from my house)

Quote from: lightning on February 21, 2021, 11:37:24 AM

No s**t racists are everywhere, but only one party's presidential candidate made it central to their election/re-election platform.

That would be the democratic party that maintains that all demographics end up with equal academic success and wealth or else someone is racist. Unless Asian Americans end up with more success. in that case disregard.

QuoteYou will only be right, if an African American is nominated by the Republican party for president. Check in with me in four years, if you dare.

It doesn't have to happen in four years to prove that it could happen in four years or could have already happened had other factors aligned. Who emerges from the pack is a matter of showmanship, luck, connection with the voters. Arbitray fiixation on race is a stupid liberal obsession. Yours to enjoy.

QuoteMy life is great, and there is nothing that any politician or supporter of a politician can do to majorly screw up my life. THAT is even closer to the essence of conservatism. So take your shots.

That's what makes liberal academia an utterly stunning hypocrisy, since they love people getting vastly different amounts of pay for the same work, and a raft of dead end, low pay temp jobs to subsidize the good ones. And yet see themselves as keenly sensitive to issues of pay inequity everywhere else.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 18, 2021, 02:39:33 PM
Sure the optics are bad, and Ted would be exactly the person to not think of that. But is it really different from taking a bath then sleeping in your own bed with your cat when there are the homeless?

Ted also gets to take a bath and sleep in his own bed, too (maybe not with his cat), so it's a wash. Your tired technique of mitigation through false equivalency argument fails here once again, although it works as a distraction (read on).

The optics for Republicans are particularly bad because Cruz's fallen Democratic senatorial opponent marshaled phone volunteers to check on the elderly in Texas (I've heard something between 300k - 700k phone calls were made) during the crisis and Ted's arch-rival on twitter, AOC, raised $4 million for support of relief efforts in Texas.

I think Ted took a picture of himself loading bottled water into a car or something.

Republicans are going along with Democrats and are beating up on Cruz, probably to distract from the worst PR nightmare for Texan Republicans, Democrats Beto and AOC doing more for Texans in their time of need than the Republican that they elected.

For Ted's political future, he will need to ensconce himself further with MAGA, to remain politically viable. And he will even let Trump call his wife ugly, again.

Quote from: lightning on February 21, 2021, 07:57:29 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 18, 2021, 02:39:33 PM
Sure the optics are bad, and Ted would be exactly the person to not think of that. But is it really different from taking a bath then sleeping in your own bed with your cat when there are the homeless?

Ted also gets to take a bath and sleep in his own bed, too (maybe not with his cat), so it's a wash. Your tired technique of mitigation through false equivalency argument fails here once again, although it works as a distraction (read on).

The optics for Republicans are particularly bad because Cruz's fallen Democratic senatorial opponent marshaled phone volunteers to check on the elderly in Texas (I've heard something between 300k - 700k phone calls were made) during the crisis and Ted's arch-rival on twitter, AOC, raised $4 million for support of relief efforts in Texas.

I think Ted took a picture of himself loading bottled water into a car or something.

Republicans are going along with Democrats and are beating up on Cruz, probably to distract from the worst PR nightmare for Texan Republicans, Democrats Beto and AOC doing more for Texans in their time of need than the Republican that they elected.

For Ted's political future, he will need to ensconce himself further with MAGA, to remain politically viable. And he will even let Trump call his wife ugly, again.

Look upthread. I posted an answer to my question that I had found by googling around. I was just asking.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 21, 2021, 07:11:48 PM

Quote from: lightning on February 21, 2021, 11:37:24 AM

No s**t racists are everywhere, but only one party's presidential candidate made it central to their election/re-election platform.

That would be the democratic party that maintains that all demographics end up with equal academic success and wealth or else someone is racist. Unless Asian Americans end up with more success. in that case disregard.

Wrong. That would be the Republican party.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 21, 2021, 07:11:48 PM

Quote from: lightning on February 21, 2021, 11:37:24 AM
You will only be right, if an African American is nominated by the Republican party for president. Check in with me in four years, if you dare.

It doesn't have to happen in four years to prove that it could happen in four years or could have already happened had other factors aligned. Who emerges from the pack is a matter of showmanship, luck, connection with the voters. Arbitray fiixation on race is a stupid liberal obsession. Yours to enjoy.

OK, check in with me in eight years, if you dare. Race is YOUR fixation. YOU are the one that brought up race with the African-American Republican presidential nominee.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 21, 2021, 07:11:48 PM

Quote from: lightning on February 21, 2021, 11:37:24 AM
My life is great, and there is nothing that any politician or supporter of a politician can do to majorly screw up my life. THAT is even closer to the essence of conservatism. So take your shots.

That's what makes liberal academia an utterly stunning hypocrisy, since they love people getting vastly different amounts of pay for the same work, and a raft of dead end, low pay temp jobs to subsidize the good ones. And yet see themselves as keenly sensitive to issues of pay inequity everywhere else.

What? Because I weather-proofed myself against the storm of Conservative dismantling and erosion of the academy? I'm the enemy and the hypocrite? The Republicans are the ones that gutted higher ed and left scraps for all of us to fight over. The Liberals that you loathe that hold the positions that you don't have, are just the survivors. We don't love this system any more than you do, and at least at my university, we've always been working to achieve faculty equity.

Mahagonny's just waiting for Godot.

M.

Quote from: lightning on February 21, 2021, 08:58:34 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 21, 2021, 07:11:48 PM

Quote from: lightning on February 21, 2021, 11:37:24 AM

No s**t racists are everywhere, but only one party's presidential candidate made it central to their election/re-election platform.

That would be the democratic party that maintains that all demographics end up with equal academic success and wealth or else someone is racist. Unless Asian Americans end up with more success. in that case disregard.

Wrong. That would be the Republican party.

This is where we disagree. There is racism on the left, and it is unacknowledged. If you believe that, despite the fact that slavery dates back to biblical times and has been practiced against the enslaved by all races, white people should be singled out for their having practiced it, and we need a radical way to implement that idea such as indoctrinating our young children in public school about the sin of being white, then you are racist.

Quote
What? Because I weather-proofed myself against the storm of Conservative dismantling and erosion of the academy? I'm the enemy and the hypocrite? The Republicans are the ones that gutted higher ed and left scraps for all of us to fight over. The Liberals that you loathe that hold the positions that you don't have, are just the survivors. We don't love this system any more than you do, and at least at my university, we've always been working to achieve faculty equity.

Uh, like hell, professor. The tenure track is absolutely resigned to the regular use of the segmented labor system. All you have to do is pay attention to what people do as opposed to what they say about themselves. A good idea anyway.

QuoteOK, check in with me in eight years, if you dare. Race is YOUR fixation. YOU are the one that brought up race with the African-American Republican presidential nominee.

I was told there is a thing called white fragility and that for some reason it is difficult for white people to talk about race. So here and there I may try to do something to correct that problem, race being on everyone's minds lately. But I may not say the things that certain people think they should be able to require me to say.

Quote from: mamselle on February 21, 2021, 09:02:04 PM
Mahagonny's just waiting for Godot.

M.

Quote from: mahagonny on February 22, 2021, 04:52:27 AM

Quote from: lightning on February 21, 2021, 08:58:34 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on February 21, 2021, 07:11:48 PM

Quote from: lightning on February 21, 2021, 11:37:24 AM

No s**t racists are everywhere, but only one party's presidential candidate made it central to their election/re-election platform.

That would be the democratic party that maintains that all demographics end up with equal academic success and wealth or else someone is racist. Unless Asian Americans end up with more success. in that case disregard.

Wrong. That would be the Republican party.

This is where we disagree. There is racism on the left, and it is unacknowledged. If you believe that, despite the fact that slavery dates back to biblical times and has been practiced against the enslaved by all races, white people should be singled out for their having practiced it, and we need a radical way to implement that idea such as indoctrinating our young children in public school about the sin of being white, then you are racist.

Actually we agree. Like I said to writingprof, racists are everywhere. But it's the Republicans that court those votes and make it central to their platform.

Once again you are trying to mitigate the heinous attempt by Republicans to capture the racist vote, by contextualizing racism within the broad sweep of the history of racism by saying slavery has been practices for centuries by all races and all people, therefore we shouldn't be singling out modern whites nor Republicans. But like I've said to you before, and I'm only here to say it to you again, using just one example, that would be the same as saying that Ashanti complicity in the West African slave trade, mitigates the atrocities committed by the Dutch and the English slave traders and the American slave owners, and mitigates the current Republican stance on race.

As for me being racist, I really tried my best to follow your logic. I got dumber the more I tried to empathize with you. First off, k-12 schools are not indoctrinating children into thinking that they are sinful, for being white.




Your turn. I can do this all day.

From CPAC, it sure looks like the GOP is doubling down on cult of Trump, conspiracy theories, and hard right authoritarianism. Not a good strategy for winning national elections.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 28, 2021, 09:21:38 AM
From CPAC, it sure looks like the GOP is doubling down on cult of Trump, conspiracy theories, and hard right authoritarianism. Not a good strategy for winning national elections.

You forgot to add in they've added worshipping false gods to their repertoire:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/golden-trump-statue-cpac-mexico.html

Quote from: secundem_artem on February 28, 2021, 10:19:41 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on February 28, 2021, 09:21:38 AM
From CPAC, it sure looks like the GOP is doubling down on cult of Trump, conspiracy theories, and hard right authoritarianism. Not a good strategy for winning national elections.

You forgot to add in they've added worshipping false gods to their repertoire:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/golden-trump-statue-cpac-mexico.html

Thou shalt worship false idols! ... wait do I have that right?

Good article with some ideas.  For years the republicans made it too easy for the democrats to cast themselves as the only place for black voters to go. Likewise with environmentalists. That can be changed.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/05/five_steps_for_revitalizing_conservatism_145351.html

Quote from: mahagonny on March 05, 2021, 05:23:36 AM
Good article with some ideas.  For years the republicans made it too easy for the democrats to cast themselves as the only place for black voters to go. Likewise with environmentalists. That can be changed.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/05/five_steps_for_revitalizing_conservatism_145351.html

Environment? Not a chance. Republicans would have to stand up for climate science, and in turn trust the smart people. The Republican base would never support a Republican that did that.

As for conserving institutions, the article was vague. Does that include the National Endowment for the Arts, funding for libraries, public broadcasting, and other items related to stewardship of institutions built in the past? If it does, forget about the Republican base supporting a candidate that did that. Reagan would not get nominated by today's Republican party.

As for being a party that traditional minorities could see as an option, any Republican gains among the traditional minority voters, were probably lost when the treasonous insurrectionists brought the Confederate Flag into the Capitol Building and revealed who they really are.

QuoteAs for being a party that traditional minorities could see as an option, any Republican gains among the traditional minority voters, were probably lost when the treasonous insurrectionists brought the Confederate Flag into the Capitol Building and revealed who they really are.

Not convinced at all by what you post. The people who did that revealed who they are, not who the 74 million are. The minorities who voted for Trump in 2020 have been hearing he's a racist for his entire political career, and they either don't believe it or consider it a nitpicking charge.

Quote from: mahagonny on March 05, 2021, 05:23:36 AM
Good article with some ideas.  For years the republicans made it too easy for the democrats to cast themselves as the only place for black voters to go. Likewise with environmentalists. That can be changed.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/05/five_steps_for_revitalizing_conservatism_145351.html

I hope Republicans go in this direction. Doesn't seem like they're headed that way at the moment though.

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on March 05, 2021, 03:40:56 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on March 05, 2021, 05:23:36 AM
Good article with some ideas.  For years the republicans made it too easy for the democrats to cast themselves as the only place for black voters to go. Likewise with environmentalists. That can be changed.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2021/03/05/five_steps_for_revitalizing_conservatism_145351.html

I hope Republicans go in this direction. Doesn't seem like they're headed that way at the moment though.

...Which would be why someone needed to write the article.

Quote from: mahagonny on March 05, 2021, 02:47:01 PM

QuoteAs for being a party that traditional minorities could see as an option, any Republican gains among the traditional minority voters, were probably lost when the treasonous insurrectionists brought the Confederate Flag into the Capitol Building and revealed who they really are.

Not convinced at all by what you post. The people who did that revealed who they are, not who the 74 million are. The minorities who voted for Trump in 2020 have been hearing he's a racist for his entire political career, and they either don't believe it or consider it a nitpicking charge.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything because that would be a lost cause. A vote for Trump was a vote for the man that incited the insurrection and the Lost Cause, and there were 74 million of them. They are complicit. As for the slight bump in African-American and LatinoX support for Trump, that does not negate Trump's (and now the Republican party's) xenophobic & bigoted platform.

Quote from: lightning on March 05, 2021, 11:06:35 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on March 05, 2021, 02:47:01 PM

QuoteAs for being a party that traditional minorities could see as an option, any Republican gains among the traditional minority voters, were probably lost when the treasonous insurrectionists brought the Confederate Flag into the Capitol Building and revealed who they really are.

Not convinced at all by what you post. The people who did that revealed who they are, not who the 74 million are. The minorities who voted for Trump in 2020 have been hearing he's a racist for his entire political career, and they either don't believe it or consider it a nitpicking charge.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything because that would be a lost cause. A vote for Trump was a vote for the man that incited the insurrection and the Lost Cause, and there were 74 million of them. They are complicit. As for the slight bump in African-American and LatinoX support for Trump, that does not negate Trump's (and now the Republican party's) xenophobic & bigoted platform.

I'd ask you what you mean by 'does not negate' but then I'd have read your answer, which I really doubt would be worth it.

What you're doing is not my idea of discussing. This is more like fencing. I'm just going to duck when I see you coming.

QuoteThe elephant in the room refuses to go away. Donald Trump remains a polarizing figure whose brash and crass demeanor retains a strange magnetism, even as his self-absorbed pettiness undermined what were often sensible policy instincts.

This strikes me as a sane response to the vivid experience of Trump in our lives. Neither being snowed by his bluster nor frightened into likening to with the worst dictators from history.

Quote from: mahagonny on March 06, 2021, 05:25:19 AM

Quote from: lightning on March 05, 2021, 11:06:35 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on March 05, 2021, 02:47:01 PM

QuoteAs for being a party that traditional minorities could see as an option, any Republican gains among the traditional minority voters, were probably lost when the treasonous insurrectionists brought the Confederate Flag into the Capitol Building and revealed who they really are.

Not convinced at all by what you post. The people who did that revealed who they are, not who the 74 million are. The minorities who voted for Trump in 2020 have been hearing he's a racist for his entire political career, and they either don't believe it or consider it a nitpicking charge.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything because that would be a lost cause. A vote for Trump was a vote for the man that incited the insurrection and the Lost Cause, and there were 74 million of them. They are complicit. As for the slight bump in African-American and LatinoX support for Trump, that does not negate Trump's (and now the Republican party's) xenophobic & bigoted platform.

This is not my idea of discussing. This is more like fencing. I'm just going to duck when I see you coming.

You're only going to stop ducking now? You've been ducking for months.

I'm sure that the Fora is tired of our exchanges. I certainly got tired of sparring with you, and I certainly have much better things to do, and so does the fora.

So, I'm asking, please let it go. I know you probably won't, but this is one opportunity where you can prove that I'm wrong.

Prediction (also what I hope): by 2022 or at the latest, 2024, a critical mass of voters will be really tired of politicians, academics, celebrities and media fretting and fuming about racism. Droning on about racism will cost a politician more than it will pay off.
It's fun to speculate. Who knows what's coming. Anyone who says they do is a liar.

Quote from: mahagonny on March 06, 2021, 07:06:56 AM
Prediction (also what I hope): by 2022 or at the latest, 2024, a critical mass of voters will be really tired of politicians, academics, celebrities and media fretting and fuming about racism. Droning on about racism will cost a politician more than it will pay off.
It's fun to speculate. Who knows what's coming. Anyone who says they do is a liar.

If find it interesting (although not surprising, as you are very predictable), that when I countered with three separate points on three separate topics that were discussed in the Mark Mitchell article, the only counter you had was for the topic on race, and ignoring the other two. You're the one with the fixation on race, and there is a critical mass of fora members who are really tired of it.

Now that a critical mass of fora readers is tired of something that I do, according to you, what are they going to do with that power?

critical mass: a size, number, or amount large enough to produce a particular result (Merriam-Webster online)

Also, you don't need a comma between subject and predicate.

QuoteAs for being a party that traditional minorities could see as an option, any Republican gains among the traditional minority voters, were probably lost when the treasonous insurrectionists brought the Confederate Flag into the Capitol Building and revealed who they really are.

Quote from: mahagonny on March 06, 2021, 11:29:04 AM
Also, you don't need a comma between subject and predicate.

QuoteAs for being a party that traditional minorities could see as an option, any Republican gains among the traditional minority voters, were probably lost when the treasonous insurrectionists brought the Confederate Flag into the Capitol Building and revealed who they really are.

Grammar policing a clarifying comma is all ya got?!?

Quote from: mahagonny on March 06, 2021, 11:29:04 AM
Now that a critical mass of fora readers is tired of something that I do, according to you, what are they going to do with that power?

critical mass: a size, number, or amount large enough to produce a particular result (Merriam-Webster online)

Just because the fora is sick of you, doesn't mean it should silence you. This was discussed on another thread & partially in PM. You have the freedom to continue to make yourself look like a fool, if you so choose. Carry on.

Quote from: lightning on March 06, 2021, 12:50:38 PM

Quote from: mahagonny on March 06, 2021, 11:29:04 AM
Now that a critical mass of fora readers is tired of something that I do, according to you, what are they going to do with that power?

critical mass: a size, number, or amount large enough to produce a particular result (Merriam-Webster online)

Just because the fora is sick of you, doesn't mean it should silence you. This was discussed on another thread & partially in PM.

We all know that. Therefore, there is no result to be envisioned, and the 'critical mass' you're thinking of is a majority.
The fact that you haven't been banned does not mean people have been enjoying your contributions. Something to think about.

on edit: anyone posting ideas about what the republican party should do next that actually show some interest in conservative values runs the risk of being quite unpopular among a good number of academics.

This is an example of the kind of stuff that counts as thoughtful around here:

'Re: Where do Republicans go from here?'

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on February 01, 2021, 10:04:21 AM
'Away' would be nice.

/

On road trips with minors? (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html)

Thing is, it just ends up as a stupid tit-for-tat exchange. Someone on the right is exposed in a relationship that is considered illicit, then someone else posts about a democrat with the same problem (well, that probably wouldn't happen on this far-lefty forum, but since everybody's seeing it on the news, it might as well be). And so on.

Quote from: spork on March 30, 2021, 04:50:03 PM
On road trips with minors? (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html)

Quote from: mahagonny on March 30, 2021, 07:19:18 PM
Thing is, it just ends up as a stupid tit-for-tat exchange. Someone on the right is exposed in a relationship that is considered illicit, then someone else posts about a democrat with the same problem (well, that probably wouldn't happen on this far-lefty forum, but since everybody's seeing it on the news, it might as well be). And so on.

Quote from: spork on March 30, 2021, 04:50:03 PM
On road trips with minors? (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html)

It's a smart move, on the part of the Republicans, since it will distract media attention away from all of their voter suppression bills.

Internet search 'Matt Gaetz': five million hits
Internet Search 'Georgia Voting': 843 milllion

If you haven't already, check out The Swamp on HBO, and you'll see that Gaetz actually is on the right side of a few issues, like campaign finance and reigning in executive overreach, but he's also a MAGA bootlicker and happily throws away all of his principles when it comes to Trump Admin activities. Quite a walking contradiction.

Oh well. I'm sure we'll all miss him, but he should be back on the scene in three-to-nine.

Quote from: mahagonny on March 30, 2021, 07:19:18 PM
Thing is, it just ends up as a stupid tit-for-tat exchange. Someone on the right is exposed in a relationship that is considered illicit, then someone else posts about a democrat with the same problem (well, that probably wouldn't happen on this far-lefty forum, but since everybody's seeing it on the news, it might as well be). And so on.

Quote from: spork on March 30, 2021, 04:50:03 PM
On road trips with minors? (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html)

It's not that it's 'considered illicit'. It's that it literally satisfies the definition of sex trafficking a minor.

The investigation was opened during the Trump administration. People in the Trump administration knew about it. I wonder whether Donnie was hoping to add it to his file of the dirt he has on people.

Quote from: downer on March 31, 2021, 08:47:41 AM
The investigation was opened during the Trump administration. People in the Trump administration knew about it. I wonder whether Donnie was hoping to add it to his file of the dirt he has on people.

Good point.

I also wonder if this is trying to distract people from his "adopted son." Because somehow a fling with a 17 year old girl is more acceptable than with a 19 year old boy?

Quote from: ciao_yall on March 31, 2021, 09:30:54 AM

Quote from: downer on March 31, 2021, 08:47:41 AM
The investigation was opened during the Trump administration. People in the Trump administration knew about it. I wonder whether Donnie was hoping to add it to his file of the dirt he has on people.

Good point.

I also wonder if this is trying to distract people from his "adopted son." Because somehow a fling with a 17 year old girl is more acceptable than with a 19 year old boy?

I thought the boy was 12 when he started living with Gaetz.

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 31, 2021, 08:13:39 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on March 30, 2021, 07:19:18 PM
Thing is, it just ends up as a stupid tit-for-tat exchange. Someone on the right is exposed in a relationship that is considered illicit, then someone else posts about a democrat with the same problem (well, that probably wouldn't happen on this far-lefty forum, but since everybody's seeing it on the news, it might as well be). And so on.

Quote from: spork on March 30, 2021, 04:50:03 PM
On road trips with minors? (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html)

It's not that it's 'considered illicit'. It's that it literally satisfies the definition of sex trafficking a minor.

Which Led Zeppelin fans (which includes academics by the ton) may appreciate. Kidnapping/keeping an underage sex slave is cool too when the right people are doing it.

"At the insistence of Led Zeppelin's manager, Peter Grant, Mattix was kept in a locked hotel room with a security guard at the door during the band's subsequent U.S. touring."- wikipedia, 'Lori Mattix' entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Mattix#cite_note-rough-5

honorary doctorate for Jimmy: https://www.dailyfreeman.com/lifestyle/jimmy-page-of-led-zeppelin-gets-honorary-doctorate-from-berklee-college-of-music/article_d34cf6ff-1b46-5985-a044-e7d52f3e03b7.html

I'm somewhat shocked by what was done but not shocked by seeing something I expect; namely, a 'gotcha' opportunity for someone who considers the perpetrator an enemy for other reasons.

Oh, they have already decided where to go, as we see in the wave of voter suppression laws in red states. The Republicans are the party of literal apartheid and white nationalism. Every day they get bolder in openly proclaiming it. And their 2024 presidential nominee Tucker Carlson (really!) will run on that platform.

Liberals sometimes say that the white nationalism strategy is a dead end because of changing demographics, but that is naive. Disenfranchisement in support of minority rule worked quite well in the South for generations, as it did in South Africa.

Quote from: larryc on March 31, 2021, 11:16:39 AM
Oh, they have already decided where to go, as we see in the wave of voter suppression laws in red states. The Republicans are the party of literal apartheid and white nationalism. Every day they get bolder in openly proclaiming it. And their 2024 presidential nominee Tucker Carlson (really!) will run on that platform.

Liberals sometimes say that the white nationalism strategy is a dead end because of changing demographics, but that is naive. Disenfranchisement in support of minority rule worked quite well in the South for generations, as it did in South Africa.

Do you approve of reasonable measures to insure that votes counted are authentic? I think maintaining a legal ID document is not terribly hard work for an adult human.

TBT each party has its deplorables that the presidential candidate hopes will turn out in droves. What's more American than everyone getting to vote, including the losers.

Quote from: larryc on March 31, 2021, 11:16:39 AM
Oh, they have already decided where to go, as we see in the wave of voter suppression laws in red states. The Republicans are the party of literal apartheid and white nationalism. Every day they get bolder in openly proclaiming it. And their 2024 presidential nominee Tucker Carlson (really!) will run on that platform.

Liberals sometimes say that the white nationalism strategy is a dead end because of changing demographics, but that is naive. Disenfranchisement in support of minority rule worked quite well in the South for generations, as it did in South Africa.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Quote from: mahagonny on March 31, 2021, 11:13:53 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 31, 2021, 08:13:39 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on March 30, 2021, 07:19:18 PM
Thing is, it just ends up as a stupid tit-for-tat exchange. Someone on the right is exposed in a relationship that is considered illicit, then someone else posts about a democrat with the same problem (well, that probably wouldn't happen on this far-lefty forum, but since everybody's seeing it on the news, it might as well be). And so on.

Quote from: spork on March 30, 2021, 04:50:03 PM
On road trips with minors? (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html)

It's not that it's 'considered illicit'. It's that it literally satisfies the definition of sex trafficking a minor.

Which Led Zeppelin fans (which includes academics by the ton) may appreciate. Kidnapping/keeping an underage sex slave is cool too when the right people are doing it.

"At the insistence of Led Zeppelin's manager, Peter Grant, Mattix was kept in a locked hotel room with a security guard at the door during the band's subsequent U.S. touring."- wikipedia, 'Lori Mattix' entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Mattix#cite_note-rough-5

honorary doctorate for Jimmy: https://www.dailyfreeman.com/lifestyle/jimmy-page-of-led-zeppelin-gets-honorary-doctorate-from-berklee-college-of-music/article_d34cf6ff-1b46-5985-a044-e7d52f3e03b7.html

I'm somewhat shocked by what was done but not shocked by seeing something I expect; namely, a 'gotcha' opportunity for someone who considers the perpetrator an enemy for other reasons.

Lol at the whataboutism that Republicans have to employ when one of their rising stars is under investigation for sex trafficking: "But whatabout former Democratic president Jimmy Page!"

So we could agree that persons guilty of kidnapping, statutory rape, sex trafficking, should be held accountable to the extent provided by law? I vote yes.

Quote from: mahagonny on March 31, 2021, 11:13:53 AM

Quote from: Parasaurolophus on March 31, 2021, 08:13:39 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on March 30, 2021, 07:19:18 PM
Thing is, it just ends up as a stupid tit-for-tat exchange. Someone on the right is exposed in a relationship that is considered illicit, then someone else posts about a democrat with the same problem (well, that probably wouldn't happen on this far-lefty forum, but since everybody's seeing it on the news, it might as well be). And so on.

Quote from: spork on March 30, 2021, 04:50:03 PM
On road trips with minors? (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/30/us/politics/matt-gaetz-sex-trafficking-investigation.html)

It's not that it's 'considered illicit'. It's that it literally satisfies the definition of sex trafficking a minor.

Which Led Zeppelin fans (which includes academics by the ton) may appreciate. Kidnapping/keeping an underage sex slave is cool too when the right people are doing it.

"At the insistence of Led Zeppelin's manager, Peter Grant, Mattix was kept in a locked hotel room with a security guard at the door during the band's subsequent U.S. touring."- wikipedia, 'Lori Mattix' entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lori_Mattix#cite_note-rough-5

honorary doctorate for Jimmy: https://www.dailyfreeman.com/lifestyle/jimmy-page-of-led-zeppelin-gets-honorary-doctorate-from-berklee-college-of-music/article_d34cf6ff-1b46-5985-a044-e7d52f3e03b7.html

I'm somewhat shocked by what was done but not shocked by seeing something I expect; namely, a 'gotcha' opportunity for someone who considers the perpetrator an enemy for other reasons.

The principal at my Catholic HS got on the intercom to address graffiti in the bathroom.  The one line I remember was her saying "...and no, Jimmy Page is not God."

Family values:

Justice Dept. Inquiry Into Matt Gaetz Said to Be Focused on Cash Paid to Women (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/us/politics/matt-gaetz-justice-department.html)

Well, sure. I believe I posted some time ago that I'd be amazed if Donald Trump has never paid for medically ending a pregnancy he caused or taken advantage of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and his underage sex for hire fantasy island. My heart won't bleed if Gaetz gets it for this.
My reaction:
The thing about making fun of the republican party for 'family values' identification is there are many who are trying to promote family values, and while I suppose they are more likely to vote republican (which will have its comical aspects, in light of Trump, Gaetz et al) they're still trying to do a good thing. And whereas the democratic party has so many black voters none of its leaders has the moral confidence to discuss the detriment of black communities having fewer and fewer families with a father in the home (easily supported with stats on crime rate, addiction and other stuff), nor a pair of parent figures of the same gender in a committed relationship with each other. Well, President Obama tried but then gave up and now seems to have accepted the prevailing message that everything bad that can happen to anyone is society's fault.

Texas following Georgia's lead: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/04/01/texas-voting-restrictions-legislature/

Seems pretty clear that where Republicans go from here is to do everything they can to make voting more difficult.

Quote from: mahagonny on April 02, 2021, 04:42:53 AM
Well, sure. I believe I posted some time ago that I'd be amazed if Donald Trump has never paid for medically ending a pregnancy he caused or taken advantage of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and his underage sex for hire fantasy island. My heart won't bleed if Gaetz gets it for this.
My reaction:
The thing about making fun of the republican party for 'family values' identification is there are many who are trying to promote family values, and while I suppose they are more likely to vote republican (which will have its comical aspects, in light of Trump, Gaetz et al) they're still trying to do a good thing. And whereas the democratic party has so many black voters none of its leaders has the moral confidence to discuss the detriment of black communities having fewer and fewer families with a father in the home (easily supported with stats on crime rate, addiction and other stuff), nor a pair of parent figures of the same gender in a committed relationship with each other. Well, President Obama tried but then gave up and now seems to have accepted the prevailing message that everything bad that can happen to anyone is society's fault.

I would have a lot more sympathy for the "but what about black family values" argument if the state had not incarcerated black men at disproportionately high rates for decades.

Quote from: spork on April 02, 2021, 09:12:30 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on April 02, 2021, 04:42:53 AM
Well, sure. I believe I posted some time ago that I'd be amazed if Donald Trump has never paid for medically ending a pregnancy he caused or taken advantage of his friendship with Jeffrey Epstein and his underage sex for hire fantasy island. My heart won't bleed if Gaetz gets it for this.
My reaction:
The thing about making fun of the republican party for 'family values' identification is there are many who are trying to promote family values, and while I suppose they are more likely to vote republican (which will have its comical aspects, in light of Trump, Gaetz et al) they're still trying to do a good thing. And whereas the democratic party has so many black voters none of its leaders has the moral confidence to discuss the detriment of black communities having fewer and fewer families with a father in the home (easily supported with stats on crime rate, addiction and other stuff), nor a pair of parent figures of the same gender in a committed relationship with each other. Well, President Obama tried but then gave up and now seems to have accepted the prevailing message that everything bad that can happen to anyone is society's fault.

I would have a lot more sympathy for the "but what about black family values" argument if the state had not incarcerated black men at disproportionately high rates for decades.

Especially since Republican plan to "help" blacks centers on making it harder for them to vote

Is there any good faith discussion going on today between republicans and democrats about how everyone could have confidence that voting is both available enough to all who may legally vote and fraud-proof? It seems to be all just about suspicion and wresting power from the enemy.

Quote from: mahagonny on April 02, 2021, 11:51:10 AM
Is there any good faith discussion going on today between republicans and democrats about how everyone could have confidence that voting is both available enough to all who may legally vote and fraud-proof? It seems to be all just about suspicion and wresting power from the enemy.

These "both sides are equally bad" frames may apply in some cases, but this isn't one of them. In this case, one side claims, with zero evidence, that there was massive vote fraud in the last election. You may recall that they actually used this evidence-free claim to try to overturn the results of the election, and with it America's democracy. They are now using the lack of voter confidence that they created through lies to make the case that we should make voting harder - especially in minority-heavy urban areas in swing states.

How can Democrats possible engage in a "good faith" argument with a party that has shown that they don't respect the results of a free and fair election? How can Democrats engage in a "good faith" argument with a party that ignores the evidence regarding voter security? How can Democrats engage in a "good faith" argument with a party that, in response to losing the election, decides to make voter suppression their top priority? They can't. If you want a good faith argument, then Republicans have to show that they are interested in having one, and so far they have done exactly the opposite.

Well, honest question, what counts as suppression, and when was there a consensus on whatever answer you would give me? If no registration to vote were required, we could have more voters in my state. If we didn't require buying insurance, we could have more legal automobile operators. But we choose driver suppression laws, and people drive anyway.

on edit:

QuoteHow can Democrats possible engage in a "good faith" argument with a party that has shown that they don't respect the results of a free and fair election?

Trump, Gaetz, Cruz and a few others claims the results were definitely invalid. McConnell did not. Lindsey did not. Die hard Trump supporting journalists like Mike Goodwin did not. None of that means maintaining voting accuracy doesn't require regular effort or risk being neglected.

Quote from: mahagonny on April 02, 2021, 05:39:52 PM
Well, honest question, what counts as suppression, and when was there a consensus on whatever answer you would give me? If no registration to vote were required, we could have more voters in my state. If we didn't require buying insurance, we could have more legal automobile operators. But we choose driver suppression laws, and people drive anyway.

on edit:

QuoteHow can Democrats possible engage in a "good faith" argument with a party that has shown that they don't respect the results of a free and fair election?

Trump, Gaetz, Cruz and a few others claims the results were definitely invalid. McConnell did not. Lindsey did not. Die hard Trump supporting journalists like Mike Goodwin did not. None of that means maintaining voting accuracy doesn't require regular effort or risk being neglected.

Trump, the leader of the party, claimed there was widespread fraud and that the election result was invalid. 147 Republican congress people voted to overturn the results of a free and fair elation. Graham and McConnell admitted this was nonsense only after the capital attack egged on by Trump and other members of the Republican party. If you want to have a "good faith" argument, then you have to actually acknowledge what happened instead of pretending that this was just a few bad apples in the party.

And if you want to convince me that there is a need for new rules to make voting accurate, then start by demonstrating that there is currently a problem of voting inaccuracy. Otherwise it is a solution in search of a problem, and that solution has the accompanying effect of making it more difficult for certain segments of the electorate to vote (which is of course the intent of all of this).

Intriguing thought: the people who whose voting rights are suppressed by a few changes in the laws are being relied on to either file their own income taxes accurately or hire someone reputable to do it for them and provide that person with all of the necessary documents and information.
In order for an election to work there is work and expense involved. Who does the work and bears the expense? Is it shared, or is it the sole responsibility of the state? I suppose if having a government that represents the will of all of the people were really taken seriously we could hire drivers to go pick people up, help them put away the video games, pornography and junk food, find their shoes, and go to a voting center. I am reminded of the ending of 'Horton Hears a Who' by Dr. Seuss where they discover that the reason the Who's in Whoville can't be heard is there is one Who who is flipping a yo-yo instead of doing his part by yelling. Why is never explained. Does he not understand the importance of his contribution, or does he just not care?
Yes, there has been some hysteria among republicans about the recent election. I can't justify it, but I can understand it and I can explain it. The next time someone characterizes the republican party as evil and racist, substitute the words 'scared half to death' for the words evil and racist, and things will make a lot more sense.

Quote from: mahagonny on April 03, 2021, 06:19:21 AM
Intriguing thought: the people who whose voting rights are suppressed by a few changes in the laws are being relied on to either file their own income taxes accurately or hire someone reputable to do it for them and provide that person with all of the necessary documents and information.
In order for an election to work there is work and expense involved. Who does the work and bears the expense? Is it shared, or is it the sole responsibility of the state? I suppose if having a government that represents the will of all of the people were really taken seriously we could hire drivers to go pick people up, help them put away the video games, pornography and junk food, find their shoes, and go to a voting center. I am reminded of the ending of 'Horton Hears a Who' by Dr. Seuss where they discover that the reason the Who's in Whoville can't be heard is there is one Who who is flipping a yo-yo instead of doing his part by yelling. Why is never explained. Does he not understand the importance of his contribution, or does he just not care?
Yes, there has been some hysteria among republicans about the recent election. I can't justify it, but I can understand it and I can explain it. The next time someone characterizes the republican party as evil and racist, substitute the words 'scared half to death' for the words evil and racist, and things will make a lot more sense.

Most of this rant reads like an incoherent word salad, but you do have one thing right: Republican politicians specialize in scaring their voters and ginning them up on idiotic conspiracy theories, which in turn makes them believe that there is massive voting fraud (among other false things).

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 03, 2021, 08:29:47 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on April 03, 2021, 06:19:21 AM
Intriguing thought: the people who whose voting rights are suppressed by a few changes in the laws are being relied on to either file their own income taxes accurately or hire someone reputable to do it for them and provide that person with all of the necessary documents and information.
In order for an election to work there is work and expense involved. Who does the work and bears the expense? Is it shared, or is it the sole responsibility of the state? I suppose if having a government that represents the will of all of the people were really taken seriously we could hire drivers to go pick people up, help them put away the video games, pornography and junk food, find their shoes, and go to a voting center. I am reminded of the ending of 'Horton Hears a Who' by Dr. Seuss where they discover that the reason the Who's in Whoville can't be heard is there is one Who who is flipping a yo-yo instead of doing his part by yelling. Why is never explained. Does he not understand the importance of his contribution, or does he just not care?

Yes, there has been some hysteria among republicans about the recent election. I can't justify it, but I can understand it and I can explain it. The next time someone characterizes the republican party as evil and racist, substitute the words 'scared half to death' for the words evil and racist, and things will make a lot more sense.

Most of this rant reads like an incoherent word salad, but you do have one thing right: Republican politicians specialize in scaring their voters and ginning them up on idiotic conspiracy theories, which in turn makes them believe that there is massive voting fraud (among other false things).

I wasn't talking to you. You can respond of course. I can't stop you. But, FYI, if I'm talking to you, I'll put your post in quotation. Otherwise, it might be better to assume I could be talking about you. Sorry to have to do it that way, in a way.

Quote from: mahagonny on April 03, 2021, 08:57:23 AM

Quote from: Sun_Worshiper on April 03, 2021, 08:29:47 AM

Quote from: mahagonny on April 03, 2021, 06:19:21 AM
Intriguing thought: the people who whose voting rights are suppressed by a few changes in the laws are being relied on to either file their own income taxes accurately or hire someone reputable to do it for them and provide that person with all of the necessary documents and information.
In order for an election to work there is work and expense involved. Who does the work and bears the expense? Is it shared, or is it the sole responsibility of the state? I suppose if having a government that represents the will of all of the people were really taken seriously we could hire drivers to go pick people up, help them put away the video games, pornography and junk food, find their shoes, and go to a voting center. I am reminded of the ending of 'Horton Hears a Who' by Dr. Seuss where they discover that the reason the Who's in Whoville can't be heard is there is one Who who is flipping a yo-yo instead of doing his part by yelling. Why is never explained. Does he not understand the importance of his contribution, or does he just not care?

Yes, there has been some hysteria among republicans about the recent election. I can't justify it, but I can understand it and I can explain it. The next time someone characterizes the republican party as evil and racist, substitute the words 'scared half to death' for the words evil and racist, and things will make a lot more sense.

Most of this rant reads like an incoherent word salad, but you do have one thing right: Republican politicians specialize in scaring their voters and ginning them up on idiotic conspiracy theories, which in turn makes them believe that there is massive voting fraud (among other false things).

I wasn't talking to you. You can respond of course. I can't stop you. But, FYI, if I'm talking to you, I'll put your post in quotation. Otherwise, it might be better to assume I could be talking about you. Sorry to have to do it that way, in a way.

You're not sorry, MAGAhoganny.  You're loving this opportunity to spew and spout and drivel.

Looks like some are still going the statutory rape route: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/politics/anthony-bouchard-14-year-old.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/politics/anthony-bouchard-14-year-old.html).

Quote from: spork on May 21, 2021, 04:21:32 PM
Looks like some are still going the statutory rape route: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/politics/anthony-bouchard-14-year-old.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/politics/anthony-bouchard-14-year-old.html).

Of course, when you don't choose abortion, you increase the chances that more people will find out about it.

Quote from: mahagonny on May 21, 2021, 05:03:14 PM

Quote from: spork on May 21, 2021, 04:21:32 PM
Looks like some are still going the statutory rape route: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/politics/anthony-bouchard-14-year-old.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/21/us/politics/anthony-bouchard-14-year-old.html).

Of course, when you don't choose abortion, you increase the chances that more people will find out about it.

And when you teach kids about contraception and consent, it tends to not happen.

^Unrelated...but worrisome:

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/30/republicans-trump-election-fight-to-vote

"It's only unfair if our party doesn't win" seems to be the mantra here...

M.

My take is that the R's have basically achieved their policy agenda that has been active since Reagan. 

They have cut taxes down to the point where nothing in this country works anymore.  They've deregulated pretty much anything that can be deregulated.  They have stuffed the courts with sympathetic judges and gerrymandered enough districts to remain in power despite consistently losing the popular vote.

All that is left are hot button social issues they can use to keep their base at a fever pitch and coming back to the polls to vote for solutions to non-existent problems (e.g. voter fraud, open carry, and my personal favorite - "losing our way of life"). 

Gotta give the buggers credit - it's pretty much working for them.

QuoteAll that is left are hot button social issues they can use to keep their base at a fever pitch and coming back to the polls to vote for solutions to non-existent problems (e.g. voter fraud, open carry, and my personal favorite - "losing our way of life"). 

...(sigh)...

The 'fever pitch' (when there is one) would be something that left media and academia willfully contribute to. When you call everyone who doesn't prefer your candidate a racist, you want enemies. And you can't declare that children need to be taught completely differently about our history and our present, and with race in every paragraph, pretend Latino people want to be called 'Latinx', ask children to think about which gender they want to choose, declare black students have successfully done math when they haven't, and then say the other party has an unrealistic fear of its way of life being changed. The changes are dramatic, already underway, and led by a president who's on board with anything that gives him a name and a legacy.
The Guardian, what I've seen of it, has a little interest in what republicans think about and feel, and more interest in controlling what you think of them and their motives.

QuoteGotta give the buggers credit - it's pretty much working for them.

No. Republicans do not believe thinks have worked out. They are scared.

mahagonny is right, but so is secundem_artem.   That perhaps is at least partially because 'The Republicans' are nowadays largely made up of two distinct groups of people, the rich and usually secular elites, and the mostly religious but often working class values voters.   The former has indeed gotten more or less all it wants since Reagan, and many of those things are distinctly contrary to the interests of the latter, but the latter also certainly can say that it has *not* gotten what it wants, and seems to increasingly be living in a country that is alien to its values.   Perhaps if they stopped getting snookered by that first group...

On the other side (democrats) the blacks are shamelessly used by the elite left who claims it has a plan for lifting blacks' standard of living, prosperity, fulfillment and are mostly too smart to believe they have any such knowledge. Used to think they were arrogant. Now I just think they are dishonest.
'You don't make people prosperous by giving them money.'  P. J. O'Rourke

Over your lifetime, your most important asset is your income.

con't

And as long as I've totally outed myself, I might as well show you this. It has the ring of truth for me. Of course another reason not to like Jason Riley, other than his being an 'Uncle Tom' - his wife is Naomi Schaeffer Riley, and you know...*

https://www.wsj.com/articles/liberals-choose-racial-catharsis-over-progress-for-blacks-11622588510?mod=opinion_lead_pos9

ETA: from wikipedia - " [Naomi Schaeffer] Riley was a blogger for the Chronicle of Higher Education until she was fired in 2012 after writing a blog arguing for the elimination of Black Studies at university departments,[6] which resulted in a social media backlash, kicked off by an essay by Tressie McMillan Cottom[7][8] and a petition demanding her firing, which contained roughly 6,500 names.[9]

Free speech?

Quote from: mahagonny link=topic=2103.msg76392#msg76392 date=1622637445
Free speech?
/quote]

Well, there's this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So yes, Naomi Schaefer Riley enjoyed and still enjoys free speech--congress didn't say "you're fired, and go spew your mind-vomit elsewhere"--that was the Chronicle, making a pretty good decision i believe, though I can see where some might disagree. And she's still a busy writer, which she has the right to be.

Wonder how "the blacks" feel about being called "the blacks."  Quote from our resident troll.

Quote from: nebo113 on June 02, 2021, 07:06:38 AM
Wonder how "the blacks" feel about being called "the blacks."  Quote from our resident troll.

it's a compliment. Well, maybe not, but it's no big deal. It's just vernacular...Here...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VPaWrK1xRI
I offer this not to convince you (fool's errand). Just for levity.

Quote from: little bongo on June 02, 2021, 06:50:20 AM

Quote from: mahagonny link=topic=2103.msg76392#msg76392 date=1622637445
Free speech?
/quote]

Well, there's this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So yes, Naomi Schaefer Riley enjoyed and still enjoys free speech--congress didn't say "you're fired, and go spew your mind-vomit elsewhere"--that was the Chronicle, making a pretty good decision i believe, though I can see where some might disagree. And she's still a busy writer, which she has the right to be.

Indeed, she probably considers getting fired by CHE to be a feather in her cap. I'm a fan.

Ho hum......  You are increasingly  boring.  Do  find a new schtick.