U.S. Politics: Contempt and the Courts

[ThinkerX]

11 minutes ago, Zorral said:

When are you all going to get it, that being being wrong, being stupid, not being smart, not knowing anything, lying about everything, being criminal, destroying everything, being a jerkoff, wasting taxpayers' money, being a rapist, being a pedophile, stealing money, wasting money -- nothing means anything as long as the ideology is the right ideology?

and yet, that wasn't enough to save Trump...and other reprehensible political figures.

More and more, I'm starting to think the D's should take advantage of some of these repressive election laws - because the ones most likely to violate them are the R's. Might get interesting if it dawns on some of the R's these laws work both ways.

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

49 minutes ago, Zorral said:

When are you all going to get it, that being being wrong, being stupid, not being smart, not knowing anything, lying about everything, being criminal, destroying everything, being a jerkoff, wasting taxpayers' money, being a rapist, being a pedophile, stealing money, wasting money -- nothing means anything as long as the ideology is the right ideology?

It’s not ideology.  It’s “team”.  Republicans contradict their “ideology” all the time now.

[Wilbur]

20 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

It’s not ideology.  It’s “team”.  Republicans contradict their “ideology” all the time now.

Exactly.  The Republican National Committee has relinquished all claims to a rational ideology, since Trump ran without a political platform - not a single plank, just, "Vote for Me!"  Mitt Romney was the last Republican presidential candidate to actually have a platform.

Or consider the difference in "ideology" between recent (Romney) Republicans and the party platform under Ike, as described on Snopes, of all places:

1956 Republican Platform | Snopes.com

Our national party leadership has ceded the battleground of ideas for blatant power grabs, seeking to achieve and hold power no matter what that means.  The current national Republican front-runners have Bill Clinton's moral tenor and none of his political convictions.

 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

and yet, that wasn't enough to save Trump...and other reprehensible political figures.

You jest surely.  None of them are even indicted, not even paying fines, certainly not put on trial, and not sentenced to prison.  NONE OF THEM.  They are all still doing everything they've been doing -- and saying ever more more more extremist incitement to insurrection and murder every day.  Where in the world do you live that you know this not?  Trump was put to impeachment TWICE, and cleared both times for pete's sake!  So here in NY they say he's fined $10,000 a day for refusing to turn over supoened dox, and he's not doing.  Nobody expects to do anything about it, much less collect $10,000 a day.  Nobody expects he will be tried, be sentenced and go to prison.  As officials asked yesterday said, "Chances are very very very slim. It's highly unlikely."

It may be a team, but ideologies have teams -- ask the nazis.  Their ideology is to destroy democracy.  They tell you this, fer pete's sake.  Their ideology is racist, anti-woman, anti-public good, and destruction of everything because they are going to space.  This is why we get nowhere as Dems or anything else, because people keep wanting not to believe this, while it goes on right in YOUR faces.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

56 minutes ago, Wilbur said:

Exactly.  The Republican National Committee has relinquished all claims to a rational ideology, since Trump ran without a political platform - not a single plank, just, "Vote for Me!"  Mitt Romney was the last Republican presidential candidate to actually have a platform.

Technically true, but if we're being honest the Republican platform has been a stew of cognitive dissonance for a really long time. You cannot say you're pro-life while also supporting the death penalty and extrajudicial killings by the police, for example. Most of the stuff in the old platform contradicted itself.

[ThinkerX]

1 hour ago, Zorral said:

You jest surely.  None of them are even indicted, not even paying fines, certainly not put on trial, and not sentenced to prison.  NONE OF THEM.  They are all still doing everything they've been doing -- and saying ever more more more extremist incitement to insurrection and murder every day.  Where in the world do you live that you know this not?  Trump was put to impeachment TWICE, and cleared both times for pete's sake!  So here in NY they say he's fined $10,000 a day for refusing to turn over supoened dox, and he's not doing.  Nobody expects to do anything about it, much less collect $10,000 a day.  Nobody expects he will be tried, be sentenced and go to prison.  As officials asked yesterday said, "Chances are very very very slim. It's highly unlikely."

It may be a team, but ideologies have teams -- ask the nazis.  Their ideology is to destroy democracy.  They tell you this, fer pete's sake.  Their ideology is racist, anti-woman, anti-public good, and destruction of everything because they are going to space.  This is why we get nowhere as Dems or anything else, because people keep wanting not to believe this, while it goes on right in YOUR faces.

 

I was referring to Trump losing the 2020 election, along with other reprehensible far-right sorts being voted out of office. 

To me, it seems almost likely that DeSantis and Abbot could also lose their reelection bids as a direct result of their current activities. 

I would also point out that Trump is facing ever growing legal challenges. This 'MTG' may be barred from the ballot.

As to control of the House, by my reckoning there are three vacant 'R' seats - and it is just possible the one in my state could go 'D'

 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

11 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

 

I would also point out that Trump is facing ever growing legal challenges. This 'MTG' may be barred from the ballot.

 

These two things are just never going to happen. There are no consequences for

them.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Not sure if this is the start of the expected recession, but it continues to feel like when and not if:

Quote

America's economy unexpectedly shrank in the first quarter of 2022, data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis showed Thursday.

 

The nation's gross domestic product -- the broadest measure of economic activity -- declined at an annualized rate of 1.4% between January and March in an abrupt reversal of the prior year's strong growth.

 

While one quarter does not yet make a trend, it is a warning sign for how the recovery is going: Two straight quarters of declining growth meet a commonly used definition of a recession.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/04/28/economy/us-economy-first-quarter-gdp/index.html

[Ormond]

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Technically true, but if we're being honest the Republican platform has been a stew of cognitive dissonance for a really long time. You cannot say you're pro-life while also supporting the death penalty and extrajudicial killings by the police, for example. Most of the stuff in the old platform contradicted itself.

Tywin, you are confusing etymology with meaning. In modern American English, "pro-life" now only has a meaning in the context of abortion. The same is true of "pro-choice":  being pro-choice doesn't mean one is in favor of people having the choice not to wear masks during a pandemic, or to ignore traffic safety laws. Both pro-life and pro-choice have very specific meanings which don't translate outside of the abortion/contraception arenas. 

This doesn't mean I don't think you can find real contradictions in political party platforms. Just that you can't use that language use to say this particular one is a real contradiction in modern times. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Tywin, you are confusing etymology with meaning. In modern American English, "pro-life" now only has a meaning in the context of abortion. The same is true of "pro-choice":  being pro-choice doesn't mean one is in favor of people having the choice not to wear masks during a pandemic, or to ignore traffic safety laws. Both pro-life and pro-choice have very specific meanings which don't translate outside of the abortion/contraception arenas. 

This doesn't mean I don't think you can find real contradictions in political party platforms. Just that you can't use that language use to say this particular one is a real contradiction in modern times. 

I’m not confusing anything. This is how Democrats need to trap Republicans in debates about abortion. Undercut their claims of being “pro-life” by pointing out all the policies they support that lead to death and suffering of human beings and then reframe their position as being anti-choice, which by the way is far more accurate. Stop playing on their terrain man.

[Ormond]

7 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m not confusing anything. This is how Democrats need to trap Republicans in debates about abortion. Undercut their claims of being “pro-life” by pointing out all the policies they support that lead to death and suffering of human beings and then reframe their position as being anti-choice, which by the way is far more accurate. Stop playing on their terrain man.

And if then they have to expect people to come back with how they are not "pro-choice" on everything either. Fine if people on the pro-choice side want to use the word anti-choice, but then the other side will be using "anti-life" even more than they do now. I don't see how that's going to lead to any resolution of the issues or get most voters to do anything but try to ignore the debate even harder, without changing who they vote for. 

And the capital punishment thing -- right-wing pro-capital-punishment people believe that they SAVE lives by killing murderers, both because of getting rid of the possibility of that particular person re-offending and because of its supposed deterrence effect on future murderers. I do NOT agree with that myself, but you aren't going to be able to use that issue to get the general public to see the right-wing as being hypocritical. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, Ormond said:

And if then they have to expect people to come back with how they are not "pro-choice" on everything either. Fine if people on the pro-choice side want to use the word anti-choice, but then the other side will be using "anti-life" even more than they do now. I don't see how that's going to lead to any resolution of the issues or get most voters to do anything but try to ignore the debate even harder, without changing who they vote for. 

You seem to be missing the point. This is an effective way of undercutting their moralizing and it denies their attempts to establish the high ground. If they turn around and say Democrats aren’t pro-choice on everything, they’ve already lost the argument. And personally I would laugh if someone tried to use anti-life with a straight face. It’s completely moronic from a messaging standpoint.

Quote

And the capital punishment thing -- right-wing pro-capital-punishment people believe that they SAVE lives by killing murderers, both because of getting rid of the possibility of that particular person re-offending and because of its supposed deterrence effect on future murderers. I do NOT agree with that myself, but you aren't going to be able to use that issue to get the general public to see the right-wing as being hypocritical. 

That may be true if you just stop at the death penalty, but why would you? Rapid fire a half dozen things that contradict the pro-life framing and the general public, if they have half a brain, should see what is pretty obvious.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

I’m not confusing anything. This is how Democrats need to trap Republicans in debates about abortion. Undercut their claims of being “pro-life” by pointing out all the policies they support that lead to death and suffering of human beings and then reframe their position as being anti-choice, which by the way is far more accurate. Stop playing on their terrain man.

I don't know why you think these will be effective, or new.  The left has used anti-choice or anti-abortion for as long as I can remember.  And the "hypocrisy" of being "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty etc. is about as played out a political argument as I can think of.  Like, literally, just google "anti-choice" and the first two results are pages from NARAL - this report on "the insidious power of the anti-choice movement," then this page on "the hypocrisy of the 'pro-life' movement."  

[Ormond]

22 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

You seem to be missing the point. This is an effective way of undercutting their moralizing and it denies their attempts to establish the high ground. If they turn around and say Democrats aren’t pro-choice on everything, they’ve already lost the argument. And personally I would laugh if someone tried to use anti-life with a straight face. It’s completely moronic from a messaging standpoint.

That may be true if you just stop at the death penalty, but why would you? Rapid fire a half dozen things that contradict the pro-life framing and the general public, if they have half a brain, should see what is pretty obvious.

How is the above effective with anyone who isn't already convinced? Of course you would personally laugh if someone tried to do that. But YOU aren't someone who needs to be convinced to vote for pro-choice candidates. Why do you think this would possibly be effective with anyone among the small group who are on the fence about who to vote for? 

As DMC said, this stuff has actually been used for years and hasn't worked yet. I think you may not understand how the emotional halves of the brains of people who don't already agree with you work and a big overestimation of what the "general public" will think is "pretty obvious".

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

23 minutes ago, DMC said:

I don't know why you think these will be effective, or new.  The left has used anti-choice or anti-abortion for as long as I can remember.  And the "hypocrisy" of being "pro-life" while supporting the death penalty etc. is about as played out a political argument as I can think of.  Like, literally, just google "anti-choice" and the first two results are pages from NARAL - this report on "the insidious power of the anti-choice movement," then this page on "the hypocrisy of the 'pro-life' movement."  

And that’s the problem. How many people in the general public know what NARAL is? Do you think it’s even 20%? I want the Democratic nominee in a presidential debate to go after them and hammer them on it. Frankly everyone running for office should. That’s the only way to change the framing of the debate. An advocacy group isn’t going to have the needed impact. I’m not sure how you can call it played out when it’s not even being done correctly.

[Zorral]

4 hours ago, Centrist Simon Steele said:

These two things are just never going to happen. There are no consequences for

them.

Exactly.

White Christian nationalism  IS an ideology.  They advocate the same ideology that Russian president Vladimir Putin advances: that the democratic principle of equality is immoral because it does not privilege white, straight, Christian men. They are trying to stop discussion of race or gender, end the constitutional right to abortion, and center schools around the Christian religion.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And that’s the problem. How many people in the general public know what NARAL is? Do you think it’s even 20%? I want the Democratic nominee in a presidential debate to go after them and hammer them on it. Frankly everyone running for office should. That’s the only way to change the framing of the debate. An advocacy group isn’t going to have the needed impact. I’m not sure how you can call it played out when it’s not even being done correctly.

It has been done correctly!  The left basically won this argument years ago in terms of impacting policy attitudes - most Americans consistently support the right to abortion in at least some cases and have since at least the 90s.  Plus, the current anti-abortion efforts/laws are incredibly unpopular at the national level (and most anywhere outside deep red states). 

Should the Dems use that as a campaign issue this cycle?  Of course!  And of course they will!  Unfortunately, if Virginia is any indication, it does not appear that's gonna move the needle much.  You seem to be arguing "if only the Dems used my messaging" when they've been using that messaging literally for as long as I can remember.

[Zorral]

Moreover saying 'They' are being punished is nothing but a very bad joke. Just for instance,  how many people have the cops across the US killed in the last 6 years?  How many have been punished? How many have even been disciplined?  How many millions and millions have had to be paid out by tax payers for their actions -- and yet they are still on the force.

Having all the legal systems supporting the ideology really helps make that ideology, doncha think?

In the meantime more and more millions flow into their coffers and expand venues such as Fox -- venues that tell lie after lie after lie, and even admit to lying, even about vaccinations for covid -- and they just get bigger and stronger.

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, DMC said:

It has been done correctly!  The left basically won this argument years ago in terms of impacting policy attitudes - most Americans consistently support the right to abortion in at least some cases and have since at least the 90s.  Plus, the current anti-abortion efforts/laws are incredibly unpopular at the national level (and most anywhere outside deep red states). 

Should the Dems use that as a campaign issue this cycle?  Of course!  And of course they will!  Unfortunately, if Virginia is any indication, it does not appear that's gonna move the needle much.  You seem to be arguing "if only the Dems used my messaging" when they've been using that messaging literally for as long as I can remember.

Polling has been static since the 70's. It's always been around 1/5 who support a full ban with a plurality wanting it to be legal with some restrictions. And yet Republican candidates have been more bullish on their position than Democrats, who often times come across as timid on the subject. And we see this pattern with a number of policies that Democrats enjoy popular support on. They need to be more aggressive, and I do think one of the best ways of doing that is pointing out the naked hypocrisy of the Republican party. You cannot expect the general public to put 2 and 2 together.

2 hours ago, Ormond said:

How is the above effective with anyone who isn't already convinced? Of course you would personally laugh if someone tried to do that. But YOU aren't someone who needs to be convinced to vote for pro-choice candidates. Why do you think this would possibly be effective with anyone among the small group who are on the fence about who to vote for? 

I said I would laugh at using the term "anti-life" because I think most people who work in political communications on either side would find the term to be ineffective, hence why I wouldn't worry about it being used to counter labeling conservatives as anti-choice. 

As to how this would move the needle on just this issue, I can't say it would a ton. But again that wasn't the point. It's to highlight the hypocrisy across the board and show voters that Republicans are not a serious governing party anymore. That should be effective at winning the little bit of the middle that can still be swayed. 

 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

And yet Republican candidates have been more bullish on their position than Democrats, who often times come across as timid on the subject. And we see this pattern with a number of policies that Democrats enjoy popular support on. They need to be more aggressive, and I do think one of the best ways of doing that is pointing out the naked hypocrisy of the Republican party. You cannot expect the general public to put 2 and 2 together.

Republicans are more "bullish" on it because their base cares about the issue more.  That doesn't mean they are "winning" the abortion argument electorally.  And the Dems have been aggressive.  Again, the Virginia gubernatorial election is a perfect example - McAuliffe directly invested in making abortion the key issue of his campaign, being aggressive and messaging exactly how you'd want him to.  He still lost, and more Youngkin voters cited abortion as a top issue than McAuliffe voters.  Hopefully it gains more traction in November, but the point is you aren't suggesting anything that isn't already being done (and has been done for decades).