2020 Elections - Trump FIRED

[Typical Lax Dad]

Disagree 100%. The FLP side is still very vocal and wants nothing to do with being moderate. Why do you think the far left agenda being proposed by Warren/Sanders and company is being so well received among mainstream Democrats.

ICYMI -- Warren over the weekend abandoned "Medicare for All" since her numbers were tanking. She has now embraced "Medicare for those who want it", which is the Biden and Buttigieg position. She wouldn't do that if a strong majority of Dems were demanding M4A.

Turns out most Dems want to keep/improve O'Care, and almost all Dems know that the revolution just isn't going to happen no matter what Bernie/Warren say. So why waste time talking about it.

By the way, what does your frequently used FLP mean? Whatever or whoever those folks are, they are totally not driving the Dem party.

The GOP, in contrast, is under the complete control of the whack jobs. On that side, people appear to believe that impossible things promised will actually occur -- build the wall; Mexico will pay for it.

Anyone that disagrees with his view.

[HooDat]

I'm simply asserting, factually, that white evangelicals, particularly older such, who are uncomfortable with homosexuality have fully migrated to the Trump GOP. I know quite a few such and that's where they are. Yes, their intolerance to homosexuality is religiously based. Younger evangelicals are far less likely to be as uncomfortable, and also less likely to be Trump supporters (relative to their elders).

This migration is not true of the black church, at least not proportionately comparable to white evangelicals. No less uncomfortable with homosexuality, they have countervailing motivations to stick with the Dems, especially in contrast with Trump.

This is just the reality, not a values argument.

I am amazed at the differences in our experiences on these types of points. First, I loath to speak in generalities on these points for either side of the political for racial aisle. The most homophobic people I know are evangelical Christians. The vast majority of Catholics I know are democrats - particularly the older Catholics - and virtually all of them are badly conflicted on the the subject of homosexuality. I would not begin to assert that there is a consistent "stance" on homosexuality in the black community - but in general older people (white/black/asian/hispanic) are all less open minded about it because of how they were raised.

But if the left and anti-Trump crowd keeps spouting closed minded, echo chamber judgements on people like your statement below, we are sure to see 4 more years of Trump.

being a Trump supporter does not make one necessarily homophobic, just as it doesn't mean you are racist. It just means that you are willing to make common cause with those who are indeed forthrightly bigoted.

[cradleandshoot]

I'm simply asserting, factually, that white evangelicals, particularly older such, who are uncomfortable with homosexuality have fully migrated to the Trump GOP. I know quite a few such and that's where they are. Yes, their intolerance to homosexuality is religiously based. Younger evangelicals are far less likely to be as uncomfortable, and also less likely to be Trump supporters (relative to their elders).

This migration is not true of the black church, at least not proportionately comparable to white evangelicals. No less uncomfortable with homosexuality, they have countervailing motivations to stick with the Dems, especially in contrast with Trump.

This is just the reality, not a values argument.

I am amazed at the differences in our experiences on these types of points. First, I loath to speak in generalities on these points for either side of the political for racial aisle. The most homophobic people I know are evangelical Christians. The vast majority of Catholics I know are democrats - particularly the older Catholics - and virtually all of them are badly conflicted on the the subject of homosexuality. I would not begin to assert that there is a consistent "stance" on homosexuality in the black community - but in general older people (white/black/asian/hispanic) are all less open minded about it because of how they were raised.

But if the left and anti-Trump crowd keeps spouting closed minded, echo chamber judgements on people like your statement below, we are sure to see 4 more years of Trump.

being a Trump supporter does not make one necessarily homophobic, just as it doesn't mean you are racist. It just means that you are willing to make common cause with those who are indeed forthrightly bigoted.

+1 insert clapping emoji

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm simply asserting, factually, that white evangelicals, particularly older such, who are uncomfortable with homosexuality have fully migrated to the Trump GOP. I know quite a few such and that's where they are. Yes, their intolerance to homosexuality is religiously based. Younger evangelicals are far less likely to be as uncomfortable, and also less likely to be Trump supporters (relative to their elders).

This migration is not true of the black church, at least not proportionately comparable to white evangelicals. No less uncomfortable with homosexuality, they have countervailing motivations to stick with the Dems, especially in contrast with Trump.

This is just the reality, not a values argument.

I am amazed at the differences in our experiences on these types of points. First, I loath to speak in generalities on these points for either side of the political for racial aisle. The most homophobic people I know are evangelical Christians. The vast majority of Catholics I know are democrats - particularly the older Catholics - and virtually all of them are badly conflicted on the the subject of homosexuality. I would not begin to assert that there is a consistent "stance" on homosexuality in the black community - but in general older people (white/black/asian/hispanic) are all less open minded about it because of how they were raised.

But if the left and anti-Trump crowd keeps spouting closed minded, echo chamber judgements on people like your statement below, we are sure to see 4 more years of Trump.

being a Trump supporter does not make one necessarily homophobic, just as it doesn't mean you are racist. It just means that you are willing to make common cause with those who are indeed forthrightly bigoted.

Really? I don't see much of a gap between what you are saying and what I said.

I wouldn't disagree about the "most homophobic people I know are evangelical Christians". That's white and black (and whatever). One could say the same for fundamentalist Muslims. They see sacred prohibitions, others read the texts more expansively and don't come to the same conclusions.

I quite agree that many Catholics are "badly conflicted". Many see those sacred prohibitions (as well as a number of other doctrinaire views) while others read the texts more expansively, or otherwise consider themselves as what some have described as 'cafeteria catholics' meaning one picks and chooses which doctrines and views the Church more generally espouses to believe. It's a challenging issue for many.

But compared to most traditional Protestant denominations, Catholics are more likely to have such issues, given the formal Church's current proscriptions. Episcopalians for instance have had as our top Bishop in the US, an openly gay man. And I quite agree that most Catholics have been and likely will continue to be Dems. But those who have some of the least open social views were in the Trump camp in 2016. If it helps, think of the alignment with regard to the current Pope among Catholics. Among your friends who don't like Francis, see any overlap with support for Trump. I'll bet you will see it if you look at it squarely. We've come a long way since Vatican II, but there are those who would prefer to go back.

The sentences that seem to particularly get your ire (I think misplaced) is when I observe that not all Trump supporters are bigoted. I certainly don't think they are, just as there are degrees of bigotry amongst any group. What I'm saying is that someone may well have an honest opinion about continuing to support Trump, with absolutely no motivation related to bigotry of any sort, indeed have very open social views.

At the same time, I'm observing that nevertheless a Trump supporter needs to be ok with supporting the guy who the most virulent bigots proudly support as one of their own, ie the folks who think Steven Miller is a swell guy and Islam is inherently evil, and "Jews shall not replace us" is ok to chant.

I think that's a factual statement, I'd be surprised if you actually disagree.

[HooDat]

I think that's a factual statement, I'd be surprised if you actually disagree.

Actually on several points, I do flat out disagree. But where I am challenging you to listen to yourself is on the myopic tone of your delivery of the message.

I don't believe that there are more racists in the GOP than there are in the Democratic party. You state it as if it is fact. Your argument falls particularly flat when you try to say that a guy who has grandchildren being raised in the Jewish faith is pandering to anti-semites.

These issues are very complicated. The notion that any party or its voters are any more pure of heart is marketing spin.

The notion that the democratic party has carved out some kind of hallowed ground when it comes to issues of tolerance around race and religion is something the dems sell hard - and while it was, for a certain period of time, true; it is also true that at an earlier period in our history the Republicans led the original fight for equal rights. Times change and politicians exploit them for their own benefit. Just as it is disingenuous for the GOP to continue to claim to be the party of Lincoln when it comes to race - The party that has set as its foundation the strategy of drawing boundaries along lines of race and that harbors folks who spew hate like Al Sharpton should not be casting a lot of stones. Both sides are dirty, and EQUALLY so. The dems' openly embrace guys like Sharpton, the GOP benefits from the votes of white supremacists. The GOP does so far more begrudgingly - not to downplay the appeal to racism that the GOP made in the South in the 70's and 80's. Clearly the GOP did those things. But THAT is precisely when you claim to have been a comfortable Republican? I don't get that.

Trump is many things. He is uncouth, he is a liar, he is selfish, he is immature, he appears to have some very complicated ideas about women (he objectifies them while simultaneously putting them in positions of power). But I have seen absolutely no evidence that Trump is racist or homophobic and certainly not anti-semetic.

To say that those who support him are comfortable in the company of racists is to see the world in a simplistic fashion - one that fits a narrative you have been fed or wish to believe.

[Matnum PI]

...But I have seen absolutely no evidence that Trump is racist...

Really?

[seacoaster]

...But I have seen absolutely no evidence that Trump is racist...

Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/18/nyre ... trump.html

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/pu ... 4-0034.pdf

[MDlaxfan76]

I think that's a factual statement, I'd be surprised if you actually disagree.

Actually on several points, I do flat out disagree. But where I am challenging you to listen to yourself is on the myopic tone of your delivery of the message.

I don't believe that there are more racists in the GOP than there are in the Democratic party. You state it as if it is fact. Your argument falls particularly flat when you try to say that a guy who has grandchildren being raised in the Jewish faith is pandering to anti-semites.

These issues are very complicated. The notion that any party or its voters are any more pure of heart is marketing spin.

The notion that the democratic party has carved out some kind of hallowed ground when it comes to issues of tolerance around race and religion is something the dems sell hard - and while it was, for a certain period of time, true; it is also true that at an earlier period in our history the Republicans led the original fight for equal rights. Times change and politicians exploit them for their own benefit. Just as it is disingenuous for the GOP to continue to claim to be the party of Lincoln when it comes to race - The party that has set as its foundation the strategy of drawing boundaries along lines of race and that harbors folks who spew hate like Al Sharpton should not be casting a lot of stones. Both sides are dirty, and EQUALLY so. The dems' openly embrace guys like Sharpton, the GOP benefits from the votes of white supremacists. The GOP does so far more begrudgingly - not to downplay the appeal to racism that the GOP made in the South in the 70's and 80's. Clearly the GOP did those things. But THAT is precisely when you claim to have been a comfortable Republican? I don't get that.

Trump is many things. He is uncouth, he is a liar, he is selfish, he is immature, he appears to have some very complicated ideas about women (he objectifies them while simultaneously putting them in positions of power). But I have seen absolutely no evidence that Trump is racist or homophobic and certainly not anti-semetic.

To say that those who support him are comfortable in the company of racists is to see the world in a simplistic fashion - one that fits a narrative you have been fed or wish to believe.

ok, fair enough.
You think I'm "myopic", I think you are in denial of reality in this regard.

But my hunch is that we agree on far more than we disagree. Especially on values of living.

No, I wasn't comfortable with any aspect of the 'southern strategy' first by Nixon, then Reagan. I was far more in the Mac Mathias and Jack Kemp camp of the 'big tent' of Republicanism.

I'm likewise not ok with some of the most virulent "anti-white man" rhetoric of the far left, nor do I give a pass on the antisemitism of Louis Farrakhan etc.

But yeah, Trump is overtly racist, blowing dog whistles for all such bigots to hear loud and clear, never rejecting their support given many, many opportunities to do so. Is this simply pandering for political benefit or is it based on deep seated prejudices? Well on the black-white prejudice, there's a ton of evidence that these are life-long bigotries, not simply political expediencies. I don't chalk that up to "immature", though stunted emotionally, incapacity for empathy, may well be accurate.

Obviously he has an openness to his daughter's conversion, and has made his 'support' for hard right types in Israel a political benefit for himself, but his failure to reject those who actually are openly anti-semitic is at a minimum a counterweight to any notion that he isn't anti-semitic down deep. In his world, though, the 'anti-semitism' is re-focused on Muslims.

But this question is not about Trump alone, but rather his ardent supporters, the hard core of his base. Many of whom were not previously aligned as GOP per se, and certainly not 'conservative' in tone or patience.

The GOP was already growing older, whiter, less educated, and more male than in prior generations of the party, and the Trump effect has amplified this demographic shift a lot. Most notably by making it darn uncomfortable in the GOP to be a moderate, a conservative fiscally yet progressive socially. Instead, the only thing that is important in this new Trump era of the GOP is loyalty to Trump.

Meanwhile, the country has grown more diverse, more progressive socially, and that's going to continue.

I'm concerned about backlash going too far too fast, adopting the worst aspects of authoritarian populism just on the left.

But the GOP is doomed as a long term competitive alternative if the fever doesn't break soon, at a minimum in November 2020.

[Matnum PI]

Sea, Typical, that's why I find the comment so strange. And these two examples are both pre-POTUS Trump. Way before Trump was POTUS, NYers (and more) knew about Trump's racism. It just strikes me as so strange for someone to say, They've seen no evidence. If Trump isn't racist, who is?!

[Typical Lax Dad]

Sea, Typical, that's why I find the comment so strange. And these two examples are both pre-POTUS Trump. Way before Trump was POTUS, NYers (and more) knew about Trump's racism. It just strikes me as so strange for someone to say, They've seen no evidence. If Trump isn't racist, who is?!

Trump is just a despicable human being.

[old salt]

The concern that has been voiced out loud is whether AA voters, especially older such, will be willing to rally behind a gay man. If you are white and harbor anti-gay bigotry, you're already firmly in the Trump camp. Pete will need to demonstrate that he can rally AA support...

White folks who remain anti-gay have near universally moved to the Trump GOP.
I'm sure you could find someone who doesn't fit that move, but very, very few.

By contrast, you can find some older black voters who remain staunchly Dem but are 'uncomfortable' with homosexuality, primarily for religious reasons. This is way less true of younger black voters, but not non-existent.

It is highly amusing to observe the contortions of logic which woke folk will resort to in explaining away Mayor Pete's 0% support among AA.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The concern that has been voiced out loud is whether AA voters, especially older such, will be willing to rally behind a gay man. If you are white and harbor anti-gay bigotry, you're already firmly in the Trump camp. Pete will need to demonstrate that he can rally AA support...

White folks who remain anti-gay have near universally moved to the Trump GOP.
I'm sure you could find someone who doesn't fit that move, but very, very few.

By contrast, you can find some older black voters who remain staunchly Dem but are 'uncomfortable' with homosexuality, primarily for religious reasons. This is way less true of younger black voters, but not non-existent.

It is highly amusing to observe the contortions of logic which woke folk will resort to in explaining away Mayor Pete's 0% support among AA.

OPINION PIECE :
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/05/ ... utType=amp



https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1081641

[old salt]

The concern that has been voiced out loud is whether AA voters, especially older such, will be willing to rally behind a gay man. If you are white and harbor anti-gay bigotry, you're already firmly in the Trump camp. Pete will need to demonstrate that he can rally AA support...

White folks who remain anti-gay have near universally moved to the Trump GOP.
I'm sure you could find someone who doesn't fit that move, but very, very few.

By contrast, you can find some older black voters who remain staunchly Dem but are 'uncomfortable' with homosexuality, primarily for religious reasons. This is way less true of younger black voters, but not non-existent.

It is highly amusing to observe the contortions of logic which woke folk will resort to in explaining away Mayor Pete's 0% support among AA.

OPINION PIECE :
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/05/ ... utType=amp

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1081641

Put some mustard on that pretzel.

[Typical Lax Dad]

The concern that has been voiced out loud is whether AA voters, especially older such, will be willing to rally behind a gay man. If you are white and harbor anti-gay bigotry, you're already firmly in the Trump camp. Pete will need to demonstrate that he can rally AA support...

White folks who remain anti-gay have near universally moved to the Trump GOP.
I'm sure you could find someone who doesn't fit that move, but very, very few.

By contrast, you can find some older black voters who remain staunchly Dem but are 'uncomfortable' with homosexuality, primarily for religious reasons. This is way less true of younger black voters, but not non-existent.

It is highly amusing to observe the contortions of logic which woke folk will resort to in explaining away Mayor Pete's 0% support among AA.

OPINION PIECE :
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/05/ ... utType=amp

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1081641

Put some mustard on that pretzel.

I had not paid any attention to support for Buttitgieg until your post. Some truth to what you posted. The globe article was an opinion piece and had more nuance. I had not given much thought to Buttigieg or any other candidate really. I will vote for a block of wood if it opposed Trump. That's where I am.

[MDlaxfan76]

The concern that has been voiced out loud is whether AA voters, especially older such, will be willing to rally behind a gay man. If you are white and harbor anti-gay bigotry, you're already firmly in the Trump camp. Pete will need to demonstrate that he can rally AA support...

White folks who remain anti-gay have near universally moved to the Trump GOP.
I'm sure you could find someone who doesn't fit that move, but very, very few.

By contrast, you can find some older black voters who remain staunchly Dem but are 'uncomfortable' with homosexuality, primarily for religious reasons. This is way less true of younger black voters, but not non-existent.

It is highly amusing to observe the contortions of logic which woke folk will resort to in explaining away Mayor Pete's 0% support among AA.

OPINION PIECE :
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2019/11/05/ ... utType=amp

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1081641

Put some mustard on that pretzel.

I had not paid any attention to support for Buttitgieg until your post. Some truth to what you posted. The globe article was an opinion piece and had more nuance. I had not given much thought to Buttigieg or any other candidate really. I will vote for a block of wood if it opposed Trump. That's where I am.

He definitely has some issues to overcome with that community other than being gay, indeed may not be able to do so in the primaries.

This discussion, however, was precipitated by a comment that Americans were not ready to vote for a gay man for President.

I simply responded that white voters for whom that would be an issue are already hard core Trump voters anyway. Could be some older black voters (D's) for whom it could be an issue, but not so much the younger generation.

I wasn't addressing other issues Mayor Pete may have with that group, just saying that at least for the white community (older evangelical) it's not an issue other than for voters he and the rest of the Dems have no chance with in 2020.

I get a chuckle from being described as 'woke'.

[MDlaxfan76]

Sea, Typical, that's why I find the comment so strange. And these two examples are both pre-POTUS Trump. Way before Trump was POTUS, NYers (and more) knew about Trump's racism. It just strikes me as so strange for someone to say, They've seen no evidence. If Trump isn't racist, who is?!

It indeed seems quite screwy, but I suspect it has something to do with once having bought into Trump, folks who otherwise would want to see themselves as not bigoted, have trouble with the discontinuity of supporting a racist.

Denial is easier.

[DMac]

MDlaxfan wrote

I get a chuckle from being described as 'woke'.

Had to laugh at that too. Good one, Salty.

On another note, I see Joe sez he won't legalize marijuana, sez he sees it as the gateway drug. Really gotta give the Uncle Sam false propaganda committee credit for running such an effective campaign in convincing so many with their lies about the devil's weed. One more reason on the list of reasons Joe needs to go to pasture. Still a bit surprised the business genius in the oval office hasn't changed that Sched 1 thing. Bet he would if Ivanka wanted to have a strain on the market.

[jhu72]

The early Russian Troll vote is in.

[ABV 8.3%]

Richard Borreca (Honolulu Star):

Tulsi Gabbard’s bid for U.S. presidency devolves into a bid for attention from Hillary Clinton. If there is a prediction to be made about 2020 and Gabbard, it is that the 38-year-old Hawaii Democrat will not be president and any claims of political accomplishment will be unfulfilled.

Editorial

It does seem that Gabbard's only claim to fame in this presidential run is the dust up with Hillary Clinton. Not nearly enough to move the needle.

You posting this: shows your true colors....guess you and the author missed this : on purpose ?

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


Gabbard: "I'm a weird one ..."

It seems much (most?) of Gabbard's support comes from white conservative males and Internet BOTs. Strange she takes a number of liberal / progressive positions and conservative males support her. I am sure it has nothing to do with her generally pleasing appearance. I am guessing there is significant overlap with the Denali Ditz's supporters.

maybe there are more independents than you and your so accurate pollsters constantly ignore the largest voting block......duh.

Why are all YOU type the democrats (fake liberals) voting to support the killing machine industry, with HR 2500 ?