Current Affairs General US politics (ie, not POTUS related)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Pettifogger said:
You mean Bernie "How many houses do you need" Sanders who owns 3 homes? Or America's preeminent tax-break expert AOC?

They're clowns and charlatans, sorry.

I think the real discussion on this topic is why people in WV, for example, might choose clowns that appeal to their religion/traditionalist ideas (and perhaps buy them off) over the clowns that simply want to buy them off, get their votes and then excoriate them as the worst America has to offer.
Click to expand...
So then are the poor in WV, for example, who support capitalism clowns and charlatans as a wealthy Democratic Socialist is?

The real discussion on this topic is the fear that is stoked among various lower middle class and poor people both in rural and urban settings by power brokers on both sides. At the end of the day, though, which political party more frequently espouses policies that are hopeful in securing the health, safety, security and religious freedom of all (not just Christians) - Democrats or Republicans?
 
Pettifogger said:
In what universe is calling a politician a clown a "serious allegation"?

And you're probably right about Trump. The difference being that Republicans probably possess a worldview that more naturally aligns with that of rural Americans. Some question that as well, and I think it's a fair thing to ask. But most people have a limit to their skepticism, ie "well I know AOC feels differently because she says so outright, I can only guess at the duplicity of Trump"
Click to expand...

You claimed that the AOC's of the world loathe rural voters.
 
BlueTX said:
So then are the poor in WV, for example, who support capitalism clowns and charlatans as a wealthy Democratic Socialist is?

The real discussion on this topic is the fear that is stoked among various lower middle class and poor people both in rural and urban settings by power brokers on both sides. At the end of the day, though, which political party more frequently espouses policies that are hopeful in securing the health, safety, security and religious freedom of all (not just Christians) - Democrats or Republicans?
Click to expand...

As to your first question, I don't think so. It's not hypocritical to be a poor person who votes contrary to someone else's opinion of your self interest.

As to your second point, I probably agree to an extent. Use of fear, or something less than that that I might refer to as "button pushing", can certainly rise to the level of exploitation (on the widely-panned "both sides"). As for health, safety, security and religious freedom of all, I hope that's not a rhetorical question in your view. I think it's very difficult to answer and I'd hope any contemplative American would struggle with it.
 
Pettifogger said:
As to your first question, I don't think so. It's not hypocritical to be a poor person who votes contrary to someone else's opinion of your self interest.

As to your second point, I probably agree to an extent. Use of fear, or something less than that that I might refer to as "button pushing", can certainly rise to the level of exploitation (on the widely-panned "both sides"). As for health, safety, security and religious freedom of all, I hope that's not a rhetorical question in your view. I think it's very difficult to answer and I'd hope any contemplative American would struggle with it.
Click to expand...
Curious. A man who has 3 homes is derided as a clown for supporting policies that are not explicitly capitalist in nature but poor people who are undoubtedly in the main harmed by overtly capitalist policies are not clowns?

This contemplative American has grappled with the subject and comes down squarely on the side of the Democratic Party as more frequently trying to serve the interest of the greatest number of citizens rather than a privileged few. If you disagree, then I'd be interested in your accounting.
 
Pettifogger said:
I believe I specifically tied it to Trump, didn't I?

Anyway, I suspect AOC would loathe me for my beliefs. I suspect plenty of GOP politicians have a ton of animosity for fringe voters on the other side, etc. I don't think these are controversial things to say, but if you do - ok.
Click to expand...

Loathe isn't what I suspect she feels. Flabbergasted perhaps. Not understanding why people would vote for things that are not in their best interest.

Decades of brainwashing by the likes of Rush Limbaugh (who makes $85 million + annually) I suspect is the biggest reason for the disconnect.
 
BlueTX said:
Curious. A man who has 3 homes is derided as a clown for supporting policies that are not explicitly capitalist in nature but poor people who are undoubtedly in the main harmed by overtly capitalist policies are not clowns?

This contemplative American has grappled with the subject and comes down squarely on the side of the Democratic Party as more frequently trying to serve the interest of the greatest number of citizens rather than a privileged few. If you disagree, then I'd be interested in your accounting.
Click to expand...

A man with 3 homes who says "how many homes do you need" when attacking capitalism is a clown, yes. Your related question involves leaps I'm not willing to make, namely that they're "undoubtedly in the main harmed by overtly capitalist policies." But setting that somewhat aside, I don't think it's "clownish" to believe something in your interest is still bad policy, no.

I disagree, although like you (I think by your use of "grappled") I didn't find it to be an easy question. Nor do I think every part of the question comes out on the same side. For example, I think the GOP has a legacy of being knee-jerk "anti-science" and "anti-environment" and I don't think that's in our interest. Meanwhile, I don't think the modern American left is at all devoted to religious freedom. In my youth, the ACLU wing of the DNC actually had moral fortitude, but alas that isn't the case anymore. The "anything goes" wing of the left is gone.
 
ilikecheese said:
Loathe isn't what I suspect she feels. Flabbergasted perhaps. Not understanding why people would vote for things that are not in their best interest.

Decades of brainwashing by the likes of Rush Limbaugh (who makes $85 million + annually) I suspect is the biggest reason for the disconnect.
Click to expand...

Could be. Or it could be that you presume that rural, needy voters are stupid and thus must have been brainwashed (as opposed to simply deciding that someone else's opinion about what's in their self-interest isn't a reason to vote for things they feel are bad for America).

If so, I'm not attacking you or saying you're entirely wrong, you're probably not. But you are certainly painting with a broad brush.
 
Pettifogger said:
A man with 3 homes who says "how many homes do you need" when attacking capitalism is a clown, yes. Your related question involves leaps I'm not willing to make, namely that they're "undoubtedly in the main harmed by overtly capitalist policies." But setting that somewhat aside, I don't think it's "clownish" to believe something in your interest is still bad policy, no.

I disagree, although like you (I think by your use of "grappled") I didn't find it to be an easy question. Nor do I think every part of the question comes out on the same side. For example, I think the GOP has a legacy of being knee-jerk "anti-science" and "anti-environment" and I don't think that's in our interest. Meanwhile, I don't think the modern American left is at all devoted to religious freedom. In my youth, the ACLU wing of the DNC actually had moral fortitude, but alas that isn't the case anymore. The "anything goes" wing of the left is gone.
Click to expand...
I cannot find that quote from Bernie Sanders. Mind sourcing it?

I'm not certain what you mean by "I don't think it's 'clowinsh' to believe something in your interest is still bad policy, no".

Characterizing the modern American left as "not at all devoted to religious freedom" is not something I believe you can substantiate. With respect it is the language I routinely hear from those whose view of religious freedom extends to Christian privilege at the expense of Muslims, Sikhs and other non-Christian or non-believer communities. The simplest version would be the annual massive campaign to rid the American lexicon of Happy Holidays in favor of Merry Christmas.
 
Pettifogger said:
Could be. Or it could be that you presume that rural, needy voters are stupid and thus must have been brainwashed (as opposed to simply deciding that someone else's opinion about what's in their self-interest isn't a reason to vote for things they feel are bad for America).

If so, I'm not attacking you or saying you're entirely wrong, you're probably not. But you are certainly painting with a broad brush.
Click to expand...

I have lived in some of the most rural places you can imagine (look up Smiley, TX). I am not saying they are stupid. Ignorant and sheltered would be accurate though. It's easy, for example, to demonize Muslims when the only Muslims you've ever seen are on TV.

I don't think you understand the power of conservative talk radio. There is a reason Limbaugh makes the kind of money he does for doing an AM radio program. He shapes the worldview for millions of Americans in rural America.
 
ilikecheese said:
I have lived in some of the most rural places you can imagine (look up Smiley, TX). I am not saying they are stupid. Ignorant and sheltered would be accurate though. It's easy, for example, to demonize Muslims when the only Muslims you've ever seen are on TV.

I don't think you understand the power of conservative talk radio. There is a reason Limbaugh makes the kind of money he does for doing an AM radio program. He shapes the worldview for millions of Americans in rural America.
Click to expand...
Whaa?? Smiley, TX? That's only 70 miles or so down HWY 87.
 
BlueTX said:
I cannot find that quote from Bernie Sanders. Mind sourcing it?

I'm not certain what you mean by "I don't think it's 'clowinsh' to believe something in your interest is still bad policy, no".

Characterizing the modern American left as "not at all devoted to religious freedom" is not something I believe you can substantiate. With respect it is the language I routinely hear from those whose view of religious freedom extends to Christian privilege at the expense of Muslims, Sikhs and other non-Christian or non-believer communities. The simplest version would be the annual massive campaign to rid the American lexicon of Happy Holidays in favor of Merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

You won't. That was the response by the right to his tweet about boats and cars.

This is the tweet he refers to....



That dope dinesh desouza said the line "how many homes do you need" in a retweet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top