Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I found this take-away from the June Primaries interesting:

Loser: Republican politicians who criticize Trump
In October 2016, after the tape leaked in which GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump bragged that he liked to “grab” women “by the pussy,” Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) had had enough. She withdrew her endorsement of Trump weeks before the election, saying, “Donald Trump’s behavior makes him unacceptable as a candidate for president, and I won’t vote for him.”

But of course, Trump won. And this year, Roby, now running for a fifth term in the House, came under fire for her criticism of him. At press time, she only had about 39 percent of the vote in her GOP primary — meaning she’d head to a runoff against Bobby Bright (who, oddly enough, held the seat before Roby as a Democrat but has since switched to the GOP).

Meanwhile, up in New Jersey, longtime conservative activist Steve Lonegan hoped to secure the GOP nomination to take on Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer in the Fifth District. But Lonegan had harshly criticized Trump back in 2016 — and luckily for his opponent John McCann, there was footage of Trump firing back that he could put in his ads. (“I’ve known Lonegan for 25 years, he’s a loser!” Trump had said.) Lonegan lost.

*****
Steve Lonegan is anti-Trump and can’t beat the Democrats. He’s just an embarrassment.

Watch my latest TV ad on air TODAY in #NJ5: pic.twitter.com/K5e9xhfDr3

— John McCann (@realJohnMcCann) May 21, 2018
********

So with Lonegan losing and Roby facing a runoff, it’s a reminder that in today’s Republican Party, if you stick your neck out and criticize President Trump too much, GOP voters may very well punish you.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/6/17427114/primary-elections-2018-results-new-jersey-alabama-new-mexico

I wonder if this is a "real" trend, or just the vagaries of the primary since all politics is local.

 motyak wrote:
That's a bald faced lie Frazzled, you didn't cite specific examples. I could handle you just constantly alluding to "something" that he did, but that's a step too far. I'm sure you've got it, no one is asking for decades of history, just a few examples of how he is as bad as old mate.

Your definition of lie is not grammatically correct you cute little feren devil you.

 motyak wrote:
That's a bald faced lie Frazzled, you didn't cite specific examples. I could handle you just constantly alluding to "something" that he did, but that's a step too far. I'm sure you've got it, no one is asking for decades of history, just a few examples of how he is as bad as old mate.

Honestly that is Frazz's MO at this point, which is extremely similar to many conspiracy theorists, "ya know the moon landing is a fake" and when pressed for details they just flutter off only to rejoin the conversation later down the road

 Easy E wrote:
I found this take-away from the June Primaries interesting:

Loser: Republican politicians who criticize Trump
In October 2016, after the tape leaked in which GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump bragged that he liked to “grab” women “by the pussy,” Rep. Martha Roby (R-AL) had had enough. She withdrew her endorsement of Trump weeks before the election, saying, “Donald Trump’s behavior makes him unacceptable as a candidate for president, and I won’t vote for him.”

But of course, Trump won. And this year, Roby, now running for a fifth term in the House, came under fire for her criticism of him. At press time, she only had about 39 percent of the vote in her GOP primary — meaning she’d head to a runoff against Bobby Bright (who, oddly enough, held the seat before Roby as a Democrat but has since switched to the GOP).

Meanwhile, up in New Jersey, longtime conservative activist Steve Lonegan hoped to secure the GOP nomination to take on Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer in the Fifth District. But Lonegan had harshly criticized Trump back in 2016 — and luckily for his opponent John McCann, there was footage of Trump firing back that he could put in his ads. (“I’ve known Lonegan for 25 years, he’s a loser!” Trump had said.) Lonegan lost.

*****
Steve Lonegan is anti-Trump and can’t beat the Democrats. He’s just an embarrassment.

Watch my latest TV ad on air TODAY in #NJ5: pic.twitter.com/K5e9xhfDr3

— John McCann (@realJohnMcCann) May 21, 2018
********

So with Lonegan losing and Roby facing a runoff, it’s a reminder that in today’s Republican Party, if you stick your neck out and criticize President Trump too much, GOP voters may very well punish you.

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/6/17427114/primary-elections-2018-results-new-jersey-alabama-new-mexico

I wonder if this is a "real" trend, or just the vagaries of the primary since all politics is local.

That's disturbing. If the Republican Party becomes the Trump Party, and then lises in 2018 badly, then that will strengthen his position to avoid a full Democratic sweep.

Hello folks,

Just a quick note about generalizations. As someone pointed out, criticizing a political party is a separate matter from criticizing the people who support it. I am not sure how we can have a thread about U.S. Politics if people are not allowed to post generalized criticisms of the political parties. Rule Number One is generally about people and specifically about how people actually posting on this site engage each other. Posting "the Democratic Party thrives on racism" is fine. Posting "Democrats are all racists" is not fine, because it is essentially an ad hominem attack on other posters. I get that there can be gray area ("e.g., "Democrats are supporting systemic racism by profiting from race-baiting") but in that area it is up to each poster to articulate points clearly and as politely as reasonably possible. Please PM me or any other moderator if you have questions.

Thanks!

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.

This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.

This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.

It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.

It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.

Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.

He was talking about a complete about-face on major, critical issues. That's what his claims were about, can you address that?

Those were part of the claims. And then there was the tangent about the Republican party being the very rich and white supremacists holding back progress.

I am really trying to get you to back up your sentiment here, but I'm not seeing it. Despite using exagerrated language what Killkrazy said is still true.

Ustrello wrote:

Spoiler:

Mario wrote:

Ustrello wrote:

Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday and also retire the U.S. seeds maker’s 117 year-old name.

The German drugmaker had received all required approvals from regulatory authorities, it said in a statement on Monday.

“Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,” it said.

Bayer launched a 6 billion euro ($7 billion) rights issue on Sunday, a cornerstone of the financing package for the deal, shortly after clearing the last major antitrust hurdle in the United States.


The deal is the first of a trio of major U.S.-German merger deals to cross the finish line at a time of harsh criticism by U.S. President Donald Trump of Germany’s trade surplus with the United State

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-closing/bayer-to-close-monsanto-takeover-to-retire-targets-name-idUSKCN1J00IZ

That feeling when a German company who had a major stake in the production of Zyklon B and used slave labor buys an American company that created another poison gas (Agent Orange) all the while the cheeto is complaining about the EU and Germany

edit: forgot source

The technical term is: synergy

The perfect poison gas to end all of our mutual suffering?

Bayer have gone beyond gas, they just don't care:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannegoldenberg

A division of the German pharmaceutical company Bayer knowingly sold blood-clotting agents infected with HIV to Asia and Latin America months after withdrawing them from Europe and the US, an American newspaper claimed yesterday.
Cutter Biological continued to dump stocks of the factor VIII blood-clotting agent for haemophiliacs on poor countries for nearly a year after introducing a safer alternative, the report in the New York Times said.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785997

When Bayer's Cutter Laboratories realized that their blood products, Factor VIII and IX or antihemophiliac factor (AHF), were contaminated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the financial investment in the product was considered too high to destroy the inventory. Cutter misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the contaminated AHF to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America without the precaution of heat treating the product recommended for eliminating the risk. As a consequence, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS.

Mario wrote:

Ustrello wrote:

Spoiler:

Mario wrote:

Ustrello wrote:

Germany’s Bayer (BAYGn.DE) will wrap up the $63 billion takeover of Monsanto (MON.N) on Thursday and also retire the U.S. seeds maker’s 117 year-old name.

The German drugmaker had received all required approvals from regulatory authorities, it said in a statement on Monday.

“Bayer will remain the company name. Monsanto will no longer be a company name. The acquired products will retain their brand names and become part of the Bayer portfolio,” it said.

Bayer launched a 6 billion euro ($7 billion) rights issue on Sunday, a cornerstone of the financing package for the deal, shortly after clearing the last major antitrust hurdle in the United States.


The deal is the first of a trio of major U.S.-German merger deals to cross the finish line at a time of harsh criticism by U.S. President Donald Trump of Germany’s trade surplus with the United State

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-monsanto-m-a-bayer-closing/bayer-to-close-monsanto-takeover-to-retire-targets-name-idUSKCN1J00IZ

That feeling when a German company who had a major stake in the production of Zyklon B and used slave labor buys an American company that created another poison gas (Agent Orange) all the while the cheeto is complaining about the EU and Germany

edit: forgot source

The technical term is: synergy

The perfect poison gas to end all of our mutual suffering?

Bayer have gone beyond gas, they just don't care:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/may/23/aids.suzannegoldenberg

A division of the German pharmaceutical company Bayer knowingly sold blood-clotting agents infected with HIV to Asia and Latin America months after withdrawing them from Europe and the US, an American newspaper claimed yesterday.
Cutter Biological continued to dump stocks of the factor VIII blood-clotting agent for haemophiliacs on poor countries for nearly a year after introducing a safer alternative, the report in the New York Times said.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24785997

When Bayer's Cutter Laboratories realized that their blood products, Factor VIII and IX or antihemophiliac factor (AHF), were contaminated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the financial investment in the product was considered too high to destroy the inventory. Cutter misrepresented the results of its own research and sold the contaminated AHF to overseas markets in Asia and Latin America without the precaution of heat treating the product recommended for eliminating the risk. As a consequence, hemophiliacs who infused the HIV-contaminated Factor VIII and IX tested positive for HIV and developed AIDS.

Well holy gak I didn't know it was that bad, I was just taking a metaphorical dump on two companies who have done terrible things in the past but looks like they never stopped

Bayer is German, what relation to US politics?

 Frazzled wrote:
Bayer is German, what relation to US politics?

Bayer is taking over Monsanto. Approved by the US government which considering Trump's views I would have considered some comments on.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Bayer is German, what relation to US politics?

Bayer is taking over Monsanto. Approved by the US government which considering Trump's views I would have considered some comments.

Two great tastes that go great together!

 Frazzled wrote:
Bayer is German, what relation to US politics?

Well seeing how it was posted that you have a major german company buying a major american company all the while trump is pissing and moaning about the EU and germany

It's not on Fox so doesn't exist.

In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.

Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.

The man is such a narcissistic moron.

This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.

Steelmage99 wrote:
In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.

Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.

The man is such a narcissistic moron.

This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.

That and apparently he threw a literal gak fit when Brady didn't come to the Patriots white house visit

 Ustrello wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.

Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.

The man is such a narcissistic moron.

This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.

That and apparently he threw a literal gak fit when Brady didn't come to the Patriots white house visit

Hey, at that age that is nothing to be embarrased about, it happens

 Ustrello wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.

Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.

The man is such a narcissistic moron.

This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.

That and apparently he threw a literal gak fit when Brady didn't come to the Patriots white house visit

I would proffer it's doubtful any team will accept an invite from him going forward.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

Steelmage99 wrote:
In light of President Trump's recent decision about the current Super Bowl Champions Philadelphia Eagles coming to the White House one thing seems clear.

Judging from President Trump's reaction and actions, he thinks the Super Bowl champions visiting the White House is about them honouring him - and not the other way around.

The man is such a narcissistic moron.

This is all before we point out that the Philadelphia Eagles did not kneel during the anthem, and that President Trump failed miserably during his faux-patriotism replacement show.

That and apparently he threw a literal gak fit when Brady didn't come to the Patriots white house visit

I would proffer it's doubtful any team will accept an invite from him going forward.

Yeah but this is Brady his friend and who had one of his hats in his locker

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Spoiler:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
If a rotting corpse says he will lower taxes and appoint a pro-life SCOTUS judge, he will get a good chunk of the GOP votes.

You should read the article, because an important point it raises is that historically speaking Republicans have voted 92% in favour of free trade, lower tariffs, and so on. This 87% result means they have almost 180 degrees moved their position in order to swing in behind Trump's agenda, even though they didn't want him for President.

This shows in a sense that the Republican Party no longer is its own party. It's become the Trump Party, and that means it's the anti-Obama party. It's the party of the very rich, and white supremacists. It's the party that stands for tearing down 100 years of social progress and international engagement that started with Teddy Roosevelt busting the trusts and sending out the Great White Fleet in the Progressive Era.

This is verging on the kind of posting that just got this thread locked, and *is* the kind of simplification that feeds polarization and makes real discussion impossible.

It is exaggerated, but what about his statements are actually untrue? Because empty claims without evidence or reasoning are responsible for taking the thread downhill just as much as anything.

It's ridiculous to conclude that people saying they support their party's defacto leader means that they're gung-ho about every tweet and on board with every policy. You can say you support a leader while holding your nose, and you may be more inclined to do so when that leader (and therefore your party) is perceived to be under siege. That's what tribalism is all about.

Both parties have factions and diversity of ideas. If everyone on the other side of the political spectrum looks identical from where one stands, then perhaps it's time to consider that one may be standing too distantly to one side.

He was talking about a complete about-face on major, critical issues. That's what his claims were about, can you address that?

Those were part of the claims. And then there was the tangent about the Republican party being the very rich and white supremacists holding back progress.

I am really trying to get you to back up your sentiment here, but I'm not seeing it. Despite using exagerrated language what Killkrazy said is still true.

No it really isn’t. It’s demonstrably false that the Republican Party is the party of the rich considering the plethora of extremely wealthy people that are Democratic politicians, Party members and supporters. While I believe it’s truthful that Trump has brought an openly bigoted viewpoint to the office of the presidency and his de facto leadership of the GOP it’s not true that white supremacy only taints the Republican Party. There are plenty cities with police departments frought with systemic racist attitudes and policies that have been created and fostered by Democratic leadership in those cities. Why are Democratic politicians not accountable to the blatant racial bias, favoritism and inequities that happen under their authority?

Trump is a problem yes but he isn’t the only problem. Trumps presidency is highlighting and exacerbating a host of underlying problems that have largely been ignored for decades and those problems will still plague us after his presidency is over.

"Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Is this a joke or do you have a source for him being convicted of corruption, because wikipedia has no mention of it?

Newsom had an affair with a staffer. Exactly how bad that was is complicated, because while she was on his staff, she was in her 30s and financially independent so any claim of coercion is pretty flimsy. The woman herself says she wasn't coerced, her choice to engage in the affair came out of her own drinking and tendency towards self-destruction. So there's not really much of a Me Too element there, but it was still a gakky thing for Newsom to have done. Its not something anyone would want their governor to have done.

However, claiming this makes Dems the same as Reps, as frazzled tried to do is more than a little ridiculous. Right now there is a Republican president in the White House with about 20 credible allegations of sexual assault against him. He is heading a White House that tried to cover for a man who was convicted of beating two different partners. That clearly very different to Newsom.

But frazzled wants to claim these are the same thing, for his own reasons.

I thought that phrase (by KK) was way out of line, personally. I didn't reply simply because I don't want to get into a series of back and forth name calling.

In the end, if that's what someone thinks the Republican party is, you're not going to change their mind. As an independent myself, who knows plenty of people in both parties, I try not to demonize either one. Goodness knows, whether on Fox or CNN/MSNBC, they're both busy labeling and vilifying each other, with phrases just like that...

But imo, that kind of language (using sweeping insults to classify the opposition) doesn't do anyone any good, and certainly doesn't foster constructive discussion, debate, or compromise. All of which are dearly needed in this period of extreme partisanship...

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
"Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.

What am I deflecting from? I never disputed that the Republican Party genuflect to rich donors or that the Trump presidency isn’t bigoted. It’s downright silly to characterize the Republican Party as the rich party when the Democratic Party loves rich people/donors just as much as the Republican Party. Likewise I’m not disputing that Trump’s racist statements/tweets are reprehensible and damage the GOP as a party but claiming that the GOP is the party of racism now implies that the election of Trump has made the Republican Party more racist than the Democratic Party since we have a 2 party system. I disagree with that valuation because while Trump talks and tweets a lot of racist gak I’m not seeing him implementing policies that are more racist and oppressive than the housing, zoning, education, development and gentrification and policing policies that have enshrined systemic racial inequities in our cities. Why do we have the BLM movement? Why were there protests against racial bias inherent in police departments in NYC, Ferguson, Cleveland and Boston before Trump was POTUS? Which party is in charge of most of our cities? This isn’t whataboutism. Disagreeing with the claim that in a comparison of Party X and Party Y that Party X is more racist because there is also racism in Party Y is on topic. If I said what about Party Z that would be whataboutism because I’m trying to bring attention to something that wasn’t part of the original discussion, it would be an attempt to distract and change the parameters of the discussion. There is ample racism in the Democrat Party that is easy to overlook because it’s not the loud overt racism of Trump amplified by the media attention given to him as POTUS.

 gorgon wrote:
Well, I'd say that the media understands and is complict. CNN has done very, very well in the age of Trump, and it seems like half the articles on any given day are the usual outrage piece over whatever Trump has said or done lately. Cha-ching. Fox News has also obviously benefited for its own reasons.

Having a president willing to treat the office like a reality TV show has lifted all boats in the media. Sure, there are serious journalists disgusted by the current state of affairs. But serious journalism doesn't get you PAID, baby! OTOH, the clickbait outrage machine is a like printing press for making money.

This is not quite right. People have this strange idea of journalists somehow working with the ad sales team to figure out which stories generate the most clicks and deciding to focus on those. When you stop and think about it the idea is pretty obviously silly.

What's actually happening is way more complex. There's an old line in journalism, that stories are where the journalist is. The idea being that rather than journalists just going to where the stories are, journalists are posted to locations for all sorts of reasons, and once there they write about what is happening around them. With year on year budget cuts, more and more non-Washtington, non-NY postings are being cut. So more of the national coverage ends up focusing on the one big story in DC & NY. The Trump debacle.

Of course there should be more coverage of the drugs crisis, but that'd need postings to rural areas and months given to investigative reporters to pick apart how . Media companies still do that kind of work, but with declining ad revenues that stuff gets less coverage each year, and instead more air time is given to the news teams in DC and NY to make up the gap.

Meanwhile, as everyone has been moaning about journalism focusing on Trump, journalists went and exposed the Theranos scam, and broke open the Weinstein story, leading to MeToo. They're still doing good work.

 RiTides wrote:
I thought that phrase (by KK) was way out of line, personally. I didn't reply simply because I don't want to get into a series of back and forth name calling.

In the end, if that's what someone thinks the Republican party is, you're not going to change their mind. As an independent myself, who knows plenty of people in both parties, I try not to demonize either one. Goodness knows, whether on Fox or CNN/MSNBC, they're both busy labeling and vilifying each other, with phrases just like that...

But imo, that kind of language (using sweeping insults to classify the opposition) doesn't do anyone any good, and certainly doesn't foster constructive discussion, debate, or compromise. All of which are dearly needed in this period of extreme partisanship...

It's important to distinguish statements about the party and statements about the people who vote fpr it. I've fallen into that trap plenty of times, unfortunately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
"Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.

What am I deflecting from? I never disputed that the Republican Party genuflect to rich donors or that the Trump presidency isn’t bigoted. It’s downright silly to characterize the Republican Party as the rich party when the Democratic Party loves rich people/donors just as much as the Republican Party. Likewise I’m not disputing that Trump’s racist statements/tweets are reprehensible and damage the GOP as a party but claiming that the GOP is the party of racism now implies that the election of Trump has made the Republican Party more racist than the Democratic Party since we have a 2 party system. I disagree with that valuation because while Trump talks and tweets a lot of racist gak I’m not seeing him implementing policies that are more racist and oppressive than the housing, zoning, education, development and gentrification and policing policies that have enshrined systemic racial inequities in our cities. Why do we have the BLM movement? Why were there protests against racial bias inherent in police departments in NYC, Ferguson, Cleveland and Boston before Trump was POTUS? Which party is in charge of most of our cities? This isn’t whataboutism. Disagreeing with the claim that in a comparison of Party X and Party Y that Party X is more racist because there is also racism in Party Y is on topic. If I said what about Party Z that would be whataboutism because I’m trying to bring attention to something that wasn’t part of the original discussion, it would be an attempt to distract and change the parameters of the discussion. There is ample racism in the Democrat Party that is easy to overlook because it’s not the loud overt racism of Trump amplified by the media attention given to him as POTUS.

Democrats didn't pass the recent tax cut; a hand out to the wealthy with paltry and temporary benefits for the rest. Democrats have not been pushing the ridiculous and long-disproved 'trickle down' as economic policy. And yes, Trump creating a racist narrative within the party does make that party more racist, suggesting otherwise is silly. The loudness and overtness and even more so the degree to which it is tolerated matters considerably. Having a few closet racists who do not speak out due to pushback they would recieve is completely different than having outspoken racists with limited pushback at all.

 sebster wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Well, I'd say that the media understands and is complict. CNN has done very, very well in the age of Trump, and it seems like half the articles on any given day are the usual outrage piece over whatever Trump has said or done lately. Cha-ching. Fox News has also obviously benefited for its own reasons.

Having a president willing to treat the office like a reality TV show has lifted all boats in the media. Sure, there are serious journalists disgusted by the current state of affairs. But serious journalism doesn't get you PAID, baby! OTOH, the clickbait outrage machine is a like printing press for making money.

This is not quite right. People have this strange idea of journalists somehow working with the ad sales team to figure out which stories generate the most clicks and deciding to focus on those. When you stop and think about it the idea is pretty obviously silly.

What's actually happening is way more complex. There's an old line in journalism, that stories are where the journalist is. The idea being that rather than journalists just going to where the stories are, journalists are posted to locations for all sorts of reasons, and once there they write about what is happening around them. With year on year budget cuts, more and more non-Washtington, non-NY postings are being cut. So more of the national coverage ends up focusing on the one big story in DC & NY. The Trump debacle.

Of course there should be more coverage of the drugs crisis, but that'd need postings to rural areas and months given to investigative reporters to pick apart how . Media companies still do that kind of work, but with declining ad revenues that stuff gets less coverage each year, and instead more air time is given to the news teams in DC and NY to make up the gap.

Meanwhile, as everyone has been moaning about journalism focusing on Trump, journalists went and exposed the Theranos scam, and broke open the Weinstein story, leading to MeToo. They're still doing good work.

Sometimes, though, I'm reminded of another old line in journalism: "You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war."

In my post, I was very specific in talking about party - how people vilify, label, and characterize them. I think all of that is extremely unhelpful for a reasoned debate, and just leads to increased "tribalism" and partisanship.

Again as an independent, I see negative ads for both parties do it, or analysts on the appropriately slanted network. But it's basically just scoring points with their base (on either end of the spectrum) and something I'm frankly tired of seeing both sides do.

It's also the kind of thing that if someone says in-person with a member of the other "side", it either just ends the conversation, or leads to a heated argument about their characterization, and any chance of a substantive discussion about the issues gets completely lost...

For me it depends on how well they distinguish between the party in general and people who are [party], and if they can manage to actually use real words.

Crap like “libtards” gets an automatic “you’re an idiot not worth talking to” from me, as an example.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
I thought that phrase (by KK) was way out of line, personally. I didn't reply simply because I don't want to get into a series of back and forth name calling.

In the end, if that's what someone thinks the Republican party is, you're not going to change their mind. As an independent myself, who knows plenty of people in both parties, I try not to demonize either one. Goodness knows, whether on Fox or CNN/MSNBC, they're both busy labeling and vilifying each other, with phrases just like that...

But imo, that kind of language (using sweeping insults to classify the opposition) doesn't do anyone any good, and certainly doesn't foster constructive discussion, debate, or compromise. All of which are dearly needed in this period of extreme partisanship...

It's important to distinguish statements about the party and statements about the people who vote fpr it. I've fallen into that trap plenty of times, unfortunately.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
"Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.

What am I deflecting from? I never disputed that the Republican Party genuflect to rich donors or that the Trump presidency isn’t bigoted. It’s downright silly to characterize the Republican Party as the rich party when the Democratic Party loves rich people/donors just as much as the Republican Party. Likewise I’m not disputing that Trump’s racist statements/tweets are reprehensible and damage the GOP as a party but claiming that the GOP is the party of racism now implies that the election of Trump has made the Republican Party more racist than the Democratic Party since we have a 2 party system. I disagree with that valuation because while Trump talks and tweets a lot of racist gak I’m not seeing him implementing policies that are more racist and oppressive than the housing, zoning, education, development and gentrification and policing policies that have enshrined systemic racial inequities in our cities. Why do we have the BLM movement? Why were there protests against racial bias inherent in police departments in NYC, Ferguson, Cleveland and Boston before Trump was POTUS? Which party is in charge of most of our cities? This isn’t whataboutism. Disagreeing with the claim that in a comparison of Party X and Party Y that Party X is more racist because there is also racism in Party Y is on topic. If I said what about Party Z that would be whataboutism because I’m trying to bring attention to something that wasn’t part of the original discussion, it would be an attempt to distract and change the parameters of the discussion. There is ample racism in the Democrat Party that is easy to overlook because it’s not the loud overt racism of Trump amplified by the media attention given to him as POTUS.

Democrats didn't pass the recent tax cut; a hand out to the wealthy with paltry and temporary benefits for the rest. Democrats have not been pushing the ridiculous and long-disproved 'trickle down' as economic policy. And yes, Trump creating a racist narrative within the party does make that party more racist, suggesting otherwise is silly. The loudness and overtness and even more so the degree to which it is tolerated matters considerably. Having a few closet racists who do not speak out due to pushback they would recieve is completely different than having outspoken racists with limited pushback at all.

So your contention is that Trump’s statements have damaged minorities more than decades of urban policies that have created a systemic and persistent oppression of minorities and that said policies only exist because of a few closeted racists in the Democratic Party that are afraid to overtly state their bias? In all the cities I’ve lived in or near in my life the white neighborhoods are always much better off than the black neighborhoods that are plagued by a vicious cycle of poverty and inadequate education compounded by a scarcity of resources and opportunities. I’m sure the Democratic Party machines in those cities that use those conditions to drive voter turnout and party loyalty are going to rectify that disparity any day now.
Does passing the recent tax cut and championing low taxes and trickle down supply side economics caters to the interests of the wealthy elite more so than any previous legislation proposed or passed by Democrats that benefits big businesses and the wealthy elite? Did Clinton and the Democrat’s support of NAFTA benefit American workers and stimulate wage growth and job opportunities? Was the stimulus bill passed by Obama and the Democratic supermajority in Congress effective in helping the working class overcome the Great Recession?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Well, I'd say that the media understands and is complict. CNN has done very, very well in the age of Trump, and it seems like half the articles on any given day are the usual outrage piece over whatever Trump has said or done lately. Cha-ching. Fox News has also obviously benefited for its own reasons.

Having a president willing to treat the office like a reality TV show has lifted all boats in the media. Sure, there are serious journalists disgusted by the current state of affairs. But serious journalism doesn't get you PAID, baby! OTOH, the clickbait outrage machine is a like printing press for making money.

This is not quite right. People have this strange idea of journalists somehow working with the ad sales team to figure out which stories generate the most clicks and deciding to focus on those. When you stop and think about it the idea is pretty obviously silly.

What's actually happening is way more complex. There's an old line in journalism, that stories are where the journalist is. The idea being that rather than journalists just going to where the stories are, journalists are posted to locations for all sorts of reasons, and once there they write about what is happening around them. With year on year budget cuts, more and more non-Washtington, non-NY postings are being cut. So more of the national coverage ends up focusing on the one big story in DC & NY. The Trump debacle.

Of course there should be more coverage of the drugs crisis, but that'd need postings to rural areas and months given to investigative reporters to pick apart how . Media companies still do that kind of work, but with declining ad revenues that stuff gets less coverage each year, and instead more air time is given to the news teams in DC and NY to make up the gap.

Meanwhile, as everyone has been moaning about journalism focusing on Trump, journalists went and exposed the Theranos scam, and broke open the Weinstein story, leading to MeToo. They're still doing good work.

I think you’re downplaying the effect the profit motive has on private media companies. Granted journalists are motivated by the desire to find and tell a good story but whereas freelancers can pursue whatever story they want most journalists in media companies are given assignments. Which stories are assigned, what resources are allocated, what headlines are placed on a story, how it’s promoted, what prominence it is given, the amount and duration of coverage of a story are all editorial decisions that have to be justified in terms of money spent and revenue earned. Does the #metoo movement get more coverage than the opioid crisis because it’s more important or because the sensationalistic aspects of it generate more revenue? I agree that #metoo is an important story that deserves in depth coverage but it’s undeniable that the adage (and truth) that sex sells helps drive resource allocation and coverage to it instead of other less sexy stories that are also important.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
"Party of X" does not mean "X exclusively belongs to this party" it's disingenuous to say otherwise. Also the blatant whataboutism is just confirming things; you wouldn't need to deflect if it wasn't true.

What am I deflecting from? I never disputed that the Republican Party genuflect to rich donors or that the Trump presidency isn’t bigoted. It’s downright silly to characterize the Republican Party as the rich party when the Democratic Party loves rich people/donors just as much as the Republican Party. Likewise I’m not disputing that Trump’s racist statements/tweets are reprehensible and damage the GOP as a party but claiming that the GOP is the party of racism now implies that the election of Trump has made the Republican Party more racist than the Democratic Party since we have a 2 party system. I disagree with that valuation because while Trump talks and tweets a lot of racist gak I’m not seeing him implementing policies that are more racist and oppressive than the housing, zoning, education, development and gentrification and policing policies that have enshrined systemic racial inequities in our cities. Why do we have the BLM movement? Why were there protests against racial bias inherent in police departments in NYC, Ferguson, Cleveland and Boston before Trump was POTUS? Which party is in charge of most of our cities? This isn’t whataboutism. Disagreeing with the claim that in a comparison of Party X and Party Y that Party X is more racist because there is also racism in Party Y is on topic. If I said what about Party Z that would be whataboutism because I’m trying to bring attention to something that wasn’t part of the original discussion, it would be an attempt to distract and change the parameters of the discussion. There is ample racism in the Democrat Party that is easy to overlook because it’s not the loud overt racism of Trump amplified by the media attention given to him as POTUS.

Democrats didn't pass the recent tax cut; a hand out to the wealthy with paltry and temporary benefits for the rest. Democrats have not been pushing the ridiculous and long-disproved 'trickle down' as economic policy. And yes, Trump creating a racist narrative within the party does make that party more racist, suggesting otherwise is silly. The loudness and overtness and even more so the degree to which it is tolerated matters considerably. Having a few closet racists who do not speak out due to pushback they would recieve is completely different than having outspoken racists with limited pushback at all.

So your contention is that Trump’s statements have damaged minorities more than decades of urban policies that have created a systemic and persistent oppression of minorities and that said policies only exist because of a few closeted racists in the Democratic Party that are afraid to overtly state their bias? In all the cities I’ve lived in or near in my life the white neighborhoods are always much better off than the black neighborhoods that are plagued by a vicious cycle of poverty and inadequate education compounded by a scarcity of resources and opportunities. I’m sure the Democratic Party machines in those cities that use those conditions to drive voter turnout and party loyalty are going to rectify that disparity any day now.
Does passing the recent tax cut and championing low taxes and trickle down supply side economics caters to the interests of the wealthy elite more so than any previous legislation proposed or passed by Democrats that benefits big businesses and the wealthy elite? Did Clinton and the Democrat’s support of NAFTA benefit American workers and stimulate wage growth and job opportunities? Was the stimulus bill passed by Obama and the Democratic supermajority in Congress effective in helping the working class overcome the Great Recession?

You're implying that racial segregation within society is somehow Democrat's fault. I'm done.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 RiTides wrote:
In my post, I was very specific in talking about party - how people vilify, label, and characterize them. I think all of that is extremely unhelpful for a reasoned debate, and just leads to increased "tribalism" and partisanship.

Again as an independent, I see negative ads for both parties do it, or analysts on the appropriately slanted network. But it's basically just scoring points with their base (on either end of the spectrum) and something I'm frankly tired of seeing both sides do.

It's also the kind of thing that if someone says in-person with a member of the other "side", it either just ends the conversation, or leads to a heated argument about their characterization, and any chance of a substantive discussion about the issues gets completely lost...

How are we supposed to make statements about a party at all, then? Or any group for that matter? Not all generalizations are over-generalizations. To me you are coming across as saying 'I'm separate from this so I can see that all these critical statements are bad' which I'm pretty sure is not the intent.