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.

Mario wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You know he's serious when he puts 25,000% tariffs on French wine (something that might impact him).

That wouldn't work like that. Trump doesn't drink alcohol because his brother died of alcoholism (although it might accidentally benefit his winery).

TheAuldGrump wrote:

Spoiler:

 Frazzled wrote:
And another post comparing Trump to Nazis. Excellent.

Gee, I wonder why anybody would do such a thing.

Just because some of his noisiest supporters publicly claim that title. You know, marching through streets carrying the flag of Nazi Germany? Ringing any bells?

And just because many of his own spoken positions parallel positions taken by the Nazi party during it's nascent years.

Or, you know, maybe there is a reason that people are worried about his politics and policies, eh?

We are not there yet - but there is reason to be worried. Hyper-nationalism, and a willingness to tell whatever lie he feels will further his claims is not helping. (So, Canada has a thriving industry in shoe smuggling? Really?)

And being worried can help prevent it from happening.

If we become complacent about this behavior, then we may start taking the actual steps towards becoming a fascist nation. (Not all fascists are Nazis.)

The Auld Grump

It's funny how how all the talk about "it can't ever happen here, people will do something" also comes from the same people who are not that worried, defend similar practices, or even think some of the ideas are actually acceptable. The problem with fascism is if you don't fight it early you'll need something much harsher later on to dislodge it. It uses the tools of democracy to get into positions of power (and it relies on your civility) and then destroys those tools so other can't fight it as easily. Stuff like Trump's rhetoric about immigrants contributed to that change in climate. Because people are outraged by Nazi comparisons but excuse his choice of words as "but he didn't mean it like that", "he was joking", or "that was just an exaggeration".

In the grand scheme of things a restaurant saying "we don't want to serve people who defend the government putting kids into cages" is rather mild resistance.

https://prruk.org/when-fascism-arrives-as-your-friend-by-michael-rosen/

Good point. A 25,000% increase in the cost of new central European wives?

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I dont agree with Waters' statement, if thats the hill we're gonna choose to die on over common decency, well, I feel comfortable stating that we should probably be aiming elsewhere.

These are public officials leading public lives driving public policy in positions of wealth and power, who ran on a platform of "feth your feelings", and have been caustic, divisive, belligerent, insulting and offensive, and intentionally so, for the last several years since Trump started his campaign and have only kicked it into higher gear since entering office, and who are currently pushing policies that not too long ago would have been thought impossible in the US by common standards of decency.

So, while I dont condone people going out and harrassing others, if we're complain about common decency, that's a hard pill to swallow in this case.

 Spinner wrote:
I dunno, "supports abducting and transporting children across the country to scare people into not wanting to come here" seems like a pretty good line to draw for not getting to go out for enchiladas in peace.

I feel this, I really do. As you say these are some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the country, and they are doing reprehensible things while being paid on the taxpayer dime all the time - getting yelled at in public seems pretty fair. It feels right. As their crowd is so fond of saying over and over and over again, feth your feelings, snowflake. Right?

But I have been thinking about this for days and ultimately although my heart - my very angry heart - agrees with that idea, my head agrees more with this one.

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree with NinthMusketeer. This is heading nowhere good. I don't think partisan politics becoming even more weaponized is going to help anything. I agree with everyone that the Trump administration is rather terrible at their job from an objective viewpoint but these are public government employees, there's already a process to send feedback to them when we're unhappy with their job performance. Physically stalking and harassing government officials in the hopes of intimidating them to the point where they change policy positions isn't a good way to govern a nation or uphold civic responsibilities. It's just circumventing the system of representative democracy in favor of mob rule and a might makes right mentality.

This is an extremely dangerous slippery slope because it encourages direct physical confrontations to resolve political disagreements or effect govt policy changes. If we as a society are going to decide that physical intimidation is an acceptable form of political discourse then we're not going to be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

It's a much harder argument to swallow emotionally, but ultimately eradicating social and political norms as retribution for eradicating social and political norms just leaves the whole world blind, or something like that.

It's not as if we're faced with a binary choice of passively accepting reprehensible governance or stalking administration officials and haranguing them wherever they go. It's important to push back against bad governance and how we push back is equally important. I don't being asked to a leave a restaurant was harmful to Sanders and I don't think it did anything to change her mind, if anything it probably pushed her to dig in more as evidenced by her tweets to promote her victimization to Trump's support base. Now that she's played the victim card she really can't backtrack on the child separation policy, she's more entrenched than ever so what's the point? Protesting against the policy through standard channels may not sway anyone in the Trump admin either but it's tangible act of against the policy that can help encourage politicians to oppose it and run on it and it doesn't create any negatives to social civility and political discourse.

The Trump administration is objectively worse than the Bush administration and the protests and derision directed at the Trump admin is worse/more extreme than what was directed at the Bush admin. The next time we have a Democrat PotUS, whether its in 2020 or 2024,there will be pushback from Republicans and it will be worse/more extreme than the Tea Party and Republican obstructionism during Obama's admin. We're normalizing divisive candidates, divisive policies, hyperbolic criticism and uncivil political discourse dominated by the most extreme voices. At some point we have stop sinking lower. It's never going to feel good to turn the other check and hold ourselves to a higher standard, it's never going to be easy but the longer we wait the worse it gets.

I think we're talking about Waters here, which is very different from Sanders being refused service.

I've said it before, "if you want to be the better person, you have to actually be the better person". I don't support the harassment/stalking that's being called for. I don't support sinking down to the level of Trump to fight back against Trump. Prestor put it quite well.
That being said, what can you do? Trump still won by being Trump*. Various Republicans are winning their primaries by being Trumpier than the other Republicans, so being better than Trump isn't even helping among Republicans who were traditionally the party of family values and morals. Evangelical leaders are publicly stating they're totally cool with how bad of a human dumpster fire Trump is as long as his politics aligns with theirs. It's not hard to be the better person these days, but I'm really starting to understand the truth of why Whembly admitted a couple years ago when I called him out on the GOP's actions: "When the Republicans do the right thing, they lose."




*And before the usual suspects chime in with "but Hillary...", that excuse doesn't wash because it doesn't explain how Trump beat out all the other Republicans.

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I dont agree with Waters' statement, if thats the hill we're gonna choose to die on over common decency, well, I feel comfortable stating that we should probably be aiming elsewhere.

These are public officials leading public lives driving public policy in positions of wealth and power, who ran on a platform of "feth your feelings", and have been caustic, divisive, belligerent, insulting and offensive, and intentionally so, for the last several years since Trump started his campaign and have only kicked it into higher gear since entering office, and who are currently pushing policies that not too long ago would have been thought impossible in the US by common standards of decency.

So, while I dont condone people going out and harrassing others, if we're complain about common decency, that's a hard pill to swallow in this case.

 Spinner wrote:
I dunno, "supports abducting and transporting children across the country to scare people into not wanting to come here" seems like a pretty good line to draw for not getting to go out for enchiladas in peace.

I feel this, I really do. As you say these are some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the country, and they are doing reprehensible things while being paid on the taxpayer dime all the time - getting yelled at in public seems pretty fair. It feels right. As their crowd is so fond of saying over and over and over again, feth your feelings, snowflake. Right?

But I have been thinking about this for days and ultimately although my heart - my very angry heart - agrees with that idea, my head agrees more with this one.

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree with NinthMusketeer. This is heading nowhere good. I don't think partisan politics becoming even more weaponized is going to help anything. I agree with everyone that the Trump administration is rather terrible at their job from an objective viewpoint but these are public government employees, there's already a process to send feedback to them when we're unhappy with their job performance. Physically stalking and harassing government officials in the hopes of intimidating them to the point where they change policy positions isn't a good way to govern a nation or uphold civic responsibilities. It's just circumventing the system of representative democracy in favor of mob rule and a might makes right mentality.

This is an extremely dangerous slippery slope because it encourages direct physical confrontations to resolve political disagreements or effect govt policy changes. If we as a society are going to decide that physical intimidation is an acceptable form of political discourse then we're not going to be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

It's a much harder argument to swallow emotionally, but ultimately eradicating social and political norms as retribution for eradicating social and political norms just leaves the whole world blind, or something like that.

It's not as if we're faced with a binary choice of passively accepting reprehensible governance or stalking administration officials and haranguing them wherever they go. It's important to push back against bad governance and how we push back is equally important. I don't being asked to a leave a restaurant was harmful to Sanders and I don't think it did anything to change her mind, if anything it probably pushed her to dig in more as evidenced by her tweets to promote her victimization to Trump's support base. Now that she's played the victim card she really can't backtrack on the child separation policy, she's more entrenched than ever so what's the point? Protesting against the policy through standard channels may not sway anyone in the Trump admin either but it's tangible act of against the policy that can help encourage politicians to oppose it and run on it and it doesn't create any negatives to social civility and political discourse.

The Trump administration is objectively worse than the Bush administration and the protests and derision directed at the Trump admin is worse/more extreme than what was directed at the Bush admin. The next time we have a Democrat PotUS, whether its in 2020 or 2024,there will be pushback from Republicans and it will be worse/more extreme than the Tea Party and Republican obstructionism during Obama's admin. We're normalizing divisive candidates, divisive policies, hyperbolic criticism and uncivil political discourse dominated by the most extreme voices. At some point we have stop sinking lower. It's never going to feel good to turn the other check and hold ourselves to a higher standard, it's never going to be easy but the longer we wait the worse it gets.

It's a vicious cycle that I don't think its going to change until the next generation of politicians take over. I think we're heading towards dangerous times, such that if Trump wins in 2020, I fear the aftermath.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chuck Schumer denounces Maxine's advocacy:
https://cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/chuck-schumer-maxine-waters-harassment-trump-officials/index.html

Kudos to Chuck.

 whembly wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Spoiler:

 Ouze wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
While I dont agree with Waters' statement, if thats the hill we're gonna choose to die on over common decency, well, I feel comfortable stating that we should probably be aiming elsewhere.

These are public officials leading public lives driving public policy in positions of wealth and power, who ran on a platform of "feth your feelings", and have been caustic, divisive, belligerent, insulting and offensive, and intentionally so, for the last several years since Trump started his campaign and have only kicked it into higher gear since entering office, and who are currently pushing policies that not too long ago would have been thought impossible in the US by common standards of decency.

So, while I dont condone people going out and harrassing others, if we're complain about common decency, that's a hard pill to swallow in this case.

 Spinner wrote:
I dunno, "supports abducting and transporting children across the country to scare people into not wanting to come here" seems like a pretty good line to draw for not getting to go out for enchiladas in peace.

I feel this, I really do. As you say these are some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the country, and they are doing reprehensible things while being paid on the taxpayer dime all the time - getting yelled at in public seems pretty fair. It feels right. As their crowd is so fond of saying over and over and over again, feth your feelings, snowflake. Right?

But I have been thinking about this for days and ultimately although my heart - my very angry heart - agrees with that idea, my head agrees more with this one.

Prestor Jon wrote:

I agree with NinthMusketeer. This is heading nowhere good. I don't think partisan politics becoming even more weaponized is going to help anything. I agree with everyone that the Trump administration is rather terrible at their job from an objective viewpoint but these are public government employees, there's already a process to send feedback to them when we're unhappy with their job performance. Physically stalking and harassing government officials in the hopes of intimidating them to the point where they change policy positions isn't a good way to govern a nation or uphold civic responsibilities. It's just circumventing the system of representative democracy in favor of mob rule and a might makes right mentality.

This is an extremely dangerous slippery slope because it encourages direct physical confrontations to resolve political disagreements or effect govt policy changes. If we as a society are going to decide that physical intimidation is an acceptable form of political discourse then we're not going to be able to put the toothpaste back in the tube.

It's a much harder argument to swallow emotionally, but ultimately eradicating social and political norms as retribution for eradicating social and political norms just leaves the whole world blind, or something like that.

It's not as if we're faced with a binary choice of passively accepting reprehensible governance or stalking administration officials and haranguing them wherever they go. It's important to push back against bad governance and how we push back is equally important. I don't being asked to a leave a restaurant was harmful to Sanders and I don't think it did anything to change her mind, if anything it probably pushed her to dig in more as evidenced by her tweets to promote her victimization to Trump's support base. Now that she's played the victim card she really can't backtrack on the child separation policy, she's more entrenched than ever so what's the point? Protesting against the policy through standard channels may not sway anyone in the Trump admin either but it's tangible act of against the policy that can help encourage politicians to oppose it and run on it and it doesn't create any negatives to social civility and political discourse.

The Trump administration is objectively worse than the Bush administration and the protests and derision directed at the Trump admin is worse/more extreme than what was directed at the Bush admin. The next time we have a Democrat PotUS, whether its in 2020 or 2024,there will be pushback from Republicans and it will be worse/more extreme than the Tea Party and Republican obstructionism during Obama's admin. We're normalizing divisive candidates, divisive policies, hyperbolic criticism and uncivil political discourse dominated by the most extreme voices. At some point we have stop sinking lower. It's never going to feel good to turn the other check and hold ourselves to a higher standard, it's never going to be easy but the longer we wait the worse it gets.

It's a vicious cycle that I don't think its going to change until the next generation of politicians take over. I think we're heading towards dangerous times, such that if Trump wins in 2020, I fear the aftermath.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chuck Schumer denounces Maxine's advocacy:
https://cnn.com/2018/06/25/politics/chuck-schumer-maxine-waters-harassment-trump-officials/index.html

Kudos to Chuck.

At least the Dems are pushing back

 Da Boss wrote:
Perhaps it is my appreciation of the history of the term, but I believe in a boycott in the traditional sense - an absolute refusal to provide any kind of non-legally mandated service to a person, a refusal to aid or speak to them in any way. A policy of total social isolation.

This was originally applied by Irish peasants to the agent of an absentee landlord during the Land War. It was extremely effective and totally non-violent. I see this non-service in a restaurant as being directly in this tradition, and would be perfectly fine with it going even further. After all, they can always find SOMEONE to help them out, it will just cost more and be inconvenient as hell.

As an alternative to violent resistance it is quite civil, really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott#Etymology

This is an interesting point, and one that has me rethinking my stance on refusing service (previously "legal but dick move").


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I've said it before, "if you want to be the better person, you have to actually be the better person". I don't support the harassment/stalking that's being called for. I don't support sinking down to the level of Trump to fight back against Trump. Prestor put it quite well.
That being said, what can you do? Trump still won by being Trump*. Various Republicans are winning their primaries by being Trumpier than the other Republicans, so being better than Trump isn't even helping among Republicans who were traditionally the party of family values and morals. Evangelical leaders are publicly stating they're totally cool with how bad of a human dumpster fire Trump is as long as his politics aligns with theirs. It's not hard to be the better person these days, but I'm really starting to understand the truth of why Whembly admitted a couple years ago when I called him out on the GOP's actions: "When the Republicans do the right thing, they lose."

Which is why I've been saying for years that the voters need to be held responsible as well as the politicians. Currently this is most relevant to Republicans, but there is plenty of criticism to go around for Democrats & Independents who decide that elections just aren't important enough for them to spend one day out of every two years on.

Reality: "Slap in the face or stab in the gut?"

Non-Voter: "They're both bad, let someone else decide for me."

 whembly wrote:


Yes, there are lunacy every... just like some people thought that a Trump presidency would put gays in concentration camps for electro-shock therapy:


I mean...sheesh...

I am curious, who actually thought and said that.>

Steelmage99 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Yes, there are lunacy every... just like some people thought that a Trump presidency would put gays in concentration camps for electro-shock therapy:


I mean...sheesh...

I am curious, who actually thought and said that.>

I mean, it's pretty likely several tumblrinas thought that. That picture was probably designed on that cesspit of progressive lunacy.

Quoting a random Tumblr user to represent the left is kind of like quoting a random Twitter user to represent the right. Barring an abundance of other evidence that suggests main-stream or popular support it's safe to assume that the viewpoint is not a legitimate one representing that political body but rather one adopted by extremist who only claim to be part of it. Trying to use it as representative is something we see on both sides (with heavier use on the Republican one) and is entirely illegitimate; the hallmark of an individual without an intellectual means of defending their position.

There was plenty of "Pence is going to be very hostile to the gay community as VP" talk in the previous Politics threads. Nobody posted weird pics like that and talked about concentration camps, but there was talk about his views on conversion therapy and anti-gay legislation.

And let's not pretend that gay conversion "therapy" is not an issue or supported by people like Pence, even if Pence himself is not on the record as endorsing it. This is not like the birther nonsense or similar tinfoil hat theories.

NinthMusketeer wrote:Quoting a random Tumblr user to represent the left is kind of like quoting a random Twitter user to represent the right. Barring an abundance of other evidence that suggests main-stream or popular support it's safe to assume that the viewpoint is not a legitimate one representing that political body but rather one adopted by extremist who only claim to be part of it. Trying to use it as representative is something we see on both sides (with heavier use on the Republican one) and is entirely illegitimate; the hallmark of an individual without an intellectual means of defending their position.

Well yeah, we could go into how one side generally shuns their lunatic fringe elements, and the other makes them one of the pillars of their movement, but that would be unfair, or something.

 d-usa wrote:
There was plenty of "Pence is going to be very hostile to the gay community as VP" talk in the previous Politics threads. Nobody posted weird pics like that and talked about concentration camps, but there was talk about his views on conversion therapy and anti-gay legislation.

There is quite a difference between "Pence is going to be very hostile to the gay community as VP" and "a Trump presidency would put gays in concentration camps for electro-shock therapy".

It isn't that hard to find FEMA camp conspiracy theories presented by rather prominent proponents of right leaning ideologies (like Michele Bachmann and Alex Jones) - especially in connection with President Obama.

Is it equally the case for "a Trump presidency would put gays in concentration camps for electro-shock therapy"?

Relapse wrote:
This is the kind of thing that stirs up conservatives to hit the polls in large numbers.

Yes, we know. Your trickle of fortune cookie aphorisms to remind us "how we get Trump" have only served to reinforce that the Party of Personal Responsibility had no choice but to vote for Trump because liberals were mean to them.

They had no choice but to look at a guy who, in no special order:

Bragged about sexual assault
Constantly degraded women for their appearance
Flirted with white supremacists by an extended refusal to disavow support of the KKK
Insisted that women who asked him hard questions must be on their period
Claimed an opponents father had assisted with assassinating a US president
Mocked a disabled reporter onstage
Was responsible for an organization that was sued by the Department of Justice for widespread racial discrimination
Attacked a war hero and mocked his imprisonment as a POW, even while getting multiple deferments for "bone spurs"
Attacked a gold star family
Generalized Mexican immigrants as rapists, criminals, drug dealers, and presumably, some good people as well
Endorsed police brutality
Bragged that the military would commit war crimes for him
Refused to disclose his financial entanglements as every other candidate had, and repeatedly lied about why
Pushed an extended, racist conspiracy theory that the President was a foreign citizen and had covered it up
Had a proven record of financial mismanagement
Repeatedly lied that US muslims celebrated 9/11
Called for a foreign government to hack his political opponent
Promised to re-institute war crimes such as waterboarding "and worse"
Endorsed laughable policies that no reasonable person could think would work



And go, you know what? We're good with that. Pull that lever for team red!

Don't worry. No one blames the right wing for Trump. You don't constantly need to remind us that it wasn't their fault. Yes, 62 million right wing votes got Trump elected, but what choice did they have?



Their feelings were hurt.

 Ouze wrote:

Don't worry. No one blames the right wing for Trump. You don't constantly need to remind us that it wasn't their fault. Yes, 62 million right wing votes got Trump elected, but what choice did they have?



Their feelings were hurt.

Nah... I suspect its more to do with not wanting Hillary Clinton as POTUS and *was* willing to roll the dice on Trump.

 whembly wrote:

Nah... I suspect its more to do with not wanting Hillary Clinton as POTUS and *was* willing to roll the dice on Trump.

I'd say they lost the draw. Or, to use a dice reference, 'Snake eyes!'.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Don't worry. No one blames the right wing for Trump. You don't constantly need to remind us that it wasn't their fault. Yes, 62 million right wing votes got Trump elected, but what choice did they have?



Their feelings were hurt.

Nah... I suspect its more to do with not wanting Hillary Clinton as POTUS and *was* willing to roll the dice on Trump.

Or just voted because he had an R next to his name

Dang Yellow Dog Republicans.

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Don't worry. No one blames the right wing for Trump. You don't constantly need to remind us that it wasn't their fault. Yes, 62 million right wing votes got Trump elected, but what choice did they have?



Their feelings were hurt.

Nah... I suspect its more to do with not wanting Hillary Clinton as POTUS and *was* willing to roll the dice on Trump.

Again, that excuse doesn't wash because you're basically saying that all of the other Republican candidates were, what, even worse than Trump AND Hillary?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Don't worry. No one blames the right wing for Trump. You don't constantly need to remind us that it wasn't their fault. Yes, 62 million right wing votes got Trump elected, but what choice did they have?



Their feelings were hurt.

Nah... I suspect its more to do with not wanting Hillary Clinton as POTUS and *was* willing to roll the dice on Trump.

Again, that excuse doesn't wash because you're basically saying that all of the other Republican candidates were, what, even worse than Trump AND Hillary?

The problem was they were either clones of each other or had no personality at all. IF I would have voted for a "R" it would have likely been Kasich, but there really was not a good campaigner in the lot. Trump had a much better campaign manager than pretty much anybody. My own party got spanked hard by the media and really didnt do much to motivate people to vote our way (yeah it doesnt help our candidate was not....great, but I adamantly insist he was better than Trump or Hillary)

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Don't worry. No one blames the right wing for Trump. You don't constantly need to remind us that it wasn't their fault. Yes, 62 million right wing votes got Trump elected, but what choice did they have?



Their feelings were hurt.

Nah... I suspect its more to do with not wanting Hillary Clinton as POTUS and *was* willing to roll the dice on Trump.

Again, that excuse doesn't wash because you're basically saying that all of the other Republican candidates were, what, even worse than Trump AND Hillary?

Of course it does, when you realize how Trump won the primary. Any of the other GOP primary candidates would be light years better than Trump AND still be better than CLinton.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Don't worry. No one blames the right wing for Trump. You don't constantly need to remind us that it wasn't their fault. Yes, 62 million right wing votes got Trump elected, but what choice did they have?



Their feelings were hurt.

Nah... I suspect its more to do with not wanting Hillary Clinton as POTUS and *was* willing to roll the dice on Trump.

Again, that excuse doesn't wash because you're basically saying that all of the other Republican candidates were, what, even worse than Trump AND Hillary?

The problem was they were either clones of each other or had no personality at all. IF I would have voted for a "R" it would have likely been Kasich, but there really was not a good campaigner in the lot. Trump had a much better campaign manager than pretty much anybody. My own party got spanked hard by the media and really didnt do much to motivate people to vote our way (yeah it doesnt help our candidate was not....great, but I adamantly insist he was better than Trump or Hillary)

The media stroked Trump's ego...giving him over $2 billion dollars worth of free airtime because they believed he had no chance and was a better matchup for Clinton.

Let's not pretend that the supposed foundation of "knowledge" that should serve to inform the public about the various candidates (former Secretary of State Clinton especially) wasn't dominated by spurious interventions, wild allegations and pure unfounded speculations.

I mean, there is no reason to let anything as petty as facts, get in the way of a nice fear-inducing narrative.
After all, if your base isn't in the habit of asking for evidence in support of your statements, what prevents you from.......simply making stuff up.

The sudden calls for civility coming from the right wing are, of course, an obvious con. At the simplest level it’s just Trump and friends searching for something to talk about, to keep people talking about their most recent effort to take $2 trillion out of healthcare, or their tax cut for the rich with 34% popularity, or their attempt to solve immigration by putting kids in cages. They’re searching for anything they can get to boost the base and get some turnout in November.

But at another, deeper level, this is very much about the assertion of power. It’s hard to miss that Trump is rather pointedly uncivil; in fact it’s a major part of his appeal. Just today, while various right wing media lackeys and even some mainstream media figures gave lectures on the importance of civility, Trump was leading chants against the media calling them enemies of the people. Nor is this just about Trump - Greg Gianforte physically assaulted a journalist, and he won his election anyway. Not a single Republican has ever said he should stand down for his physical attack on another person. This is civility demanded of the left, but not the right.

One of the key elements to establishing power is to make big shows of doing things that others are not allowed to do. An abusive husband will stay out as late as he wants, while demanding his wife cannot go out alone. On a base, primal level he won’t even care if she’s in the house, the point is proving he has the power. And that is exactly what we’re seeing here. It is what we see with the hyper-fixation on minor technical errors in mainstream reporting, particularly the fixation on NYT retractions, while Trump’s thousands of self-serving lies are treated with disinterest. Trump is given the power to lie as much as he wants, anyone else who makes even a minor mistake is attacked relentlessly.

He is asserting that he and people like him get to act in certain ways that others will be punished for doing. It is a plain assertion of his power. It is exactly what his brag about shooting someone on 5th avenue was claiming.

And yes, this has always been the appeal to Trump, it is why he broke through to the Republican base in a way that other candidates did not. Because Republican politics hasn’t been about small government or market based solutions for generations – that might have been what the party leaders wanted, but that was meaningless to the base, even disliked by them. What the base has longed for, what Republican politicians of old hinted at but never delivered, was a return to holding a special status, a place where they are privileged above others. Trump’s entire brand is as a crude but very rich man who gets to act however he wants, a man that the rules don’t apply to. No wonder so many Republican voters loved him from the start.

This is why it barely dents Trump when it’s revealed he used his charity as a personal expense account, or when we learn he had a series of affairs and then paid the women off. That kind of sleaze doesn’t hurt Trump’s brand, it is Trump’s brand.

When his supporters took Trump ‘seriously but not literally’, the underlying appeal was that Trump would give his voters the same special privilege he has. And now Trump is delivering on that promise. He’s offering a new political dynamic, where people in the Trump camp can say and do terrible things, but still get to attack anyone outside the Trump camp who does anything remotely similar.

Exactly how we deal with this reality is a big question. First we have stop pretending the old rules can still applied to everyone. It is plain nonsense to insist the left maintains the old rules of civility for everyone when the most powerful people in the country are running on a platform of ‘I do what I want’ with unwavering support from the base.

This doesn’t mean we shift to a new society where anything goes, where the old rules don’t apply anymore. We don’t need a new world where normal political disputes about tax policy or free trade get people kicked out of restaurants. But it does mean people who reject or attack civility cannot expect to still benefit from the civility of others.

So yeah, when Sarah Huckabee Sanders tells lies to the media to cover for a president who threatens the basic institutions of democracy daily, then it is okay to say you don’t want to serve her in your restaurant.

 sebster wrote:
The sudden calls for civility coming from the right wing are, of course, an obvious con. At the simplest level it’s just Trump and friends searching for something to talk about, to keep people talking about their most recent effort to take $2 trillion out of healthcare, or their tax cut for the rich with 34% popularity, or their attempt to solve immigration by putting kids in cages. They’re searching for anything they can get to boost the base and get some turnout in November.

But at another, deeper level, this is very much about the assertion of power. It’s hard to miss that Trump is rather pointedly uncivil; in fact it’s a major part of his appeal. Just today, while various right wing media lackeys and even some mainstream media figures gave lectures on the importance of civility, Trump was leading chants against the media calling them enemies of the people. Nor is this just about Trump - Greg Gianforte physically assaulted a journalist, and he won his election anyway. Not a single Republican has ever said he should stand down for his physical attack on another person. This is civility demanded of the left, but not the right.

One of the key elements to establishing power is to make big shows of doing things that others are not allowed to do. An abusive husband will stay out as late as he wants, while demanding his wife cannot go out alone. On a base, primal level he won’t even care if she’s in the house, the point is proving he has the power. And that is exactly what we’re seeing here. It is what we see with the hyper-fixation on minor technical errors in mainstream reporting, particularly the fixation on NYT retractions, while Trump’s thousands of self-serving lies are treated with disinterest. Trump is given the power to lie as much as he wants, anyone else who makes even a minor mistake is attacked relentlessly.

He is asserting that he and people like him get to act in certain ways that others will be punished for doing. It is a plain assertion of his power. It is exactly what his brag about shooting someone on 5th avenue was claiming.

And yes, this has always been the appeal to Trump, it is why he broke through to the Republican base in a way that other candidates did not. Because Republican politics hasn’t been about small government or market based solutions for generations – that might have been what the party leaders wanted, but that was meaningless to the base, even disliked by them. What the base has longed for, what Republican politicians of old hinted at but never delivered, was a return to holding a special status, a place where they are privileged above others. Trump’s entire brand is as a crude but very rich man who gets to act however he wants, a man that the rules don’t apply to. No wonder so many Republican voters loved him from the start.

This is why it barely dents Trump when it’s revealed he used his charity as a personal expense account, or when we learn he had a series of affairs and then paid the women off. That kind of sleaze doesn’t hurt Trump’s brand, it is Trump’s brand.

When his supporters took Trump ‘seriously but not literally’, the underlying appeal was that Trump would give his voters the same special privilege he has. And now Trump is delivering on that promise. He’s offering a new political dynamic, where people in the Trump camp can say and do terrible things, but still get to attack anyone outside the Trump camp who does anything remotely similar.

Exactly how we deal with this reality is a big question. First we have stop pretending the old rules can still applied to everyone. It is plain nonsense to insist the left maintains the old rules of civility for everyone when the most powerful people in the country are running on a platform of ‘I do what I want’ with unwavering support from the base.

This doesn’t mean we shift to a new society where anything goes, where the old rules don’t apply anymore. We don’t need a new world where normal political disputes about tax policy or free trade get people kicked out of restaurants. But it does mean people who reject or attack civility cannot expect to still benefit from the civility of others.

So yeah, when Sarah Huckabee Sanders tells lies to the media to cover for a president who threatens the basic institutions of democracy daily, then it is okay to say you don’t want to serve her in your restaurant.

Sounds to me like Trump just took the Republican line on tolerance and decided it applies to everything

 sebster wrote:
The sudden calls for civility coming from the right wing are, of course, an obvious con. At the simplest level it’s just Trump and friends searching for something to talk about, to keep people talking about their most recent effort to take $2 trillion out of healthcare, or their tax cut for the rich with 34% popularity, or their attempt to solve immigration by putting kids in cages. They’re searching for anything they can get to boost the base and get some turnout in November.

But at another, deeper level, this is very much about the assertion of power. It’s hard to miss that Trump is rather pointedly uncivil; in fact it’s a major part of his appeal. Just today, while various right wing media lackeys and even some mainstream media figures gave lectures on the importance of civility, Trump was leading chants against the media calling them enemies of the people. Nor is this just about Trump - Greg Gianforte physically assaulted a journalist, and he won his election anyway. Not a single Republican has ever said he should stand down for his physical attack on another person. This is civility demanded of the left, but not the right.

One of the key elements to establishing power is to make big shows of doing things that others are not allowed to do. An abusive husband will stay out as late as he wants, while demanding his wife cannot go out alone. On a base, primal level he won’t even care if she’s in the house, the point is proving he has the power. And that is exactly what we’re seeing here. It is what we see with the hyper-fixation on minor technical errors in mainstream reporting, particularly the fixation on NYT retractions, while Trump’s thousands of self-serving lies are treated with disinterest. Trump is given the power to lie as much as he wants, anyone else who makes even a minor mistake is attacked relentlessly.

He is asserting that he and people like him get to act in certain ways that others will be punished for doing. It is a plain assertion of his power. It is exactly what his brag about shooting someone on 5th avenue was claiming.

And yes, this has always been the appeal to Trump, it is why he broke through to the Republican base in a way that other candidates did not. Because Republican politics hasn’t been about small government or market based solutions for generations – that might have been what the party leaders wanted, but that was meaningless to the base, even disliked by them. What the base has longed for, what Republican politicians of old hinted at but never delivered, was a return to holding a special status, a place where they are privileged above others. Trump’s entire brand is as a crude but very rich man who gets to act however he wants, a man that the rules don’t apply to. No wonder so many Republican voters loved him from the start.

This is why it barely dents Trump when it’s revealed he used his charity as a personal expense account, or when we learn he had a series of affairs and then paid the women off. That kind of sleaze doesn’t hurt Trump’s brand, it is Trump’s brand.

When his supporters took Trump ‘seriously but not literally’, the underlying appeal was that Trump would give his voters the same special privilege he has. And now Trump is delivering on that promise. He’s offering a new political dynamic, where people in the Trump camp can say and do terrible things, but still get to attack anyone outside the Trump camp who does anything remotely similar.

Exactly how we deal with this reality is a big question. First we have stop pretending the old rules can still applied to everyone. It is plain nonsense to insist the left maintains the old rules of civility for everyone when the most powerful people in the country are running on a platform of ‘I do what I want’ with unwavering support from the base.

This doesn’t mean we shift to a new society where anything goes, where the old rules don’t apply anymore. We don’t need a new world where normal political disputes about tax policy or free trade get people kicked out of restaurants. But it does mean people who reject or attack civility cannot expect to still benefit from the civility of others.

So yeah, when Sarah Huckabee Sanders tells lies to the media to cover for a president who threatens the basic institutions of democracy daily, then it is okay to say you don’t want to serve her in your restaurant.

Exactly this, you've hit the nail squarely on the head.

I see the worst levels of discourse on Brexit in the UK, and the lies and weasling of British politicians and I still think "it could be much, much worse".

Our economy may take a hit, and the UK will have to readjust to its new place in the world, but the US will still have to deal with the awfulness of the "new" GOP, probably long after Brexit has been forgotten in th UK.

You have my sympathy.

 Da Boss wrote:
Perhaps it is my appreciation of the history of the term, but I believe in a boycott in the traditional sense - an absolute refusal to provide any kind of non-legally mandated service to a person, a refusal to aid or speak to them in any way. A policy of total social isolation.

This was originally applied by Irish peasants to the agent of an absentee landlord during the Land War. It was extremely effective and totally non-violent. I see this non-service in a restaurant as being directly in this tradition, and would be perfectly fine with it going even further. After all, they can always find SOMEONE to help them out, it will just cost more and be inconvenient as hell.

As an alternative to violent resistance it is quite civil, really.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boycott#Etymology

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1934/06/15/110041420.html?pageNumber=15

https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1934/06/16/94541107.html




ahh economic anxiety, never hear that argument anymore do we eh ?


One assumes that the people desperately claiming that Sanders et al must be shown civility at all times, are equally strong in condemnation of those people who stand and yell at, say, a women going to Planned Parenthood for a pap smear.

All that shouting and cursing etc is very uncivil no ?

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Nah... I suspect its more to do with not wanting Hillary Clinton as POTUS and *was* willing to roll the dice on Trump.

I'd say they lost the draw. Or, to use a dice reference, 'Snake eyes!'.

They would say the opposite. The Clintons we're hated for decades, especially HRC. Yet you guys ran her anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Don't worry. No one blames the right wing for Trump. You don't constantly need to remind us that it wasn't their fault. Yes, 62 million right wing votes got Trump elected, but what choice did they have?



Their feelings were hurt.

Nah... I suspect its more to do with not wanting Hillary Clinton as POTUS and *was* willing to roll the dice on Trump.

Again, that excuse doesn't wash because you're basically saying that all of the other Republican candidates were, what, even worse than Trump AND Hillary?

The problem was they were either clones of each other or had no personality at all. IF I would have voted for a "R" it would have likely been Kasich, but there really was not a good campaigner in the lot. Trump had a much better campaign manager than pretty much anybody. My own party got spanked hard by the media and really didnt do much to motivate people to vote our way (yeah it doesnt help our candidate was not....great, but I adamantly insist he was better than Trump or Hillary)

The media also loved Trump. They still love Trump.

 whembly wrote:

Of course it does, when you realize how Trump won the primary. Any of the other GOP primary candidates would be light years better than Trump AND still be better than CLinton.

They were kind of a bunch of human impersonators. No wonder Trump could power through the primary. All he had to do was wave a hand in their direction and say they eat ice cream with a fork.

 sebster wrote:

Exactly how we deal with this reality is a big question. First we have stop pretending the old rules can still applied to everyone. It is plain nonsense to insist the left maintains the old rules of civility for everyone when the most powerful people in the country are running on a platform of ‘I do what I want’ with unwavering support from the base.

Exactly. Giving ground to people who have no interest at all in treating you fairly won't convince them of your good faith, they will just utterly occupy that new ground and say you haven't done anything for them. They can lie all they want when there are no consequences for it.

 whembly wrote:

Of course it does, when you realize how Trump won the primary. Any of the other GOP primary candidates would be light years better than Trump AND still be better than CLinton.

Nope. None of the GOP candidates had actual policy beyond a tax cut which would somehow fund itself and getting rid of Obamacare with some magical replacement that was never defined. Notice that the Trump admin tried to do both of those. The tax cut has inflated the deficit and not improved growth and the repeal of ACA died when it became apparent that the GOP knows nothing about how healthcare or even insurance works and cannot ask anyone who does because what works goes against their ideological stances.