Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Most of the conservatives I listen to (many of which even self-identify as tea-partiers) openly endorse gay marriage being legalized. So, it's probably not as big a deal to conservatism as most people think.
Leviticus 19:34The conservative part that cares about is the religious part, which is a significant chunk of the voting Republicans. But the longer we go with the Supreme Court ruling being passed the harder it's going to be to repeal. These things have a certain amount of inertia, even with resistance. And the gay marriage issue has, several times, been proven to have more of a generational aspect to it and trying to run on repealing that is a losing strategy in the long run. Candidates not mentioning it much is them bowing to the political reality for once.
Gay rights is purely a religious issue, and in the United States, we are guaranteed freedom of religion. The United States government can not and should not force any religious law on its citizens unless there is a valid secular reason to do so. There is no valid secular reason to restrict the rights of gays compared to straights, so legally gays should have the same rights as straights. Personally, I believe that gays should have the same rights as straights just because that is the decent thing to do.
Wizard Needs Food BadlyOne Republican urges people not to support Trump, because unlike our last several presidents, he fails the "decency test."
Emphasis mine.
This was my word: “decent.” Would he treat my daughter with kindness and respect? Could he be trusted to bring her home on time? In his language, actions and decisions, would he be a decent guy?
Decency mattered to me as a dad, and decency matters to Americans. We take note of the person who pays their debts. We appreciate the physician who takes time to listen. When the husband honors his wedding vows, when the teacher makes time for the struggling student, when the employee refuses to gossip about her co-worker, when the losing team congratulates the winning team, we can characterize their behavior as decent.
We appreciate decency. We applaud decency. We teach decency. We seek to develop decency.
So why isn’t decency doing better in the presidential race?
The leading Republican candidate to be the next leader of the free world would not pass my decency interview. I’d send him away. I’d tell my daughter to stay home.
I don’t know Mr. Trump. But I’ve been chagrined at his antics. He ridiculed a war hero. He made a mockery of a reporter’s menstrual cycle. He made fun of a disabled reporter. He referred to a former first lady, Barbara Bush, as “mommy” and belittled Jeb Bush for bringing her on the campaign trail. He routinely calls people “stupid” and “dummy.” One writer catalogued 64 occasions that he called someone “loser.” These were not off-line, backstage, overheard, not-to-be-repeated comments. They were publicly and intentionally tweeted, recorded and presented.
Such insensitivities wouldn’t be acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian faith?
I have no inside track on the intricacies of a presidential campaign. I’m a pastor. I don’t endorse candidates or place bumper stickers on my car. But I am protective of the Christian faith. If a public personality calls on Christ one day and calls someone a “bimbo” the next, is something not awry? And to do so, not once, but repeatedly, unrepentantly and unapologetically? We stand against bullying in schools. Shouldn’t we do the same in presidential politics?
Could concerns be raised about other Christian candidates? Absolutely. But the concern of this article is not policy but tone and decorum. Prior presidents have exercised a restraint of the tongue. It’s hard to imagine George H.W. Bush using locker room language to demean an opponent on a debate stage. I didn’t vote for President Obama, but I appreciate the manner in which he has maintained the comportment of the office. At least we don’t wince when he stands to speak.
When it comes to language, Mr. Trump inhabits a league of his own. Some of my friends tell me that his language is a virtue. But I respectfully part company with my Christian colleagues who chalk up his abrasive nature to candor. “For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks,” Jesus said. Words are a heart monitor. Christians would do well to summon any Christian leader to a higher heart standard. This includes pastors (especially this one), teachers, coaches and, by all means, presidential candidates.
All of them.
The stock explanation for Mr. Trump’s success is this: He has tapped into the anger of the American people. As one man said, “We are voting with our middle finger.” Sounds more like a comment for a gang-fight than a presidential election. Anger-fueled reactions have caused trouble ever since Cain was angry at Abel.
We can only hope, and pray, for a return to verbal decency. Perhaps Mr. Trump will better manage his comments. (Worthy of a prayer, for sure.) Or, perhaps the American public will remember the key role of the president: to be the face of America. When he or she speaks, he or she speaks for us. Whether we agree or disagree with the policies of the president, do we not hope that they speak in a way that is consistent with the status of the office?
As far as I remember, I never turned away one of my daughter’s dates. They weren’t perfect, but they were decent fellows. That was all I could ask.
It seems that we should ask the same of these candidates.
IIRC, I don't think W was ever mean per say, only inarticulate. By contrast, Trump's...extraordinarily petty. So I'm not sure I'd even compare the two.
But yeah, as a Republican, I will ardently say that Trump betrays every Republican ideal, and is an asshole to boot.
edited 28th Feb '16 7:29:22 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34![]()
I'd say that the primary theoretical goal of Republicanism are American patriotism, social conservatism, meritocracy, and capitalism.
In the case of Trump, I'd say he fails at all of the above except maybe social conservatism. For example, he declared that an American POW (who served with honor) wasn't a hero (highly unpatriotic), wants to keep Obama's welfare state (which makes him un-capitalist by Republican standards), and he's also possibly a bit of a racist (which means he can't support meritocracy either, because a racist by definition judges people by their race, not their merit).
Leviticus 19:34Given his running commentary "bit of a racist" is so mild a statement as to border on parody. Even if he isn't one, his extreme willingness to pander to that demographic and unwillingness to denounce the white supremacists robocalling for him makes him functionally the same as a rather virulent racist.
In any case he only decided to run as a Republican because it's the place where he has the biggest chance. Clinton and Sanders both would have creamed him by now if he'd decided to run Democrat. Trump isn't particularly loyal to either party, he's loyal to himself.
![]()
![]()
I actually am making an understatement, though I'm a bit reluctant to call Trump an outright Nazi. Having said that, by the same logic that's used to call Obama a regular Socialist, one can easily justify calling Trump a National Socialist.
I suppose it's theoretically possible that Trump isn't racist-although it's unlikely, to say the least. Even in a best case scenario, he probably doesn't hate racism enough. Even being moderate on the issue of racism is pretty bad.
I've heard that Trump actually did in some manner disavow them or something, though he was extremely evasive. The most right-wing guy I know (who had, until this point, defended Trump-though he was never his favorite candidate) got pretty pissed at Trump at that point and declared he'd no longer respect or endorse him.
I want to ask something... different. I've noticed that thru all this talk of politics, there seems to be the construction of some sort of narrative- even when objectively that makes little sense. Do you guys think that this is something that happens often in these sorts of discussions? There always seems to be some sort of assumption of an end or climax, disregarding how real life doesnt really work that way. This could be applied to anything political really, like the supposed 'rise of terrorism', gamergate, or the many information technology laws the gov. has attempted to pass in recent years. Do you think the way we frame these discussions might inadvertently cut us off from them, as in realizing theyre real events and not words on a screen? Basically how does the construction of a political narrative affect how people react to and particpate in it?
I would argue that, by their nature, political ideologies cause narratives to become inevitable. Political ideologies are usually focused on thinking about the mechanics of society. So, when society does something, the political ideology justifies it using its own theory of the mechanics of society.
Generally speaking, the Republican political establishment is the same as it's since Reagan. The narrative they use is that government is restrictive and stifling, so it should be as small as possible — low taxes, less regulation, few government services, and allow the free market to see to the needs of the people. (In reality, they're rather spotty about this. They use the "small government" rallying cry to lower taxes, slash government services, and block environmental regulations, but have no problem with having a huge and well-funded military, or things like strict immigration control, which apparently doesn't count as part of "big government".) They also champion so-called "conservative values", which generally translates to "Christian values", though that's not actually as purely a right-wing thing as most people think. (The religious left also generally dislikes abortion rights and gay marriage, but the religious left is mostly black and latino, so they vote with Democrats for other reasons.)
Much of the voter base has rather different priorities, however. The Republican voter base has always been divided into several distinct camps. There's the party faithful, who agree with the "small government and conservative values" thing exactly as stated, but they're in the minority. There's the religious right, which only cares about the "conservative values" part (these are the people who are staunchly pro-life, anti-gay marriage, and complain whenever an issue like prayer in public schools or Bible quotes inscribed on public buildings comes up). There's the business class, who only care about the "small government" part (ie, they want to make as much money as possible and will oppose anything that works against that, like higher taxes or environmental regulation). There's the libertarian crowd, who have always been something of a small but fairly vocal fringe element, who support small government but actually mean it (ie, they support lower taxes, fewer services, and less regulation, like the rest of the party, but they also support things like legalized drugs, gay marriage, and abortion rights, on the logic "why should the government give a damn if I smoke myself stupid, marry someone with the same genetalia as me, and have abortions three times a year?").
Then there's.... everyone else, which may constitute the majority of the GOP's actual voter base. They don't really fall into any of the above categories. They're not stuck on "conservative values" like abortion or gay marriage, they don't mind "big government" things like welfare or regulations on businesses, and they're certainly not libertarians. What they are, generally speaking, are Dixiecrats — people who generally agree with the Democrats on most political issues, except on the subject of civil rights. There's no polite way to say this, so I'm just going to be blunt — these people are racists that defected to the GOP when the Democrats supported the Civil Rights movement, and have been voting Republican ever since. They're not opposed to the idea of welfare on principle, but they hate the idea of their tax dollars going to blacks, latinos, and Muslims. They're happy to use undocumented immigrants as cheap labor to fill jobs that most Americans wouldn't do for the pay they'd be offered, but they don't want those people actually becoming American citizens (and do things like vote), so they oppose immigration reform while supporting ridiculous and ultimately ineffective border control methods like border fences. Anything that cements the position of white Christians (who they view as the only "real" Americans) as the cultural and political top dog in America (and, to a lesser extent, the world) they support. Anything that looks like acknowledging (or worse, respecting) other races, religions, or cultures, they oppose.
These are the people who the Republican party has been carefully courting for votes while marginalizing within their own party for decades. These are the people that political "dog whistles" are aimed at. These are the people who started the Tea Party (which the Republican party was still somewhat able to control, but not as easily or as well as the standard party faithful). These are the people who have now gotten completely fed up with the Republican establishment and are voting for Trump in droves — because Trump is not at all beholden to the Republican establishment. He doesn't need them for funding or connections, because he's got his own money and his own connections. So he's appealing to the Dixiecrats directly — dispensing with the dog whistles, ignoring what Corporate America has to say, not bothering to appease the religious right. He's going straight for the people who have been getting increasingly fed up with the GOP since 2008 (when a black man became president! The horror!) and syphoning all those votes away from the people who are still halfway sane, by getting up on stage and acting like an unrepentant xenophobic douchebag, because that's exactly what those people want to hear from the politicians representing them.
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.I don't really identify as a libertarian at all but this political stance seems a lot more coherent to me than the current mish-mash of the republican establishment. I mean this IS the land of the free isn't it?
![]()
A year ago I would have said that you were underselling the importance of the "party faithful" types, but now things very well may have changed.
Perhaps their complacency, their assumption that system would continue working for them has allowed the former "Dixiecrats" to start running away with the agenda without solid opposition.
The flipside of that coin is that libertarians frequently seem to see race issues without historical context, assuming that we already have an even playing field and we don't need laws in place to preserve any gains earned in civil rights, and many of them are also free market idealists in the extreme, not realizing that the regulations placed on big business prevents them from taking even worse advantage than they do now. They're kind of naive in a very particular way.
For example, Cliven Bundy and his friends; if not libertarians, certainly attracted a lot of them to their cause.
Both parties are big tents. The central pillar of the tent is always a bargain. As long as you fulfil the bargain, the tent stays up. The moment you fail it, a new bargain by someone in the tent is attempted to do the same. Fail, and you go off to the opposite ends of the earth.
This is happening in both parties. Republicans first, because they have the raucus house but not the presidency, which means the media gets to see all their sausages making (or not making as it were) without the bully pulpit of the white house to help keep the media focused on something positive they do. Coupled with the previous GOP administration giving a bad taste in everyone's mouth, and you have the environment that had the GOP sink first.
But the democrats are not far behind, and it will be this election that starts the process of its own internal polarization. We even see it here on this forum. If Dems lose, they'll implode fast. If dems win, it will be slower but also a lot more public.
The tent poles are gone. We're all watching the tents slowly deflate while we remain inside them.
The Dems are going slower also because they have better internal cohesion, there's more willingness for internal compromise there. Sander's is still within the big Dem tent, he's misshapen it and dragged it to the left but he's still inside, Trump has comparative set the Republican tent on fire and gone to start his own tent with blackjack and hookers.
edited 28th Feb '16 10:10:48 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I don't see how that helps him though. Most of the people supporting gay rights will be turned off by his other idiocy.