COVID-19 numbers

[ousdahl]

For sure.
The protests aren't random.

Certainly there are a number of people at the protests who a. are using it as a means to commit crime b. using it as a means just to be angry at the government without clear reasoning and c. people who want to get social media praise/props but at it's heart, it's about police treating black people differently, and there's enough evidence to support that ( and I think a lot of black people all have their own stories with this mistreatment ), and the republican president is doing nothing to deal with it beyond creating more divide.

At its heart, the conservative movement is about maximizing individual freedom and opportunity, but some people choose to focus on a small group of knuckleheads and overgrown adolescents who ruin it for everyone else by waving Confederate flags, brandishing firearms for no apparent reason, and generally being idiots. They don't represent the majority of Conservatives, yet they are made the face of the movement because it is easy and convenient and it advances the narrative.

I agree with the paragraph, but would add that the Conservatives have had ample opportunity to condemn those knuckleheads and have not only not done a good job of distancing themselves from them, but I think an argument can be made that they've embraced them in the Trump era. And that's where they lost me completely.

I’d argue conservatives have embraced the knuckleheads since the “southern strategy,” when republicans tried to win over racist voters by advancing an anti-civil rights platform and framing it as “state’s rights.”

[pdub]

And i'd argue there are levels upon levels of success and failure by both parties for a long while.
This particular 3.5 years however takes the cake - it really is an absolute trash fire.

[ousdahl]

People who supported DJT exist on a pretty broad spectrum ranging all the way from overt racists at one extreme to people who felt like they had no option at the other. In the middle are the vast majority, who wanted some of the reasonable things he talked about that Dowdy poo-poo-ed such as controlling our borders, rectifying the international trade imbalance, and improving economic outlook for the middle class.

If Trump actually controlled our borders, maybe we wouldn’t have nearly as big a problem with the pandemic as we’ve had.

And man, if only Trump (or any candidate) would improve the economic outlook for the middle class.

But I’m afraid if a candidate did run on improving the economic outlook for the middle class, too many conservatives would shout the candidate down as a socialist.

[HouseDivided]

I think there's a few posters here who won't admit it outright but do think that one race is superior to the other - maybe not physiologically ( possibly ) but culturally/socially.

That's a very broad statement. What evidence - statements, actions, etc. - can you provide to back that up?

I'll keep that opinion/those thoughts to myself in order to maintain as neutral a position I can as a mod.

Understood.

[ousdahl]

And i'd argue there are levels upon levels of success and failure by both parties for a long while.
This particular 3.5 years however takes the cake - it really is an absolute trash fire.

And the saddest part is, half of Mericans either are still convinced they really are winning, or simply couldn’t care less. I dunno which is worse.

[HouseDivided]

I agree with the paragraph, but would add that the Conservatives have had ample opportunity to condemn those knuckleheads and have not only not done a good job of distancing themselves from them, but I think an argument can be made that they've embraced them in the Trump era. And that's where they lost me completely.

I think that condemnation is a strategy favored by the Liberal side more than the Conservative. We tend to try to engage the knuckleheads in dialogue and influence them to move in a more productive direction. That takes more time and is less overt than condemnation, but I would argue that it accomplishes more in the long run.

People who supported DJT exist on a pretty broad spectrum ranging all the way from overt racists at one extreme to people who felt like they had no option at the other. In the middle are the vast majority, who wanted some of the reasonable things he talked about that Dowdy poo-poo-ed such as controlling our borders, rectifying the international trade imbalance, and improving economic outlook for the middle class.

By not distancing the core from the fringe, they do a disservice. If you don't want to condemn, it should be made more clear that the majority don't share those ideals. Is the media responsible? partly. But so is the movement itself. Under DJT it seems like what used to be fringe are pretty comfortable under the same umbrella as the majority.

Easier said than done. I think we have been pretty clear, but when you're demanding condemnation, modulated language goes unacknowledged.

[PhDhawk]

At its heart, the conservative movement is about maximizing individual freedom and opportunity, but some people choose to focus on a small group of knuckleheads and overgrown adolescents who ruin it for everyone else by waving Confederate flags, brandishing firearms for no apparent reason, and generally being idiots. They don't represent the majority of Conservatives, yet they are made the face of the movement because it is easy and convenient and it advances the narrative.

I agree with the paragraph, but would add that the Conservatives have had ample opportunity to condemn those knuckleheads and have not only not done a good job of distancing themselves from them, but I think an argument can be made that they've embraced them in the Trump era. And that's where they lost me completely.

I’d argue conservatives have embraced the knuckleheads since the “southern strategy,” when republicans tried to win over racist voters by advancing an anti-civil rights platform and framing it as “state’s rights.”

I was referring to modern American conservatism, which started in the 1980s.

[PhDhawk]

I think that condemnation is a strategy favored by the Liberal side more than the Conservative. We tend to try to engage the knuckleheads in dialogue and influence them to move in a more productive direction. That takes more time and is less overt than condemnation, but I would argue that it accomplishes more in the long run.

People who supported DJT exist on a pretty broad spectrum ranging all the way from overt racists at one extreme to people who felt like they had no option at the other. In the middle are the vast majority, who wanted some of the reasonable things he talked about that Dowdy poo-poo-ed such as controlling our borders, rectifying the international trade imbalance, and improving economic outlook for the middle class.

By not distancing the core from the fringe, they do a disservice. If you don't want to condemn, it should be made more clear that the majority don't share those ideals. Is the media responsible? partly. But so is the movement itself. Under DJT it seems like what used to be fringe are pretty comfortable under the same umbrella as the majority.

Easier said than done. I think we have been pretty clear, but when you're demanding condemnation, modulated language goes unacknowledged.

I'm looking more toward party leaders...Trump specifically.

[HouseDivided]

At its heart, the conservative movement is about maximizing individual freedom and opportunity, but some people choose to focus on a small group of knuckleheads and overgrown adolescents who ruin it for everyone else by waving Confederate flags, brandishing firearms for no apparent reason, and generally being idiots. They don't represent the majority of Conservatives, yet they are made the face of the movement because it is easy and convenient and it advances the narrative.

I agree with the paragraph, but would add that the Conservatives have had ample opportunity to condemn those knuckleheads and have not only not done a good job of distancing themselves from them, but I think an argument can be made that they've embraced them in the Trump era. And that's where they lost me completely.

I’d argue conservatives have embraced the knuckleheads since the “southern strategy,” when republicans tried to win over racist voters by advancing an anti-civil rights platform and framing it as “state’s rights.”

If "embrace" is defined as "not outright condemning and alienating," then, yes, they have been embraced. I think the goal has been to keep them in the fold so there is a chance of reform rather than telling them they are unwelcome.

[PhDhawk]

And i'd argue there are levels upon levels of success and failure by both parties for a long while.
This particular 3.5 years however takes the cake - it really is an absolute trash fire.

And the saddest part is, half of Mericans either are still convinced they really are winning, or simply couldn’t care less. I dunno which is worse.

Maybe I'm being optimistic. But I gotta think that number is now much less than half and getting smaller by the day.

[PhDhawk]

I agree with the paragraph, but would add that the Conservatives have had ample opportunity to condemn those knuckleheads and have not only not done a good job of distancing themselves from them, but I think an argument can be made that they've embraced them in the Trump era. And that's where they lost me completely.

I’d argue conservatives have embraced the knuckleheads since the “southern strategy,” when republicans tried to win over racist voters by advancing an anti-civil rights platform and framing it as “state’s rights.”

If "embrace" is defined as "not outright condemning and alienating," then, yes, they have been embraced. I think the goal has been to keep them in the fold so there is a chance of reform rather than telling them they are unwelcome.

I think the goal should have always been, if you reform, you're welcome.

[HouseDivided]

By not distancing the core from the fringe, they do a disservice. If you don't want to condemn, it should be made more clear that the majority don't share those ideals. Is the media responsible? partly. But so is the movement itself. Under DJT it seems like what used to be fringe are pretty comfortable under the same umbrella as the majority.

Easier said than done. I think we have been pretty clear, but when you're demanding condemnation, modulated language goes unacknowledged.

I'm looking more toward party leaders...Trump specifically.

That's where the misunderstanding comes in. DJT is not a Conservative and he has never claimed any desire to be a part of the party leadership. He is an outlier who, when put up against the Devil herself, looked like the best option in 2016. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the party who would characterize DJT as "good" or "praiseworthy". He is tolerable compared to the alternative, but not without daily cringeworthy moments.

[ousdahl]

And i'd argue there are levels upon levels of success and failure by both parties for a long while.
This particular 3.5 years however takes the cake - it really is an absolute trash fire.

And the saddest part is, half of Mericans either are still convinced they really are winning, or simply couldn’t care less. I dunno which is worse.

Maybe I'm being optimistic. But I gotta think that number is now much less than half and getting smaller by the day.

I wanna be optimistic too. But if the number is less than half and getting smaller, then Trump would have no fucking chance this November, yet everyone’s saying it’ll be a close close race.

Heck, if it was less than half and getting smaller, the senate might have actually called witnesses at the impeachment trial just 5 months ago.

[HouseDivided]

I’d argue conservatives have embraced the knuckleheads since the “southern strategy,” when republicans tried to win over racist voters by advancing an anti-civil rights platform and framing it as “state’s rights.”

If "embrace" is defined as "not outright condemning and alienating," then, yes, they have been embraced. I think the goal has been to keep them in the fold so there is a chance of reform rather than telling them they are unwelcome.

I think the goal should have always been, if you reform, you're welcome.

That's a very binary solution to a complex problem. When two parties are competing for a finite number of votes, telling people they are outright not welcome is giving their vote to the other side.

[PhDhawk]

Easier said than done. I think we have been pretty clear, but when you're demanding condemnation, modulated language goes unacknowledged.

I'm looking more toward party leaders...Trump specifically.

That's where the misunderstanding comes in. DJT is not a Conservative and he has never claimed any desire to be a part of the party leadership. He is an outlier who, when put up against the Devil herself, looked like the best option in 2016. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the party who would characterize DJT as "good" or "praiseworthy". He is tolerable compared to the alternative, but not without daily cringeworthy moments.

The problem with that is that it ignores the primaries. Trump never should have made it that far.

[PhDhawk]

If "embrace" is defined as "not outright condemning and alienating," then, yes, they have been embraced. I think the goal has been to keep them in the fold so there is a chance of reform rather than telling them they are unwelcome.

I think the goal should have always been, if you reform, you're welcome.

That's a very binary solution to a complex problem. When two parties are competing for a finite number of votes, telling people they are outright not welcome is giving their vote to the other side.

Racism, and the ideals of the confederacy, are fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the idea of "maximizing individual freedom and opportunity" I'm really not sure how you can make an argument saying otherwise.

And, if you're talking about being on the winning side, and attracting members, I think distancing yourselves from extremists and racists makes you more attractive to moderates, which is a much larger pool of individuals.

[Geezer]

The knuckleheads are the majority of conservatives.

[PhDhawk]

And the saddest part is, half of Mericans either are still convinced they really are winning, or simply couldn’t care less. I dunno which is worse.

Maybe I'm being optimistic. But I gotta think that number is now much less than half and getting smaller by the day.

I wanna be optimistic too. But if the number is less than half and getting smaller, then Trump would have no fucking chance this November, yet everyone’s saying it’ll be a close close race.

Heck, if it was less than half and getting smaller, the senate might have actually called witnesses at the impeachment trial just 5 months ago.

Voter turnout matters. And the electoral college works in Trump's favor. But we'll see.

[HouseDivided]

I think the goal should have always been, if you reform, you're welcome.

That's a very binary solution to a complex problem. When two parties are competing for a finite number of votes, telling people they are outright not welcome is giving their vote to the other side.

Racism, and the ideals of the confederacy, are fundamentally and diametrically opposed to the idea of "maximizing individual freedom and opportunity" I'm really not sure how you can make an argument saying otherwise.

And, if you're talking about being on the winning side, and attracting members, I think distancing yourselves from extremists and racists makes you more attractive to moderates, which is a much larger pool of individuals.

Moderates are a tricky and fickle bunch. By definition, they can swing either way. Not sure it is wise to hitch your wagon exclusively to that group.

[HouseDivided]

I'm looking more toward party leaders...Trump specifically.

That's where the misunderstanding comes in. DJT is not a Conservative and he has never claimed any desire to be a part of the party leadership. He is an outlier who, when put up against the Devil herself, looked like the best option in 2016. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone in the party who would characterize DJT as "good" or "praiseworthy". He is tolerable compared to the alternative, but not without daily cringeworthy moments.

The problem with that is that it ignores the primaries. Trump never should have made it that far.

Meh. The prevailing school of thought was that you have to fight bombast with greater bombast. Dowdy knew she was ugly and mean and that pretending to be pretty and delicate and able to play well with others wasn't going to fool anyone. I think the party realized that they were going to have to have their own ugly, mean, dirty player to have any chance of winning. It accomplished the goal at hand.