Politics

[FangKC]

Everybody's rights are at stake.

When you have spent the majority of your life having your rights denied, and those denials encoded into law, or no rights protected by law, then we can talk about how many of your rights are at stake.

[AllThingsKC]

And I have done that. Is my opinion valid now or is there more criteria I must meet first?

[phuqueue]

phuqueue, I love, Love, LOVE your passion for politics. I love your passion to stand up for those who are under-represented. Never, never lose that passion. It's what we need! But you seem to be worried about things that haven't happened yet, and they *may* not happen at all.

I literally gave you a list of links to articles about things that are already happening.

Is it ok for the next president to be a white nationalist? No. Is it ok to "handle that well"? No. When the time comes that Trump something racist or sexiest or something (take your pick), then I'll join the protests. But right now, the left is just mad that they lost a democratic election. It happens. If Trump is that bad, the Left will win major elections in 2 and 4 years. But, right now, Trump hasn't done anything as president-elect worth protesting. I suspect that he will once he is in office. That's when I'll join. But there is a small chance Trump might surprise me. So I won't worry about it until it happens.

If somebody tells you they want to do something horrible and then you wait until they actually do it to respond, it's already too late.

When Obama got elected, my conservative friends said "he's going to take our guns away and close Gitmo." Eight years later, none of that happened.

This is a false equivalency. I mean closing Guantanamo Bay has literally zero effect on anybody in this country. It is in no way comparable to a loss of rights or personal security. As for guns, Obama, Clinton, and other Dems have campaigned on additional regulations to make it harder for guns to fall into the wrong hands, but they never campaigned on a promise to get rid of all guns the way Trump has campaigned on a promise to ban Muslims from entering the country. If you're a law-abiding citizen, there is nothing but paranoia on which to base a belief that the Dems are going to take your guns away. And for the same reason that your guns are safe -- the Constitution -- it's unlikely that Trump will be able to enact his more extreme campaign promises, like his proposed Muslim ban. But the difference here is that getting the left base worked up against guns doesn't result in like, vigilante leftists confiscating guns on their own initiative. Getting the far right wing worked up into a nativist frenzy does result in hate crimes and harassment. It happened this summer in the UK after Brexit and it's happening again right here, right now. Yes, both sides get upset and fear the worst in the wake of an election loss -- but those fears are much more realistic for one side than the other.

Why should women and minorities "be terrified" right now? All of the women are going to be raped and forced to keep their babies? All minorities are going to be deported? Come on. Abortion is safe. It will never be illegal and the wall will likely never be built. Stop giving into the fear mongering. Wait for something to actually happen, then be pissed off about it.

Women and minorities should be terrified right now because Trump supporters are openly trying to intimidate them right now. And abortion is absolutely not safe except in the short term. We know that Kennedy will support a lot of restrictions on abortion, but he does have a line (one that he refused to cross recently in the case challenging Texas's laws), so even if Trump replaces Scalia with a new Scalia, Roe stands for now (but the GOP will still happily chip away at it wherever they can). But Ginsburg and Breyer are both old. If either of them dies or retires, all bets are off. But there is more at stake than just abortion. For example, Obama made birth control free -- a lot of women are very afraid that will be taken away. And many women use birth control for more than just preventing pregnancy. For instance, it also helps them regulate and control their cycles.

[AllThingsKC]

I literally gave you a list of links to articles about things that are already happening.

And I gave a link to a video that pretty much sums up where I'm coming from.

If somebody tells you they want to do something horrible and then you wait until they actually do it to respond, it's already too late.

When to respond isn't as much an issue as to how to respond. Democratic elections are a great way for the public to respond.

And for the same reason that your guns are safe -- the Constitution -- it's unlikely that Trump will be able to enact his more extreme campaign promises, like his proposed Muslim ban.

And this is exactly why I'm not worried about Trump banning all Muslims. He has absolutely no legal right to do so.

Women and minorities should be terrified right now because Trump supporters are openly trying to intimidate them right now. And abortion is absolutely not safe except in the short term.

Agree to disagree on this one, I guess. I think abortion is safe forever. Even if the Supreme Court goes right in the short term, wait a few election cycles. It'll be back to center or left of center. Those rights are not going away. And if they do, 2018 will be brutal for the GOP and the rights will be intact once again. This is basically a non-issue to me. Abortion will remain legal.

[grovester]

Apparently he can ban them arbitrarily.

http://www.vox.com/world/2016/11/10/135 ... muslim-ban

[phuqueue]

I literally gave you a list of links to articles about things that are already happening.

And I gave a link to a video that pretty much sums up where I'm coming from.

Does your video make it so that the things described in my links actually never happened after all? Cuz otherwise you can post as many videos as you want but it doesn't change the fact that I'm not talking about things that "may" happen, I'm talking about things that are happening.

If somebody tells you they want to do something horrible and then you wait until they actually do it to respond, it's already too late.

When to respond isn't as much an issue as to how to respond. Democratic elections are a great way for the public to respond.

And yet, we won't have another one for two years now, and not one where we can get rid of him for four, so we'll have to find other ways to respond to Trump. White people comprising less than a plurality of voters foisted this upon us, helped along by the apathy of many eligible voters and active suppression of many others. The fact that he won -- with a full GOP Congress to boot -- places us at a profound disadvantage, but if you're interested in protecting the most vulnerable segments of our society you can't just look to the next election as the time to address Trump's policies.

And for the same reason that your guns are safe -- the Constitution -- it's unlikely that Trump will be able to enact his more extreme campaign promises, like his proposed Muslim ban.

And this is exactly why I'm not worried about Trump banning all Muslims. He has absolutely no legal right to do so.

Yeah except the Muslim ban isn't the real problem, as I went on to describe immediately after the one sentence that you quoted and responded to here.

Women and minorities should be terrified right now because Trump supporters are openly trying to intimidate them right now. And abortion is absolutely not safe except in the short term.

Agree to disagree on this one, I guess. I think abortion is safe forever. Even if the Supreme Court goes right in the short term, wait a few election cycles. It'll be back to center or left of center. Those rights are not going away. And if they do, 2018 will be brutal for the GOP and the rights will be intact once again. This is basically a non-issue to me. Abortion will remain legal.

Of course it's a non-issue to you, but that's kind of the whole problem. The Supreme Court doesn't flip over a couple election cycles. Many of the current justices, especially on the conservative side, are relatively young (in their 50s and 60s, while Breyer is 78, semi-conservative swing vote Kennedy is 80, and Ginsberg is 83). There is a decent chance Trump could put together a Court with an up to 7-2 conservative slant if Ginsberg and Breyer retire or die in the next 2-4 years, and this Court could reasonably be expected to endure for 20+ years.

I would not overestimate how "brutal" it would be for the GOP -- their greatest challenge might be if their religious base started to crumble without abortion to unite them anymore, but there is evidence that political identity actually trumps religious identity for many people -- for example, conservative Catholics who ignore the Pope's teachings on environmentalism or income inequality, or we heard a lot about how Mormons hate Trump because of their religion's own experiences with persecution, because family values are genuinely important to them, etc, but half of Utah still voted for him, far outpacing his poll numbers there. Outside of the possible but unlikely dissolution of the religious block, what do they have to worry about? Men for whom this is a "non-issue"? Some block of women who will vote for the GOP when it runs against abortion and passes legislation to chip away at it as much as possible, but who would vote against them if they actually got rid of it? Abortion is a divisive issue in this country but it mainly divides two specific groups: religious people and people who care about women's rights. And the women's rights side just lost to a guy who boasts about committing sexual assault. Not holding my breath that there's a groundswell of new opposition to the GOP after they eliminate Roe. And if there is, so what? The left wins a meaningless battle after the war is already over.

[AllThingsKC]

...but if you're interested in protecting the most vulnerable segments of our society you can't just look to the next election as the time to address Trump's policies.

What are you proposing here? Riots?

[phuqueue]

I'm not proposing anything specific, just pushing back on the shortsighted and irresponsible mindset of "I won't worry about it until it happens." But there are plenty of avenues, including, yes, protests (which is what we were talking about in the first place), but also advocacy and activism in other forms. For example, Paul Ryan wants to gut Medicare and it'll be a lot harder to get it back once it's gone than to protect it in the first place. Seniors are the most reliable voting block there is, so you have to make sure they understand what the stakes are and then get them calling their Congressmen to make clear that there will be repercussions for this. Trump's most visible proposals aren't going to happen, but there is great danger just in having him rubberstamping whatever the GOP Congress sends him too. And rather than wait for Trump "to do something racist or sexist" (which, what exactly are you waiting for at this point? He's already got an extensive record), we can try to respond to the racism and sexism his followers are already inflicting on people by making clear that it won't be tolerated if we personally encounter it, offering personal support to anyone we know who has been or could be victimized by it, supporting organizations that fight it (with donations, volunteering, whatever), etc. "I'm sure he'll do something terrible but I'll wait until he does to do anything about it" is nonsense.

[AllThingsKC]

His record is mostly a lot of talk. He doesn't have many actions for me to judge him by. Until he does something as president, we have no idea what kind of president he'll be. For all we know, he could be a very liberal president. Or maybe he'll be a babbling clown. Who can say for sure at this point? It wouldn't be the first time someone has something one thing during their campaign and done another. Women will be fine. LGBTQ community will be fine. Muslims can't be banned. Some illegal immigrants might be deported, but even that's questionable If I'm wrong, then yes, I'll join a protest. Absolutely. But for now, I don't see much to suggest the country is in as bad shape as some or making it out to be. Again, we can't say for sure what kind of president he'll be. So I may very well be wrong. I'll likely know within his first 100 days if he'll be good or bad for the country.

I appreciate you sharing your view point. I have a better understand of where you're coming from. I get the whole "why wait until he does something bad to do something" idea. I still disagree to an extent, but I don't think you're necessarily wrong either.

[mean]

Considering the frequency with which he's been a babbling clown up to this point, I am not particularly optimistic about his presidency, but I am extremely optimistic about the near future of stand up comedy.

[phuqueue]

Regardless of what he personally does -- although he's already doing things, like bringing white nationalist Steve Bannon into the fold -- his election has already driven a spike in hate crimes. Easy for white men to say everyone "will be fine," but lots of people are already not fine right now. Pretending that there's nothing wrong with his being elected, taking a wait and see and maybe everything will be ok approach, contributes to the normalization and acceptance of this behavior. Whatever his policies turn out to be, even if he turns into "a very liberal president," the problem is the man himself and what he has come to represent for fervent supporters like the KKK and neo-Nazis. And I'm also not sure how you see him going from trying to ban Muslims but the Constitution doesn't permit it to turning out to be "very liberal" anyway, but it's beside the point. Even if he publishes a Medicare-for-all plan tomorrow he's still a bigot surrounding himself with worse bigots. It's not ok.

[flyingember]

There's lots of presidents where their failures overshadow them. They certainly did good things but their bad actions mean people don't care.

Do we have another Buchanan failing to stop a civil war and we see the effects of their failures 150 years later or another Nixon with scandals with legs but later presidents largely erased their impact or a Warrem Harding that people just don't discuss and he's seen as horrible but most people don't care.

Or does he end up being someone like a Theodore Rosevelt, a personality overruling the status quo and taking the country in a largely positive direction with a lot of small impactful changes we built on for decades. TR isn't a horrible comparison to what Trump says he wants to do.

What matters is does he pull it together and we get a TR type of presidency or will it be full of ineptitude and scandal and he fails to get anything done.

I wouldn't bet against either direction at this point.

Take away the policy choices and disagreements and their clear focus against the current power structure means they could be very successful if they can get their act together. All our best presidents were comtroversial for their times to some degree or another. It's in the blood of our country to rock the boat. Our best president ended up with a civil war over "policy differences"

Maybe he's going too far, and I would argue he is, but sometimes we have to spill a little blood, even if metaphorically, to not get stuck in a rut and kill the country. We could end up a stronger country after going through some pain. We've failed to make tough decisions on race, religion and such for too long.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I think what you may find is many of the people who voted for Trump will be disappointed because he will end up being a different president than they wanted. And many of the people who didn't vote for him may be surprised to find out they actually liked some of the things he does.
Senate Dem. leaders have expressed a willingness to work with Trump on many issues, much to the dismay of the Tea Party types and a few other conservatives. These Dems seem to be more in line with "loyal opposition" than "just say no" of the recent GOP with Obama.
The Freedom Caucus may have just found themselves on the outside in pushing its agenda.

[shinatoo]

He just nominated a Attorney General that called the NAACP and Southern Aliance "Comunist Operatives" and said the "I thought the KKK was fine until I found out they someked pot". This whas while he was a judge in Alabama.

So far not liking anything he's done.

[phuqueue]

Maybe he's going too far, and I would argue he is, but sometimes we have to spill a little blood, even if metaphorically, to not get stuck in a rut and kill the country. We could end up a stronger country after going through some pain. We've failed to make tough decisions on race, religion and such for too long.

I have a feeling it's not your blood that's going to be spilled, whether metaphorically or otherwise, or you might not be so cavalier about it. What exactly are the "tough decisions" that need to be made? A tough decision is whether to prepare to reduce future Social Security benefits or increase its revenues to guarantee future solvency, not whether or not it's ok to have Latinos and Muslims in the country. There's no "decision" to make there.

[flyingember]

Maybe he's going too far, and I would argue he is, but sometimes we have to spill a little blood, even if metaphorically, to not get stuck in a rut and kill the country. We could end up a stronger country after going through some pain. We've failed to make tough decisions on race, religion and such for too long.

I have a feeling it's not your blood that's going to be spilled, whether metaphorically or otherwise, or you might not be so cavalier about it. What exactly are the "tough decisions" that need to be made? A tough decision is whether to prepare to reduce future Social Security benefits or increase its revenues to guarantee future solvency, not whether or not it's ok to have Latinos and Muslims in the country. There's no "decision" to make there.

You missed the point. We've had this fight before.

The decision of if blood will be spilled has been made. Not in terms that kicking certain groups out should happen, but that we could be at the cusp of an era of political instability where the civil rights fight will flare up again. This presidential election could have been the difference between a simmering cold war and an outright era of hostility.

BLM is a recent sign we aren't done.
Cold Wars can end with a whimper or flare up.

[phuqueue]

You seem to be treating this potential "outright era of hostility" as an opportunity to "make tough decisions," and if that's not your point then I'm not "missing it," you're not making it. My point is the "tough decisions" are fine enough if you're a white guy who doesn't really have anything on the line here personally anyway, but I don't know any Muslim, minority, or LGBTQ people who are excited about this great new chance. We don't need to inflict an acute crisis on these groups to improve their lot, and it seems like they would rather we didn't, but here we are.

[flyingember]

if you're a white guy who doesn't really have anything on the line here personally anyway

This is a horrible assumption.

You are correct there's no need to target other people, but to assume there isn't a perception that multiculturalism isn't coming with some kind of reverse discrimination is a false one.

An us vs them perception is the core problem

[phuqueue]

What people believe and what's actually true aren't necessarily the same thing. I don't assume there isn't a "perception" that multiculturalism includes "reverse discrimination," clearly that perception is the whole foundation of the rejection of "political correctness." But what people view as "reverse discrimination" is in fact an effort to level the playing field for everybody. They aren't distinguishing between discrimination against them (what they perceive) and reducing discrimination against other people that favors them (what is actually sought). Socioeconomic status is not a zero sum game.

But my point with that particular line is that white people, men, and especially white men have little to fear from a Trump administration except for whatever generalized damage he does (eg predictions of an economic recession), while, again, it's people of color, LGBTQ people, and Muslims who will be -- and already are-- the ones actually spilling blood (and you say metaphorically, but for some it's literal). It's a lot easier to view this as some kind of opportunity when all the risks and costs of that accrue to other people.

[bobbyhawks]

What people believe and what's actually true aren't necessarily the same thing. I don't assume there isn't a "perception" that multiculturalism includes "reverse discrimination," clearly that perception is the whole foundation of the rejection of "political correctness." But what people view as "reverse discrimination" is in fact an effort to level the playing field for everybody. They aren't distinguishing between discrimination against them (what they perceive) and reducing discrimination against other people that favors them (what is actually sought). Socioeconomic status is not a zero sum game.

But my point with that particular line is that white people, men, and especially white men have little to fear from a Trump administration except for whatever generalized damage he does (eg predictions of an economic recession), while, again, it's people of color, LGBTQ people, and Muslims who will be -- and already are-- the ones actually spilling blood (and you say metaphorically, but for some it's literal). It's a lot easier to view this as some kind of opportunity when all the risks and costs of that accrue to other people.

I agree with almost everything said above, but I think the rejection of political correctness can include more than just those who feel reverse discrimination is a thing worthy of complaining about. Sure, there is reverse discrimination, but it is right up there with "flying in coach sucks" as far as first world problems go (in my view). I don't always agree with Bill Maher, but I do think he often makes very good points when he complains about liberals being overly sensitive and hypocritical in the use/disdain for specific terms and "micro-aggressions." If you are not able to hear a dissenting opinion without shutting the message out because of the terminology used or the person saying it, then you will never really understand why someone else feels a certain way or be able to engage in a persuasive discussion. For all the Trump hate for his ejaculations of "wrong" during the debate, I worry that folks are doing the same in response to his supporters. Trevor Noah made a good statement on Fresh Air recently, "don't make everything that Trump does a scandal, because you diminish the real scandals."