Politics

Come here to talk about topics that are not related to development, or even Kansas City.
User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9345
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Politics

Post by Highlander »

Changing the subject, has Hawley destroyed his political future? I suspect he has critically hurt any chance he had to become president (the fist in the air towards rioters will be used in ads against him incessantly if he ever runs) but given he's from Missouri, I could see him being re-elected as a Senator. Hawleys's crime IMO was not sedition but given credence to the outrageous and debunked election fraud claims for what he thought was his political benefit.

earthling
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6437
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by earthling »

^Hawley's future is up to MO voters of course, which has been getting more right wing over time. I suspect his future depends on how many MO GOP voters still tune into FOXN (which has supposedly shied away from Trumpism to more general DEM bashing, I don't watch it) or switches to OAN and other new right wing extremist networks that will try to keep Trumpism alive. And of course depends on Hawley's position as well over time, or his spin that his followers will accept.

User avatar
FangKC
City Hall
City Hall
Posts: 15109
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: Politics

Post by FangKC »

This is not good for Hawley. One of his primary donors is turning on him, and former Sen. Danforth says he regrets supporting Hawley.

https://missouriindependent.com/2021/01 ... -s-senate/

Messenger: Danforth calls his support of Hawley the ‘worst mistake’ of his life

https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/col ... 7cf81.html

Two Biggest Newspapers Call For Sen. Josh Hawley’s Resignation

https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityar ... c0cce46637

earthling
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6437
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by earthling »

Here's change in ideology and party identification in KS/MO/TX/GA according to PRRI, from 2013 to 2019. MO is becoming stronger GOP and maintaining Conservative ideology while the others are shifting away. STL metro jumped from 22% GOP to 27%, KC increased 2% to 28%. 2020 data not out yet. If Hawley maintains credibility with Conservatives and Trumpism stays alive, won't be surprising if more move to MO.

2013 Party Identification
Image

2019 Party Indentification
Image

...

2013 Ideology
Image

2019 Ideology
Image

http://ava.prri.org/#politics/2013/Stat ... S-MO,US-TX

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9345
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Politics

Post by Highlander »

earthling wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 10:33 am
Here's change in ideology and party identification in KS/MO/TX/GA according to PRRI, from 2013 to 2019. MO is becoming stronger GOP and maintaining Conservative ideology while the others are shifting away. STL metro jumped from 22% GOP to 27%, KC increased 2% to 28%. 2020 data not out yet. If Hawley maintains credibility with Conservatives and Trumpism stays alive, won't be surprising if more move to MO.

2013 Party Identification
Image

2019 Party Indentification
Image

...

2013 Ideology
Image

2019 Ideology
Image

http://ava.prri.org/#politics/2013/Stat ... S-MO,US-TX
Wonder why that is with Missouri? I can see the rise in GOP voters in KC due to the growth of suburbia within KC city limits in the northland. The other factor is probably more of a concern as more progressive younger people simply leave the state in search of a more dynamic or more politically acceptable environment elsewhere.

I can see Texas flipping soon. The GOP's hold on Texas is precarious. Both of the big Houston counties (Harris and Fort Bend) went blue this election. I lived in Fort Bend Country. Suburban but very diverse (mostly white but a huge immigrant and second generation contingency from India, China and the Middle East). Austin is growing by leaps and bounds but staying very liberal. For whatever reason, Trump was appealing to many in the Hispanic community and I'm wondering if a less charismatic (not that I think Trump was charismatic) republican leader would be able to sustain those inroads.

earthling
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6437
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 2:27 pm

Re: Politics

Post by earthling »

^Suspect that STL metro is losing left leaning (they consistently have net domestic loss) and while KC metro has positive net migration, more than half might be right leaning. And Southern MO/Ozarks has apparently attracted right leaning from California over time. TX and GA get significant highly educated in-migration, who are more likely to be at least some left leaning if not, socially liberal moderates even if hardline fiscal conservatives. And then there's the liberal purist Austin growth.

The PRRI report for Kansas is consistent with the DEM wins in 2018, but will be interesting to see if they establish as purple over time. I doubt it but they are more likely to reject Trumpism than MO overall.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

DColeKC wrote:
Fri Jan 08, 2021 5:47 pm
^
You can take what I said however you want. I know I didn't say it to ease the blame on Trump. I find it interesting none of you arguing with me can even admit that the rhetoric between citizens of opposite political beliefs didn't fuel the build up and anger of some of these Trump people? If you want to pretend that Trumps speech alone yesterday is the reason the Capital was broken into, fine, but so many things went into encouraging all those people to even attend the event.
I mean, you said what you said. It's written down, it's right there. If you didn't say it to reallocate blame, why did you say it?

I've never come even remotely close to suggesting that "Trump's speech alone" caused his supporters to go nuts. Obviously it was long in the making. But I'm not really interested in discussing "rhetoric" as a cause. As you yourself have acknowledged, the rhetoric goes in all directions, and yet only one particular group marauded through the Capitol, so "rhetoric" is lacking as an explanation. You can continue to pretend you're not doing what you're doing though, I'm not going to keep arguing in circles about it and it's clear that everyone else can see through you anyway so it's not necessary to continue beating a dead horse.
I also see you seek to ignore the fact that Democrats have contested elections before. I'm not saying they've ever stormed a capital but they've certainly utilized the exact same technique the Republicans did this time around. Trying to act like Republicans are the only sore losers is factually bullshit.
I don't care who are "sore losers." I never made any comment about who was or wasn't a sore loser. Frankly I think that Democrats could stand to be sorer losers, usually they seem all too eager to just roll over. But trying to draw a false equivalency between Nadler calling the 2004 election "stolen" and what happened on Wednesday is silly for reasons that should be obvious to anybody who stops and thinks about it for a moment.

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

Nadlers comment was one example. The Democrats objected 11 times to Trump winning in 2017. It’s important because people like to pretend that republicans objecting was unprecedented. It’s not.

As for saying what I’m saying. I get to say my opinion and you can take away whatever you want from it. It may seem like I’m defending Trump or whatever but I’m not intending too.

We had violent protests all summer including deaths that the Democratic Party was mostly silent about. Granted burning a church or car lot isn’t the equivalent to storming the capital. Not much is.

But whatever, we can stop doing circles now. This is just the only outlet I have to discuss politics. I’m not trying to sway any minds around here. I’m just here for the punishment.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3356
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: Politics

Post by im2kull »

DColeKC wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 8:28 pm
Nadlers comment was one example. The Democrats objected 11 times to Trump winning in 2017. It’s important because people like to pretend that republicans objecting was unprecedented. It’s not.
The hypocrisy is real.

Riverite
Western Auto Lofts
Western Auto Lofts
Posts: 629
Joined: Fri Apr 07, 2017 5:49 pm

Re: Politics

Post by Riverite »

DColeKC wrote:
Sat Jan 09, 2021 8:28 pm
Nadlers comment was one example. The Democrats objected 11 times to Trump winning in 2017. It’s important because people like to pretend that republicans objecting was unprecedented. It’s not.

As for saying what I’m saying. I get to say my opinion and you can take away whatever you want from it. It may seem like I’m defending Trump or whatever but I’m not intending too.

We had violent protests all summer including deaths that the Democratic Party was mostly silent about. Granted burning a church or car lot isn’t the equivalent to storming the capital. Not much is.

But whatever, we can stop doing circles now. This is just the only outlet I have to discuss politics. I’m not trying to sway any minds around here. I’m just here for the punishment.
Okay so Nadler objected to voting irregularities in Ohio (1 state) in which 2 election officials were later convicted of election manipulation. It wasn’t baseless and there were irregularities, and they weren’t trying to stop bush from coming into office, but highlight the irregularities. They didn’t say it was stolen neither did the candidate.

BLM was fighting for justice reform, and a statistically provable point that blacks people are arrested and shot at a disproportionate rate as white people. These riots were about a baseless conspiracy theory it’s not the same. Also a lot of the destruction was false flags like the police car burnt in KC and the Nashville courthouse.

Honestly the right wing also tried to kidnap a governor earlier in the year. If you can’t tell the difference between the two you aren’t trying.

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

Once again, completely incapable of accepting that both sides do bad things.

While there’s no proof to support widespread voter fraud, the republicans main issue is with how the rules were changed at the last minute using a pandemic as the motivation. I don’t think it would have changed anything but some do. They had planned to object to three states. The Democrats objected 11 times in 2005 and much like the republicans this time, it was mostly a show and they knew nothing would come of it.

Just like how some BLM radicals go too far, other causes are going to have idiots willing to push it to extremes too. I don’t blame the BLM movement for the violence and I don’t blame republicans for the capital. I like how you claim “a lot” of the destruction was false flags. I’m sure if I said “a lot” of the reported hate crimes end up being fake you’d take issue.

The biggest difference between the violent BLM folks and the violent capital folks is the fact one group gets away with it and the other will be going to prison.

User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9345
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: Politics

Post by Highlander »

DColeKC wrote:
Sun Jan 10, 2021 12:54 pm
Once again, completely incapable of accepting that both sides do bad things.

While there’s no proof to support widespread voter fraud, the republicans main issue is with how the rules were changed at the last minute using a pandemic as the motivation. I don’t think it would have changed anything but some do. They had planned to object to three states. The Democrats objected 11 times in 2005 and much like the republicans this time, it was mostly a show and they knew nothing would come of it.
First, the entire republican executive branch of government contested the election largely on the grounds of the baseless claims of fraud. When evidence of fraud was presented in court it was routinely dismissed and when presented publicly at the faux hearings held by Giuliani, it was exposed as lacking any credibility.

Rules were changed and in many cases the changes were challenged and in all cases the courts sorted it out. In the case of Pennsylvania, the supreme court correctly chose not to hear the case because it was no longer relevant. Any attempts to change the rules needed to be challenged before the election not after it. I took advantage of opportunities that my state made available to vote early knowing full well that my vote would not be counted until late on election day or afterwards. Trump won my state but had he not, I suspect there would have been a challenge. Once people have voted in good faith according to the established rules (changed or not), a challenge is no longer acceptable. Otherwise, my vote, cast in good faith, would have been among those that the republicans sought to throw out.

Of course, Hawley tried to cover up his objections under the guise of procedure but his intentions were transparent as were republican intentions in the lead up to the vote: Suppression (and in Hawley's case the political capital gained by appeasing die-hard Trump supporters). Without suppression, the republicans will become increasingly irrelevant on the national stage if they wish to keep the same platform they carried through the Trump years. They are at a crossroads and they know it. How much longer can voter suppression keep them relevant? The Trump core will accept no change to their positions and those positions are becoming more and more unacceptable to most Americans.

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

I got an idea on how to further radicalize far right folks. Remove all their easily accessible and public options to say what they want to say! Big tech banning and censoring people on the right, including Trump will only add more fuel to the fire and cause these radicals to go further underground.

flyingember
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 8943
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: Politics

Post by flyingember »

DColeKC wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:40 am
I got an idea on how to further radicalize far right folks. Remove all their easily accessible and public options to say what they want to say! Big tech banning and censoring people on the right, including Trump will only add more fuel to the fire and cause these radicals to go further underground.
You're describing private businesses, not public methods for communication.

Big tech was given the right to ban people based on demands from Republicans. They want to eat (ban) a gay wedding cake and speak about it too.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 11001
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: Politics

Post by mean »

Do you mean, go back underground? While having them out and open and honest and saying the quiet part out loud has been eye-opening, it hasn't been pleasant.

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

flyingember wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:04 am
DColeKC wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 9:40 am
I got an idea on how to further radicalize far right folks. Remove all their easily accessible and public options to say what they want to say! Big tech banning and censoring people on the right, including Trump will only add more fuel to the fire and cause these radicals to go further underground.
You're describing private businesses, not public methods for communication.

Big tech was given the right to ban people based on demands from Republicans. They want to eat (ban) a gay wedding cake and speak about it too.
I’m not arguing weather or not Big Tech can do what they’re doing, I’m arguing it’s not a good idea. And comparing one mom and pop business owner not wanting to make a cake for a gay couple isn’t the same as literally kicking an app off your hosting services because it’s utilized by mostly right thinking people.

What the cake shop guy did cost him dearly and I’m sure the gay couple got a better cake for free somewhere else. He doesn’t have a monopoly on the wedding cake business like the 4 big tech giants do.

User avatar
DColeKC
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:50 am

Re: Politics

Post by DColeKC »

mean wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:10 am
Do you mean, go back underground? While having them out and open and honest and saying the quiet part out loud has been eye-opening, it hasn't been pleasant.
Wouldn’t it be easier to have them out in the open so we can all know they’re crazy and what they’re plotting? Same thing with racist, I’d rather have them out and about instead of holding their secret klan meetings in the woods somewhere.

phuqueue
Penntower
Penntower
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33 pm

Re: Politics

Post by phuqueue »

It's been very exciting these past few days to watch conservatives allllllllmost grasp the problem with basically ceding control of society to big corporations and their wealthy owners.
DColeKC wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:14 am
mean wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:10 am
Do you mean, go back underground? While having them out and open and honest and saying the quiet part out loud has been eye-opening, it hasn't been pleasant.
Wouldn’t it be easier to have them out in the open so we can all know they’re crazy and what they’re plotting? Same thing with racist, I’d rather have them out and about instead of holding their secret klan meetings in the woods somewhere.
Having it out in the open allows these people to find each other more easily and organize around their noxious views and gives them access to a wider audience of people who might be for one reason or another susceptible to this kind of thinking but who might never have found it in the first place if there hadn't been some 4chan rabbit hole for them to dig into. Allowing a platform for it is a form of tolerance, which ultimately leads to the paradox of tolerance. There is not intrinsically some set number of Nazis in our society who are going to do what they're going to do no matter what, and the only question is whether you shine a light on it or not for your own awareness of it -- shining that light actually helps it fester and grow.

shinatoo
Ambassador
Posts: 6627
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Politics

Post by shinatoo »

If their post incite violence or promote baseless conspiracy theories, and outright lies, they should be banned. Both left and right. Publishing those lies on mainstream formats give them legitimacy.
Quocunque Jeceris Stabit

cityscape
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 432
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 3:41 pm
Location: Overland Park

Re: Politics

Post by cityscape »

mean wrote:
Mon Jan 11, 2021 10:10 am
Do you mean, go back underground? While having them out and open and honest and saying the quiet part out loud has been eye-opening, it hasn't been pleasant.
More press and coverage leads to more violence and ability to influence others. See ISIS as an example. They used social media and other forums to very quickly radicalize groups. While not to the same degree in this country, that is essentially what the far right extremists have been doing. Using vague descriptions of common beliefs (constitution, etc..) to promote their personal agendas and make it seem like a worthy cause. There are very legal ways to determine if you are right or wrong in this country.

Post Reply