A thoughtful defense of voting for trump

[Greg Davidson]

The Obama Domestic Strategy in a nutshell. Faced with opposition? Rather than find common ground with the opposition(or its political base, *gasp*) you go to your own political base and rile them up and hope they're more motivated than the other side.

What a remarkably different view of the world. Here's my case for exactly the opposite. Take three examples of Obama I thought of/found in 5 minutes, and show me any three similar statements by any Republican President or Presidential candidate in the past 20 years.  If you cannot do so, you should correct your remarks to say that Obama as President has made more prominent requests for ideas from the opposition than any other President or Presidential candidate.  Here are the examples:

2004 speech at Democratic National Convention

I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America.
The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too: We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

2009 response to the economic collapse

President-elect Barack Obama is set to visit a gathering of House Republicans. The incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is in running cellphone contact with his former Congressional adversaries. Some Republicans say they hear more from the Obama team than they ever did from the Bush administration.

As Mr. Obama prepares to move into the White House, he and his top advisers are making a visible effort to engage Congressional Republicans, hoping to show they are serious about Mr. Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship and to try to enact an economic recovery measure with solid support from both sides in the crucial early going.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20repubs.html?_r=0

2010 health care debate

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama said. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020703003.html

[LetterRip]

Strategy always tends to be 'turn out the base' and 'suppress the turnout for the opposition'.  So while it is true that all but a tiny handful have decided who they will vote for if they vote, there are probably a whole lot of people who could be dissuaded from voting at all if their preferred candidate turns out to be distasteful enough.

So pounding on the negatives of the opponent is mostly going to be suppressing their turnout and increasing turnout against them, not nearly as much for converting the undecideds.

[TheDeamon]

2009 response to the economic collapse

President-elect Barack Obama is set to visit a gathering of House Republicans. The incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is in running cellphone contact with his former Congressional adversaries. Some Republicans say they hear more from the Obama team than they ever did from the Bush administration.

As Mr. Obama prepares to move into the White House, he and his top advisers are making a visible effort to engage Congressional Republicans, hoping to show they are serious about Mr. Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship and to try to enact an economic recovery measure with solid support from both sides in the crucial early going.

 

Self-reporting from the Obama Admin itself, with the Obama Admin as its source. Great for propaganda, I'm sure Trump would likewise be more than happy to tell you he is the most reasonable man in the world.

2010 health care debate

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama said. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward."

Oh, like the (live) conference he had with the Top Level Republican leadership where they were to be given their chance to provide input, and then spent most of the meeting having Democrat talking points spewed back at them by Reid, Pelosi, and company lecturing them about how evil and uncaring they are? Yeah, that was really productive for the Republicians. I remember watching it, quite disgusting and deplorable on the part of the Dems actually.

Obama talks a great game, but when it comes the actually playing ball with others that don't agree with him, his *censored* is well, *censored*.

[TheDeamon]

What a remarkably different view of the world. Here's my case for exactly the opposite. Take three examples of Obama I thought of/found in 5 minutes, and show me any three similar statements by any Republican President or Presidential candidate in the past 20 years.  If you cannot do so, you should correct your remarks to say that Obama as President has made more prominent requests for ideas from the opposition than any other President or Presidential candidate.  Here are the examples:

I'll give you the inverse challenge. Find a news report where anybody with a "widely different" agenda from Obama came to a meeting table with him and walked away with good things to say that isn't just diplomatic pro-forma. A certain "Beer Summit" likewise  doesn't qualify, as there wasn't anything to actually compromise over in that case.

[Greg Davidson]

TheDeamon,

First, you failed to answer my direct question. Because you can't. I agree it is hard to prove the sincerity of someone's remarks because we can't read their minds, but I asked for evidence that another President or candidate even went so far as to invite collaboration. And they haven't.

Second, the Obama stimulus was about 40% tax cuts, which was in direct contradiction to the Democratic policy preference (which is that when the economy is collapsing, the best way to stimulate the economy is for the government to immediately place orders for new products so that companies expand rather than contract). Obama was taking very significant actions in terms of incorporating Republican preferences in his first major legislation.

You are correct that Republicans have not given Obama credit for collaboration.  But I have a different theory for why that is - even at the depth of the greatest economic collapse in 80 years, and while "the nation was at war", Republicans chose a sole-minded focus on partisan advantage. On the night of Obama's inauguration, Republican leaders met and agreed that any collaboration with the President would just help Obama, so they selected a scorched Earth policy of rejectionism.

[Pete at Home]

Well, some of the UK populist gloatfest (yelling at Muslims in the street to leave the country) is not just politically incorrect but morally depraved.  The fact that PCholes.exaggerate it or pretend that Muslims are a "race" to call it "racism" doesnt mitigate the inhumanity of persecuting someone in the street that has never done you harm.  Skin color is irrelevant to that simple issue of humanity.

[Seriati]

The Obama Domestic Strategy in a nutshell. Faced with opposition? Rather than find common ground with the opposition(or its political base, *gasp*) you go to your own political base and rile them up and hope they're more motivated than the other side.

What a remarkably different view of the world. Here's my case for exactly the opposite. Take three examples of Obama I thought of/found in 5 minutes, and show me any three similar statements by any Republican President or Presidential candidate in the past 20 years.  If you cannot do so, you should correct your remarks to say that Obama as President has made more prominent requests for ideas from the opposition than any other President or Presidential candidate.  Here are the examples:

This may be the most ridiculous challenge ever.  Find matching propaganda statements by a Republican?  Every one of them has at some point used the words reaching across the aisle or bipartisan support.  As in all things, actions speak louder than words.  Why don't you show a substantial compromise that Obama made to the Republicans instead of just hot air he inspired you with.  And if you cite concessions he made to his own party to get the votes on Obamacare as for Republicans I may just start screaming in my house.

2004 speech at Democratic National Convention

I say to them tonight, there is not a liberal America and a conservative America — there is the United States of America. There is not a black America and a white America and Latino America and Asian America — there's the United States of America.
The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I've got news for them, too: We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don't like federal agents poking around in our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States, and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and there are patriots who supported the war in Iraq.

The last time I visited the Capitol, I came to take an oath. On the steps of this building, I pledged to honor our Constitution and laws, and I asked you to join me in setting a tone of civility and respect in Washington. I hope America is noticing the difference. We are making progress. Together, we are changing the tone in the Nation’s capital. And this spirit of respect and cooperation is vital, because in the end we will be judged not only by what we say or how we say it, we will be judged by what we are able to accomplish. America today is a Nation with great challenges, but greater resources.

That's in 10 seconds from the "great uniter" George Bush.
 

2009 response to the economic collapse

President-elect Barack Obama is set to visit a gathering of House Republicans. The incoming White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, is in running cellphone contact with his former Congressional adversaries. Some Republicans say they hear more from the Obama team than they ever did from the Bush administration.

As Mr. Obama prepares to move into the White House, he and his top advisers are making a visible effort to engage Congressional Republicans, hoping to show they are serious about Mr. Obama’s commitment to bipartisanship and to try to enact an economic recovery measure with solid support from both sides in the crucial early going.

  http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/20/us/politics/20repubs.html?_r=0

This one is kind of a non-issue.  Can you find any evidence of any President who was noted - in real time - for not reaching out to Congressional leaders of both parties, while they were still moving into the White House?  That's really what you're asserting here, that something special occurred.  It's a point in time that's meaningless - before he took office - and where there was a specific crisis occurring that his administration would be called upon to handle - meaning the solution could be completely undermined if he disagreed with it.  This just seems like a reach to me as some kind of evidence of specialness.

010 health care debate

"I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama said. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table. . . . I want to come back and have a large meeting, Republicans and Democrats, to go through, systematically, all the best ideas that are out there and move it forward."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/07/AR2010020703003.html

[/quote]

More fun from the "great uniter":

Good jobs begin with good schools, and here we've made a fine start. Republicans and Democrats worked together to achieve historic education reform so that no child is left behind. I was proud to work with members of both parties: Chairman John Boehner and Congressman George Miller. Senator Judd Gregg. And I was so proud of our work, I even had nice things to say about my friend, Ted Kennedy. I know the folks at the Crawford coffee shop couldn't believe I'd say such a thing, but our work on this bill shows what is possible if we set aside posturing and focus on results.

Again, 30 seconds or so to find.  You can find the same for just about any similarly prominent politician that has enough public record of their statements.  You'd know that though if you looked.  Again the difference is that you don't believe the words from some people and you do from others.  Show us actual examples of President Obama living out his words, not just saying the pretty things.

And while you're at it, look of the equivalent quotes that express such great crossing the aisles sentiments as 'elections have consequences' (which didn't apply after the midterms or the next two elections in the administration's view) or that the Republicans 'can get in the back of the bus'?

[TheDeamon]

TheDeamon,

First, you failed to answer my direct question. Because you can't. I agree it is hard to prove the sincerity of someone's remarks because we can't read their minds, but I asked for evidence that another President or candidate even went so far as to invite collaboration. And they haven't.

Both Bush presidencies did, as Seratil demonstrated for Bush43, Bush41 only needs you to look at the tax hike which ultimately cost him the White House. Hell, even Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan have examples of making compromise solutions with "the other side." Obama has plenty of examples of roadblocks and partisanship to the bitter end, knowing the media had his back and would hammer the Republicans every day they held out.

The (near) shutdowns were examples of this as the narrative immediately was how the shutdowns "would hurt the Republicans" and put full blame on the Republicans for "being unreasonable." I actually suspect archival footage from the Clinton era would likewise reflect that kind of spin being employed. Evidently, Presidents do no wrong when it comes to shutdowns over budgets.

[Greg Davidson]

The last time I visited the Capitol, I came to take an oath. On the steps of this building, I pledged to honor our Constitution and laws, and I asked you to join me in setting a tone of civility and respect in Washington. I hope America is noticing the difference. We are making progress. Together, we are changing the tone in the Nation’s capital. And this spirit of respect and cooperation is vital, because in the end we will be judged not only by what we say or how we say it, we will be judged by what we are able to accomplish. America today is a Nation with great challenges, but greater resources.

Show me a quote where the "we" explicitly includes those in the other party (which he liked to refer to as the "Democrat" party), or at least from the other side of the political spectrum (as with the Red State/Blue State dichotomy). 

For the other issues, what I would like to see is on the most important issue of the day (as with the Obama examples of the economic collapse or health care), the Republican President reaching out with at least words of respect inviting ideas from the other political party.  And even if you could do that, which I doubt, then all you have done is shown that Republicans could match what Obama has done.

[TheDeamon]

For the other issues, what I would like to see is on the most important issue of the day (as with the Obama examples of the economic collapse or health care), the Republican President reaching out with at least words of respect inviting ideas from the other political party.  And even if you could do that, which I doubt, then all you have done is shown that Republicans could match what Obama has done.

Invitations of cooperation are mere propaganda talking points, anyone can offer to talk, that's easy. It's what happens when someone takes them up on it that matters. And the occasions that were televised in Obama's case were used as a political optics opportunity to further criticize in a venue they couldn't easily escape, rather than bring together. Which is also why the Republicans have since avoided such public chances "to talk."

Actual examples of cooperation are the ones that matter, be it behind closed doors, or in public view. Bush43 saying good things about Ted Kennedy in regards to major legislation would tend to be a indicator of working with that other side, but you moved the goal post on that.

[Greg Davidson]

TheDeamon,

Here's the problem in reaching a resolution that we can both agree to.  The facts are that Republicans have opposed virtually everything that Obama has proposed. 

This might be:

• Obama's fault for never trying for common ground
• the Republican's fault for opposing anything if Obama proposed it
• both of their faults (because if groups of people hold two seperate views, the truth must be in the middle)
• Obama's fault because he did not always try for common ground, but instead on many occasions he did not try to collaborate but instead just activate his base

I have a fundamental problem with the structure of argument (3) for this or any other question. The only data that is needed to support (3) is that you have two groups expressing strongly different opinions - and if we accept this as a valid form of argument, then we reward groups for taking an extreme alternate view whether it is true or not. While it is possible that arguments of the form of (3) above could be true, they need more data then just the existence of two different points of view.

Evidence that I find compelling of (2) is

• Pre-inauguration actions in response to President Obama inviting Republican Senator Gregory to be in his cabinet - naming a member from the other party is a traditional olive branch to the other party - and yet Gregory was strongly pressured by other Republicans to reject the nomination, something I have never seen happen before 
• The widely-reported (and acknowledged) gathering of Republican Congressional leadership on the night of the inauguration where they agreed to a strategy of universal opposition to Obama
• Immediate, universal opposition by Republicans to policies that that had supported in the past - for example, the Republicans universally used a talking point from the start of the Obama Administration that an economic stimulus package does not create jobs, even though many of them had voted for such a stimulus package in the past under a Republican President and even though 115 Republican members of the House of Representatives then went back to their district and were quoted by local newspapers as taking credit for the jobs created in their district by the stimulus
• Republicans somehow managed to keep criticizing "the stimulus" while ignoring the fact that it was the largest middle class tax cut in US history - if they actually cared about collaboration to achieve policy goals rather than partisanship, the logical response would have been to publicize the accomplishment of what they said was one of their main policy goals

I do think that after a number of years of the most stringent opposition that any President has faced since before the Civil War (as measured, for example, by number of filibusters), Obama turned more to just focusing the base.

I don't think we can reach a meeting of the minds here. But I'd like to see your evidence for the opposite, particularly with respect to the interaction between Republicans and Obama in the first year of his Administration.

[Fenring]

The only data that is needed to support (3) is that you have two groups expressing strongly different opinions - and if we accept this as a valid form of argument, then we reward groups for taking an extreme alternate view whether it is true or not. While it is possible that arguments of the form of (3) above could be true, they need more data then just the existence of two different points of view.

I would argue that the real substance of (3) isn't having differing opinions at all. That's the straw man presented to the public to hide the real (3), which is that two groups may be set up in such a way that they benefit from a partisan conflict environment and have no vested interest in achieving compromise goals. It's not that they won't compromise because their opponents won't agree with them, it's that having the other group as "the enemy" is a necessary feature of their business model.

[Fenring]

So the problem here isn’t an issue of political correctness but a failure in the education system in regards to debate and the understanding of “semantic reactions” (Science and Sanity)

Here's a disturbing article I just came across:

http://nypost.com/2016/07/01/elite-k-8-school-teaches-white-students-theyre-born-racist/

I hope someone comes along and informs me that the information in this article is spurious, because I'm not happy to read things like this:

An elite Manhattan school is teaching white students as young as 6 that they’re born racist and should feel guilty benefiting from “white privilege,” while heaping praise and cupcakes on their black peers.

That this should go beyond university-level protest groups and trickle into the mainstream education system is exactly my fear when discussing debate-shutdown tactics. Controlling the narrative through political correctness isn't merely an issue of killing real debate, but is also an issue about what the specific claims of the politically correct faction are (whose opposition is shut down by the aforementioned tactics). And lest someone argue that the perspective being taught at this school is merely a political opinion and is just as valid as a differing opinion, here's another detail from the article:

Bank Street has created a “dedicated space” in the school for “kids of color,” where they’re “embraced” by minority instructors and encouraged to “voice their feelings” and “share experiences about being a kid of color,” according to school presentation slides obtained by The Post.

Meanwhile, white kids are herded into separate classrooms and taught to raise their “awareness of the prevalence of Whiteness and privilege,” challenge “notions of colorblindness (and) assumptions of ‘normal,’ ‘good,’ and ‘American’” and “understand and own European ancestry and see the tie to privilege.”

The same slides point out that a number of leading private schools across the country also have segregated students by “race-based affinity groups.” It lists several in New York, including Riverdale Country School, Brooklyn Friends School, The Cathedral School, The Calhoun School, Ethical Culture Fieldston School, and Little Red School House and Elisabeth Irwin High School.

This appears to blow the argument wide open since I cannot conceive of a liberal political opinion whose transmission requires the re-introduction of color segregation into schools. Mentioning things about while history and black history to a mixed class is one thing. Separating students by color in order to give a different education to the students of each "race" appears to me to be borderline apartheid conditions, predicated on the premise that racism directed towards whites is a non-concept. I will grant that the phrasing of the article is clearly angled against what the school is doing (such as using terms like "herded") however I must say I can't blame the article at all for taking this position if, indeed, it has. 

[AI Wessex]

Doesn't the florid language of the article raise a red flag for you?  Also, remember that this is the NY Post, which is as arch-Republican as FOX or Breitbart.

[Fenring]

Doesn't the florid language of the article raise a red flag for you?  Also, remember that this is the NY Post, which is as arch-Republican as FOX or Breitbart.

I know it's partisan, but does that mean the facts cited are false? I'd actually be pleased to learn they are. Not that many good sources reported on this, but to date I've assumed the NY Post was reliable insofar as if it reported a fact I wouldn't assume it was just cooked up.

[NobleHunter]

The problem with the partisan hack media isn't that they make stuff up, it's that they spin things to a ridiculous degree. Any nuance is lost as the potential problems are exaggerated and actual intent downplayed. A history class is either glorification of imperialism and genocide or teaching kids to hate themselves and America depending on how the author wants to portray it.

[AI Wessex]

Not that many good sources reported on this, but to date I've assumed the NY Post was reliable insofar as if it reported a fact I wouldn't assume it was just cooked up.

FWIW, Snopes weighs in. If you have a habit of leaning in too far, you have a tendency to fall over.

[Fenring]

The sources reporting on this story consist of the NY Post, The Blaze, FOX, and dailymail.co.ok, all obviously right-wing sources on such topics. But when 'news' is reported on MSM on a general basis and I am skeptical to believe even the basic facts as cited I'm told I'm paranoid and that newspapers (online or print) don't lie outright about things even thought they spin them. If this argument is accurate then even though the NY Post article has spun it into sounding like the new apartheid, it is either a fact or it isn't that students are separated by color to receive different educational messages on a topic like privilege. The basic fact in this sense are complete aside is not really related to spin; it is either occurring or it is not. I am perfectly willing to believe the story is potentially fraudulent, but unwilling to believe that if, in fact the school is doing this that there is a differing spin that can be applied to make is sound more reasonable.

[AI Wessex]

What did you think about the slide they posted?  I found it to be fairly neutral rather than leading.

[Fenring]

What did you think about the slide they posted?  I found it to be fairly neutral rather than leading.

I think they may be implementing the segregated education with a reasonable tone and an honest eye towards educating young people about what they see as the truth. The slide was clear enough, and it seems unlikely that a NY school could actually get away with openly accusing any of the students of anything (such as being an oppressor). However, we were discussing narrative control before and leftright asked about whether the education system is at fault for handicapping students' ability to reason properly.

In a case of segregated teaching (even if segregated only for the purposes of this one topic) the students are being subjected not only to whatever issues the school system previously had, but are also being subtly taught that "we are not the same as them". And this is setting aside the issue of guilt that may be incorporated from a young age into the white children in the school. It's one thing for an adult to discuss white privilege and oppression and to claim it isn't about white guilt (whether we believe them or not), but I don't believe elementary school children are capable of this type of compartmentalization. If you tell a white kid that white people are screwing over black people, the white kids are going to come out of that believing they are bad. They may be able to spew out lines they are forced to memorize, such as "we are taught that this isn't about guilt", but the issuing of such disclaimers won't stop them growing up with a good old Christian-type guilt complex.

But more generally, if this kind of thing is really being taught my main issue in principle with it isn't that I object to harsh truths being taught to young people, but that this *theory* put forward by certain parties is being taught as a *fact*. And we're not talking about a theory such as the theory of relativity or the theory of evolution; I mean we're talking about some notion that has no testability, no control/experimental group, no direct evidence of its truth other than the claims made by its adherents, and even if it happens to be true to some extent it only covers part of the issue in any case and is misleading to speak of it as a unitary truth in a vacuum. Even *if*, for instance, we were to ascertain that white people as a culture have been systemically perpetuating oppression against black people, that still does not make sense until that system itself is explicated fully, which must therefore include the political system (and its gross corruption, which prevents real change), the economic system (and its gross corruption, which enforces unhealthy conditions), and corporate advertising culture itself. In other words, even if white privilege and systemic oppression has some merit as a concept, it would only be one issue alongside these other issues. And yet I suspect they aren't separating the middle class students from the poor students and giving separate educations about class and economic prospects and wealth privilege. The race issue is the social justice hot topic, which makes this school's choice reek of political opportunism rather than a desire to round a young person's education.

So that's my main concern with the practice, if there's any truth at all to the article. It would mean, to me, that a particular political ideology is being brainwashed into people too young to be able to discriminate between a fact and between a theory of social justice. Based on the slide it doesn't sound like they're phrasing it as "some people believe that blacks are oppressed systemically." It is being stated as an immutable fact.

[AI Wessex]

To say that "we are not the same as them" is true for a vast set of "we's" and "thems" and is not biased, discriminatory or degrading to point that out.  What you do with it determines whether and how those qualifications might apply.  The problem with the Post article is that they argue that those things are happening, but use this (neutrally toned) slide as if it is evidence.  Since I don't see that the evidence indicates the intent they allege, I am skeptical that they have in any way made their larger point. 

Is it wrong to point out that Jews are different from Christians?  What if a class was assembled to allow Jews to discuss and contemplate what those differences are?  What if as part of the discussion prior bias and discrimination against Jews were discussed?  What if remedies for those failings were discussed and ongoing steps to address them were included in the discussion?  Does that constitute brainwashing or bias on the part of the teachers.  What if instead of this class a class was assembled to allow Christians to discuss and contemplate their differences from Jews?  Is that equally biased and wrong?  Now substitute blacks and whites, Protestants and Catholics, or even men and women.  Would any of those discussions be out of bounds?

So that's my main concern with the practice, if there's any truth at all to the article. It would mean, to me, that a particular political ideology is being brainwashed into people too young to be able to discriminate between a fact and between a theory of social justice. Based on the slide it doesn't sound like they're phrasing it as "some people believe that blacks are oppressed systemically." It is being stated as an immutable fact.

Well, it's significant that you think that the slide carries that assertion (a so-called "theory") and I just see it as listing facts without interpretation.

[Fenring]

I would suggest to you that separating Jews from Christians in school following closely after the Holocaust might have been seen as in bad taste, or even worse, as dangerous. Similarly, in the not-too-distant past we had virtual apartheid in America, so yeah, I would say that segregating students in class along color lines is quite suspect. And this doesn't even get into who really "is" black or white, or what they do with mixed race children, or who had white ancestors or a black grandparent. Scientifically the whole "race" issue is a complete bust anyhow, with more genetic differences amongst a 'race' than between different 'races.' So we're left with separating people who look black from those who look white, and telling them different things. And while you're right that it's true there are cultural differences between people with different backgrounds, I do not believe there is value in emphasizing these differences, rather than emphasizing instead what is common between them. It's not false to say there are differences, but I do not believe that the best object of thought is those differences. You don't want to wilfully ignore them either, of course, but that's a matter of sensitivity more so than official curriculum.

As to whether the slide merely "lists facts without interpretation", that assumes they are facts. It lists ideas that are arguably without judgemental tone, but to assert that it lists "facts" is already an interpretation. That is the whole point.

[JoshCrow]

To say that "we are not the same as them" is true for a vast set of "we's" and "thems" and is not biased, discriminatory or degrading to point that out. 

Well, this is the root of a great schism that is opening up on the left, between those who want "true equality" and those who want to preserve the moral status afforded to historically disadvantaged groups. The problem is not merely "pointing out differences" but rather assigning moral value to a racial group based on their history. In that sense, this is distinct from merely pointing out some inane differences like "these guys listen to country and those guys listen to rock". It is instead an act of moral judgement for each group, which has actual consequences in how people see themselves.

[AI Wessex]

so yeah, I would say that segregating students in class along color lines is quite suspect.

Which may be an indicator why the article captures your attention.  I think it's time to talk about these things with or without anger or finger-pointing.

Well, this is the root of a great schism that is opening up on the left, between those who want "true equality" and those who want to preserve the moral status afforded to historically disadvantaged groups. The problem is not merely "pointing out differences" but rather assigning moral value to a racial group based on their history. In that sense, this is distinct from merely pointing out some inane differences like "these guys listen to country and those guys listen to rock". It is instead an act of moral judgement for each group, which has actual consequences in how people see themselves.

That schism is part of every division of society, which can be divided any way you like ("there are only two groups of people, those that divide people into two groups and those who don't").  It's easy to rank different sub-populations by race, wealth, locality, religion, favorite team, boxers or briefs or anything else, and people will assign moral status to any of them according to their particular affinities. 

OTOH, it matters how people divide themselves, and the degree to which it matters raises the division into its proper rank of like, loyalty, morality or a harsher imperative.  But it should be possible to talk about anything without the discussion automatically be assumed to be driven by partisan attribution.  If you do automatically assume that the discussion must be partisan, then you fall into one of two groups...

[Fenring]

so yeah, I would say that segregating students in class along color lines is quite suspect.

Which may be an indicator why the article captures your attention.  I think it's time to talk about these things with or without anger or finger-pointing.

I have no idea what on Earth this means. Are you trying to say that by objecting to a thing I'm alternatively either angry or pointing fingers? Is that some kind of weird straw man meant to discredit the argument by speculating on the motive of the argument?

But it should be possible to talk about anything without the discussion automatically be assumed to be driven by partisan attribution.  If you do automatically assume that the discussion must be partisan, then you fall into one of two groups...

That's a funny argument, since almost any discussion with you ends up being of a partisan nature. However since I'm the one who initiated this branch of the discussion here, I think I ought to be an authority on whether or not I have a partisan agenda in presenting the article. You imply here that I do, whereas as JoshCrow correctly points out, in criticizing some element of the left it does not follow that I am criticizing the entire left. Indeed, my entire argument above rests on the definition of liberal values, which almost automatically means I'm not taking an anti-liberal position.

[AI Wessex]

I have no idea what on Earth this means. Are you trying to say that by objecting to a thing I'm alternatively either angry or pointing fingers? Is that some kind of weird straw man meant to discredit the argument by speculating on the motive of the argument?

Ah, no.  I was responding to your comment that this is not the time for society to talk about those things.

That's a funny argument, since almost any discussion with you ends up being of a partisan nature. However since I'm the one who initiated this branch of the discussion here, I think I ought to be an authority on whether or not I have a partisan agenda in presenting the article.

Same thing, I was referring to the royal you.  I wasn't clear enough that that was my intent.

[Seriati]

Here's the problem in reaching a resolution that we can both agree to.  The facts are that Republicans have opposed virtually everything that Obama has proposed.

Is this based on your anecdotal view, or do you have some kind of objective measure of things that President Obama has proposed that have been opposed, and the comparative rate that has applied for past Presidents?

I see you went straight to non-substantive explanations below, but you skipped the most probable reason they opposed him.  His positions where extreme left and not consistent with what they, and especially their constituents, believe are the best policies for the country.  I note, you and others, never jump up and blame the Democrats when they make a party line vote, utter silence for their lack of cooperation, or more like big kudos for "standing up" to the Republicans.  The idea that the opposition has a duty to roll over and support extreme positions they oppose is a bizarre one in the first place.

This might be:

• Obama's fault for never trying for common ground
• the Republican's fault for opposing anything if Obama proposed it
• both of their faults (because if groups of people hold two seperate views, the truth must be in the middle)
• Obama's fault because he did not always try for common ground, but instead on many occasions he did not try to collaborate but instead just activate his base

Or like I said, the result of starting with extremist positions.  I mean Obamacare?   Fundemental change in how healthcare operates, particularly as originally formulated or with the single payer model, and more than 50% of the population didn't want it to occur.  Why would anyone act to facilitate it?  As I recall they offered up that they would consider piecemeal solutions (ie vote to pass that on which everyone agreed), yet the only option was the Omnibus that included everything they didn't want.

While it is possible that arguments of the form of (3) above could be true, they need more data then just the existence of two different points of view.

No.  It's a fallacy to assume that the truth is between two opposing opinions.  The truth could be something else entirely, or their could be more than one truth.  There are facts, and there is opinion about what will happen if you alter the facts.  Predictions are not truths.

Evidence that I find compelling of (2) is

Pre-inauguration actions in response to President Obama inviting Republican Senator Gregory to be in his cabinet - naming a member from the other party is a traditional olive branch to the other party - and yet Gregory was strongly pressured by other Republicans to reject the nomination, something I have never seen happen before

How exhaustive was your research?  I don't want to waste time searching for something that certainly has historical analogues if you didn't even bother to look for them.  After your assertions about the quotes above I'm not going to assume you're making researched claims on this.

The widely-reported (and acknowledged) gathering of Republican Congressional leadership on the night of the inauguration where they agreed to a strategy of universal opposition to Obama

And?  Seriously, and?  Every opposition party in history has made such a plan, and whether or not they have being able to stick with (which is ultimately about whether they will have any power in the new government) has been based on how well the majority party conducts its outreach.  I agree with you that the Obama Administration has been awful at building any trust or inroads with Republicans.  I chalk that up to his inability to create something even approximating a tempting offer than to any particularly magical ability of the Republicans to hold firm (a feat neither party has ever had success with in a world where they are more beholden to their local voters than the party as a whole).

Immediate, universal opposition by Republicans to policies that that had supported in the past - for example, the Republicans universally used a talking point from the start of the Obama Administration that an economic stimulus package does not create jobs, even though many of them had voted for such a stimulus package in the past under a Republican President and even though 115 Republican members of the House of Representatives then went back to their district and were quoted by local newspapers as taking credit for the jobs created in their district by the stimulus

Can you provide details?  In my experience none of these claims hold true with scrutiny.  The President virtually never puts something out without tying it to some pet poison pill.  Like he puts forward a stimulus bill, but ties it to funding organizations that he obviously intends to use to increase his own voter turnout (hello AmeriCorps).

Republicans somehow managed to keep criticizing "the stimulus" while ignoring the fact that it was the largest middle class tax cut in US history - if they actually cared about collaboration to achieve policy goals rather than partisanship, the logical response would have been to publicize the accomplishment of what they said was one of their main policy goals

Can you provide the numbers to back this.  I think they are not stupid.  A "tax cut" where people had less real income after than they did before isn't much to proclaim success about.  The stimulus as a whole locked in a massive federal spending increase that was directly contrary to the desires of the majority of their voters, what exactly would they be bragging about?

I do think that after a number of years of the most stringent opposition that any President has faced since before the Civil War (as measured, for example, by number of filibusters), Obama turned more to just focusing the base.

What hooey.  Are you going to leave out Harry Reid's contribution to the mess?  Or did you forget the years where he systematically prevented Republican ideas from even coming to the floor for a filibuster?  When each side takes every chance it has to kick the other when its down its rich to make these one sided claims.

I don't think we can reach a meeting of the minds here. But I'd like to see your evidence for the opposite, particularly with respect to the interaction between Republicans and Obama in the first year of his Administration.

Do you have evidence you'd like us to refute, or is your case just anecdotal?  I'm terribly swayed by the number of filibusters, or party line votes, unless you can control for substantive quality of what was being filibustered or voted against.  It's certainly not true that nothing got through the legislature.

[Pete at Home]

The problem with the partisan hack media isn't that they make stuff up, it's that they spin things to a ridiculous degree. Any nuance is lost as the potential problems are exaggerated and actual intent downplayed. A history class is either glorification of imperialism and genocide or teaching kids to hate themselves and America depending on how the author wants to portray it.

The fact that partisans distort the facts doesn't mean that the facts themselves might not be dismaying.

I have been in history classes that WERE glorifications of imperialism and genocide, and have been in others that were teaching kids to hate themselves and america.  The extremes are out there, quite independent of the distortions of the media.  I think that kids are more likely to get a "fair and balanced" view of American history from watching "zootopia" than any of the American high school history courses out there.

[TheDeamon]

You want to stop or otherwise greatly curtail illegal immigration? You're a racist.
You have concerns about ____? You must be a (insert loaded term here).
You're a white male and support Trump? You must be a CIS-gendered, misogynistic, racist, homophobe!

Trump is channeling a lot of the backlash against that kind of knee-jerk reaction that many people have encountered in their own personal lives. The racist card has been so over-played in the past 8 years it's nearly worthless at this point, at least for anybody who identifies as anything remotely close to conservative, because odds are very good they've had it played against themselves personally.

They've started to ignore the label, its lost any kind of meaning in their view. And that is a very dangerous place to find things in. It makes a lot easier for the nastier racists to operate without any meaningful opposition, because many of the people who would have been right there to help ward them off 10 years ago are now just going to shrug and go "Oh, there's a new 'racist group' in town? Whatever."

In light of recent events, I thought this entire thread potentially warranted a bump to let us take a glance back at thinking circa 1 year ago and where we're at now in regards to Trump and the left-wing (not necessarily Democratic) response to it seen to date.

I think people actively starting to ignore/not react to the "that's racist!" outcry is factor in the recent escalations.

Further reflections on recent events also tends to leave me somewhat convinced that what is starting to be witnessed also is an outgrowth of "speech is violence" as perpetrated by certain corners of the extreme left. Which cycles back into rationalizations and justification for physically assaulting others.

"Not only did you espouse a view that I disagree with, thus I'm now going to smear you with a nasty label. But I find your choice of words to be hurtful, and thus I am now justified in physically 'defending myself and others' from your vile and hurtful verbal assaults."

[rightleft22]

"Not only did you espouse a view that I disagree with, thus I'm now going to smear you with a nasty label. But I find your choice of words to be hurtful, and thus I am now justified in physically 'defending myself and others' from your vile and hurtful verbal assaults."

I see no distinction, between the extreme left or right in that scenario. The Scenario is not political in nature but one of extremist certitude.

[cherrypoptart]

With border crossings down 76% we found out the Democrats and other open borders advocates were lying about there being nothing that we could do to stop it. That was reason enough to vote for Trump, not only to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws, but to find out about the lies. I wonder what other things we were told were impossible but will turn out to be easy enough without people subverting the law in office.

[TheDeamon]

"Not only did you espouse a view that I disagree with, thus I'm now going to smear you with a nasty label. But I find your choice of words to be hurtful, and thus I am now justified in physically 'defending myself and others' from your vile and hurtful verbal assaults."

I see no distinction, between the extreme left or right in that scenario. The Scenario is not political in nature but one of extremist certitude.

Except "the right" would be upfront about it. "Thems fightin' words!" and will acknowlege they're the ones who escalated. Whereas the "words are violence" approach attempts to make the physical aggressor "the victim" in all of it.

[D.W.]

With border crossings down 76% we found out the Democrats and other open borders advocates were lying about there being nothing that we could do to stop it. That was reason enough to vote for Trump, not only to secure the border and enforce our immigration laws, but to find out about the lies. I wonder what other things we were told were impossible but will turn out to be easy enough without people subverting the law in office.

Now that’s a bold statement.  I’m all for solving illegal immigration, but don’t think even if he got it down to 99% I’d say that was worth Trump winning…  But too fault the Democratic party for their, do nothing, attitude (which the right shared mind you).  But that’s because I’ve always (and still) believe the solution is not in border security, but in draconian penalties to anyone who employs illegal workers.  /shrug

[LetterRip]

With border crossings down 76%

The numbers are about the same decrease since Trump as they were prior to his election, and doesn't appear to be enforcement related but rather improvement in Mexico's economy.  Here is an article discussing the decline due to Mexico's improving economy in October of last year.

Have a look at this graph for the past 17 years.

https://www.theatlas.com/i/atlas_VypzRL6Ug.png

https://qz.com/822557/illegal-immigration-from-mexico-into-the-us-slows-as-mexican-economy-offers-more-jobs/

Trump may have had an effect, but it is probably impereceptable given the trend.