Racism And Kamala Harris

[thebeave]

I've lost track of the number of times I've been told that being an Independent makes me just as bad as the most rabid evil trumpsucker maggat fascist nazi to ever breathe.

I consider myself to be independent as well.

They say that during the French Revolution the independents and peacemakers were the very first to lose their heads. Because rather than seeing your independent idea's both sides thing you are completely against them.

Americans claiming to be "independents" but are not politically independent are quite common. See this Pew Research article:

Political Independents: Who They Are, What They Think​

Independents often are portrayed as political free agents with the potential to alleviate the nation’s rigid partisan divisions. Yet the reality is that most independents are not all that “independent” politically. And the small share of Americans who are truly independent – less than 10% of the public has no partisan leaning – stand out for their low level of interest in politics...

See the article for more detail.

Independents don't lack opinions, nor do we lack policy preferences. Most of us lean more toward one side or the other, but almost all of us have a *mix* of positions. There are some conservative positions that I favor - gun rights is up toward the top of that list. There are some liberal positions that I favor - comprehensive publicly funded education is one. Almost all independents hold a mix of views that aren't all on one side or the other.

What makes us independent is a lack of party loyalty, and a lack of dedication to one side or the other. We generally tend to think that the sides are stupid, ineffective, and divisive. Most independents have a history of NOT voting along party lines. Our ballots tend to reflect a mix of choices. I've voted for a mix of presidents, some of whom were Republican, some of whom were Democrats, some were Third Parties. I've tended toward Republican senators and Democrat representatives. I tend toward more liberal candidates in social and educational roles within my state, and more conservative candidates in fiscal and judiciary roles. I've never voted a single party straight down the line, because my mix of personal values doesn't lend itself to that... and I think it's just plain dumb to do so.

I'm absolutely NOT interested in having a single party have dominance in government. I WANT a mix, even if it's a contentious mix.

This very much describes me. It astounds me how ideological some (most?) people are on this forum which is supposedly dedicated to free thought, free inquiry and skepticism. I always imagined a rational free thinker would be free of any political ideology in much the same way he/she would be free of religious ideology. It is what drew me to this forum in the first place 20+ years ago. Things seem to have changed.

 

[ideologyhunter]

The Democratic Party is the party that says minorities cannot get ahead unless there are special government programs put in place to assist them.
The Democratic Party is the one that has politicians simplify their speech when talking to minorities.
The Democratic Party is the one with individuals supporting segregated schools.
The Democratic Party is the one with individuals who use racial slurs whenever a minority dares to not be Democrat.
The Democratic Party is the one that tells people they have to vote according to their race. Moreover it was a very prominent Democrat who claimed that failure to vote for him means one isn't a minority.
The Democratic Party is the party of gun control, a policy initiated to keep firearms out of the hands of minorities.
The Democratic Party is the one with politicians so focused on race they want quotas for corporate boards.
The Democratic Party is the one that had activists come up with "the Progressive Stack". Also the term "BIPOC" which highlights two minority groups in particular, treating everyone else as merely "POC". But hey, the POC part are all brown so they must all think alike.
The Democratic Party is the one that has members using vile racial slurs when minorities dare to dissent from the party line. Take Justice Thomac, often called an "Uncle Clarence Thomas" for daring to not vote according to his skin color.

Rush Limbaugh is taking the dirt nap, but his bullshit is still breathing, hale and hearty.

 

[Elixir]

ALL words are made up Jason.

Don't use stoned tenth-grader logic.

Are you expecting me to explain the function of words? If their meaning is plain to the intended audience, does it matter how recently they were “made up” or how common their usage is?

 

[bilby]

I always imagined a rational free thinker would be free of any political ideology in much the same way he/she would be free of religious ideology.

That would only be the case if all political ideologies were equally baseless, as are all religious ideologies.

If, OTOH, some political ideologies are objectively better than others, then one would expect rational free thinkers to gravitate to that ideology, not because they care for ideologies, but because they care for objective facts.

Political ideologies are about societies, and societies are real things about which there are objective and measurable facts available.

Religious ideologies are about gods, and gods are imaginary things about which there are no objective or measurable facts available, with the notable exception of the single fact that they are imaginary.

You can oppose immigration, or tax increases, or the construction of a new highway (for example) or welcome them; But nobody thinks that immigrants, or taxes, or roads, are fictional. I hope.

 

[Copernicus]

I've lost track of the number of times I've been told that being an Independent makes me just as bad as the most rabid evil trumpsucker maggat fascist nazi to ever breathe.

I consider myself to be independent as well.

They say that during the French Revolution the independents and peacemakers were the very first to lose their heads. Because rather than seeing your independent idea's both sides thing you are completely against them.

Americans claiming to be "independents" but are not politically independent are quite common. See this Pew Research article:

Political Independents: Who They Are, What They Think​

Independents often are portrayed as political free agents with the potential to alleviate the nation’s rigid partisan divisions. Yet the reality is that most independents are not all that “independent” politically. And the small share of Americans who are truly independent – less than 10% of the public has no partisan leaning – stand out for their low level of interest in politics...

See the article for more detail.

Independents don't lack opinions, nor do we lack policy preferences. Most of us lean more toward one side or the other, but almost all of us have a *mix* of positions. There are some conservative positions that I favor - gun rights is up toward the top of that list. There are some liberal positions that I favor - comprehensive publicly funded education is one. Almost all independents hold a mix of views that aren't all on one side or the other.

What makes us independent is a lack of party loyalty, and a lack of dedication to one side or the other. We generally tend to think that the sides are stupid, ineffective, and divisive. Most independents have a history of NOT voting along party lines. Our ballots tend to reflect a mix of choices. I've voted for a mix of presidents, some of whom were Republican, some of whom were Democrats, some were Third Parties. I've tended toward Republican senators and Democrat representatives. I tend toward more liberal candidates in social and educational roles within my state, and more conservative candidates in fiscal and judiciary roles. I've never voted a single party straight down the line, because my mix of personal values doesn't lend itself to that... and I think it's just plain dumb to do so.

I'm absolutely NOT interested in having a single party have dominance in government. I WANT a mix, even if it's a contentious mix.

This very much describes me. It astounds me how ideological some (most?) people are on this forum which is supposedly dedicated to free thought, free inquiry and skepticism. I always imagined a rational free thinker would be free of any political ideology in much the same way he/she would be free of religious ideology. It is what drew me to this forum in the first place 20+ years ago. Things seem to have changed.

We all have our ideological biases, you no less than those you accuse of having them. Everyone likes to think of themselves as an independent thinker because they may occasionally vote across party lines or even adhere to radical centrism. Posturing as "unbiased" and accusing others of being ideologues is not unsurprising behavior in online discussion groups. It can be annoying, but maybe it is intended to be.

 

[RVonse]

We all have our ideological biases, you no less than those you accuse of having them. Everyone likes to think of themselves as an independent thinker because they may occasionally vote across party lines or even adhere to radical centrism. Posturing as "unbiased" and accusing others of being ideologues is not unsurprising behavior in online discussion groups. It can be annoying, but maybe it is intended to be.

We all have ideological differences but some care a whole lot more about their sacred party than independents do. There would be fewer independents if there were more and better party choices. For example, which party does one favor if they are extremely pro choice yet also in favor of the 1sr and 2nd Amendments? You just can not lump a bunch of positions on either side and expect everyone to be totally party loyal. Yet most on this board act that exact way. Furthermore the parties themselves are changing and evolving from what they used to represent.

I believe most of the problems not getting along has more to do with weakness of our political system and less to do with the independants. You need to give them a break. They are actually the peace makers.

 

[laughing dog]

More concisely, even if it were true that the Democratic Party were generally more racist, to conclude that any individual Democrat is a racist is a sweeping generalization fallacy.

You;'re not wrong... but I'll also point out that the tendency to accurately identify a fallacy when it's used by one group, while failing to identify the exact same fallacy when used by a different group is itself a fallacy.

Not necessarily. Could be hypocrisy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What makes us independent is a lack of party loyalty, and a lack of dedication to one side or the other. We generally tend to think that the sides are stupid, ineffective, and divisive. Most independents have a history of NOT voting along party lines. Our ballots tend to reflect a mix of choices. I've voted for a mix of presidents, some of whom were Republican, some of whom were Democrats, some were Third Parties. I've tended toward Republican senators and Democrat representatives. I tend toward more liberal candidates in social and educational roles within my state, and more conservative candidates in fiscal and judiciary roles. I've never voted a single party straight down the line, because my mix of personal values doesn't lend itself to that... and I think it's just plain dumb to do so.

I'm absolutely NOT interested in having a single party have dominance in government. I WANT a mix, even if it's a contentious mix.

I agree with the first part--I don't like either party. Long ago I preferred a mix--a compromise position would probably be better than either party on their own.

However, the Republicans have gone into bonkers land these days. They aren't willing to compromise, electing a mix gets a mess rather than a compromise. I'd prefer straight D over a mix or straight R.

 

[TomC]

What makes us independent is a lack of party loyalty, and a lack of dedication to one side or the other. We generally tend to think that the sides are stupid, ineffective, and divisive. Most independents have a history of NOT voting along party lines. Our ballots tend to reflect a mix of choices. I've voted for a mix of presidents, some of whom were Republican, some of whom were Democrats, some were Third Parties. I've tended toward Republican senators and Democrat representatives. I tend toward more liberal candidates in social and educational roles within my state, and more conservative candidates in fiscal and judiciary roles. I've never voted a single party straight down the line, because my mix of personal values doesn't lend itself to that... and I think it's just plain dumb to do so.

I'm absolutely NOT interested in having a single party have dominance in government. I WANT a mix, even if it's a contentious mix.

I agree with the first part--I don't like either party. Long ago I preferred a mix--a compromise position would probably be better than either party on their own.

However, the Republicans have gone into bonkers land these days. They aren't willing to compromise, electing a mix gets a mess rather than a compromise. I'd prefer straight D over a mix or straight R.

This.
For most of my adult life I was studiously bipartisan. That started changing in the 90s, as the Democrats moved sharply to the center and the Republicans moved even further out into right field. By the time of the Teaparty take over I'd kinda lost any belief in Republicans with character, ethics, or an ability to Put America First. I became a straight ticket Democrat voter, not because I was fond of their politics but because I am fond of ethics and American values.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This very much describes me. It astounds me how ideological some (most?) people are on this forum which is supposedly dedicated to free thought, free inquiry and skepticism. I always imagined a rational free thinker would be free of any political ideology in much the same way he/she would be free of religious ideology. It is what drew me to this forum in the first place 20+ years ago. Things seem to have changed.

The problem is that it's no longer left vs right. It's sane vs insane.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We all have ideological differences but some care a whole lot more about their sacred party than independents do. There would be fewer independents if there were more and better party choices. For example, which party does one favor if they are extremely pro choice yet also in favor of the 1sr and 2nd Amendments? You just can not lump a bunch of positions on either side and expect everyone to be totally party loyal. Yet most on this board act that exact way. Furthermore the parties themselves are changing and evolving from what they used to represent.

I believe most of the problems not getting along has more to do with weakness of our political system and less to do with the independants. You need to give them a break. They are actually the peace makers.

The left is more friendly to the 1st than the right. The right pretends to be for free speech but they really mean to not be called on their lies. Shitter is very willing to censor these days.

 

[Toni]

I've lost track of the number of times I've been told that being an Independent makes me just as bad as the most rabid evil trumpsucker maggat fascist nazi to ever breathe.

I consider myself to be independent as well.

They say that during the French Revolution the independents and peacemakers were the very first to lose their heads. Because rather than seeing your independent idea's both sides thing you are completely against them.

Americans claiming to be "independents" but are not politically independent are quite common. See this Pew Research article:

Political Independents: Who They Are, What They Think​

Independents often are portrayed as political free agents with the potential to alleviate the nation’s rigid partisan divisions. Yet the reality is that most independents are not all that “independent” politically. And the small share of Americans who are truly independent – less than 10% of the public has no partisan leaning – stand out for their low level of interest in politics...

See the article for more detail.

Independents don't lack opinions, nor do we lack policy preferences. Most of us lean more toward one side or the other, but almost all of us have a *mix* of positions. There are some conservative positions that I favor - gun rights is up toward the top of that list. There are some liberal positions that I favor - comprehensive publicly funded education is one. Almost all independents hold a mix of views that aren't all on one side or the other.

What makes us independent is a lack of party loyalty, and a lack of dedication to one side or the other. We generally tend to think that the sides are stupid, ineffective, and divisive. Most independents have a history of NOT voting along party lines. Our ballots tend to reflect a mix of choices. I've voted for a mix of presidents, some of whom were Republican, some of whom were Democrats, some were Third Parties. I've tended toward Republican senators and Democrat representatives. I tend toward more liberal candidates in social and educational roles within my state, and more conservative candidates in fiscal and judiciary roles. I've never voted a single party straight down the line, because my mix of personal values doesn't lend itself to that... and I think it's just plain dumb to do so.

I'm absolutely NOT interested in having a single party have dominance in government. I WANT a mix, even if it's a contentious mix.

I spent a bunch of years claiming I was an independent. I like that word: independent, and I like to think of myself as independent and an independent thinker I have voted for GOP candidates ( ok, once) and third part candidates who had something I could latch onto when I disliked major party candidates.

And then I grew up, recognizing that every protest vote was in essence, a vote for the worst candidate. Politics really is about compromise and trade offs and working, sometimes ever so incrementally towards the best solutions. As long as people actually participate and don’t dodge the tough question by not voting or voting fur some third part candidate because everybody will know that was a protest vote and that will really wake people up and shake up the system.

Instead it’s just allowed wedge issues to drive parties apart, working for their own special version of The Greater Good. And it’s created opportunities fur dark money and big bucks donors to buy legislators who will fund their pet projects —and leave the wedge issues to inflame passions and keep the money flowing. Not to the people of course. Like power that has gotten siphoned away to a handful of people who have neither the guts nor the interest in stepping into the light and trying to reach best solutions for anyone other than themselves.

I absolutely do not mean that independent voters need to grow up and change how they look at the political process(es). But for me, that’s what it was: growing up and getting over myself. I’ve given up thinking any one party or candidate will do everything I think is the RIGHT THING—or my version of the right thing.

So I look for the bigger, more over-reaching policies and ideas and direction.

But sometimes, I absolutely vote against a particular candidate. 100% the Republican Party has convinced me to never, ever even consider supporting any candidate they put forth. For now, that means I’m voting blue no matter who. I don’t know that that will be permanent but for now, that’s my guiding principle. There is no perfect candidate nor perfect platform and anyhow, it really does depend on the details that get worked out behind closed doors, hashed and rehashed, interpreted by states and courts.

 

[bilby]

For example, which party does one favor if they are extremely pro choice yet also in favor of the 1sr and 2nd Amendments?

The Democratic Party.

Obviously.

Very obviously.

 

[RVonse]

I'd prefer straight D over a mix or straight R.

One party rule? Are you sure? That sounds more like the Peoples Republic of China than democracy to me.

if anything there needs to be more party's and more choices. Not monopoly in government. Even if you might believe one of the current party's is insane.

 

[laughing dog]

I'd prefer straight D over a mix or straight R.

One party rule? Are you sure? That sounds more like the Peoples Republic of China than democracy to me.

if anything there needs to be more party's and more choices. Not monopoly in government. Even if you might believe one of the current party's is insane.

“One party rule”? The Democrats are not some hive mind monolith like the Chinese Communist Party, Dissenters in the Democratic party are not arrested.

Right now, the GOP is in thrall to its insane wing - the wing people like you have enabled by helping elect Trump ad POTUS. How does allowing the insane govern help matters?

 

[Toni]

I'd prefer straight D over a mix or straight R.

One party rule? Are you sure? That sounds more like the Peoples Republic of China than democracy to me.

if anything there needs to be more party's and more choices. Not monopoly in government. Even if you might believe one of the current party's is insane.

It’s not one party rule if people have the freedom to choose which party they vote for.

A majority of D or R in either or both houses with the same party as POTUS does not mean one party rule. The other party still has a voice and still affects what legislation gets written, amended, passed. Within every party in the US is a diversity of opinion, motivation, needs, wants, philosophies. Admittedly these days the GOP legislators seem to vote lock step together, but that does not have to be the case. Outside de the elected officials there is a veritable tsunami of prominent GOP voices speaking out against Trump and the dangers of a second term, particularly among those who worked most closely with Trump.

 

[RVonse]

I'd prefer straight D over a mix or straight R.

One party rule? Are you sure? That sounds more like the Peoples Republic of China than democracy to me.

if anything there needs to be more party's and more choices. Not monopoly in government. Even if you might believe one of the current party's is insane.

“One party rule”? The Democrats are not some hive mind monolith like the Chinese Communist Party,

Really? Who picked Kamala to be the Democrats POTUS nominee? And for that matter, who decided Joe Biden should not remain in the running?

If not for the electoral college we would already be in a 1 party state. You might enjoy having only 1 party today since you like being a Democrat today, but that could and probably would change in the future which is when there will be nothing that can be done at that point.

 

[RVonse]

I'd prefer straight D over a mix or straight R.

One party rule? Are you sure? That sounds more like the Peoples Republic of China than democracy to me.

if anything there needs to be more party's and more choices. Not monopoly in government. Even if you might believe one of the current party's is insane.

It’s not one party rule if people have the freedom to choose which party they vote for.

A majority of D or R in either or both houses with the same party as POTUS does not mean one party rule. The other party still has a voice and still affects what legislation gets written, amended, passed. Within every party in the US is a diversity of opinion, motivation, needs, wants, philosophies. Admittedly these days the GOP legislators seem to vote lock step together, but that does not have to be the case. Outside de the elected officials there is a veritable tsunami of prominent GOP voices speaking out against Trump and the dangers of a second term, particularly among those who worked most closely with Trump.

This is how it will happen:

 

[laughing dog]

I'd prefer straight D over a mix or straight R.

One party rule? Are you sure? That sounds more like the Peoples Republic of China than democracy to me.

if anything there needs to be more party's and more choices. Not monopoly in government. Even if you might believe one of the current party's is insane.

It’s not one party rule if people have the freedom to choose which party they vote for.

A majority of D or R in either or both houses with the same party as POTUS does not mean one party rule. The other party still has a voice and still affects what legislation gets written, amended, passed. Within every party in the US is a diversity of opinion, motivation, needs, wants, philosophies. Admittedly these days the GOP legislators seem to vote lock step together, but that does not have to be the case. Outside de the elected officials there is a veritable tsunami of prominent GOP voices speaking out against Trump and the dangers of a second term, particularly among those who worked most closely with Trump.

This is how it will happen:

How what happens? Are you aware that many naturalized citizens from Central and South America are more conservative and tend to vote Republican?

And how does DEMOCRACY end when people vote?

Really, your responses are irrational.

 

[laughing dog]

I'd prefer straight D over a mix or straight R.

One party rule? Are you sure? That sounds more like the Peoples Republic of China than democracy to me.

if anything there needs to be more party's and more choices. Not monopoly in government. Even if you might believe one of the current party's is insane.

“One party rule”? The Democrats are not some hive mind monolith like the Chinese Communist Party,

Really? Who picked Kamala to be the Democrats POTUS nominee? And for that matter, who decided Joe Biden should not remain in the running?

If not for the electoral college we would already be in a 1 party state. You might like having only 1 party today since you like being a Democrat today, but that could and probably would change in the future and that is when there will be nothing that can be done at that point.

How is a party choosing its candidate evidence of an one party STATE?
You do realize that it wasn't until the 1968 that primaries played virtually no role in either major party's choice of candidate for POTUS. Are you seriously claiming the US was a one party state since its inception?