Traitor Watch - The 45 & 47 Thread

G.B.Blackrock

Well-known member
Citizen
It's just weird because where you'd think they'd be like "The Left calls us Nazis because they are out of ideas", some of them just go "Yeah, what of it?"
In a related vein, I'm getting tired of folks saying (in essence) "stop calling us names. That's why we didn't vote for you."

I can acknowledge that people don't respond well to being told they're awful people without agreeing that, when certain people (especially the leaders) are awful, no one should tell the truth and say so.
 
Last edited:

G.B.Blackrock

Well-known member
Citizen
All I’m asking for is a bit of fairness in thread titles. It makes this place less welcoming for someone who doesn’t share a certain point of view. I try to treat all sides with respect. All opinions are welcome in my book and healthy debate is a good thing. I don’t think this name calling and “grab the pitchforks” attitude does anyone any good.

I’d say it never used to be like this, but maybe I just didn’t notice it when my politics leaned left. Who knows for sure? All I know is that I’m not someone who would treat anyone’s personal or political philosophy that way, whether they agree with me or not, and whether my side is in power or not.

I don’t think a little decorum is too much to ask.
All I hear is someone arguing for false equivalences. That's not okay.
 

G.B.Blackrock

Well-known member
Citizen
I’m going to bow out of the Politics forum. I probably shouldn’t ever have come in here at all. This really isn’t a place for opposing viewpoints.
You can voice other viewpoints, but if you fail to acknowledge reality, it won't get you anywhere.
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
All Deathy said was he voted for Trump because it was best for his family.
He also said that the thread title should be changed to "respect" the corrupt bigoted fascist who just got elected.

the Republicans will run someone more electable than Trump (because...that's literally anyone)
Normal Republicans are not more electable than Trump.

Even when he lost he got more votes than other Republicans since Reagan, and he just became only the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988.

I don't understand his popularity, but it undeniably exists.

, and Democrats will lose again. And again. And again. Unless they start listening to the people who currently won't vote for them.
Yes, they need to listen to those who don't vote at all, and to those who voted for other Democrats but not for Harris.
However, between those two, trying to appeal to those who don't always vote at all is more crucial than trying to change the minds of those who sometimes vote against them.

Meanwhile, we literally just saw proof that trying to appeal to those who never vote for them is just a waste of time. Because doing that was Harris's strategy and it failed to win any significant number of them over.

The idea that this of all elections was one in which the Democrats didn't listen to Republicans enough is just...where does that even come from?
They lost because they didn't listen to the people who were saying that Harris sounded more like Trump-lite than like the opposite of Trump.

Democrats need to talk to people who voted for Trump. They need to listen and find out why. They need to actively convince people why voting Blue instead of Red in 2, or 4 years is better for them.
Which points that need to be made haven't already been?

If we were talking about reaching a wide audience that contains people who haven't heard it all before, I would agree that making sure the facts get additional reach is obviously good.

But talking specifically to someone who essentially said that he does know Trump is bad for immigrants and LGBTQ+ people and just doesn't care because he is putting some other reason before human rights concerns? What's the point?
He already knows, and you can't convince someone to care by just repeating yourself.
 

G.B.Blackrock

Well-known member
Citizen
Believe me, I understand that article's feelings. I unfollowed someone the day after the Election when they posted two images on their feed. The 1st was one of those "We'll still be friends after the election because I'm more mature than that" images, and the 2nd was a wiener dog dancing in a "F**K HARRIS" T-Shirt. Disingenuous people exist, yes.

But that article was about "Why should we stay friends with Trump voters?" My point is more about "Why should we court their votes?" Cutting people out on a personal level is different from engaging with them on a political level. You don't have to be friends with someone to listen to their point of view, and look for a way to change it. An impersonal political forum online may even be the best and safest way to do that.
I've already said some things that make known I don't agree here, but I will absolutely say that, when I assert that having opposing viewpoints is still okay (certain people's statements notwithstanding), this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. You're actually engaging the discussion.
 

Ultra Magnus13

Active member
Citizen
FB friend:
How is the average voter so lacking in the faculty of reason that he can't tell someone is bullshitting when he uses phrases like "destroying America"? When someone says that his political opponents want to destroy the country they live in, that is an utterly moronic statement that should instantly disqualify its speaker as a person who can't be taken seriously.

Sure, someone might want to alter the country he lives in, or destroy certain institutions within that country, or even hurt other people, but nobody (much less a huge group of people counting in the millions) wants to actually "destroy" the country they live in. As soon as someone uses that kind of rhetoric, they're obviously morons, and it's deeply depressing to me that millions of people cannot figure out something so obvious.

Lol, this is literally the play that both the Dems and the Republicans ran this time. The difference being Republicans had a back up play, and Democrats went all in on "other guy will destroy America!"
 

M. Virion

Bent but unbroken
Citizen
Deathy didn't come into this thread in good faith. He came in complaining about the title, he even said he wasn't concerned about the content of the thread.

That doesn't read as someone wanting to engage or discuss his "opposing views" - it reads as someone who doesn't want to see words that upset him, and I doubt he had any intention of interacting with this thread past that.
 

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
Lol, this is literally the play that both the Dems and the Republicans ran this time. The difference being Republicans had a back up play, and Democrats went all in on "other guy will destroy America!"

Spare me the "both sides" nonsense.

Only Trump has gone so far as to call fellow Americans the "enemies of the people" and "enemies from within," while ranting about "poisoning the blood" of America and stirring up his base with talk of civil war. This isn’t normal political discourse: It’s cultish, apocalyptic fearmongering.

When a leader primes his supporters to see anyone who disagrees as a threat to the nation, he’s not aiming for debate; he’s laying the groundwork for chaos and violence. So no, it’s not both sides. One side is sowing paranoia and hate, while the other is just trying to solve real issues.
 
Last edited:

Xaaron

Active member
Citizen
@NovaSaber:

"More electable than Trump" by an objective, rational standard, I mean. I admit I have no idea how to compensate for his bizarre allure. If the Republicans ran somebody other than Trump in 2028 (and any "endorsement" by him is neutral here), will they gain or lose voters? What's the +/- of voters willing to vote for somebody less awful, versus those who vote for Trump literally because of how awful he is? I honestly can't math that.

Our divide seems to be you believe Democrats have to cultivate non-voters and 3rd Party voters to win, while anyone who voted for Trump is a lost cause. I don't / can't agree. Particularly after this election, there's just too many Trump voters to accept that ALL of them are unreachable "MAGA cultists". I think there are people who voted for Trump this round who have different priorities than the Democrat platform, but could be approached.

But trying to appeal to any Republican voters is dangerous for Democrats, for sure. Again, what was the +/- to Harris's campaign to receiving Republican endorsements, do you think? Did she win more Republican voters or lose more Democrat voters by having Dick Cheney support her?

I've said this before, but my mantra on the parties these days is, "Republicans will abandon principles for their guy, while Democrats will abandon their guy on principle." Republicans are often more "single issue" voters than Democrats. If being anti-abortion or "pro-working class" is their big issue, they're more willing to hand waive everything else the candidate stands for. On the other hand, Democrats tend to have a list of boxes you MUST fulfill. If a candidate supports only 9/10 boxes, Democrats often may refuse to support them on principle, to "teach them a lesson". This campaign season the obvious example is Gaza, but there's always something.

So, I don't really know how to address that...handicap...to get non-voters off the bench next time around.
 

Ultra Magnus13

Active member
Citizen
Spare me the "both sides" nonsense.

Only Trump has gone so far as to call fellow Americans the "enemies of the people" and "enemies from within," while ranting about "poisoning the blood" of America and stirring up his base with talk of civil war. This isn’t normal political discourse: It’s cultish, apocalyptic fearmongering.

When a leader primes his supporters to see anyone who disagrees as a threat to the nation, he’s not aiming for debate; he’s laying the groundwork for chaos and violence. So no, it’s not both sides. One side is sowing paranoia and hate, while the other is just trying to solve real issues.
Biden’s stark warning: The U.S. is threatened by its own citizens


When President Biden stood before Independence Hall in Philadelphia on Thursday night, he warned that American democracy stands at the precipice because of a decidedly different threat — one that, he said, comes from within the country’s borders. “Donald Trump and the MAGA Republicans represent an extremism that threatens the very foundations of our republic,” Biden said.



In a remarkable turn, the president of the United States was identifying his predecessor and his followers — a group that arguably includes millions of U.S. citizens — as the gravest threat to the stability of the 246-year American experiment. Not since the Civil War has an American president issued such a stark warning about the behavior and menace posed by fellow Americans.

 

CoffeeHorse

Exhausted, but still standing.
Staff member
Council of Elders
Citizen
Meanwhile, we literally just saw proof that trying to appeal to those who never vote for them is just a waste of time. Because doing that was Harris's strategy and it failed to win any significant number of them over.

She didn't really sell herself to those voters. Her pitch was "I'm not so scary. See, I'm friends with Republicans."

It's the same jive we saw in 2010. Congressional Democrats tried to appeal to Republican voters (at the expense of remembering to talk to Democrat voters at all), with a message of "Hey Republicans, don't be scared of me. I'm just like you. I have concerns about Obamacare too. But don't vote for the Tea Party guy cause he's krazy with a k." Maybe trying to appeal to Republicans was just a hopeless cause anyway, but I think a message of "Yo, here's a dozen provisions of the ACA you already agree with. My opponent doesn't think you should have those." might have been worth a try.

You want to get new people on board while telling the people who are already on board why they should stay on board.
 

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen

Ultra Magnus13

Active member
Citizen
The difference is that Biden’s words address real threats to democratic processes, while Trump’s rhetoric encourages distrust and division that fuels extremism.

We’ve seen actual violence from Trump supporters, like the January 6 insurrection, the plot to kidnap Michigan’s governor, and numerous threats against election workers and officials nationwide.

There were 2 credible attempts on Trump's life.....
 

NovaSaber

Well-known member
Citizen
Our divide seems to be you believe Democrats have to cultivate non-voters and 3rd Party voters to win, while anyone who voted for Trump is a lost cause. I don't / can't agree. Particularly after this election, there's just too many Trump voters to accept that ALL of them are unreachable "MAGA cultists". I think there are people who voted for Trump this round who have different priorities than the Democrat platform, but could be approached.
I didn't say everyone who voted for Trump is a lost cause; I said everyone who voted but didn't vote for any Democrat is the least likely to be convinced.

Out of those who actually voted, the ones the Democrats most obviously should have been able to convince but failed to are the ones who voted for Democrats in other positions but not for President.

But trying to appeal to any Republican voters is dangerous for Democrats, for sure. Again, what was the +/- to Harris's campaign to receiving Republican endorsements, do you think? Did she win more Republican voters or lose more Democrat voters by having Dick Cheney support her?
Well, the percentage of registered Republicans who voted for Trump is almost identical to previous elections, so it seems safe to sat the number of Republican voters it won must be very low.
How many of the people who didn't vote for her were turned off specifically by that? There's no such clear indicator there, and I'm not claiming that was especially high either.
I don't think Republican endorsements of Harris made much difference at all, in any direction.

I've said this before, but my mantra on the parties these days is, "Republicans will abandon principles for their guy, while Democrats will abandon their guy on principle." Republicans are often more "single issue" voters than Democrats. If being anti-abortion or "pro-working class" is their big issue, they're more willing to hand waive everything else the candidate stands for.
So if you think it's so important to reach out, why aren't you debunking the absurd belief that Republicans are "pro-working class", instead of chastising those who have no patience for those who believe such obvious horseshit?

On the other hand, Democrats tend to have a list of boxes you MUST fulfill. If a candidate supports only 9/10 boxes, Democrats often may refuse to support them on principle, to "teach them a lesson". This campaign season the obvious example is Gaza, but there's always something.
Even when the Republican is worse on the very same point.
I know. I was pointing this out too.
It doesn't change the fact that the 9/10 candidate would be better off trying to be a 10/10 candidate than deliberately downgrading to a 5/10 in hopes of winning over the people who support their opponent who is 0/10.
 

Teufel

Active member
Citizen
This is ridiculous by the way. All the way through the first Trump administration, there were self-identified conservatives regularly posting here. Just not conservatives who supported Trump. It's down to just Teufel these days, although I think the others disappeared when the forum reset (along with a few other posters whose perspectives I miss).

You essentially said Deathy and people who voted like him should be executed lol

But since you mentioned me, everyone's favorite non-MAGA conservative, I'd say ~80 million Americans including Hispanics, Asians, Muslims, etc voted for Trump at decades-setting record rates, excluding them is a recipe for a bubble. Considering the posts in the election thread from people certain that Trump was a goner or the people who were sure he faked his own assassination attempt or when someone was surprised when I told them Arab Americans would be voting for Trump in large numbers I think some folks here could use more alternative perspectives not less. Some of you may not like it but "Trump voter" is a broad category with a number of reasons why, not just the ideologically reassuring and self-satisfying "they're all MAGAT white supremacist traitors." That's just objectively false and simplistic, even if there are most assuredly a cohort of those worst type of people among them.

Also, Deathy G1 politely posting here does not make anyone "unsafe," that's an infantalizing attitude and akin to throwing a temper tantrum to pre-emptively shut down conversation. This is a forum for debate not group therapy. It might be one thing if he were actually supporting specific beyond the pale policy, but he didn't. And I can't find any evidence Trump has ever said he wants to stop all transitions at any age so it can hardly be said Deathy supports that by extension of his Trump vote. Instead Deathy has offered criticism of Trump here and there and was fair about Kamala's campaign (I'd say too fair, but hey.) That hardly seems like the kind of person P&R needs to eject or cheer their departure. His most egregious post was being a little cavalier with who he called Nazis, but that's a time honored P&R tradition.

I turned down a forum mod offer years ago and my stated reason was I'd feel obligated to be less bareknuckled in my P&R posting and pull punches. So I am by no means saying this needs to be a kumbaya circle. The very nature of discussing politics will always come with a bit of an edge and heated headbutting from time to time. Pressing someone on their votes, views, etc and expecting them to explain them is fair game. If you're not up for that or a thread title bothers you, stick to lurking.

However, I do think instantly assigning others the least charitable, most negatively stereotypical views is counterproductive and wrong. Showing a modicum of respect towards each other, which I think of more as not being complete flaming assholes as opposed to holding each other in high regard, is a bare minimum ask. Dogpiling with the purpose of driving others out is wrong. Anyone taking to direct messages to harangue someone is wrong. I'm not clear if Deathy actually received threats or he was just saying he wouldn't stoop to it, but obviously there should be zero tolerance for that. And certainly mods should lower the temperature, not join in on the dogpiling and personal insults.

Basically I think "A place to discuss political and religious viewpoints. All board rules apply here. No flames, personal insults, or baiting. Respect each other, and tackle the issues at hand, NOT each other." at the top of the forum are solid guidelines and don't need an "except MAGA, hug off, chuds" clause.
 

Pale Rider

...and Hell followed with him.
Citizen
There were 2 credible attempts on Trump's life.....

Neither of which were done by people with clear political alignments.

One attacker was a registered Republican with mixed views, while the other was unaffiliated and didn’t follow any specific ideology.

In contrast, the January 6 insurrection was driven by Trump supporters who were openly motivated by his rhetoric.
 

Ultra Magnus13

Active member
Citizen
By whom?

OH, you mean the REGISTERED REPUBLICANS that tried to kill him? It's great talking point... till you read the article and not just the title.

One was a "registered" Republican. In a state where you have to pick a side to vote in primaries.

The other was unaffiliated and had shown support for both Republicans and Democrats.

There registered affiliation has only minimal bearing.

You realize there are "registered" Democrats that participated and got arrested in January 6th right? Do we get to claim they don't count as insurectionsist because they are registered Democrats?
 


Top Bottom