US Midterm Election 2018 Megathread- It's Kavanaugh

[Shofercia]

I agree, and here's what you do:
1. Retrain the coal miners, and get them jobs of better quality
2. Once they're all retrained and have jobs starting next week, end the coal operations

Here's what you don't do:
1. Push for an end to coal operations, leaving voters in key swing states unemployed
2. Fail to provide a retraining program that they can use
3. Call them a bunch of racist, opioid addicts as a result of their votes

I agree with that, but as a pragmatist, I see the TPP as a way to counter China's growing influence, though I agree it needs reform.

I may not be a hardcore nationalist, but that doesn't mean we should abandon pragmatism.

The problem with the TPP, is that trade policies shouldn't be used merely to counter others; they should benefit you, either in the short term, the long term, or both. Merely hurting another country is not enough to justify taxpayer waste and job loss.

[Cannot think of a name]

I agree about not sitting at the stables with nazis, but the lack of civility is what is destroying our country.

I may not be a nationalist because of my religious beliefs, but goddammit I care about it a lot and hate to see it destroyed like this.

I'll fight for civility, justice, empathy, liberty, unity, and meritocracy until the day I die.

Will you?

No.

Civility is just another word for a lack of conflict. There's no point in being civil with Nazis. Civility means nothing when what you love is in danger. Civility is like chivalry, or honor - it's all just a game to make life more pleasant. When civility endangers the pleasantness, sanctity, or virtue of life, it's no longer worth defending. And unity means nothing if you aren't united with some purpose.

Tell me, if fighting for liberty meant that you had to divide a country, or be rude to Nazis, would you do it?

It's telling that the weak sauce pearl clutching cries for 'civility' always end with, "You start."

[Conserative Morality]

Not really. I would prefer being annoyed by these types instead of angry at them. Instead, a lack of willingness to face the reality of the situation or fight it has endangered everything I hold dear. But hey, I'm sure if we just compromise for another eight years, that'll really get us somewhere. Peace in our time!

Except you're not facing reality, the reality isn't that a fourth of the country has fallen to Nazism.

No, a fourth of the country just thinks calling Nazis 'very fine people' is okay so long as they're killing blacks and leftists. That's much better. /s

[Shofercia]

The problem with the TPP, is that trade policies shouldn't be used merely to counter others; they should benefit you, either in the short term, the long term, or both. Merely hurting another country is not enough to justify taxpayer waste and job loss.

I agree to an extent, but China presents a trade threat and is our greatest external threat.
We need to counter them, to last longer. Geopolitics ultimately also determines economics, in most instances, and I believe this is one of those cases.

China is not in it to destroy the US. They're expanding their own influence, in a nearby region. Had America not decided to invade Vietnam, right now the US could've been using Vietnam to contain China. Other options include making the US more productive, by improving education, i.e. see the Detroit thread. The biggest threats to Great Countries are usually internal, not external, as external threats of such magnitude bring down the wrath of the rest of the World on themselves.

[Telconi]

I agree about not sitting at the stables with nazis, but the lack of civility is what is destroying our country.

I may not be a nationalist because of my religious beliefs, but goddammit I care about it a lot and hate to see it destroyed like this.

I'll fight for civility, justice, empathy, liberty, unity, and meritocracy until the day I die.

Will you?

No.

Civility is just another word for a lack of conflict. There's no point in being civil with Nazis. Civility means nothing when what you love is in danger. Civility is like chivalry, or honor - it's all just a game to make life more pleasant. When civility endangers the pleasantness, sanctity, or virtue of life, it's no longer worth defending. And unity means nothing if you aren't united with some purpose.

Tell me, if fighting for liberty meant that you had to divide a country, or be rude to Nazis, would you do it?

I'm already rude to Nazis tho...

[Conserative Morality]

I'm discussing be civil with the right wing. Not Nazis or people defending them.

I fight nazis-and commies, anarchists, absolute monarchists, islamists, theocrats-all the damn time online and will do so politically, but I have a few "nazi" friends-some on ns, who's beliefs I despise but I'm tolerant.
However I support not tolerating them politically, but on a personal level, I separate it-partially because of me being accused of being intolerant and tyrannical and hypocritical if I don't tolerate them in the group, and partially because of me trying to reach out to everyone. The key is to see everyone as a potential ally, but everyone as an enemy, while willing to care about them and trust them, but keep that trust at a distance, but lambast them when they act cruel or evil.
That's how I see it.

If nine Nazis are sitting at a table, and you sit down with them, that makes ten Nazis. 'Inaction is on the side of the oppressor' - you should never associate with anyone who you are not willing to be associated with. I would count only a very small number of political labels as so abhorrent to me that I wouldn't want to be associated with them. "Neonazi" and "White supremacist" are two of those few.

[The Lone Alliance]

Except you're not facing reality, the reality isn't that a fourth of the country has fallen to Nazism.

No, a fourth of the country just thinks calling Nazis 'very fine people' is okay so long as they're killing blacks and leftists. That's much better. /s

If that's true then they've already won. Which is why I'm not believing you.

[Shofercia]

Except you're not facing reality, the reality isn't that a fourth of the country has fallen to Nazism.

No, a fourth of the country just thinks calling Nazis 'very fine people' is okay so long as they're killing blacks and leftists. That's much better. /s

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump ... in-blacks/

Trump's not anti-black, because he wants the black vote. Even PBS admits as much: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/e ... story-race

President Donald Trump’s long history with race is complicated. He is a man who was accused of racial discrimination multiple times at his businesses but who used his Mar-a-Lago resort to smash white-only membership policies in Palm Beach, Florida. He was among the loudest voices attacking the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president, but launched one of the most public Republican efforts in modern history to reach out to the African-American community.

Trump cares more about profit than political correctness, but he's not anti-black.

[MERIZoC]

sometimes I just wish they'd nominate someone I'd heard of....like judge judy

[Shofercia]

sometimes I just wish they'd nominate someone I'd heard of....like judge judy

That would've been hilarious! "Counselor, how do you make millions as an attorney, when I had homeless bums plead cases in front me that were smarter than you?!"

[Tobleste]

I didn't regard that as snapping, and didn't mean for it to come off that way. Just a strong statement that the time for civility has long gone past and people have no excuse for metaphorically sitting at tables with Nazis.

I agree about not sitting at the stables with nazis, but the lack of civility is what is destroying our country.

I may not be a nationalist because of my religious beliefs, but goddammit I care about it a lot and hate to see it destroyed like this.

I'll fight for civility, justice, empathy, liberty, unity, and meritocracy until the day I die.

Will you?

The issue is that many see fighting for justice, empathy, liberty and meritocracy and fighting for civility and unity as incompatible. Both parties see the other as a threat to justice (Clinton and Trump are each accused of committing crimes), empathy (dems see republicans as hateful and cruel while their seen as hating "real Americans"), liberty (dems fear threats to women's rights and minorities while republicans fear for their guns) and meritocracy (dems view minorities and the poor as being abandoned while reps the wealthy as being persecuted).

[Tobleste]

I didn't regard that as snapping, and didn't mean for it to come off that way. Just a strong statement that the time for civility has long gone past and people have no excuse for metaphorically sitting at tables with Nazis.

I disagree, fighting a lack of civility with a lack of civility will just make more incivility. Or as the adage goes, two wrongs don’t make a right.

...This would have been funnier if I had posted it in the RWDT.

What does fighting incivility with civility accomplish? Trump is the president of the United States. Civility clearly isn't helpful when it comes to winning and aren't the stakes a little high for democrats to prioritise being gracious losers?

[Tobleste]

The issue is that many see fighting for justice, empathy, liberty and meritocracy and fighting for civility and unity as incompatible. Both parties see the other as a threat to justice (Clinton and Trump are each accused of committing crimes), empathy (dems see republicans as hateful and cruel while their seen as hating "real Americans"), liberty (dems fear threats to women's rights and minorities while republicans fear for their guns) and meritocracy (dems view minorities and the poor as being abandoned while reps the wealthy as being persecuted).

I'm discussing universal justice most people can agree upon.
and add to repubs fear of liberty the fear of "genocide" too. I'm pro-life but not repub.
I think we can find a healthy unifying force, beyond the middle ground. This is how true historical progressives and free thinkers have done it, going beyond the left-right-moderate struggles of their time.

Funny thing I see is, leftists hate moderates more than the right.

Normally that's possible but I'm not sure if it's possible given how different the two parties are. Each party seems genuinely afraid when the other takes power. Parties in all countries disagree but the gap between those two seems to rule out common ground. Personally, I genuinely doubt the good intentions of anyone who is a consistent republican voter. I can't understand how anyone could vote for that party multiple times without lacking the basic sense of right and wrong that I have so I don't really care if republicans think I'm not civil toward them. I'm not alone in that view either.

[Cannot think of a name]

What does fighting incivility with civility accomplish? Trump is the president of the United States. Civility clearly isn't helpful when it comes to winning and aren't the stakes a little high for democrats to prioritise being gracious losers?

But they are alienating moderates and other potential voters.
This is about pragmatism and our ideals, both at once.

Are they, though? Do you have data? Not just an election result that you'll interpret or a dogged assertion that 'you guys being meanies is turning off this ill defined amorphous blob of people', but actual data? Do you have some numbers or are you doing what politicians do. When they have something they want they say, "The American people want..."

Show me. Show me the data. Show me how opposition to Trump has turned moderates in significant numbers into Trump supporters. If this problem is as grand as you say it is, it should be easy to track. Let's see it. Let's talk in concrete numbers, not suppositions.

[Tobleste]

What does fighting incivility with civility accomplish? Trump is the president of the United States. Civility clearly isn't helpful when it comes to winning and aren't the stakes a little high for democrats to prioritise being gracious losers?

But they are alienating moderates and other potential voters.
This is about pragmatism and our ideals, both at once.

So? Elections in America seem to be more about driving turnout than appealing to moderates.

[Cannot think of a name]

Are they, though? Do you have data? Not just an election result that you'll interpret or a dogged assertion that 'you guys being meanies is turning off this ill defined amorphous blob of people', but actual data? Do you have some numbers or are you doing what politicians do. When they have something they want they say, "The American people want..."

Show me. Show me the data. Show me how opposition to Trump has turned moderates in significant numbers into Trump supporters. If this problem is as grand as you say it is, it should be easy to track. Let's see it. Let's talk in concrete numbers, not suppositions.

Tons of people say they were driven away by their attitude. Some I used to know as bona-fide centrists and slight leftists.

Cool. So it's politician speak. "As I walk across this great land, people everywhere tell me, 'Dude, you need a new car.' The American people want me to have this car."

I thought as much.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm actually convinced there have been no polls on the topic, as I can't find any data.

Because it's Calvinball. You get to make up the rules as you go. That's why it's such a dogged tool of political speech. It's rhetoric, and as rhetoric it's a super powerful tool. Create that 'golden mean', that illusion that there is an exact center in the ideology. Then fill that with as many people as you need, the lauded 'moderates.' These noble people of reason are apparently swayed by the slightest change in air pressure. You use them as a bludgeon, "Ah ah ah ah, you can't do that. Moderates don't like that. Moderates like me, I do things moderates like. Do the things I'm doing. Not what you're doing. Not because I don't like it, but because moderates don't like it. You want the moderates to like you, don't you?"

It's not an argument. You're not making the case that you're right, you're making the case that some loosely defined group doesn't like you because you didn't wear the right hat or say the right thing. Don't use this tool, the moderates won't like it.

If you applied this kind of cross aisle 'advice' to another context, like an American football game or something, it would sound silly. "Don't use the nickelback formation. The spectators that aren't a fan of either team won't like it and you'll lose fans." Granted it's an imperfect analogy as all analogies are, try not to get bogged down in it. The point is that advice from the opposing side about how you should go about fighting them should always be taken with a grain of salt.

And if that tool is some sort of vague 'people I've talked to' or 'this opinion piece here', then I feel fairly comfortable eyeing that with extra suspicion. If someone is turned off by the suggestion that a president who has flaunted the emoluments clause, has increasing evidence that his campaign was tied to Russian interference to the point that he was either aware or tragically incompetent...if you're going to sell me on someone who thinks that the the Democrats are too beholden to identity politics that they'll join a party that wants to ban a religion from entering the United States and actively demonizes and entire country of people in order to foment support for even more exclusionary policies, that attacked one of the largest sports franchises for not suppressing descent...if you want me to believe someone making that sort of cognitively dissonant leap of logic...you have to provide numbers.

No one is interested in doing that. Because then we can't use that loosely and poorly defined blob to bludgeon your opponent with when you don't want to make an argument you just want them to stop hitting you for a second.

I don't buy it. I don't buy it when a politician tells me what Americans want and I don't buy it when someone injects themselves into a political debate pearls firmly clutched and pleas for moderation and ends that sentence with, "You first."

[Delta-9 Tetrahydrocannabinol]

Cool. So it's politician speak. "As I walk across this great land, people everywhere tell me, 'Dude, you need a new car.' The American people want me to have this car."

I thought as much.

No my point is, we are dividing society so much, that we forget we need moderates.
I can provide statistics and articles, but the stuff speak for themselves.
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/campaign/314934-why-im-leaving-the-democratic-party
http://observer.com/2017/04/moderate-democrats-progressives-senate-2018/

I can't find any polls rn, but I'm guessing they're buried, both sides of the media wouldn't want to make such polls available, as to profit their own party.

It appears the younger generation of each party is pulling their party more left/right....

Corrected**

[Fahran]

You know what else isn't very kind? Putting a man in power who has openly admitted to sexually assaulting women, has classed groups of people as 'rapists' who bring drugs to our fair, white country, and calls Nazis 'very good people'.

Fuck kindness. The time for kindness is long gone.

CM, as much as we might dislike Trump, we should love our homeland, our communities, our neighbors, and our families more than we dislike him. Contributing to the disintegration of our civil society, our republic, because we lost an election is counter-intuitive. Besides that, many people who voted for Trump did it for honest reasons. Practically all of the ranching and pipe-lining families I know for instance. They don't like Trump's attitude toward women or veterans. They were terrified that Clinton would harm their livelihoods. They felt alienated by the constant negative portrayals of Middle America, the places where they grew up. Why would they have given Clinton or any Democrat their support after all that? Not everyone is a seething bigot. Sometimes though, taking a symbolic stand against bigotry - when the other option is also pretty problematic - isn't enough to move them from their own interests and sensibilities.

[Conserative Morality]

Why not Communism or Anarchism?

Because as much as I dislike those two ideologies, I don't have a revulsion to being associated with them. It'd be like calling me a conservative.

[Conserative Morality]

If that's true then they've already won. Which is why I'm not believing you.

You aren't believing me because it would mean something unpleasant. Ha.

In any case, a fourth of the population is nothing. We've fought similar bastards with greater shares of our population.

[Telconi]

I'm discussing universal justice most people can agree upon.
and add to repubs fear of liberty the fear of "genocide" too. I'm pro-life but not repub.
I think we can find a healthy unifying force, beyond the middle ground. This is how true historical progressives and free thinkers have done it, going beyond the left-right-moderate struggles of their time.

Funny thing I see is, leftists hate moderates more than the right.

Normally that's possible but I'm not sure if it's possible given how different the two parties are. Each party seems genuinely afraid when the other takes power. Parties in all countries disagree but the gap between those two seems to rule out common ground. Personally, I genuinely doubt the good intentions of anyone who is a consistent republican voter. I can't understand how anyone could vote for that party multiple times without lacking the basic sense of right and wrong that I have so I don't really care if republicans think I'm not civil toward them. I'm not alone in that view either.

They can't...

[Conserative Morality]

CM, as much as we might dislike Trump, we should love our homeland, our communities, our neighbors, and our families more than we dislike him.

Why do you think I dislike him, exactly? Because he is a threat to my homeland.

Contributing to the disintegration of our civil society, our republic, because we lost an election is counter-intuitive.

It's more than an election. This has been building for a long time. Since '09, really. Arguably since the 90s.

Besides that, many people who voted for Trump did it for honest reasons. Practically all of the ranching and pipe-lining families I know for instance. They don't like Trump's attitude toward women or veterans. They were terrified that Clinton would harm their livelihoods. They felt alienated by the constant negative portrayals of Middle America, the places where they grew up. Why would they have given Clinton or any Democrat their support after all that?

Funny, because most people I know who feel 'alienated' by left views of Middle America have no trouble negatively portraying other parts of America. And they voted for a man who had no trouble negatively portraying other parts of America; indeed, that was no small part of his appeal. Trump didn't just spring up out of the ground as the GOP nominee, remember.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for these thin-skinned hypocrites?

I have family that can be counted amongst these people. I live in an area filled with these people. I love them very much (the family, not the people in this godforsaken area). But their political views are dangerous to the Republic and don't deserve the time of day.

Not everyone is a seething bigot. Sometimes though, taking a symbolic stand against bigotry - when the other option is also pretty problematic - isn't enough to move them from their own interests and sensibilities.

If you are unwilling to sacrifice your own interests for the Republic, why should the Republic be willing to harm its own interests for you? Generic you, not you specifically.

[Telconi]

CM, as much as we might dislike Trump, we should love our homeland, our communities, our neighbors, and our families more than we dislike him.

Why do you think I dislike him, exactly? Because he is a threat to my homeland.

Contributing to the disintegration of our civil society, our republic, because we lost an election is counter-intuitive.

It's more than an election. This has been building for a long time. Since '09, really. Arguably since the 90s.

Besides that, many people who voted for Trump did it for honest reasons. Practically all of the ranching and pipe-lining families I know for instance. They don't like Trump's attitude toward women or veterans. They were terrified that Clinton would harm their livelihoods. They felt alienated by the constant negative portrayals of Middle America, the places where they grew up. Why would they have given Clinton or any Democrat their support after all that?

Funny, because most people I know who feel 'alienated' by left views of Middle America have no trouble negatively portraying other parts of America. And they voted for a man who had no trouble negatively portraying other parts of America; indeed, that was no small part of his appeal. Trump didn't just spring up out of the ground as the GOP nominee, remember.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for these thin-skinned hypocrites?

I have family that can be counted amongst these people. I live in an area filled with these people. I love them very much (the family, not the people in this godforsaken area). But their political views are dangerous to the Republic and don't deserve the time of day.

Not everyone is a seething bigot. Sometimes though, taking a symbolic stand against bigotry - when the other option is also pretty problematic - isn't enough to move them from their own interests and sensibilities.

If you are unwilling to sacrifice your own interests for the Republic, why should the Republic be willing to harm its own interests for you? Generic you, not you specifically.

But people are willing to sacrifice their own interests for their country.

[Bombadil]

The other thing about Kavanaugh is in terms of 'drain the swamp' he's about as swampy as it gets, he is practically the official lawyer of the swamp.

As for originalism.. here's his interpretation..

In a dissent, Kavanaugh laid out a radical interpretation of the Constitution: that if the president takes issue with an existing law, he can simply declare it unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it. “Under the Constitution, the President may decline to enforce a statute that regulates private individuals when the President deems the statute unconstitutional,” Kavanaugh wrote, “even if a court has held or would hold the statute constitutional.”

Everyone knows originalism merely translates into 'our translation', and where that translation gives the President effective supreme power that's a bad interpretation, especially when held by a member of one of the supposed checks and balances on presidential power.