The fall of Trumpcare

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ElectricFetus, Mar 24, 2017.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Uh, yeah, and? Are you reading your own posting?
    The GOP is full of people who believe that kind of bigoted and deceptive slander, yes - pretty much the definition of racist, wouldn't you say?

    Maybe you can get an idea of why religious conservative black people often refuse to vote for Republicans, by contemplating that ugly bs.
    Another fact! You're on a roll.
    There is no definition of "liberal" or "left" in which a bluecollar Baptist who thinks corporal punishment should be brought back in the schools and drugs should be banned from the country and Darwinian evolution is contrary to the Bible and abortion should be mostly illegal, is a liberal.

    Your apparent definition - that black people who vote Democratic are therefore liberal or left - is deeply silly. Apparently you simply don't know many black people.

    As far as the definitions being "decades old" - yep. Lots of words are like that. That way, one can use words to communicate meaning from one year to the next. Also, avoid getting confused about simple things.
    douwd20 likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. douwd20 Registered Senior Member

    That's the real non-answer I expected. Minorities from far and wide get a whiff of the bigotry and intolerance in the Republican party and run. AJ Jeff Sessions just this week decided to pursue the failed "War on Drugs" which is really a war on you-know-who(Reagan called them 'strapping young buck' aka black men)and the Republican base hears that dog whistle very well but so does everyone. So we can drop the pretense we all know what it's a racist "war" designed to appeal to the racists in the party.

    The Republican Party is made up of three big groups that are aware of each other and support each other while not really caring that much for each other.
    1. The plutocrats that want to bend government to their wishes in order to enrich themselves. They are anti-union, anti-tax, anti-EPA, anti-any-social-programs.
    2. The theocrats that want to enshrine Christianity in government. Abortion abortion abortion is all they care about.
    3. The xenophobes (anti-immigrants, bigots, misogynists & racists) and want government to make "their America" safe from those groups. These guys love guns as you need them to protect yourself from the all the folks they dislike.
    Conservatism started out as just Group #1 but that was never enough to win elections so over the last 30-40 years they've added Groups #2 and #3 in order to win elections. Groups #2 and #3 are just now becoming aware that Group #1 is screwing them economically hence the rise of Trump whom they think will help them to suppress Group #1 while turbocharging the hate. They have a lot to learn though since they elected a Group #1 member who has zero interest in them.
    cluelusshusbund likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I doubt they can become any more aware than they became when W&Cheney blew up in their faces.
    It turns out that awareness requires historical memory, so that the present can be compared with the past, and they have none left.
    They feel pain. They blame whomever they are told to blame, by the people they listen to, according to the stories these people tell them about what happened. That's about as far as their "awareness" goes - the pain of the Iraq War they are blaming on the Clintons and Obama, for example. Or "both sides".
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Just because: Detail of cartoon by Kevin Sears, The Charlotte Observer, 9 September 2015.

    I was about to split a hair 'twixt general and specfic on point two, about theocrats because of the underyling authoritarian tendencies; in other subjects I have occasion to recall a 1982 article↱ by Yvonne Haddad, and the idea that, as she wrote nigh on thirty-five years ago, "A growing consensus among an increasing number of intellectuals as wewll as the common peple suggests that 'the time has come to try Islam'". And, you know: Wait, what? She refers, in her moment, to a rise of authoritarian identity populism asserting Islam as its justification. History is littered with justifications for tyranny: Industry, progress, kindness, nation, tribe, class, and, yes, religion. To the other, especially in cases like we find among Abramism, why wouldn't tyranny attempt to justify itself with articles of faith staked on values greater than any other currency in existence? No, really: Tyranny in religious principle at the stake of one's eternal soul; this is hardly original.

    But it's also true that reservation of authority attends the plutocrats and xenophobes as well. In the end, tyranny requires a certain measure of all three. A tyrant requires the cooperation of everyone else in the racket. Without industry and economy—plutocrats—the tyrany is powerless. Without identity cause—theocrats—the tyrant has no leverage. Without xenophobes, it is much harder to identify the identity upon which the banners of cause are staked and flown.

    As history progresses, though, one important factor really will be awareness. Much like human frailty itself, there is an important functional difference between acknowledging the fact of a condition, to the one, and trying to exploit it, to the other. Once upon a time, these influences were so unimaginably complex that it seemed conspiratorial, even requiring divinity, to explain the interrelationships. Now that we can simulate the hell out of pretty much whatever mathematical assertions we might postulate, it seems possible enough to comprehend these influences that there exists a market beyond sorcery and tea leaves hoping to exploit these seemingly mysterious ways.

    To the one, Haddad was not wrong in her moment; nor, though, was she describing anything particularly unique. Kind of like a pop song about how only the names have changed.

    There will always be some analogue of plutocrats or oligarchs; there will always be some manner of identity intertwined with cause.

    You're not wrong; I'm not hunting along those lines. Rather, it just seems to me that this all falls in with a certain theme of the conservative initiative reserving the utmost benefits to the fewest possible, though that is a political description of history; we could also call it a symptomatic lack of imagination, and get no closer to practical utility.

    The present is a subcycle; it's hard to describe because that much American history, tradition, and identity is wrapped up in it. Something happened such that the authoritarian-Amrican paradigm itself broke, or, at least, feels broken. Which, in turn, sounds great to a lot of people, but if one happens to be identity-conscious and among the privileged classes, well, therein lies cause for alarm. The white, male Christian has been a looming question in our American politics for a generation, at least. At one point we actually called it "Angry White Male Syndrome", in part because it was so bizarre to hear these bastions of privilege absolutely bawling at the prospect of equality. There was even a level at which the most hardened feminists would be tempted to look at these macho bully-men blithering about how oppressed they are and mutter, "Fucking pussies."

    And it's still around. One of my favorite highlights, even here at Sciforums↗, is the 2010 screed by Michael Reagan about how the way to save America is to put women back in the kitchen. Seriously, to a certain degree that's what this is about. Even the Gay Fray, as I noted earlier this month↗, runs straight through the War of the Sexes. The last sixty years of social conservative losses have hit some iteration of white, Christian male: racepolitik and civil rights; feminism, health care access, rape, and domestic violence (a.k.a., human rights of woman); racism in education, employment, and law enforcement; the Gay Fray. It's just a partial list, sure, but some of us would simply wonder if maybe these blocs of waning privilege would be better off today had they not dragged everything out by kicking and screaming.

    These aren't mundane political losses. This is the upheaval and decay of a paradigm.

    And they just bit back.

    And look at the fucking mess.

    There was a moment, seven years ago, when one of our conservative neighbors responded to the proposition that here are the reasons why liberals hold conservatism in contempt is a perfect example of liberal arrogance for [straw man apparently equaling a lack of reasons]. Quite literally, we can enumerate our reasons only to be told this is a perfect example of how there's no reason for what we say. And these are the people who complain that nobody listens to them, who feel left behind, who go out of their way to make sure nobody can talk to them.

    And despite the rising industries of data manipulaton and presentation pretending to calculate diverse pretenses of zeitgeist, these blocs are still largely a disorganized mess. Consider all the people who feel a stake in getting hurt; that wasn't sixty-two million nine hundred eighty-five thousand white men alone who voted for Donald Trump.

    I think of this Latinx guy I know who will defend white supremacism because it is traditional; it's kind of like toadying up to a corrupt system because one has no choice, but not wanting to abandon it because at least one found a place to survive. And maybe after all this time I get his point, or, perhaps, theirs; suddenly I see a manner of overlap with the most curious amici in Obergefell, whose brief essentially came down to arguing they would feel demeaned for having done something else: It's this really weird tragedy by which gay men who married women↱ wanted gay marriage to stay illegal because marriage equality would mean they chose wrong when they married women ... or something ... because, really, that's how much it means to find a way to pass in society—but, really, to this day that amicus brief puzzles the hell out of me, and it probably will forever. Meanwhile, Christine "Not a Witch" O'Donnell was hardly unique in believing feminism should be the empowerment of women to fulfill their righteous place in service to their husbands. Horatio Alger Syndome↗, also known as the Tea & Crumpets Party↗, has driven a tremendous amount of self-inflicted harm against the working classes and petite bourgeoisie. Plenty of people, over the years, have paid into a system that harms them because it was their best chance at surviving.

    Interestingly, the closer we came to change, the more oppressed and ruined the politically empowered classes felt. What we have in the Trump election is what we hope history will show as a fire burning brightly just before it burns out. Yet, for the moment, we'll have to see. The underlying authoritarian temptation doesn't really have another mythography or mythopoesis to ride, right now. There is, of course, outright greed and class warfare, but that's a given. For Americans, an important question will be how many of that sixty-two nine eighty-five are really in it for that sort of outcome. I'm thinking the opioid-riddled counties that broke for Trump, at the very least, are about to suffer for their choice, or tantrum, or outburst, or whatever it was. How are those female Trump voters feeling about their health insurance, right about now? Then again, who says any of that matters? Kentucky Republicans apparently were sending a message not about repealing their Obamacare, but telling gay marrage to eff off.

    Which does bring us back to theocrats. And, of course, something about authoritarian temptation, but after all this I still haven't a useful thesis.


    Haddad, Yvonne. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v. 15, n. 4. September/October 1982.
  8. douwd20 Registered Senior Member

    I think they are "aware" but unwilling to let it get in the way of their hated for for "those" people who are not in their tribe. So while W&Cheney are kicking them down the economic ladder it's OK. Hate is probably a stronger motivator than income inequality and stagnant wages. For them those are "advanced calculus" topics.
  9. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    You're just trying to deny inconvenient facts so you can hide your own bigoted racism in the accusations of others.
    And there's the defensive refrain of racists. "But I have black friends."
    He says, completely ignoring the bulk of that post.
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    I denied nothing. Why are you making these claims about my posting? - it's right there, it's not like nobody can read it.
    Why did you post that?
    Obviously I made no such claim. Read the post.

    If you are interested, I do not, in fact, have a single black friend - so?
    Back when Texans were voting Democrat, and elected Democrat Rick Perry as Governor, I did not have a single Texan friend. But I did not run around claiming that voting for Democrats meant white Texans were liberals, or lefties. That would have been as silly as claiming black Texans were conservative when they voted for Republicans.

    Here, spot the liberals:

    You don't need black friends. You just need to get your head out of your ass, and quit assigning ideology to people based on their skin color.
  11. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Yes, everyone can read it for themselves.
    "..the most racial segregation and income inequality exists in democrat-controlled cities and Dem policies effectively perpetuate a permanent, significantly black underclass..."​
    You replied:
    "...that kind of ... deceptive slander..."​
    That sure isn't an affirmation of those readily available facts....hence your racist denial. What, are blacks not worth you checking to see if these policies actually help or harm?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    No, you'd much rather spout nonsense from your unearned sense of superiority.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Black conservatism is a political and social philosophy rooted in communities of African descent that aligns largely with the conservative ideology around the world. Since the Civil Rights Movement (1954-1968), the African American community has often identified politically with liberals. Black conservatives, then, became an oxymoron that often emphasizes traditionalism, patriotism, self-sufficiency, free market capitalism, and strong cultural and social conservatism within the context of the black church.[1] In the United States it is often, but not exclusively, associated with the Republican Party. Melissa Harris-Lacewell (now Melissa Harris-Perry) defines black conservatism as "advocating the idea that African Americans must be entirely self-sufficient, and demanding no official recognition of or redress for any historical or contemporary inequalities stemming from racial discrimination."
    This self-sufficiency and no demand for redress run counter to things like BLM.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You didn't mention any actual policies. You just posted deceptive slander, which you now refer to as "readily available facts" - apparently mistaking the fact that you typed something for a verification of its accuracy and honest intent.
    So? Your assignment of liberal ideology to black people who are not liberal is still there.

    And not necessarily. A lot of those black conservatives support BLM in general, or at least much of its agenda, for example. And a fair amount of the self-sufficiency and so forth is quite radical - Malcolm X stuff.

    Which may be how it comes about that these black conservatives reject the Republican Party in such large percentages. They look and talk like Trump voters in every way but one, but they didn't vote for Trump - maybe that one way is significant, do you think?
  13. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    What? You can't be bothered to look for yourself? Policies that are actually harming black people not worth your time to look up?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Show us some examples of black conservatives who support BLM then. Support your claim...for once.
    Minorities utilize more government aid, as a percentage, than whites. There's only one game in town promising more aid.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    So now other people are supposed to provide your content and evidence, as well as filling in the steps of your analysis and correcting your vocabulary and so forth, for you? I'll pass. Making you look like you're not a wingnut fool parroting the lies and deceptive canards of billionaires's toady "intellectuals" is way too much work for charity.
    So you refuse to multiply two of your own numbers together, and look at the answer. Ok, maybe you can't. Maybe we can get by with simple addition. Here:
    Remember: 47% of black people - less than half - identify themselves as liberal. 45% of them identify themselves as conservative. That's your claim.
    Let's assume absolutely none of those black "liberals" are victims of the delusion that voting Democratic or supporting BLM means you are liberal - that only white people are that confused. So their self-identification is not corrupted toward too-high "liberal" numbers, and your argument is not immediately circular.

    And let's assume that every single one of those self-identified "liberal" black people supports BLM. We know that's probably not true - we have some prominent black people who seem to be liberals expressing considerable doubt about BLM, comparing it unfavorably with civil rights movements of the past, etc. But this is your case - all assumptions should be made in your favor.

    So we have 47% of the black population completely within the 65% that supports BLM - that leaves 18%. 18% of the entire black population. Minimum. That's millions of people. That's 27% - more than a quarter - of BLM's support in the black community coming from outside the liberals. Minimum.

    Let's further assume that every black who did not identify themselves as either conservative or liberal in your posted survey - 8% - supports BLM. Nonsense, but all assumptions maximally in your favor.

    You still have at least 10% of the black population, absolute minimum, with the following two characteristics: 1) they identify themselves as conservative 2) They support BLM. Those four million people are my examples.
    No, they don't. They just use different kinds, on average.
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
  15. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    LOL! Even though that's exactly what you seem to expect of others here.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Not my claim, just a source I cited. Turns out it was a very small survey:
    The 2012 ANES pre-election survey includes 511 Black respondents. Using this survey, the authors report that 90% of African Americans identify as Democrats and 55% strongly so, compared to 39% and 11% of Whites. Yet, when the authors looked at a 7-point measure of ideology, only 47% of Blacks identify as liberal while 45% identify as conservative in the United States.
    One of the main characteristics of black conservatism is its emphasis on personal choice and responsibilities above socioeconomic status and institutional racism. In the tradition of African American politics and intellectual life, black conservatives tend to side with Booker T. Washington as contrasted with W. E. B. Du Bois.[1] For many black conservatives, the key mission is to bring repair and success to the Black community by applying the following fundamental principles:
    • The pursuit of educational and professional excellence as a means of advancement within the society;
    • Policies that promote safety and security in the community beyond the typical casting of a criminal as a "victim" of societal racism;
    • Local economic development through free enterprise rather than looking to the federal government for assistance;
    • Empowerment of the individual via self-improvement (virtue), conscience, and supernatural grace.[2]
    Black conservatives may find common ground with Black Nationalists through their common belief in black empowerment and the theory that black people have been duped by the Welfare state.

    On the other hand, some of the policies advocated by Black conservatives are in conflict with some of the key points in the common social, economic, and political positions that a high percentage of African-Americans favor. For example, black conservatives typically oppose affirmative action, which is supported by the vast majority of African American communities. They tend to argue that efforts to obtain reparations for slavery are either misguided or counter-productive. Black conservatives tend to be self-critical of aspects of African-American culture which has created poverty and dependency.[3] Moreover, black conservatives – especially black Republicans – are often accused of being Uncle Toms. Ebony in their May 2001 "100+ Most Influential Black Americans" issue, did not include a number of influential African Americans such as Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, Armstrong Williams, Walter Williams and, most notably, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. The Economist described the exclusion of Justice Thomas from the list as spiteful.[4] Black conservatives favor integration of African Americans into mainstream America and, consequently, disagree with black nationalism and separatism. Black conservatives are more inclined to support economic policies promoting globalization, free trade and tax cuts.

    According to a 2004 study, 13.7% of blacks identified as "Conservative" or "Extremely Conservative"[5] with another 14.4% identifying as slightly conservative. However, the same study indicated less than ten percent identified as Republican or Republican leaning in any fashion. Likewise, a recent[when?] Pew Research Center survey showed that 19% of blacks identify as Religious Right.[6] In 2004, the Pew Research Center indicated only 7% of blacks identify as Republican.
    Seeing as institutional racism is a crux of BLM, it is obviously not compatible with real, Booker T. Washington, black conservatism. Nor is de-policing, making victims of criminals, etc..
    28.1% may be a more accurate number, although I'm not finding any that seem to display a high degree of confidence.
    Proclamation in lieu of argument or facts.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  16. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You proclaimed, I proclaimed in response. Mine makes more sense. You object? Stop doing it.
    So as far as I can tell, we agree that millions of self-identified black conservatives support BLM. Whether they share your opinion of what a "real" black conservative should believe I don't know.

    I do know they are Christians and largely members of conservative Protestant sects (Southern Baptist, Southern Methodist), that they are strongly opposed to drug use and promiscuity, that they tend to use corporal punishment and advocate it in schools etc, that they follow football and basketball and baseball with great interest but seldom attend the theater, that military service is important in their lives, in short that they resemble white core Republican voters in every demographic aspect - except one.

    You insisted I use it, you based your entire mistaken "blacks are liberals" goofiness on it, and now that I did a bit of arithmetic you don't like it any more. OK.
  17. birch Valued Senior Member


Share This Page