Total topics: 42
In yet another example of how Trump cares about nothing more than what's best for Donald Trump, a deal to improve the situation at the southern border is possibly dead after Trump ordered his subordinates in Congress to not "give Joe Biden a win".
Will this affect how anyone supporting Trump thinks about him? How will MAGA spin this in their journey of self delusion into arguing that it's because Trump is figuring for them?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
There's been plenty of debate here over whether Trump should be disqualified but I wanted to focus purely on the legal arguments everyone finds most convincing, including one in particular that I came up with which I will lay out below.
First, let's break this down. The legal case comes down to three parts:
1) Does the 14th amendment section 3 apply to Trump?
2) Did Donald Trump engage in insurrection or provide aid and comfort to the enemies thereof?
3) Who and by what process is this decision made?
Part 1 is obvious in my opinion. To argue the office of the presidency is not an office under the United States is absurd on its face, plus this question was already brought up and resolved at the time the amendment was drafted.
Part 2 is a big one but ultimately pointless to debate until the answer to part 3 is resolved.
Part 3 is therefore where I believe the debate here is. So when it comes to who decides let me begin with section 5:
"The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
What I'm reading here is that it's Congress's job to determine the proper process by which this issue is resolved, however it appears no such legislation was ever drafted. This in my opinion strengthens the argument that section 3 is "self executing", meaning that it's up to the courts to decide based on the legal challenges it receives. This amendment is therefore no different than adjudicating any other ballot eligibility issue such as whether an aspiring candidate is 35 or an American born citizen. No trial is required in those cases, nor is one required here.
Being that Congress never did appropriate legislation to resolve this, the only option apart from self execution is that the courts don't have the authority to decide either, in which case the answer is that no one gets to decide and section 3 becomes null and void. That outcome is definitionally out of line with the constitution.
But wait...
About two days ago I heard a rebuttal that actually did change my mind and convinced me that Trump should in fact be left in the ballot. It went as follows: Although there is no official process to address section 3, this question was already adjudicated in Congress in Trump's 2nd impeachment trial. It was the exact charge section 3 describes and Trump was aquitted. Therefore the SC has no rightful business stepping in and deciding that their opinion on whether Trump is guilty overrides the very body that section 5 deems as the body with the power to enforce this amendment.
I accepted this argument until thinking it over today. Here is why I believe that argument ultimately fails: First is that the reason Congress used the impeachment process to adjudicate this issue is because that was the only process constitutionally available to them so it wasn't designed to address this specific issue. The Impeachment trial in the Senate is split into two votes, first is conviction requiring a 2/3rds majority which results in removal from office. The second, upon conviction, requires a simple majority resulting in disqualification. The bar for the first vote is intentionally high because the removal of a sitting president is far more disruptive and demoralizing to the country. The second vote has a lower threshold because disqualification is not nearly as disruptive.
So with that in mind, the fact that the Senate voted 57 to 43 when the only issue at play here was disqualification is notable for a number of reasons. First is that disqualification requiring a simple majority was intended for the case where a president commits any action that qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor. But the charge here is not any high crime or misdemeanor, in fact it is the only high crime that has its own special disqualification clause in the constitution so that right there tells us the threshold here could very easily be thought of differently. And in fact, section 3 lays it out:
"But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
In the context of this argument, this clause tells us a lot. First is that the framers of the 14th amendment thought this issue was so important that even if 3/5ths of Congress thought he should be on the ballot, that would not be enough to clear him. The second thing it tells us is that Congress is not actually the intended arbiter if this issue. Section 5 is clearly meant as an override, meaning the case would have been decided by the time it gets to Congress.
So given all of this, here's how I see it; The only two bodies in question that have a constitutional claim to arbitrate this issue nationally is Congress and the SC. The argument that Congress is the arbiter fails in my opinion but even if it doesn't that only hurts Trump. The most favorable answer to Part 3 I asked earlier is therefore that the SC gets to decide Part 2.
From there, is just a question of whether in the opinions of the 9 justices, Trump engaged in insurrection. While I have no confidence they would find that he did, from here is just a matter of facts and logic which I find undeniable.
So what do you think about this? And what arguments for or against his disqualification do you find most convincing.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Curious to know what podcasts you guys listen to and if anyone has any good recommendations for a podcast that typically has people of opposing views discuss their differences. I've come across a lot of good conversations discussing religion, but rarely see good discussions about politics. It's one of the reasons I like to watch Bill Maher, he's one of the few that welcome opposing viewpoints and isn't afraid to challenge people. Was also a fan of Chris Cuomo interviews. Podcasts tend to be better for general discission, just haven't came across very many.
So any recommendations? Feel free to drop some links.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Current events
The big headlines of the current news cycle include Trump calling his political advasaries vermin (echoing Hitler and Mussolini), and his behind the scenes plan to rid the government of all civil servants and replace them with loyalists who will do whatever he wants.
This comes in the wake of Trump mocking the brutal attack on the husband of a political rival Trump has rhetorically attacked many times before, calling for the execution of a top general over charges of not obeying his presidential will, and encouraging police to shoot shoplifters on the spot, not to mention January 6th. There is of course, so much more I could mention but I'd be here all day.
My question is to anyone who would even consider voting for Trump, regardless of whether it's for Trump or against Biden (or whoever became the democratic nominee)...
Do you believe Trump is a fascist and/or an authoritarian? Yes or No?
This is not a Trump vs Biden thread so please save your whataboutisms. This is a very simple question, you either see this, or on some level you believe Trump actually cares about things like democracy, the rule of law, the strength of US institutions, etc. Which is it? And if not, perhaps you can enlighten the rest of us as to how his words/actions are being so badly taken out of context. But if you're going to go that route, please answer the question first.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Interesting article from NBC News this week pointing out just how little support Donald Trump has from his own cabinet:
"NBC News reached out to 44 of the dozens of people who served in Trump's Cabinet over his term in office. Most declined to comment or ignored the requests. A total of four have said publicly they support his run for re-election."
I have a question for any Trump supporter out there or especially anyone who loves to accuse us lefties of TDS; what is your explanation for this? Is it fake news? Did Trump hire a bunch of liberals to lead his administration? How do you explain why the people closest to Trump whom he hand picked don't even support him?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
In the wake of the Trump indictment the "weaponization of the federal government" claims continue to be made as if it's just a proven non-controversial fact on the political right. I haven't sat down to read all 330+ pages yet but am really curious to see if there is anyone on this site who can explain how this report proves anything.
In my research looking at what others have had to say about the report this article from the Atlantic seems to put my findings best:
Rather than endorse the theory of a global anti-Trump conspiracy, Durham settles into a long bill of grievances against the FBI. The agency’s methods, he argues, were too aggressive; its agents were too ready to believe the worst about Trump. The FBI had only enough information to justify a preliminary investigation, not a full one—a distinction the report carefully parses for some pages. This, in the end, is the gravamen of the Durham report: The FBI overreacted to the available information about Trump’s Russia contacts and should have moved more cautiously before advancing to the next phase of an investigation.
What the report says is in essence a classic Miranda-rights criminal defense of a kind that conservatives dislike when it benefits a mugger or a car thief: “The cops messed up in this way or that, and therefore my client must go free, even though we all know he did exactly what he is accused of.”
From everything I have seen and heard, this article nails it. Here's a counter article from the Hill titled "Durham Report: The FBI is as bad as you feared, maybe worse" which begins by proclaiming that the conspiracy theorists were right. Yet there is absolutely nothing in this article supporting that assertion. The worst thing it mentions are Peter Strzok and Lisa Page's text messages and some guy who falsified a document.
Is this really it? Is this really what the political right thinks proves an agency of the federal government has been weaponized?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Attempting a more serious conversation than some recent threads...
I have a question for every 2A advocate who has uttered these words;
A five year finds a gun that was stashed away, decides to walk over to the playgroundold and play with it. Three minutes later a child is shot to death.
Question: Was that child who was shot to death killed by a gun or killed by another child?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I’ve always found statistics in gun debates useless in the sense that we will always gravitate towards the statistics which affirm the position we already hold, and there is no shortage of convincing statistics on both sides of the gun debate. So when discussing these differences I prefer to look at this from a much simpler standpoint; if we step back, any argument using statistics to favor less gun restrictions is ultimately arguing that more guns results in less gun violence.
This argument is of course absurd on its face, or to be more diplomatic, counterintuitive. So to be charitable, I believe that most gun enthusiasts who make these arguments fail to recognize the core of their own position.
To try and steel man it; the idea is not to reduce gun violence. This is about the rights of law abiding citizens to protect themselves, and their safety should not be compromised because of those who don’t follow the law. As Wayne Lapier famously stated “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”.
I have always been amazed at both how wide spread and also how childishly simplistic this kind of thinking is. Essentially, the world is full of good guys and bad guys. That’s it. There’s no nuance here we should be concerning ourselves with. No moral dilemmas, no good guys who made bad decisions, no “bad guys” who are also themselves victims, etc.
So if one has convinced themself that gun violence is the result of bad guys with guns, then the next logical step is to accept that the places where gun violence is at its worst are the places with the most bad guys. And what do you know, it just so happens to be black neighborhoods.
Acceptance of this narrative is the very thing the “woke left” is talking about when it points out racism in America. Telling someone they are a racist does not mean accusing them of hating back people and spending their weekends at clan rallies. It’s pointing to, among other things, a mindset where one views the black community as less than to the point where a problem like gun violence could easily be accepted as “their own fault because they don’t know how to conduct themselves responsibly”.
To be clear, one can find plenty of other reasons to oppose gun control so I’m not arguing that all 2A enthusiasts are racist, but when you step back and look at the national conversation, you look at who benefits and who loses from our unwillingness to do anything about gun safety in America, and you put them together, it becomes very obvious that racism plays a big part of it. If white neighborhoods were plagued by gun violence the way black neighborhoods have been I sincerely doubt the “bad guy with a gun” narrative would resonate anywhere nearly as strong as it does.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Myself and many others on this site have been saying for quite some time that the Republican Party is at its core not about policy but about sticking it to the other side. Ron Desantis’s recent stunt shipping migrants to Martha’s Vineyard is a perfect illustration of this.
So if republicans were about policy, what would this have looked like? Well, the debate here is over the southern border and whether we as a country are doing enough to stop the flow of illegals/migrants into our country.
It is common sense that if you want to get people to agree with your position you have to start by getting them to agree that the problem you are proposing solutions for is itself a legitimate issue.
So what the governors could have very easily done was reach out to blue states across the country and tell them they are overflowing with migrants and need help relocating them. This would have created a win win; if blue states say yes and take the migrants, they red state governors get to declare victory to their voters by showing how they were able to shift the excess migrants elsewhere. If blue states said no, they get to use that to win the national debate by showing that even blue states are saying we cannot handle this influx and thus making the irrefutable case that we need to tighten up the border.
But they’re not about policy, so what did they do instead?
Lured a bunch of migrants into a plane and then dumped them in another state telling no one… Except Fox News.
Anyone with a grade school level of psychology knows what happens next… when you piss off your opposition all you’re going to do is give them more reason to oppose you.
But when all you care about is owning the other side, this strategy makes more sense.
They’re not about policy.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Inserting article from the daily beast on how the republican disinformation machine works. Below is a snippet...
The entire right-wing ecosystem unleashed its full arsenal to discredit the 10-year-old girl as a liar, intimidate her physician, demonize liberals, and continue its march backward, undeterred, in its quest to make Handmaid’s Tale cosplay a reality—in an America that subordinates and punishes women for having the audacity to control their own bodies.
To achieve its goal, the right uses a now familiar four-part strategy.First, Republicans use any means necessary to achieve power and promote their unpopular, extremist, counter-majoritarian agenda.
Second, they create and promote disinformation and lies to frighten their base and Jedi mind-trick them into believing they are being oppressed by the actual victims.
Third, they create a specific villain, target them, and then attack them through scapegoating, smearing, and intimidation.
Fourth, they never apologize or back down once their lie is exposed, but instead, they double down, and in times of doubt, always pivot towards racism and fear-mongering.
Thoughts?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
So as many on the left would argue, Trump may be an embarrassment to the country and poor gasoline on every fire, but he’s an incompetent buffoon so when it comes to policy accomplishments he’s impotent. Desantis on the other hand is very smart and will be able to legislate a lot of the nonsense Trump talks about, so Desantis is more dangerous.
I must say I disagree with this. I get what people are talking about here but what I think they fail to take into account is that Trump may be an incompetent buffoon but he has changed the political landscape like no other politician I’ve ever seen or am aware of. Almost half the country now believes the election was stolen, that was unthinkable 6 years ago. White nationalists no longer feel the need to hide and politicians no longer feel like reality matters. Just say whatever you want and your base will follow.
If Trump gets another term he will completely gut all of our institutions and install loyalists all the way down the agencies. He will completely destroy our government from within, and the Trump cultists will cheer him on the whole way.
So while I think he has no real chance at 2024, I say Trump is worse. Wondering who disagree and why.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Something I’ve noticed that seems to be taking over American politics is the strategy of invoking thought terminating cliches as a way of manipulating the public. The most obvious example of this is “fake news”, whereby with one phrase that can be applied to any scenario, absolves the listener of any responsibility to hear the message and apply actual thought.
We see this again in the J6 hearings where Kevin McCarthy planted at least one poison pill in his selections and then used the rejection of that pill to pull everyone out and claim this is a purely partisan committee. So now every witness who testifies, every video produced, every revelation can now be dismissed as a product of pure partisanship. Right wing networks do not even cover it, using this as an excuse.
The same happened during the Trump impeachments where republicans would band together and all vote against it, then claim it should be dismissed outright because of the partisan split they created.
I’m wondering if anyone here either disagrees that this is a major factor in why we live in two completely different universes with regards to our news and information, and I'm also interested to see if anyone can think of examples of this on the left.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I've always emphatically disagreed with sources in debates being worth two points, especially when the most convincing argument is only worth three.
First of all, the reliability of a source is highly subjective, especially in today's political climate.
Second, everyone has their own opinion on what criteria we even use to judge sources. Some voters give sources to one participant over the other just because they used more of them.
Third and most importantly, sources are not always relavant to the topic and/or the arguments being made. Most debates come down to philosophical differences. The entire point of a debate is to argue your point, not ramble off a bunch of links that say you're right.
That's not to say sources shouldn't be judged or that there are not some debates where reliable sources are crucial to the debate, but I find that in most cases it just skews the point total in ways it shouldn't.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
DebateArt.com
Since gas prices and inflation are constant whataboutisms to almost every right winger when faced with damming facts about why Trump and the GOP should not be in control, I figure there should be a sperate thread on it.
To anyone claiming these are proof that voting for Biden and the democrats was the wrong move please answer the following:
1. Since these are both global issues, is Biden responsible for the issues world wide?
2. What exactly did Biden do to cause these? (Be specific and explain the actual impact)
3. What would Trump have done to prevent these should be have won in 2020? (Be specific and explain the actual impact)
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Curious to know what everyone's thoughts are. I'm also curious to know what Trump supporters think about the idea that he should be president again despite the evidence clearly showing his violation of his oath of office.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
What does "well regulated" mean?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Watching republicans scramble to try and make sense of their positions on gun laws over the past few days has been both head sctratching and infuriating. I just wanted to list some of the played out classics along with a response, can we all agree that these need to be retired ASAP?
Democrats are trying to politicize this tragedy
The entire point of government is to be the means by which society solves its problems. Mass shootings in America is a problem. Democrats are not politicizing this, this is a political issue.
Now is not the time to talk about gun laws
Easily the most disingenuous of them all. If not in the aftermath of a mass shooting, the very thing gun control laws are mostly aimed at deterring, then when the hell is the right time to talk about this? When have republicans ever came out and said “ok, let’s talk about this issue now”. Never happened.
Second, I do not recall anyone on September 12th 2001 saying not was not the time to talk about a response to the terrorist attacks. They know this is ridiculous.
Third, every single republicans making this argument has no problem talking about illegal immigration every time an illegal immigrant kills someone. Imagine if this shooter was illegal how the political right would be losing their mind talking about the border and how democrats are responsible for this.
The problem is mental health
Setting aside the notion that there is only one problem here to address as if we could not try multiple solutions at once, the US does not have a mental health issue significantly worse than any other developed nation. We do have more guns however. Way more.
Also, has any republican ever put forward a mental health bill aimed at addressing gun violence? I haven’t seen it.
But it’s even worse then that, because every time democrats propose making healthcare of any kind more accessible republicans are against it, so this might actually be the most disingenuous.
We should be arming teachers
While nothing technically wrong with this, it’s clearly the most absurd. We have already seen countless examples where security and police officers fail to properly engage mass shooters, but we expect teachers are going to get the job done?
This is the talking point which shows just how insane the Republican Party is. Rather than to address the fact that any would-be mass shooter can easily get their hands on military grade weaponry, they would rather turn our schools into military bases. This is where the GOP’s priorities are right now. It’s absolutely sick.
Retire these talking points.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Elon Musk recently claimed he would switch from previously voting democrat and vote republican this election claiming the democrats have become the party of divisiveness.
The GOP has no party platform, no policy ideas to actually help Americans and spends all of its energy attacking the left as opposed to providing any serious governing solutions. Their leading candidate for 2024 is still lying daily claiming the democrats stole the 2020 election. Their slogan which was even uttered on the house floor is a euphemism for fuck Joe Biden. The narrative among much of the party base is that democrats are the party of pedophiles, and all the party does is blame Biden for everything, even a baby formula shortage. But this is the party Musk will turn to…
Does anyone agree with him?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Over the past few weeks we’ve seen an onslaught of tapes and messages released publicly detailing what went on behind the scenes with both House Republicans and President Trump’s allies in the aftermath of January 6th. So what is the take away from all this?
Personally, nothing. Anyone paying attention knew all this already, it’s just jarring to actually hear and read it and recognize that this is real life. But to any rational person who hasn’t been paying attention the take away is obvious; the GOP at large doesn’t give a rats ass about truth or reality, they know how batshit crazy all of this is but they also know they have to go along with it if they want to remain in power. Also that right wing news is Republican Party propaganda full stop.
My question is to those who continue to defend Trump, argue that January 6th wasn’t a big deal, or pretend that left wing news is worse… how do you make sense of all this? How do you deal with the fact that all of the people leading the party you defend don’t even believe the ideas they are selling you? How do you continue to believe everyone else is suffering from TDS and you’re the normal one when the people on top of your own party agree with people like me but pretend not to just because they want your vote?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Really curious to know what all of the free speech advocates here think about Florida using the power of big government to crack down on private companies for saying what they believe.
Discuss…
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Much has been made lately about the apparent growing feud between Trump and DeSantis. And while most on the right still support Trump, many feel that DeSantis is a much stronger candidate and want him to run.
I have to say, I find the idea of a DeSantis challenge to be a terrible idea and think he should be kissing Trump’s ass instead. Here’s the reality; DeSantis can win against Biden or anyone else the democrats nominate, but he can’t or at least won’t win without Trump. We all know Trump is a narcissistic child who cares more about himself than anything or anyone else. If DeSantis beat Trump in a primary Trump would never let that down, he would never support him, he’ll claim the Republican Party rigged the primaries and then declare war on the whole party. And with all of that, he will take all his die hard supporters with him, which is a pretty significant portion of the electorate in a close race which is likely no matter who the nominees are.
Given this reality, I don’t see why DeSantis isn’t doing everything he can to get on Trump’s good graces and convince him that he could carry his torch forward. The only chance he has of being president (at least in 2024) is for Trump to willingly step to the side.
Thoughts?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Something I’ve heard from all ends of the political spectrum but especially on the left is that the Democratic Party is incompetent. This claim is normally made in comparison to what republicans have been able to accomplish despite the fact that the majority of the public is with the democrats on most issues.
I’ve normally pushed back on this claim. The way I see it, the democratic base is far more diverse in their political ideology than the republican base, so getting everyone to fight together is not an equal task on both sides.
But this year however, I’m seeing things differently. The republican playbook is simple: characterize and demonize. So every bill the democrats put forward is characterized as some government takeover of something and democrats are always this nefarious group trying to control everyone’s lives. It’s predictable and tiresome.
But democrats play right into this. Take voting rights for example, nearly everything in these bills has huge national support when broken down individually. But right now democrats are trying to fix everything in large comprehensive bills giving republicans the perfect opportunity to find something, anything within the bill they can point to in order to sound reasonable for voting against it. Why? Why not break up these bills into individual parts and force everyone to go on record?
It’s easy to claim you’re against a federal takeover of elections, not so easy to argue in favor of gerrymandering. It’s easy to say you’re against spending trillions of dollars we don’t have, not so easy to argue against childcare.
So are they incompetent here, or is it just me?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Why do conservatives so often point to states rights as justification for their arguments? This is used in a lot of things but especially for abortion - that it should be up to the states. I fail to see how a state government telling its citizens what they can and can’t do is any different from the federal government doing the same. Why not focus on the merits instead? It seems to me this is a cop out, and I just don’t understand why people go so hard to fight for things they can’t defend.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
As we approach the 1 year anniversary of the attacks on the Capitol I wondered how the DART community as a whole views the days events given everything we now know about what took place that day.
Discuss.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
For the first time in its history the United States has been listed as a backsliding democracy. The main catalyst here is clearly Donald Trumps war on the reality that he lost the election, but far more concerning is the GOP’s embrace of his assault on the idea of neutral forces to run elections and count the vote.
I’m just curious what my Trump supporting friends on this site think about this. Why anyone who might call themselves a patriot would support a man who is almost singlehandedly destroying the American experiment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Just saw the new Orlando Magic black and orange, like WTF is that? Feels like a completely different team, and they don’t just switch the jerseys, they have a whole alternate home court.
It’s just the latest example, but I feel like over the years and these last few in particular I can’t keep up with what anyone is wearing. I’ve always thought branding was very important in sports, and while this may increase jersey sales in the short run I think long term it is very harmful to the league.
Anyone else think the same, or is it just me?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Sports
Democrats recent proposal to tax wealth has drawn a lot of criticism lately, much of it I agree with. I have never been a fan of taxing someone based on their worth, especially since most of that is just paper wealth and could never actually be realized.
While much of the idea here is to raise money for democrats proposals, I think the greater problem democrats are trying to get at is how to reduce our massive wealth gap in a way that would benefit all Americans. To me I find the solution to this to be quite simple… significantly raise the estate tax.
Of course every time democrats talk about this it gets shot down after republicans attack it by calling it “the death tax” which sounds awfully spooky. My question is, is there anyone who can provide an actual meaningful defense of not raising estate taxes? I mean if you’re all about personal responsibility and pulling yourself up by your bootstraps, isn’t being rich off of someone else’s money the exact opposite of your stated core philosophy?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Don Jr when asked about Trump’s new social media site Truth Social:
“What we are trying to do is create a big tent, an open and free network for people to be able to assert your First Amendment rights”
Yet rule #23 of the site’s terms of service states that its users may not:
“23. disparage, tarnish, or otherwise harm, in our opinion, us and/or the Site”
Can we all just agree that freedom of speech is a nonsense issue and that when people rail against attacks on free speech in today’s culture they are full of crap?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
“Think for yourself” is a theme I’ve come across quite a bit lately, the implication of course being that you are not doing so but rather just regurgitating what other sources have told you.
This always amuses me. Take Covid for example. Is anyone on this site a doctor or scientist? Has anyone on this site rolled up their sleeves in a lab and performed the experiments themself? I’m betting not, I’m betting instead that the overwhelming majority of us get our information from sources we trust telling us how to interpret the data, or at the very least reports that someone else we trust performed.
In fact nearly everything we think we know, especially when it comes to politics is gained this way. It’s almost entirely about who we trust. There’s little way around that.
So with that said I have a few question for the group:
1. Where do you get your information from? What news channels are you watching, what publications are you reading, etc.?
2. How do you go about vetting the information you consume?
3. How exactly do you identify when you think someone else is not “thinking for themselves”?
And BTW, if you haven’t told us where you get your information from please do not jump in here and criticize anyone else. You have no standing to do so.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
It’s been almost a full year now since the election and we still have prominent politicians pretending they don’t know who won.
I’m curious to know what the temperature is on DART regarding this question. Do you believe Biden legitimately won the election, yes or no? If not, why not?
Obviously every left winger will say yes so I’m really just asking everyone else.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
I am constantly hearing this on Fox News and other right wing outlets. To me it just looks like another example of one side pointing to anything bad that’s happening while the other side controls the White House, then pretending it is not only worse than it’s ever been, but also pretending that what’s happening is entirely a direct result of the president’s actions.
Problem is every time I hear someone talk about this all they provide are anecdotes. Can someone please explain what the claim is exactly and support it? Would really appreciate the enlightenment.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
If congress fails to raise the debt ceiling and the US defaults on its debts, who deserves the blame for this - Democrats or Republicans?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
One of the things I take issue with in our current political discourse is the propensity of self identified conservatives to claim that the left just wants to silence their voices. This is or at least was mostly in reference to social media but seems to have grown quite a bit over the past few months and has become a widely accepted narrative in conservatives circles.
This narrative is of course false. The left is not trying to silence conservatives. No one is getting banned from Twitter over disputes about tax policy. This is about cracking down on hate speech and in particular, speech that can lead to or incite violence, or misinformation that is literally killing people. It just so happens to be the case that the vast majority of hate speech in our political discourse these days is coming from the right, to the point where the FBI has even taken notice.
These two very different things should be easy to distinguish, so why is it so difficult for so many?
I think the reason why is because right wing politics centers itself around culture issues and tribalism, leading to a sense of community in right wing circles that doesn’t exist on the left. But a sense of community in politics distorts the entire point. Politics is supposed to be about solving problems, not which side are you rooting for.
What this ultimately culminates in is a conflation of political beliefs with a sense of self identity, and that is where the issue here comes to light. When you tangle your sense of self identity to your beliefs, anything that opposes your beliefs is perceived as an attack on you personally, causing a very distorted view of every disagreement you observe. When another “fellow conservative” is banned from a platform all you see is that they banned a conservative, not what that conservative was actually banned for. And when it happens over and over again, now it’s undeniable that they’re just banning conservatives. The justification is not worthy of consideration because there’s no sense in looking closer at something that is obvious from afar, but it’s only obvious because of the tribalism present from the start.
Obviously conservatives will disagree. So what am I getting wrong?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Over the past year as the world has grappled with a once in a century pandemic we have seen an entire political movement against masks, vaccines, social distancing… pretty much anything we can do to stop or slow down the spread of COVID. These folks will often hide behind notions of freedom or whatever other excuse they find to justify their positions.
Actions taken include the banning of mask mandates, not only at the county level but also in schools. In Florida they banned cruise ships from requiring patrons to be vaccinated. And then there’s the nonstop onslaught on right wing television aided by these public officials against health experts, science, and any confidence the public could possibly have that this virus is real, dangerous, and that we have vaccines that can get us out of this.
Imagine the following scenario: You are a secret agent of a foreign country and your mission is to do whatever you can to get as many Americans as possible killed through COVID, so first, you manage to get yourself elected governor of an entire US state. My question is, please tell me what you would do to complete your mission that republican governors are not already doing.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
This is a talking point I hear constantly from the right; the idea that “the left”, or “the government” just wants to control our lives.
Is the idea here the democratic politicians pass, say a mask mandate, not because they believe masks will help slow the spread of the virus but because they get a hard-on being able to make people do something they otherwise wouldn’t have done? Do they walk into a grocery store and see everyone with their masks on and boast to their wives saying “see, I did that”?
Is there anyone on this site who can explain the rationale here?
P.S. this isn’t about mask mandates, I’m just using that as an example. Thanks.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Rudy to Ukrainian officials...
Are conservatives, on this site anyway, going to finally stop pretending there was no attempted quid pro quo?
3 days later Trump would go on to tell Zelensky "I need you to do is a favor THOUGH".All we need from the President [Zelensky] is to say, I'm gonna put an honest prosecutor in charge, he's gonna investigate and dig up the evidence, that presently exists and is there any other evidence about involvement of the 2016 election, and then the Biden thing has to be run out...That would clear the air really well, and I think it would make it possible for me to come and make it possible, I think, for me to talk to the President (Trump) to see what I can do about making sure that whatever misunderstandings are put aside ... I kinda think that this could be a good thing for having a much better relationship.
Are conservatives, on this site anyway, going to finally stop pretending there was no attempted quid pro quo?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
While definitions of God vary, some of its central tenants are that he is all knowing, all powerful and creator of everything. Let’s imagine the following:
God creates a bubble of reality unconnected to anything else. Within this bubble he creates a being that is all powerful and all knowing with regards to anything inside of this bubble, so this being is free to create anything he wants; Universes, multiverses, heaven, hell, etc. We’ll call this being God 2. But God decides that he will conceal all knowledge of himself or anything outside of this bubble from God 2. As far as God 2 knows, this bubble is reality, nothing outside of it exists.
Question: if you pray, how does the God you pray to know that he is not God 2?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Philosophy
In a recent thread I took the side of a known woke culture critic being labeled a racist to say that there was no reason to believe he is in fact a racist. In doing so I was myself labeled a 'probable implicit racist'.
The right loves to complain that this is what the left does - when they can't win the argument they just label the opposition a racist, but the right seems to be no different.
In another thread I criticized an obvious example of bigotry. Joe Biden's recent release of migrants included some who had tested positive for COVID19, this has lead to numerous complaints suggesting that this is dangerous and goes to show how little Biden cares about real Americans. These complaints of course come from the same flock who have spent months railing against mask mandates, social distancing measures, and drawing comparisons to the flu implying that COVID is no different. But suddenly, now that brown people from Mexico are carrying it, we're all of a sudden worried about COVID?
When pointing this out did anyone challenge my presumptions? Did anyone ask me to provide evidence that any of the same people took these same two positions? Did anyone make any real effort to defend holding these two positions simultaneously? No. Instead I was, you guessed it... Labeled a racist.
Is this really all we got? Is there a reason why we cannot have a reasonable conversation about what a racist is and what it takes to qualify as one? Is there a reason both sides of this debate seem to think that calling the other side a racist "wins the argument"?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
As if Mr. Potato Head and Dr. Seuss weren’t bad enough, yesterday Jim Jordan and Ken Buck sent a letter to Amazon demanding answers on why certain products were pulled off their website, claiming a pattern of anti conservative bias. Cancel culture has become a right wing obsession as of late, but it’s purely a product of the free market. Do conservatives still believe in it? If so, what exactly is supposed to be done about it and why do republican politicians seem to expect that you will vote for them over this?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
In a new Suffolk University/USA TODAY poll 73% of Trump voters say they believe the election was stolen. The same poll also found that 58% of those same voters believe January 6th was "mostly an antifa-inspired attack that only involved a few Trump supporters."
Let’s just assume the first question as our premise... the election was stolen and the rightful president whom the people voted to represent them will be kicked out of the Oval Office by hijacker’s of our federal government. Congress by certifying Biden would then be complicit in this. What should the people do? Head to the polls and vote out the same people who are manipulating the vote totals?
If this were true the only means left would be to take power back by force, which is exactly what Jan 6th was about. If Trump voters really believe the election was stolen they wouldn’t need to dissociate themselves with the attacks by absurdly blaming it on antifa.
I think this poll speaks to the logic pretzels many of Trump’s voters are twisting themselves in to hold onto their views. It’s one thing to argue with someone who doesn’t believe widely accepted facts about the world, it’s another to argue with someone who doesn’t even believe facts they themselves profess to believe.
Curious to know what any Trump voters think about this.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Watching right wing media fawn over Rush Limbaugh yesterday really got me thinking about something...
In one interview Dan Quayle was talking about Rush's ability to speak on conservatism and highlight its virtues, which he summarized about 3 or 4 times as "less taxes, less regulations". In another interview (I did not get the speaker's name) she described conservatism as "not being for handouts, but rather an opportunity to build your own leg up in life".
Regarding the first interview, what I realize is that "less" anything is a relative term. In order for you to be "for" less of something then someone else must first propose an amount of that thing. In other words this cannot be a value, it's merely opposition to someone else's values.
But I found the second interview more bothersome, for if this is how conservatism is defined then it is an entire ideology built on opposing a strawman. To define yourself as being against handouts is to assert by definition that anyone who does not share your ideology is for handouts. Setting aside that this completely misrepresents what liberalism is all about, this is more importantly and once again; not a value but merely opposition to someone else's values.
So I ask, if you are a conservative and you largely agree with what these interviewees had to say... what is your ideology "for"?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Curious to see where other members stand on various arguments being made in this trial. Here are some of mine:
“This impeachment is unconstitutional”
It seems clear to me that republicans are going to hang their hat on this because they have no defense of the president’s actions. Of course this argument itself doesn’t hold any water. The impeachment took place while Trump was in office, so the argument here is that you cannot *convict* a former president for their final actions in office, which is absurd. And as many have pointed out, this would mean that a president can simply resign just before the final vote and then be free run again.
“The president didn’t incite an insurrection”
Most who make this argument are pointing to the president’s use of the phrase “peacefully make your voices heard” in his infamous Capitol speech. This is classic cherry picking and ignores common sense. The president’s message to his supporters was that their voices have been stolen and that they need to “fight like hell or you’re not going to have a country anymore”. Who in their right mind would walk away from that with making their voices heard peacefully to be the take away? This is clearly said for plausible deniability.
“But look at what the democrats said”
Point me to the insurrection that resulted from any of the falsely equivocated words of anyone else and we can talk about whether they should be impeached as well.
Any others? Agree? Disagree? Why?
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics