Author Topic: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration  (Read 4130 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #70 on: January 20, 2017, 08:25:36 AM »
Dude, don't bring my ex-wife into this.

Offline PowerSlave

  • Posts: 1601
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #71 on: January 20, 2017, 08:25:44 AM »
And as far as Trump having "ran things", he has absolutely zero political experience. Would you want an unqualified doctor performing surgery on you? I'll fill in the answer. Then why are people apparently keen on having an oblivious, unexperienced businessman run the highest possible political position in the US, maybe even in the world?

I voted for a funny little Texan with a funny little accent in the 90's that some people might have characterized in the same fashion that you're using to describe Trump. The problem isn't lack of political experience. In fact, that was part of my attraction to Perot in the 90's. I firmly believe that there needs to be a movement in this country towards a "non-traditional" mindset by our leaders on every level of government. A lot of the citizenry feels this way.

However, many of those that feel that way probably chose the wrong person to institute that change. We're about to find out one way or another.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19299
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #72 on: January 20, 2017, 08:28:27 AM »
And as far as Trump having "ran things", he has absolutely zero political experience. Would you want an unqualified doctor performing surgery on you? I'll fill in the answer. Then why are people apparently keen on having an oblivious, unexperienced businessman run the highest possible political position in the US, maybe even in the world?

I firmly believe that there needs to be a movement in this country towards a "non-traditional" mindset by our leaders on every level of government. A lot of the citizenry feels this way.

However, many of those that feel that way probably chose the wrong person to institute that change. We're about to find out one way or another.

This 100%.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #73 on: January 20, 2017, 08:35:00 AM »
Quote
Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for
Now this is just a damn fine point. One of the things that has annoyed me is that with all of the [very sound] talk about the democrats blundering their assessment of what went wrong, the right is also pretty faulty in it's reading of the situation. People who really thought he was awful immediately went into celebration mode upon his victory and fell right back into the partisan divide. I said after the election that neither side won, and still believe that. It's disconcerting that now Grabby is seen as a victory for anything. I don't think there's any reason to call his president illegitimate and I wouldn't delegitimize it either. I do think it's reasonable to consider it an anomaly, though, and treat it as an oddball experiment rather than indicative of the new normal.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #74 on: January 20, 2017, 08:38:25 AM »
Therein lies the disconnect. People who are fine with them not attending believe that the problem of Trump is big enough to warrant this kind of response. They believe it's a good way to send a message. The people who aren't fine with it, think they are doing as a means of pouting and playing mad because their candidate didn't win. So in the end, this boils down to how "bad" you think Trump really is. (Or a lot of it anyway)

But think that through, given what I just said.  What's the message?  We don't accept hate?  Okay, but it's not the haters that put him there.  it's the haters you HEAR about, but it's not the haters that put him there (any more than it was "racist" that some black people voted for Obama for no other reason than it was "time").  What's the message they're sending?  To that guy in Michigan that doesn't give a fuck about transgender bathrooms unless and until the economy is back where it was and he can afford his healthcare again, the message is "YOU WERE RIGHT, we DON'T give a fuck about you, one bit."

You have to know your audience.   

I really dislike Trump. I think he's guilty, in some ways, of everything I'm writing about here. HE doesn't know his audience either, and he has just as much to do to fix it as the people we're talking about now.   But reinforcing his message isn't the way to get that point across.  The way to get that point across is to do what we've done in the past:  work civilly, but make cogent, reasonable arguments why the President is wrong about some of his issues (he can't possibly be wrong about EVERYTHING, just like all Democrats can't be RIGHT about everything).  Make your case in the votes.  Make your case in the committees.  Make your case with your constituents in town halls.  Make your case in the bills you put forth for consideration. 

What some people are forgetting is that this was not a "one time thing".   Obama's term has bled seats on the Senate, House, Governor, and Court fronts, since 2008.  We've got another election in less than two years.  This nonsense is going to catch up with them. If Trump is even REMOTELY successful in this initial year or so, if the market continues to improve, if consumer confidence continues to improve, the message WILL be received, but not in the way it's intended.   I can tell you that in my State, Connecticut, a notoriously Democrat state with a Dem governor (head of the National Governer's Association, and one with national aspirations), the Governor and at least one of the representatives (Chris "I'm fine with whoring out the families of Sandy Hook" Murphy are both on thin ice.

Offline gmillerdrake

  • Proud Father.....Blessed Husband
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10489
  • Gender: Male
  • 1 Timothy 2:5
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2017, 08:43:56 AM »
Quote
Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for
Now this is just a damn fine point. One of the things that has annoyed me is that with all of the [very sound] talk about the democrats blundering their assessment of what went wrong, the right is also pretty faulty in it's reading of the situation. People who really thought he was awful immediately went into celebration mode upon his victory and fell right back into the partisan divide. I said after the election that neither side won, and still believe that. It's disconcerting that now Grabby is seen as a victory for anything. I don't think there's any reason to call his president illegitimate and I wouldn't delegitimize it either. I do think it's reasonable to consider it an anomaly, though, and treat it as an oddball experiment rather than indicative of the new normal.

People didn't vote for Trump....they voted AGAINST Hillary Clinton. I know I did. I said it all along before Trump was even the nominee that I didn't care who ran against her...I was voting for that person. For every vile thing you can muster to say against Trump it is magnified times 10 when applied to Clinton. She was, is and always will be a wretched person...corrupt....elitist...and her and her husband created a Cartel that people just voted against.

I wagered that 4 years of Trump will be better than 4 years of Clinton. Either one was going to be a one term President and have to deal with the horrid fallout from the ACA hitting full stride...the politically inflated and manicured economic numbers and climate being 'popped' and begin to show it's real maimed face....and have to deal with a country that is has never been more divided in history. And this division became even more gaping and more divisive while obama was in office....to use his name and leader or leadership in the same sentence would be a literary sin because he was far from a leader.
Without Faith.....Without Hope.....There can be No Peace of Mind

Offline chknptpie

  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2961
  • Gender: Female
Re: Democrats Skipping The Innuguation
« Reply #76 on: January 20, 2017, 08:54:18 AM »
I personally would not care if it was switched. In my mind, attending (or not attending) the inauguration is such a minor thing in the grand scheme of things. I would rather people (including politicians) actually act on their beliefs rather than pretend to support someone.

But it's not a minor thing when you state publicly the reason why you aren't attending is because you (not you personally, the Dems doing this) consider Trump a "illegitimate president" based on essentially rumors and hearsay. Words mean something and those words are very dangerous. That's the bigger picture here.

It may not be minor, but at least it isn't obstructing - it is basically a silent protest that has no impact on anything. The reasons, whether to make a statement about bigotry or illegitimacy, is basically a personal opinion to each person who is boycotting. I don't agree with deeming Trump illegitimate, but I do appreciate people making a stand against what they may feel is bigotry.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #77 on: January 20, 2017, 08:54:24 AM »
Quote
Of course it's not that.  Please.  That's the Dem mindset, the "I'm right, I'm better than you, and you're deplorable" mindset.

Not a democrat, nor american. Just someone who recognises a dangerous leader. I disagree with many republicans, Trump is the only one in a while I consider actually dangerous.

Quote
Don't kid yourself that "half the population are RACIST BIGOTS, and that's why we have TRUMP!"   That couldn't be more wrong.  That's Gene Simmons saying "OF COURSE our fans want a concept album about a young boy being drafted into the service of mankind by a bunch of old farts sitting around a dusty, wooden table!"

I don't. What I do think is that (just under) half the (voting) population are people who decided that the fact that the candidate being a bigoted, misogynistic narcissist who uses the rhetoric of fascists and spouts bigoted and racist policy ideas wasn't a deal-breaker for them. Doesn't really matter though, since I'm sure the people who will suffer under his proposed policies aren't going to be comforted by the fact that the people who gave him power aren't "really" racist/bigoted. It has the same practical effect either way.

Quote
Therein lies the disconnect. People who are fine with them not attending believe that the problem of Trump is big enough to warrant this kind of response. They believe it's a good way to send a message. The people who aren't fine with it, think they are doing as a means of pouting and playing mad because their candidate didn't win. So in the end, this boils down to how "bad" you think Trump really is. (Or a lot of it anyway)

A reasonable analysis. I'm just shocked so many people who purport to care about the constitution and democracy/freedom either embrace or display ambivalence towards a candidate that has minimal respect for those ideals.

I read your response - measured, reasoned, intelligent - and was about to give mea culpa of sorts, and then you finished by reinforcing my exact point.  I'm a licensed attorney who has worked as such for decades. I've done my community service, in terms of things like pro bono work and jury duty, and I hold the constitution and the ideals of our form of republican representative democracy as dear as any ideal I can name... and I absolutely display ambivalence towards this candidate.  For two reasons:  one, the ideals are embodied in the PROCESS, and despite Trump's clear carelessness with words (a particular bugaboo of mine; WORDS MATTER), the fact remains that it's just not POSSIBLE (in the literal sense of the word) to do half the things that people are "TERRIFIED" about.  Two, I have faith and respect for the integrity of people like John Lewis and (to an extent) Bernie Sanders, to keep things honest in a way that isn't adding to the problem.    Three, I recognize that what you call "ambivalence" isn't really that, it's more a re-framing of priorities, which happens cyclically throughout our time as a country.

We go in waves.  The pendulum swings, and it eventually goes too far, as Bush Sr. did in his term, pushing the "Reaganomics" approach past it's shelf-life and into a context where it needed more.   As Clinton did in his last two years, exemplifying the lawlessness and - as you put it - lack of respect for the ideals of democracy.   As Bush did in his last couple years, not closing the deal on his promises, primarily in Iraq, and in not defusing some of the feelings of alienation that his approach to social issues bred.  As Obama CLEARLY did in his last four years (especially) by playing games with the economy rather than actually working on it, and focusing more on tangential (to many) social issues that didn't impact the country while letting more serious concerns that DID touch the country - terrorism, cyber security, his own brand of lawlessness and contempt for democracy and freedom - run rampant.   Now we have Trump.

I don't know if it will be four years or eight (I hope eight) or even twelve (if a Republican wins in 2024), but we will fill the coffers; we will recharge our economic batteries, and while we won't come anywhere near the FEARS (the "TERROR!") of the naysayers, and we won't SLIDE on social rights, we probably won't see any major historic social leaps either.  And then the pendulum will swing.  We'll take a hit economically, and we'll achieve our goals socially and the cycle will repeat.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #78 on: January 20, 2017, 09:04:58 AM »
No sir, there's no "at least" about Trump or the people who supported him and are going with him to Washington, there's no "at least" anything when it comes to someone who conveys bigotry and misogynistic behavior, there's no "at least" anything with someone that uses fascist rhetoric. Put Trump aside, I've always said here that he doesn't believe any of the things he said on the campaign trail and this has all been solely about winning for him so he said and did everything he could to win, I believe he's amoral. But in the process of winning he has allied himself with a lot of really bad and/or incompetent people who are now his cabinet and advisers.I'm frankly more worried about those than I am about Trump himself.
I don't oppose the protesters or the boycotters, but Trump is legally the president, shit is shit, there really is no reason to force a positive spin on it and it would be a grave mistake to "normalize" his presidency or what he stands for, so freedom of press and assembly has to be upheld and utilized at all times, along with everything on the amazing Bill of Rights, that I wish my home country had in it's constitution. We just need to ride this presidential term out and hope nothing of a long-term destructive scale happens.

You're looking at this in too binary a fashion.  Too black and white.  Somewhere along the line - and since you're citing "friends", I can too here - to some people, even the merest HINT of "racism!", either justified or implied, has become a silver bullet.   It's not to all of us. I abhor racism. I think it's narrow thinking, limiting thinking and clearly against science.  Having said that, I don't feel it's my life's work to make sure there isn't a racist thought ever had ever again.  People will be who they are.  It is likely that to some extent, as some people are born to disrespect human life, some people are born able to do obscene and perverted sexual acts on film for money, as some people are able to take money from others without concern to the other's wellbeing, so some have thoughts and ideas that others might thing "RACIST".   Some of us (and to a small degree, I am in this group) believe that we've even gone past "bigotry" now and are treading into the territory where some special interest groups actually have MORE rights than the so-called "average" person. 

The word is TOLERANCE, not ACCEPTANCE.    For better or worse, we TOLERATE those that we disagree with.  Everyone has a bias of some sort.  Whether it's blacks, jews, Republicans, Christians, fat people, or ex-wives, we all have some bias.   I don't have to ACCEPT your bias (i.e. make it mine) but as we have pledged to be tolerant of those that have different skin colors, and have different sexual predilections, and have different religious beliefs, so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry". 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #79 on: January 20, 2017, 09:07:28 AM »
It should be noted that the one person who probably has the best reason to not be there was there, standing tall, looking smart (but, I have to say, very tired and worn).   Hillary Clinton.  I'm not a fan of hers (at all; I am in that group that would have gladly voted for a Democrat - including Bill Clinton - if it was anyone BUT Hillary Clinton) but I give her credit for being an adult, and putting her country first.   

Offline mikeyd23

  • Posts: 4107
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #80 on: January 20, 2017, 09:10:34 AM »
It should be noted that the one person who probably has the best reason to not be there was there, standing tall, looking smart (but, I have to say, very tired and worn).   Hillary Clinton.  I'm not a fan of hers (at all; I am in that group that would have gladly voted for a Democrat - including Bill Clinton - if it was anyone BUT Hillary Clinton) but I give her credit for being an adult, and putting her country first.

Well said, I agree.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16176
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #81 on: January 20, 2017, 09:11:45 AM »
It should be noted that the one person who probably has the best reason to not be there was there, standing tall, looking smart (but, I have to say, very tired and worn).   Hillary Clinton.  I'm not a fan of hers (at all; I am in that group that would have gladly voted for a Democrat - including Bill Clinton - if it was anyone BUT Hillary Clinton) but I give her credit for being an adult, and putting her country first.

Well said, I agree.

 :tup :tup

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #82 on: January 20, 2017, 09:14:41 AM »
And as far as Trump having "ran things", he has absolutely zero political experience. Would you want an unqualified doctor performing surgery on you? I'll fill in the answer. Then why are people apparently keen on having an oblivious, unexperienced businessman run the highest possible political position in the US, maybe even in the world?

Because we've asked politicians over the past, say, two decades, handle ever more difficult problems of economy, including the healthcare for 325 million people (and a 20 TRILLION dollar economy), advancing a transportation agenda for that same 20 trillion dollar economy, global trade, and politico-military issues between adversarial countries that impact the aforementioned global trade, and at least recently, they've a) showed a marked ineptness and lack of understanding on how these systems work (Bernie Sanders is factually WRONG on much of the basis of his platform, even if the platform itself makes some sense) and b) spent their time dickering about what bathroom we can use, or whether we should be ENTITLED to a cake with our preferred slogan on it.   

And some people have said - maybe it's time for a change in priorities.  Don't IGNORE the issues of the special interest, but perhaps it ought not to be NUMBER ONE when we're facing a healthcare program that fully 80% of Americans want either changed or removed, a resurgent Russia with a leader who is aggressive and not willing to wait for us to fail but in fact is encouraging us to do so, a China that wants to first own, then destroy us, and a terrorist group that wants to cut right to "destroy" and will do so 25 people at a time until they're successful.  THESE are - or should be - our priorities.  Not unisex bathrooms.

I voted for Johnson, because I don't personally think that Trump is specifically the guy that should be doing this, but I very much support the IDEA of Trump, and the notion of this form of change.   
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 09:28:07 AM by Stadler »

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5438
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #83 on: January 20, 2017, 09:15:56 AM »
Therein lies the disconnect. People who are fine with them not attending believe that the problem of Trump is big enough to warrant this kind of response. They believe it's a good way to send a message. The people who aren't fine with it, think they are doing as a means of pouting and playing mad because their candidate didn't win. So in the end, this boils down to how "bad" you think Trump really is. (Or a lot of it anyway)

But think that through, given what I just said.  What's the message?  We don't accept hate?  Okay, but it's not the haters that put him there.  it's the haters you HEAR about, but it's not the haters that put him there (any more than it was "racist" that some black people voted for Obama for no other reason than it was "time").  What's the message they're sending?  To that guy in Michigan that doesn't give a fuck about transgender bathrooms unless and until the economy is back where it was and he can afford his healthcare again, the message is "YOU WERE RIGHT, we DON'T give a fuck about you, one bit."

You have to know your audience.   

That makes sense. While I don't think the dems refusing to go to the inauguration sends that particular kind of message, what you bring up is, I think, a big problem with discourse and politics nowadays.

There is a ton of just complete dismissal of the other side. To focus on the left a bit, I'm all for fighting tooth and nail against fascism, racism, bigotry, and all of that. I know that there are plenty of actual racists in this country that likely voted for Trump. At the same time, I'm not ready to just condemn 50% of the country as unapologetic bigots because...that just doesn't fit well with the optimism I want to hold for humanity. It can't be reality, and I'm sure you agree.

Now this seems like a reasonable thing to say, right? Not to everyone. If I went to some of the most left leaning places on the internet and said this, people would be condemning me for allowing racism/bigotry/etc. to live on just because I'm afraid to hurt feelings. They'd say I'm part of the problem of complacency and that my privilege of being a white dude lets me do nothing without getting harmed. Many would say I'm just as bad as Trump voters because they don't deserve to be reasoned with anymore.

I can totally see where they are coming, but I don't think an approach that extreme is going to make the world a better place.

I guess my point in how it relates to your post (Sorry, I got away from it a bit. :lol) is that in the grand scheme of things, I don't think this sends as much of a "fuck you" message to the voters as all the attitudes and opinions you don't really see here on DTF at all. This is a pretty right leaning website obviously, but we do have people on both sides. But what we don't see are the very young, very left, very vitriolic side that seems to be growing each day. And I'm not saying it's all their fault either. These people have been backed into a corner, and now the claws and teeth are out. They refuse to stand by for any longer. The younger you go, the worse it seems. That's something I wish we could find a way to placate, otherwise the divide in this country is just going to get worse as the years go by.


/directionless rant


Edit:

The word is TOLERANCE, not ACCEPTANCE.    For better or worse, we TOLERATE those that we disagree with.  Everyone has a bias of some sort.  Whether it's blacks, jews, Republicans, Christians, fat people, or ex-wives, we all have some bias.   I don't have to ACCEPT your bias (i.e. make it mine) but as we have pledged to be tolerant of those that have different skin colors, and have different sexual predilections, and have different religious beliefs, so we must TOLERATE those that have different degrees of what constitutes "racism" and "bigotry". 

This is something I'd love to see a discussion of (maybe a good topic for another thread? I'm unsure). In relation to what I said above, people are done tolerating hate, and while I have problems with how they go about it, I see where they are coming from? Why do we have to tolerate hate? I know that legally, you have the right be an asshole, and that's what makes America great (though more and more people above the group mentioned above would question that as well), but why do we as individuals have to tolerate hate? Why tolerate racism and bigotry? Why not try to quash it in every way we can?

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19299
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #84 on: January 20, 2017, 09:19:13 AM »
Bill looks more upset/distraught than Hillary.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #85 on: January 20, 2017, 09:23:29 AM »
I read your response - measured, reasoned, intelligent - and was about to give mea culpa of sorts, and then you finished by reinforcing my exact point.  I'm a licensed attorney who has worked as such for decades. I've done my community service, in terms of things like pro bono work and jury duty, and I hold the constitution and the ideals of our form of republican representative democracy as dear as any ideal I can name... and I absolutely display ambivalence towards this candidate.  For two reasons:  one, the ideals are embodied in the PROCESS, and despite Trump's clear carelessness with words (a particular bugaboo of mine; WORDS MATTER), the fact remains that it's just not POSSIBLE (in the literal sense of the word) to do half the things that people are "TERRIFIED" about.  Two, I have faith and respect for the integrity of people like John Lewis and (to an extent) Bernie Sanders, to keep things honest in a way that isn't adding to the problem.    Three, I recognize that what you call "ambivalence" isn't really that, it's more a re-framing of priorities, which happens cyclically throughout our time as a country.

We go in waves.  The pendulum swings, and it eventually goes too far, as Bush Sr. did in his term, pushing the "Reaganomics" approach past it's shelf-life and into a context where it needed more.   As Clinton did in his last two years, exemplifying the lawlessness and - as you put it - lack of respect for the ideals of democracy.   As Bush did in his last couple years, not closing the deal on his promises, primarily in Iraq, and in not defusing some of the feelings of alienation that his approach to social issues bred.  As Obama CLEARLY did in his last four years (especially) by playing games with the economy rather than actually working on it, and focusing more on tangential (to many) social issues that didn't impact the country while letting more serious concerns that DID touch the country - terrorism, cyber security, his own brand of lawlessness and contempt for democracy and freedom - run rampant.   Now we have Trump.

I don't know if it will be four years or eight (I hope eight) or even twelve (if a Republican wins in 2024), but we will fill the coffers; we will recharge our economic batteries, and while we won't come anywhere near the FEARS (the "TERROR!") of the naysayers, and we won't SLIDE on social rights, we probably won't see any major historic social leaps either.  And then the pendulum will swing.  We'll take a hit economically, and we'll achieve our goals socially and the cycle will repeat.
I think you put too much faith in the system to mitigate and self-correct. The system is evolving, for better or for worse, particularly on a sociopolitical level, and in many ways it's doing so in a way to expedite change.  I believe you share my opinion that Trump is incapable of understanding the importance of the process based way of thinking that you and I have such reverence for. Lacking my overly cynical nature towards democratic governance, you think that congress, the courts, and accepted procedure will negate, or at least mitigate that major flaw. I sincerely hope you're right, but I honestly think we're in a different paradigm now. We've got an increasing amount of the voting electorate who disregard the path in favor of the arrival. We've got representatives who care more about the letter following their name than the best way of doing something. We have courts that are increasingly partisan by nature, hand crafted to render supportive rulings. We have an executive that thinks the best way of moving forward is to blow up the institutions that impede. Twenty-five years ago it would have been pretty easy to weather out a Trump, or a Nixon, or a Carter if that's your bag. Now, not so much, I'm afraid.

Consider this: I view the sole role of the congressional confirmation process to weed out the woefully unqualified. Party or beliefs have no bearing, in my opinion. Trump was elected and he gets to pick the people he thinks will do what he wants them to do; his prerogative. Congress only ensures that he's qualified, or not unqualified for the job. Based on what we've seen thus far there do appear to be one or two of his nominations that are woefully unqualified. Do you have any confidence that this 115th congress will block their confirmation? Seems to be that's a pretty telling test for your faith in the system.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #86 on: January 20, 2017, 09:39:50 AM »
This is something I'd love to see a discussion of (maybe a good topic for another thread? I'm unsure). In relation to what I said above, people are done tolerating hate, and while I have problems with how they go about it, I see where they are coming from? Why do we have to tolerate hate? I know that legally, you have the right be an asshole, and that's what makes America great (though more and more people above the group mentioned above would question that as well), but why do we as individuals have to tolerate hate? Why tolerate racism and bigotry? Why not try to quash it in every way we can?

I'm all in on this discussion, because it's important.  It should start with a discussion of "tolerance" and "acceptance".   I agree with you on all fronts if you put the word "accept" in for "tolerate".   You WILL NOT, you CANNOT, tell people how to think.   You can educate (I'm all for that).  You can say how YOU think (I'm all for that, within reason).  But you CANNOT tell people what they should THINK.   And in my humble opinion, a lot of what that "militant left" (for lack of a better word, but I say it tongue in cheek) is doing is exactly that.   Just as I can hear someone talk and think "wow, they're pretty dumb" without seeing their SAT scores, so can I think "Wow, that's just a fucked up thing to do with my dick".   I'm entitled to that, just like I'm entitled to think "Wow, that Justin Beiber is one untalented sumbitch."

We get to vote for the reasons we feel are important.  If that's ONE issue, be it gay rights, or white rights, or if it's a complicated soup of multiple issues that are influenced by a general point of view, it's not the purview of ANYONE - no matter how much they "think" they're "on the right side of history" - to say what another person, of sound mind and free will, makes their priority.  I think it is massively and potentially paralyzingly arrogant and narrow minded to make any one issue - including racism and/or bigotry - so powerful that it becomes a weapon to tell others what to think. 

Strong ideas will ultimately win, and we must have faith in that.  As Abraham Lincoln famously said, "both sides pray to the same God.  One side must be, and both sides may be, wrong."   We have to remember that idea, and some of this forced prioritization seems to forget. 


Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9232
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #87 on: January 20, 2017, 09:47:52 AM »
"When they go low, we go high!" Michelle Obama

So beautiful, so eloquent!

"Fuck that racist piece of shit, we ain't going!" - 63 elected democratic officials

Damn, don't go so high its hurting my neck to look up!


:neverusethis:
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #88 on: January 20, 2017, 09:50:17 AM »
Can somebody get Tick a washcloth?  It appears he's about to make a mess in here.

Offline Tick

  • It's time to make a change
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 9232
  • Gender: Male
  • Just another tricky day for you
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #89 on: January 20, 2017, 10:05:29 AM »
Can somebody get Tick a washcloth?  It appears he's about to make a mess in here.
I'm just pointing out what a ridiculous BS statement that was. That's all.
Yup. Tick is dead on.  She's not your type.  Move on.   Tick is Obi Wan Kenobi


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #90 on: January 20, 2017, 10:06:29 AM »
I read your response - measured, reasoned, intelligent - and was about to give mea culpa of sorts, and then you finished by reinforcing my exact point.  I'm a licensed attorney who has worked as such for decades. I've done my community service, in terms of things like pro bono work and jury duty, and I hold the constitution and the ideals of our form of republican representative democracy as dear as any ideal I can name... and I absolutely display ambivalence towards this candidate.  For two reasons:  one, the ideals are embodied in the PROCESS, and despite Trump's clear carelessness with words (a particular bugaboo of mine; WORDS MATTER), the fact remains that it's just not POSSIBLE (in the literal sense of the word) to do half the things that people are "TERRIFIED" about.  Two, I have faith and respect for the integrity of people like John Lewis and (to an extent) Bernie Sanders, to keep things honest in a way that isn't adding to the problem.    Three, I recognize that what you call "ambivalence" isn't really that, it's more a re-framing of priorities, which happens cyclically throughout our time as a country.

We go in waves.  The pendulum swings, and it eventually goes too far, as Bush Sr. did in his term, pushing the "Reaganomics" approach past it's shelf-life and into a context where it needed more.   As Clinton did in his last two years, exemplifying the lawlessness and - as you put it - lack of respect for the ideals of democracy.   As Bush did in his last couple years, not closing the deal on his promises, primarily in Iraq, and in not defusing some of the feelings of alienation that his approach to social issues bred.  As Obama CLEARLY did in his last four years (especially) by playing games with the economy rather than actually working on it, and focusing more on tangential (to many) social issues that didn't impact the country while letting more serious concerns that DID touch the country - terrorism, cyber security, his own brand of lawlessness and contempt for democracy and freedom - run rampant.   Now we have Trump.

I don't know if it will be four years or eight (I hope eight) or even twelve (if a Republican wins in 2024), but we will fill the coffers; we will recharge our economic batteries, and while we won't come anywhere near the FEARS (the "TERROR!") of the naysayers, and we won't SLIDE on social rights, we probably won't see any major historic social leaps either.  And then the pendulum will swing.  We'll take a hit economically, and we'll achieve our goals socially and the cycle will repeat.
I think you put too much faith in the system to mitigate and self-correct. The system is evolving, for better or for worse, particularly on a sociopolitical level, and in many ways it's doing so in a way to expedite change.  I believe you share my opinion that Trump is incapable of understanding the importance of the process based way of thinking that you and I have such reverence for. Lacking my overly cynical nature towards democratic governance, you think that congress, the courts, and accepted procedure will negate, or at least mitigate that major flaw. I sincerely hope you're right, but I honestly think we're in a different paradigm now. We've got an increasing amount of the voting electorate who disregard the path in favor of the arrival. We've got representatives who care more about the letter following their name than the best way of doing something. We have courts that are increasingly partisan by nature, hand crafted to render supportive rulings. We have an executive that thinks the best way of moving forward is to blow up the institutions that impede. Twenty-five years ago it would have been pretty easy to weather out a Trump, or a Nixon, or a Carter if that's your bag. Now, not so much, I'm afraid.

Consider this: I view the sole role of the congressional confirmation process to weed out the woefully unqualified. Party or beliefs have no bearing, in my opinion. Trump was elected and he gets to pick the people he thinks will do what he wants them to do; his prerogative. Congress only ensures that he's qualified, or not unqualified for the job. Based on what we've seen thus far there do appear to be one or two of his nominations that are woefully unqualified. Do you have any confidence that this 115th congress will block their confirmation? Seems to be that's a pretty telling test for your faith in the system.

I agree with all of what you wrote.  Not just to be nice, but in sincerity.  But I think that bolsters my point (and it makes my side bar conversation with Implode relevant). 

The same swiftness of change that makes us think we can tell others what to think about race and sexual orientation is the SAME swiftness that will get us Muslims in an internment camp.  And vice versa.  I DON'T think Trump shows the proper reverence to the process, and perhaps I take it too far (if the American people were to vote tomorrow - through the electoral college, since that's the process, NOT a majority - to be a sovereignty, and that Taylor Swift should be our Queen, I would, in theory support that unequivocally.  We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Not the "non-racist" people.   Not the "Democrat" people.  Not the "Republican" people.  Not the "white people".  ALL the people.   

I think it's very telling - and I'm going to step on toes here, I think - that some of the people that are screaming the loudest about Trump and the end of the republic, are the very ones that are more than willing to subvert the process - through social bullying, through activist judges, through any means necessary - to get what THEY think is right in place.  That's where the crux of my argument lies.  Not in "democrat" or "republican".  Those are old paradigms, and will likely be gone in 50 years (as the parties of Washington's, and even Lincoln's time, are now gone).  But the ideas will remain, as will the skeleton of the structure of our democracy.

We are MEANT to move slow.  We are MEANT to have a degree of gridlock, to avoid ANY idea from gaining too much traction too soon.   We're talking about "bathrooms" today, and I think it's a bit fucked up that we're making that our Waterloo, when 240 years ago, we were debating whether it should be okay to have fellow human beings in chains.   Yeah, that's an anathema in this age of Twitter, and when we think OUR pet idea is the best one ever, but we've forgotten that the structure is bigger than any one person, and by extension, their specific idea.  These things are content neutral. There is no "freedom of speech of non-racist ideas" or "freedom of speech for ideas the majority thinks are pleasant".   It should be noted here that there are perhaps more RESTRICTIONS on speech than there is allowed speech, but almost every one of them is CONTENT NEUTRAL. Meaning, they are independent of WHAT the message is, and are centered on the time, place and manner of that speech.  The famed "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is a restriction of TIME, PLACE, and MANNER.  Even "obscenity" is tied to community standards, so is less about WHAT is depicted, and rather WHERE and HOW it is depicted.

I feel that same way about the notion of "hate".  Of course it is not something to be encouraged, or promoted.  But when it occurs, it should be dealt with like any other idea, combated with ideas, not suppressed arbitrarily, based on some moving standard of what "offends".  it's not some magical thing that trumps our laws, our beliefs, our systems.  (And by the way, I say the same thing to Trump, Pence, et al.  This is not a declaration that any one of YOUR ideas are automatically right.  You have the same requirement of measure and caution and deliberateness.)

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16176
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #91 on: January 20, 2017, 10:07:09 AM »
I'm surprised I'm actually watching this.  Apparently everyone in my office is watching and it's on the TV in my data center so my coworker and I are watching too (well better than doing real work). 

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5438
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #92 on: January 20, 2017, 10:19:04 AM »
I'm all in on this discussion, because it's important.  It should start with a discussion of "tolerance" and "acceptance".   I agree with you on all fronts if you put the word "accept" in for "tolerate".   You WILL NOT, you CANNOT, tell people how to think.   You can educate (I'm all for that).  You can say how YOU think (I'm all for that, within reason).  But you CANNOT tell people what they should THINK.   And in my humble opinion, a lot of what that "militant left" (for lack of a better word, but I say it tongue in cheek) is doing is exactly that.   Just as I can hear someone talk and think "wow, they're pretty dumb" without seeing their SAT scores, so can I think "Wow, that's just a fucked up thing to do with my dick".   I'm entitled to that, just like I'm entitled to think "Wow, that Justin Beiber is one untalented sumbitch."

We get to vote for the reasons we feel are important.  If that's ONE issue, be it gay rights, or white rights, or if it's a complicated soup of multiple issues that are influenced by a general point of view, it's not the purview of ANYONE - no matter how much they "think" they're "on the right side of history" - to say what another person, of sound mind and free will, makes their priority.  I think it is massively and potentially paralyzingly arrogant and narrow minded to make any one issue - including racism and/or bigotry - so powerful that it becomes a weapon to tell others what to think. 

You're right. We have to find exactly what "tolerate" and "accept" mean. Sure, we can't tell people what to think, but we are also free to respond/react in the way seem fit. They are simply left to deal with the consequences. What constitutes as telling someone how to think?

You can't literally tell someone, "You HAVE to think this way." As if there's simply no other way around. Obviously in a world of free will, that's nonsensical.

But what if you say, "While you think this way, I will no longer associate with you." Is that telling someone how to think? You said yourself that I would be entitled to even consider someone a bad person for their beliefs. So what do you mean when you say "tell someone how to think?"

Edit: You just mentioned social bullying. This is something that's been brought up so much over the past few years here, and I can't figure out what's so bad about it.

What's defined as social bullying? If people have a problem with something, are they not allowed to voice it? If people don't want to support a company because of their practices, is that now bullying? Are you not allowed to post on social media about something you dislike? Are you not allowed to try to convince/rally others? What do you define as social bullying?

For me, I'd say social bullying is problem when you phrase something like this: "If you stand by and say nothing/don't spread this, then you are just as bad as ______." Or, if you say, "If you do/ believe [thing that isn't directly bigoted], you are a bigot and deserve nothing." That, I totally understand, but you and others seem to bring it up in a lot more situations than that.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #93 on: January 20, 2017, 10:48:01 AM »
You're right. We have to find exactly what "tolerate" and "accept" mean. Sure, we can't tell people what to think, but we are also free to respond/react in the way seem fit. They are simply left to deal with the consequences. What constitutes as telling someone how to think?

Well, when the consequences effectively chill thought by making the "dealing" a de facto infringement on their constitutional rights, it's a problem.  That's where the REAL problem is.  Not in the "hate" or in the "intolerance of hate" (which like you I understand; I've punched someone maybe three times in my life, and the last time was when a guy called my best friend a "nigger".  I hit him square in the nose.  I regret it in the context of this discussion, I was clearly wrong.  I was also young and drunk.) but in how the consequences have taken on a life of their own.  It goes to my point that "hate" doesn't allow "no holds barred!".   

Quote
But what if you say, "While you think this way, I will no longer associate with you." Is that telling someone how to think? You said yourself that I would be entitled to even consider someone a bad person for their beliefs. So what do you mean when you say "tell someone how to think?"

Edit: You just mentioned social bullying. This is something that's been brought up so much over the past few years here, and I can't figure out what's so bad about it.

What's so bad about it?  It chills dissenting thought, and by thought I mean a peaceful exchange of ideas.   When you have someone using the bully pulpit of social media to call even benign things "racist" it doesn't promote peace; it actually REINFORCES the malignant ideas by giving them an importance they don't have.    Do you HONESTLY think that Mel Gibson hates Jews any less now that he was castigated for his drunken rants?  Do you think Michael Richards is any less THINKING "n*****" even if he's not saying it on a stage?  Do you think Isaiah Washington thinks that T.L. Knight is any less an entitled "f**" than he did when he called him that a couple years ago? 

Quote
What's defined as social bullying? If people have a problem with something, are they not allowed to voice it? If people don't want to support a company because of their practices, is that now bullying? Are you not allowed to post on social media about something you dislike? Are you not allowed to try to convince/rally others? What do you define as social bullying?
 

It's not about voicing dissent. It's about forcing third parties to embrace your opinion.  It's about forcing people to act in ways they wouldn't to avoid that potential backlash, whether the backlash is justified or not.   It's about not risking anything controversial - forget about actually "hateful" - in order to make sure that record sales don't falter.   

Quote
For me, I'd say social bullying is problem when you phrase something like this: "If you stand by and say nothing/don't spread this, then you are just as bad as ______." Or, if you say, "If you do/ believe [thing that isn't directly bigoted], you are a bigot and deserve nothing." That, I totally understand, but you and others seem to bring it up in a lot more situations than that.

Which, of course is exactly what some are saying here, and exactly where the "deplorable" comment came from, but notwithstanding that, where it translates to action is where the tricky part comes in.  I use this a lot, but it fits:  TEND YOUR OWN GARDEN.   But I ask you: why are the "consequences" so important to you, but they're not bilateral?  You feel, apparently, that if a bar decides not to serve African Americans, that the consequences are unbounded.  Why does that not apply if the bar DECIDES to serve African Americans, and someone says "I'm never going there again and I'm going to tell my friends!"?   


You can check this out:  my old local bar in Philly - For Pete's Sake - is an EXCELLENT bar.  Really good food, the owner is great (Irish immigrant) and a fun, welcoming place to be.    Look on their site on Facebook.  All the reviews are five star.  Then about midway down the list is one one star review and the person calls the place "RACIST", and calls out the white bartender because she - the patron - wanted to play "rap music" on the jukebox and it wouldn't play, and the bartender said "it doesn't play that music".  Meaning, it doesn't allow you to pick the songs, not that it doesn't play "rap".  It's a karaoke, playlist type thing and it hasn't worked right in five years.  I know this.   Yet that person took it on themselves to throw the "R" word around, presumably on the same premise that you're working under, "CONSEQUENCES".  Why should Pete have to bear the brunt of this person being easily offended and pissed off because they didn't get their way?  What about people like us, who might read that review and say "well, I'm going to go to New Wave Café instead.  I'm INTOLERANT of INTOLERANCE. 

Where's the control? Where's the due process?  Where's the dialogue?   Where are the consequences to the person crying wolf?   

Offline hefdaddy42

  • Whiskey Bent and Hell Bound
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 40272
  • Gender: Male
  • RIP Dad 1943-2010
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #94 on: January 20, 2017, 11:07:45 AM »
I use this a lot, but it fits:  TEND YOUR OWN GARDEN. 
That only works if everyone does it.  And everyone won't.  For example, if people that are against abortions would just tend their OWN garden but not having abortions, and if the people that are against gay marriage would just tend their own garden by not getting gay married, and forget about everyone else's gardens and let them tend them themselves, that would be great.

You can check this out:  my old local bar in Philly - For Pete's Sake - is an EXCELLENT bar.  Really good food, the owner is great (Irish immigrant) and a fun, welcoming place to be.    Look on their site on Facebook.  All the reviews are five star.  Then about midway down the list is one one star review and the person calls the place "RACIST", and calls out the white bartender because she - the patron - wanted to play "rap music" on the jukebox and it wouldn't play, and the bartender said "it doesn't play that music".  Meaning, it doesn't allow you to pick the songs, not that it doesn't play "rap".  It's a karaoke, playlist type thing and it hasn't worked right in five years.  I know this.   Yet that person took it on themselves to throw the "R" word around, presumably on the same premise that you're working under, "CONSEQUENCES".  Why should Pete have to bear the brunt of this person being easily offended and pissed off because they didn't get their way?  What about people like us, who might read that review and say "well, I'm going to go to New Wave Café instead.  I'm INTOLERANT of INTOLERANCE. 

Where's the control? Where's the due process?  Where's the dialogue?   Where are the consequences to the person crying wolf?
The control and dialogue are the responses from the bar's faithful disputing what the idiot posted, or the bar owner doing so.  The owner generally gets notified when bad reviews (or ANY reviews) are put on their FB page, and they should also frequently check Yelp for such occurrences.  That is part of what the technology is for. 
Hef is right on all things. Except for when I disagree with him. In which case he's probably still right.

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5438
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #95 on: January 20, 2017, 11:19:05 AM »
(Only quoting the parts I have responses to. The other parts I agree with.)

When you have someone using the bully pulpit of social media to call even benign things "racist" it doesn't promote peace; it actually REINFORCES the malignant ideas by giving them an importance they don't have.    Do you HONESTLY think that Mel Gibson hates Jews any less now that he was castigated for his drunken rants?  Do you think Michael Richards is any less THINKING "n*****" even if he's not saying it on a stage?  Do you think Isaiah Washington thinks that T.L. Knight is any less an entitled "f**" than he did when he called him that a couple years ago? 

I can't comment on those specific examples because I don't know them well enough, but it seems that this is tending toward what we consider to be "benign things".

Quote
But I ask you: why are the "consequences" so important to you, but they're not bilateral?  You feel, apparently, that if a bar decides not to serve African Americans, that the consequences are unbounded.  Why does that not apply if the bar DECIDES to serve African Americans, and someone says "I'm never going there again and I'm going to tell my friends!"?

1. I don't think the consequences are unbounded. I just don't think raising a stink about it in your specific example would be inappropriate. I don't know law enough to comment legal consequences, but if someone were to make a post on Facebook, it went viral, and then the next morning there were people out there on the sidewalk protesting against the bar that doesn't serve black people, I have no problems with that. Sure, they are disrupting the business a bit, I think that's a valid consequence in this day and age. If you want to run a "no blacks allowed" bar in 2017, you'd have to be discrete because a vast majority of people would find that abhorrent and not want it in their community.

2. Same applies for your second example. If some person posted on Facebook that this bar has too many black people and they are never going there again, it wouldn't go viral (at least not for the same reasons as the last example). There wouldn't be people out the next morning protesting.

Another example is our local Pride Parade. There is always a small section of protesters, and they are completely allowed to protest it. But that's the thing: it's small. There are literally 1 million people that gather to support and watch the parade, and maybe only like 25 that protest it. It's a joke.

I know that the old saying goes, "majority rules, minority rights," but I don't think in these cases, any rights are being denied. If you can't successfully run a race-exclusive business in 2017, that's just demand. That's the socio-political climate we live in.

Quote
You can check this out:  my old local bar in Philly - For Pete's Sake - is an EXCELLENT bar.  Really good food, the owner is great (Irish immigrant) and a fun, welcoming place to be.    Look on their site on Facebook.  All the reviews are five star.  Then about midway down the list is one one star review and the person calls the place "RACIST", and calls out the white bartender because she - the patron - wanted to play "rap music" on the jukebox and it wouldn't play, and the bartender said "it doesn't play that music".  Meaning, it doesn't allow you to pick the songs, not that it doesn't play "rap".  It's a karaoke, playlist type thing and it hasn't worked right in five years.  I know this.   Yet that person took it on themselves to throw the "R" word around, presumably on the same premise that you're working under, "CONSEQUENCES".  Why should Pete have to bear the brunt of this person being easily offended and pissed off because they didn't get their way?  What about people like us, who might read that review and say "well, I'm going to go to New Wave Café instead.  I'm INTOLERANT of INTOLERANCE. 

Where's the control? Where's the due process?  Where's the dialogue?   Where are the consequences to the person crying wolf?

What were the consequences to that story? Did the bar get shut down? I won't defend what that person said. They are not in the right, but I think in the vast majority of situations, the cases of someone crying wolf don't really end up with anything consequential happening. Sure, there are a few situations where that's not the case, but I'm sure they are a small minority.

Then again, we could disagree on what counts as someone crying wolf too.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #96 on: January 20, 2017, 11:27:53 AM »
I read your response - measured, reasoned, intelligent - and was about to give mea culpa of sorts, and then you finished by reinforcing my exact point.  I'm a licensed attorney who has worked as such for decades. I've done my community service, in terms of things like pro bono work and jury duty, and I hold the constitution and the ideals of our form of republican representative democracy as dear as any ideal I can name... and I absolutely display ambivalence towards this candidate.  For two reasons:  one, the ideals are embodied in the PROCESS, and despite Trump's clear carelessness with words (a particular bugaboo of mine; WORDS MATTER), the fact remains that it's just not POSSIBLE (in the literal sense of the word) to do half the things that people are "TERRIFIED" about.  Two, I have faith and respect for the integrity of people like John Lewis and (to an extent) Bernie Sanders, to keep things honest in a way that isn't adding to the problem.    Three, I recognize that what you call "ambivalence" isn't really that, it's more a re-framing of priorities, which happens cyclically throughout our time as a country.

We go in waves.  The pendulum swings, and it eventually goes too far, as Bush Sr. did in his term, pushing the "Reaganomics" approach past it's shelf-life and into a context where it needed more.   As Clinton did in his last two years, exemplifying the lawlessness and - as you put it - lack of respect for the ideals of democracy.   As Bush did in his last couple years, not closing the deal on his promises, primarily in Iraq, and in not defusing some of the feelings of alienation that his approach to social issues bred.  As Obama CLEARLY did in his last four years (especially) by playing games with the economy rather than actually working on it, and focusing more on tangential (to many) social issues that didn't impact the country while letting more serious concerns that DID touch the country - terrorism, cyber security, his own brand of lawlessness and contempt for democracy and freedom - run rampant.   Now we have Trump.

I don't know if it will be four years or eight (I hope eight) or even twelve (if a Republican wins in 2024), but we will fill the coffers; we will recharge our economic batteries, and while we won't come anywhere near the FEARS (the "TERROR!") of the naysayers, and we won't SLIDE on social rights, we probably won't see any major historic social leaps either.  And then the pendulum will swing.  We'll take a hit economically, and we'll achieve our goals socially and the cycle will repeat.
I think you put too much faith in the system to mitigate and self-correct. The system is evolving, for better or for worse, particularly on a sociopolitical level, and in many ways it's doing so in a way to expedite change.  I believe you share my opinion that Trump is incapable of understanding the importance of the process based way of thinking that you and I have such reverence for. Lacking my overly cynical nature towards democratic governance, you think that congress, the courts, and accepted procedure will negate, or at least mitigate that major flaw. I sincerely hope you're right, but I honestly think we're in a different paradigm now. We've got an increasing amount of the voting electorate who disregard the path in favor of the arrival. We've got representatives who care more about the letter following their name than the best way of doing something. We have courts that are increasingly partisan by nature, hand crafted to render supportive rulings. We have an executive that thinks the best way of moving forward is to blow up the institutions that impede. Twenty-five years ago it would have been pretty easy to weather out a Trump, or a Nixon, or a Carter if that's your bag. Now, not so much, I'm afraid.

Consider this: I view the sole role of the congressional confirmation process to weed out the woefully unqualified. Party or beliefs have no bearing, in my opinion. Trump was elected and he gets to pick the people he thinks will do what he wants them to do; his prerogative. Congress only ensures that he's qualified, or not unqualified for the job. Based on what we've seen thus far there do appear to be one or two of his nominations that are woefully unqualified. Do you have any confidence that this 115th congress will block their confirmation? Seems to be that's a pretty telling test for your faith in the system.

I agree with all of what you wrote.  Not just to be nice, but in sincerity.  But I think that bolsters my point (and it makes my side bar conversation with Implode relevant). 

The same swiftness of change that makes us think we can tell others what to think about race and sexual orientation is the SAME swiftness that will get us Muslims in an internment camp.  And vice versa.  I DON'T think Trump shows the proper reverence to the process, and perhaps I take it too far (if the American people were to vote tomorrow - through the electoral college, since that's the process, NOT a majority - to be a sovereignty, and that Taylor Swift should be our Queen, I would, in theory support that unequivocally.  We are a government of the people, by the people and for the people.  Not the "non-racist" people.   Not the "Democrat" people.  Not the "Republican" people.  Not the "white people".  ALL the people.   

I think it's very telling - and I'm going to step on toes here, I think - that some of the people that are screaming the loudest about Trump and the end of the republic, are the very ones that are more than willing to subvert the process - through social bullying, through activist judges, through any means necessary - to get what THEY think is right in place.  That's where the crux of my argument lies.  Not in "democrat" or "republican".  Those are old paradigms, and will likely be gone in 50 years (as the parties of Washington's, and even Lincoln's time, are now gone).  But the ideas will remain, as will the skeleton of the structure of our democracy.

We are MEANT to move slow.  We are MEANT to have a degree of gridlock, to avoid ANY idea from gaining too much traction too soon.   We're talking about "bathrooms" today, and I think it's a bit fucked up that we're making that our Waterloo, when 240 years ago, we were debating whether it should be okay to have fellow human beings in chains.   Yeah, that's an anathema in this age of Twitter, and when we think OUR pet idea is the best one ever, but we've forgotten that the structure is bigger than any one person, and by extension, their specific idea.  These things are content neutral. There is no "freedom of speech of non-racist ideas" or "freedom of speech for ideas the majority thinks are pleasant".   It should be noted here that there are perhaps more RESTRICTIONS on speech than there is allowed speech, but almost every one of them is CONTENT NEUTRAL. Meaning, they are independent of WHAT the message is, and are centered on the time, place and manner of that speech.  The famed "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater is a restriction of TIME, PLACE, and MANNER.  Even "obscenity" is tied to community standards, so is less about WHAT is depicted, and rather WHERE and HOW it is depicted.

I feel that same way about the notion of "hate".  Of course it is not something to be encouraged, or promoted.  But when it occurs, it should be dealt with like any other idea, combated with ideas, not suppressed arbitrarily, based on some moving standard of what "offends".  it's not some magical thing that trumps our laws, our beliefs, our systems.  (And by the way, I say the same thing to Trump, Pence, et al.  This is not a declaration that any one of YOUR ideas are automatically right.  You have the same requirement of measure and caution and deliberateness.)
Of course you'll get no argument from me, but then of course you will get some observations.  :biggrin:

Here I'll only point out that we're discussing the rightness of not attending Grabby's inauguration. Based on the reasons we're hearing I think most of these people are behaving exactly like the people you decry. I'm no fan, either. At the same time, we're inaugurating a president whose primary goal is to undermine the plodding nature of our government that keeps jerkoffs like him from wreaking havoc due to a disregard of process. I support not supporting him. Like Metty said, normalizing him is wrong. I guess where we always butt heads with others is where we meet up here, once again. How you get there is at least as important as your arrival, and many people have taken a shitty course to get to a reasonable place.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #97 on: January 20, 2017, 11:43:32 AM »
When you have someone using the bully pulpit of social media to call even benign things "racist" it doesn't promote peace; it actually REINFORCES the malignant ideas by giving them an importance they don't have.    Do you HONESTLY think that Mel Gibson hates Jews any less now that he was castigated for his drunken rants?  Do you think Michael Richards is any less THINKING "n*****" even if he's not saying it on a stage?  Do you think Isaiah Washington thinks that T.L. Knight is any less an entitled "f**" than he did when he called him that a couple years ago? 

I can't comment on those specific examples because I don't know them well enough, but it seems that this is tending toward what we consider to be "benign things".
I'll let Stadler tend to his own garden here, but I do want to chime in on this. An important aspect of our being free to express ideas is that whether or not they're inherently benign or malignant can't matter. That's the content neutrality that he referred to earlier. Ugly speech, and to the extent that such a thing even exists, dangerous speech have to be accepted lest we lose the ability to speak freely altogether. People who stand on street corners with placards showing mangled foeti offend the shit out of me. Their right to piss me off is crucial to my right to defend abortion. In my opinion Christian missionaries are destructive. Yet I defend their right to do their thing just as I would equally destructive behavior from Jews or Moslems. To do otherwise would be to create a distinction between differing religions based on our unique interpretations of them.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5438
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #98 on: January 20, 2017, 11:50:04 AM »
You're right. I just meant that in the context of that people of their own volition posting on social media independent of the law seems fine/protected under free speech to me. And mostly I'd consider it benign.

Offline El Barto

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 19073
  • Bad Craziness
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #99 on: January 20, 2017, 12:03:04 PM »
You're right. I just meant that in the context of that people of their own volition posting on social media independent of the law seems fine/protected under free speech to me. And mostly I'd consider it benign.
That's a highly dicey aspect in my opinion. Of course I agree that you or I have the right to blast whoever the hell we want on Yelp or the lawless frontier of DTF. At the same time I think people completely fail to realize that by doing so they create a very different, and in my opinion dangerous problem in the modern world. The person in Stadler's bar example was just some chick that thankfully flew under the radar. Yet if it had been picked up by a few people and disseminated widely then all of sudden the bar's shuttering its doors. There's no vetting. There's no rational judgment. There's just emotional responses and the mindless forwarding of a halfassed idea. We've already reached a point where fear of that one person's ignorant rambling going viral dictates course for the entities that don't want that exposure. I don't honestly have a solution, other than people learning that being able to dog-whistle the mob to your cause isn't necessarily conducive to freedom, even when you think that's the entire point. Alas, that's not happening. Particularly when, as Stadler and I keep droning on about, getting your way is increasingly the only thing of import.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Implode

  • Lord of the Squids
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 5438
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #100 on: January 20, 2017, 12:08:23 PM »
Well, you are right about that. More and more people want to believe whatever content is easier to consume. I don't have a solution either. It is a major problem, but I don't think blame everything on the mob is right either.

Offline Sir GuitarCozmo

  • Official Forum Sous Chef and broler5
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 13773
  • Gender: Male
  • whahibrido pickingant in action...
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #101 on: January 20, 2017, 01:00:18 PM »
Can somebody get Tick a washcloth?  It appears he's about to make a mess in here.
I'm just pointing out what a ridiculous BS statement that was. That's all.

I see your point, I mean it certainly doesn't really connect with your average American the same way "Grab 'em by the pu**y" does.

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19299
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #102 on: January 20, 2017, 01:05:30 PM »
Can somebody get Tick a washcloth?  It appears he's about to make a mess in here.
I'm just pointing out what a ridiculous BS statement that was. That's all.

I see your point, I mean it certainly doesn't really connect with your average American the same way "Grab 'em by the pu**y" does.

Or "I don’t think Ivanka would pose for Playboy, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren't my daughter, perhaps I'd be dating her.”

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2601
  • Hard-hearted harbinger of haggis
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #103 on: January 20, 2017, 01:47:17 PM »
the lawless frontier of DTF
Hey now!  :huckleberry:
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9875
  • Gender: Male
Re: Democrats Skipping The Inauguration
« Reply #104 on: January 20, 2017, 02:00:34 PM »
1. I don't think the consequences are unbounded. I just don't think raising a stink about it in your specific example would be inappropriate. I don't know law enough to comment legal consequences, but if someone were to make a post on Facebook, it went viral, and then the next morning there were people out there on the sidewalk protesting against the bar that doesn't serve black people, I have no problems with that. Sure, they are disrupting the business a bit, I think that's a valid consequence in this day and age. If you want to run a "no blacks allowed" bar in 2017, you'd have to be discrete because a vast majority of people would find that abhorrent and not want it in their community.

Two questions:  what if, as above, the post is wrong?    Second, who decided that that right was superior to the bar owner's right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?   That's the point. You don't see a problem with it because you agree with it.  What happens when you don't?   What about the lunatics that protest the military funerals?  Do they get to close down funeral parlors and "so be it"?   What about abortion protestors?  Okay to block access there?  Why not?  They're just "disrupting the business a little bit"?  And why do YOU (and by "you" I mean any person, not you personally) get to decide that for all of society? 

Quote
I know that the old saying goes, "majority rules, minority rights," but I don't think in these cases, any rights are being denied. If you can't successfully run a race-exclusive business in 2017, that's just demand. That's the socio-political climate we live in.

But it's not when the "demand" is bullied.  That's the point.  I personally don't understand why anyone would do that (why cut your potential clientele by a minimum of 12% and when you count those that don't go in support, probably several times that) and I wouldn't go there, but when people can't make that decision without their OWN consequences, it's too tenuous.   Think about all the venues that wouldn't book Phil Anselmo.  You've just made it impossible for someone with that point of view to participate in a meaningful dialogue, and yet, he's never had his day in court.  The "evidence" is grainy video and bad audio from a concert, with no context no nothing.  The masses just said "BAD!" and that was that. 

Quote
What were the consequences to that story? Did the bar get shut down? I won't defend what that person said. They are not in the right, but I think in the vast majority of situations, the cases of someone crying wolf don't really end up with anything consequential happening. Sure, there are a few situations where that's not the case, but I'm sure they are a small minority.

Then again, we could disagree on what counts as someone crying wolf too.

I can't quantify that; but why are there ANY consequences?  Pete's a good guy, not a racist boner in his body (the old bar manager was African American, and Pete actually helped him through school).  If even ONE patron said "eh, not going to associate with that" why does Pete have to bear that brunt?   Even  if he responds - "hey, we're not racist!  I have black friends!" - it's a bell you can't unring, because it's taken on a life of it's own.   

I even question sometimes whether I should be having these conversations here.  I have no doubt that there's at least ONE person that deep down thinks I'm at least in part a racist or homophobe for some of the things I've written.