I’m gravely concerned about the state of the Union

[Spy Car]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Demagogues who fuel hate and division are a huge issue, but they don't get traction in a society that doesn't have massive inequality.  They're a huge problem, but I agree with Ordinary that they aren't THE issue.  Demagogues couldn't rise to power in societies where the majority of people feel that they have an equal say and participation in the government.  

Of course populism has never advanced a society, but rage and irrationality are symptoms.  They aren't the virus/ bacteria causing the disease.  

I disagree. I firmly view populism as a disease. The very worst of all the diseases that have ever been inflicted upon humanity. Bar none.

Every society has problems. Populism is never the solution.

Bill

[Not_a_Number]

7 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

No I think the person with sum total of 3 previous posts on the forum is the troll.

I have a sum total of under 200 posts, sniff. 

[Ausmumof3]

The Ancient Rome version of democracy lasted approximately 250 years.  America’s is currently a few years short of that.  I hope it all blows over but I think it’s naive to think that because things have been this way for years they will never change.  
 

i don’t and never will understand not taking the presidents words at face value.  

[Terabith]

Just now, Not_a_number said:

I don't know that I agree. Rage and irrationality may be symptoms, but they are neither the inevitable outcome of inequality nor require it. Lots of VERY unequal societies were quite stable. 

No....unequal societies can be stable; I would agree with that.  But I think demagogues don't arise, and generally populism also doesn't, without societal systems that are fundamentally unequal for a huge group of the population.  

I'm not sure how to express that mathematically.  

[Ausmumof3]

1 minute ago, Not_a_number said:

I have a sum total of under 200 posts, sniff. 

Ay true.

its also fully possible that someone long term here sets up a separate account to post stuff they won’t under their own name.  Not sure why anyone has the time for that stuff.  

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, Spy Car said:

I disagree. I firmly view populism as a disease. The very worst of all the diseases that have ever been inflicted upon humanity. Bar none.

Every society has problems. Populism is never the solution.

Bill

I'm not saying it is the solution.  I'm not doing a good job of explaining this.  I think it's horrible.  But something is sick in societies BEFORE populism arises.  

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Terabith said:

No....unequal societies can be stable; I would agree with that.  But I think demagogues don't arise, and generally populism also doesn't, without societal systems that are fundamentally unequal for a huge group of the population.  

I'm not sure how to express that mathematically.  

The problem is that it might be a vacuous statement. What societal systems are NOT fundamentally unequal for a huge segment of a population? Have we ever seen one? 

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, Not_a_number said:

The problem is that it might be a vacuous statement. What societal systems are NOT fundamentally unequal for a huge segment of a population? Have we ever seen one? 

I think it's a matter of degree.  https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/datablog/2017/apr/26/inequality-index-where-are-the-worlds-most-unequal-countries

[frogger]

I can't remember a single time I voted Democrat and yet I agree with Spy Car on populism. Populists use emotion to control the population at large. They blame other groups for their problems be it different ethnicities, classes, or what have you. They discount intellectual disagreements and run on anger.

 

I hope both left leaning and right leaning sane people disdain populism. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

I have a sum total of under 200 posts, sniff. 

You’re under special exception. 

Anyway, I have nothing inherently against newbies. I was one once. But this topic isn’t really the one for a genuine new member. 

[Tanaqui]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

I understood it to mean mass mail in ballots that were instituted without purging of people who have moved, died, etc.  Not the established ones like in WA and not absentee ones.  Also I believe he meant he is going to win.  The question asked will you transfer power if you win, tie or lose?  If he wins, he doesn't transfer power.

 

You can hardly get Americans to show up to the polls, and you think somehow that there are scads of people willing to mail out multiple fraudulent ballots? Don't you have to pay the cost of stamps to do that?

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Quill said:

You’re under special exception. 

Anyway, I have nothing inherently against newbies. I was one once. But this topic isn’t really the one for a genuine new member. 

I know, I'm just whining 😄 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I'm not saying it is the solution.  I'm not doing a good job of explaining this.  I think it's horrible.  But something is sick in societies BEFORE populism arises.  

That is a really good point. 

You have to already have the Sneeches arguing over belly stars before the swindler can come into town and angst everyone up over their stars or lack of stars. 

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I think it's a matter of degree.  https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/datablog/2017/apr/26/inequality-index-where-are-the-worlds-most-unequal-countries

And yet Europe is currently full of populists. 

[Not_a_Number]

I guess I'm not sure it's inequality, per se, that causes people to follow populists. I don't think humans are quite that easily generalized. I do think it can be disappointment, or a sense of injustice or unfairness, or a desire for answers, or lots of other things... I do think populism requires a restless populace. But I'm not sure there are measurable causes of that restlessness that hold in general. 

[SanDiegoMom]

51 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

I don't think clipping articles is the right way to do statistics, though. And I'm not sure people who are looting at protests are anything in particular, politically. They are using the protests as cover. I have zero tolerance for that kind of behavior. 

This is an interesting question... how would we quantify this? What counts as political violence? 

Here is a good site a just found that is actually taking a look at quantifying the political unrest.

https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/

Here are some specific quotes that show how much of the protests are peaceful vs destructive, and then emphasize the role that biased media framing is playing to increase the perception that the violence is more widespread than it is. 

 

The vast majority of demonstration events associated with the BLM movement are non-violent (see map below). In more than 93% of all demonstrations connected to the movement, demonstrators have not engaged in violence or destructive activity. Peaceful protests are reported in over 2,400 distinct locations around the country. Violent demonstrations,⁴ meanwhile, have been limited to fewer than 220 locations — under 10% of the areas that experienced peaceful protests. In many urban areas like Portland, Oregon, for example, which has seen sustained unrest since Floyd’s killing, violent demonstrations are largely confined to specific blocks, rather than dispersed throughout the city (CNN, 1 September 2020).

 

Yet, despite data indicating that demonstrations associated with the BLM movement are overwhelmingly peaceful, one recent poll suggested that 42% of respondents believe “most protesters [associated with the BLM movement] are trying to incite violence or destroy property” (FiveThirtyEight, 5 June 2020). This is in line with the Civiqs tracking poll which finds that “net approval for the Black Lives Matter movement peaked back on June 3 [the week following the killing of George Floyd when riots first began to be reported] and has fallen sharply since” (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 29 August 2020).

Research from the University of Washington indicates that this disparity stems from political orientation and biased media framing (Washington Post, 24 August 2020), such as disproportionate coverage of violent demonstrations (Business Insider, 11 June 2020; Poynter, 25 June 2020). Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) have documented organized disinformation campaigns aimed at spreading a “deliberate mischaracterization of groups or movements [involved in the protests], such as portraying activists who support Black Lives Matter as violent extremists or claiming that antifa is a terrorist organization coordinated or manipulated by nebulous external forces” (ADL, 2020). These disinformation campaigns may be contributing to the decline in public support for the BLM movement after the initial increase following Floyd’s killing, especially amongst the white population (USA Today, 31 August 2020; Civiqs, 30 August 2020a, 30 August 2020b). This waning support also comes as the Trump administration recently shifted its “law and order” messaging to target local Democratic Party politicians from urban areas, particularly on the campaign trail (NPR, 27 August 2020).

Despite the media focus on looting and vandalism, however, there is little evidence to suggest that demonstrators have engaged in widespread violence. In some cases where demonstrations did turn violent, there are reports of agents provocateurs — or infiltrators — instigating the violence. During a demonstration on 27 May in Minneapolis, for example, a man with an umbrella — dubbed the ‘umbrella man’ by the media and later identified as a member of the Hells Angels linked to the Aryan Cowboys, a white supremacist prison and street gang — was seen smashing store windows (Forbes, 30 May 2020; KSTP, 28 July 2020). It was one of the first reports of destructive activity that day, and it “created an atmosphere of hostility and tension” that helped spark an outbreak of looting following initially peaceful protests, according to police investigators, who believe the man “wanted to sow discord and racial unrest” (New York Times, 28 July 2020). In another example on 29 May in Detroit, a number of non-residents reportedly traveled to the city to engage in violent behavior during a demonstration, leading to multiple arrests (MLive, 2 June 2020). 

[Spy Car]

16 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I'm not saying it is the solution.  I'm not doing a good job of explaining this.  I think it's horrible.  But something is sick in societies BEFORE populism arises.  

If you are saying that populist demagogues seize on legitimate problems in societies and use those issues to fuel rage as a means of building the demagogue's political power, I quite agree.

What society does not have legitimate issues? But turning to the extremes--to people who live on amplifying divisions, polarizing societies and identifying scapegoats to blame for everything--when times  are tough, never turns out well for such societies.

Instead the worst outcomes always follow. Progress comes through an embrace of reason. Populism--being based in irrationality--is the least progressive ideology humankind has every know, it both its right-wing and left-wing variants, in my estimation.

Bill 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Spy Car

[Not_a_Number]

You know what else I'm worried about? Anti-Semitism. Jews don't always do so well when the populists are in charge. They are a little too convenient a scapegoat, especially in (formerly liberal) societies where many of them have gotten into positions of privilege. 

[Terabith]

19 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

If you are saying that populist demagogues seize on legitimate problems in societies and use those issues to fuel rage as a means of building the demagogues political power, I quite agree.

What society does not have legitimate issues? But turning to the extremes--to people who live on amplifying divisions, polarizing societies and identifying scapegoats to blame for everything--when times  are tough, never turns out well for such societies.

Instead the worst outcomes always follow. Progress comes through an embrace of reason. Populism--being based in irrationality--is the least progressive ideology humankind has every know, it moth its right0wing and left-wing variants, in my estimation.

Bill 

Yes, you said it much better.  Populist demagogues seize on legitimate problems, and it is those problems that allow them to rise to power.  Donald Trump did not arise out of a vacuum.  Nor did the populist leaders in Europe and South America.  Conditions, global, national and local, that make the rise of populists more likely, predate them.  Our problems won't go away if a populist leader has a heart attack or is voted out of office.  

I mean, the populist leader not being in charge is a necessary precursor to things improving, but we would really need to address the conditions that made him arise.  

And yes, all societies have legitimate issues, but some have more than others, and a sense of inequality and not having a sense of investment in the society, are part of what creates them.  

I abhor populism, and I definitely agree with you that they lead to horrible outcomes.  And maybe this is just quibbling, but I think the left just thinks that if Trump goes away, so will all our problems.  And I'm saying that they won't, because the conditions that created him and the sense of a large percentage of the country that they do not have any voice in it, that they aren't respected or valued, needs to change to heal what's really sick.  We have to both treat the symptoms that are killing the patient, but we also have to eradicate the underlying disease or the symptoms will just come back again.

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Terabith

[Terabith]

4 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

You know what else I'm worried about? Anti-Semitism. Jews don't always do so well when the populists are in charge. They are a little too convenient a scapegoat, especially in (formerly liberal) societies where many of them have gotten into positions of privilege. 

Yup.  This is a super real issue, too.  https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-jews-are-only-in-it-for-themselves-stick-together-2020-9

[HeartString]

I can find no evidence that CA stopped counting ballots in 2016. That seems to be factually wrong . They finished towards the end of Dec.  it took a long time and people were mad about the time it took, but they were counted.  
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pe.com/2016/12/04/when-will-all-of-californias-votes-be-counted/amp/
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/07/one-month-later-california-finishes-its-vote-count-and-clinton-wins/%3foutputType=amp

Throwing around falsehoods as facts is part of the problem.  

[ktgrok]

6 hours ago, SKL said:

Well sure, there is plenty of contempt on this board and even in this thread.  But most of these people would never actually get off their armchairs and go out and fight for their beliefs in a serious material way.  There's a reason even now the protestors are paid for by money from outside the US.

I'd say that was probably what people thought back before a lot of wars. 

6 hours ago, OKBud said:

I don't think we are close to a Civil War of that nature either. I was responding to your (true) statement that most people are just regular people living their loves. I agree with that, but it has been true in ...I mean every???...war. 

Right. I mean, even in Nazi Germany, weren't most people just normal people? 

6 hours ago, HeighHo said:

Nothing new.  Talk to people who had jury duty 25 years ago.  Same-old same-old.  

And really does it matter if its guns or knives or cars used as the implement? dead is dead. 

Yes - much harder to kill a person with a knife. And definitey harder to kill multiple people, or innocent bystanders. Bullets go through things, go astray. 

5 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

And, the president didn't mean he was going to start a violent insurrection or anything. He's not likely to concede on election day, just like the other side has said they are unlikely to do. No one actually believes this election is going to be solved on election day, so to start throwing one party under the bus is part of the problem that we have today. 

He didn't say he won't concede on election day. He was asked point blank if he would agree to a peaceful transfer of power if he lost, and he didn't say yes. He said, "we'll see". Mind you, court cases, recounts, etc are part of a peaceful transition - so he wasn't saying he'd sue or demand a recount. He was saying he can't agree for sure that it would be nonviolent. That's a huge thing. 

4 hours ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

I'm actually not that troubled by polarization. People have strong opinions and sometimes they conflict. Polarization is normal. In fact, the idea that political differences don't matter is probably what is unnatural. 

It isn't the polarization that bothers me as much as the deep seated fear that feeds it. Fear leads to violence. People disagreed about politics before, but disagreeing is different from being terrified. I don't remember people being so scared. 

 

3 hours ago, cjzimmer1 said:

I'm going to take a risk here and throw my very Christian thoughts out and hope that non-believers don't throw too many tomatoes at me.  I'm not any great Bible scholars but the commentaries I've read all seem to agree that at the end there is no mention of the US.  China is there, Russia is there but the US is not.  

Plenty of commentaries don't think any modern countries are being referred to, but ancient ones. 

2 hours ago, kdsuomi said:

 

I like how when Trump says he's not going to concede the election that he's a dictator, but when the other side says it, they're just trying to keep our democracy going and credible. 

No other candidate has refused to agree to a peaceful transition of power. 

[Terabith]

Sigh.  The new forum look keeps messing me up.  I try to fix a that that was a the and I wind up quoting myself.  

Edited September 24, 2020 by Terabith

[Ausmumof3]

12 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

You know what else I'm worried about? Anti-Semitism. Jews don't always do so well when the populists are in charge. They are a little too convenient a scapegoat, especially in (formerly liberal) societies where many of them have gotten into positions of privilege. 

Yes!  So much this.  

[Terabith]

Arg.  

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

I wish there was a better fix, but right now it seems like condemning the worst rhetoric as well as the violent acts and acting in a positive way to support government stability and constitutional order are the best long term weapons for stability. 

Go ahead. Condemn it. Has anyone at all on your side said anything you'd like to condemn? Because condemning the other side isn't condemning. It has no cost. 

I've been kicked out of groups for saying things that aren't supposed to be said BY MY SIDE of the political divide. My local friend who is not talking to me because of COVID votes just like I do. Calling out people who are on your side HURTS. That's why it's so important. 

[Katy]

7 minutes ago, Cnew02 said:

I can find no evidence that CA stopped counting ballots in 2016. That seems to be factually wrong . They finished towards the end of Dec.  it took a long time and people were mad about the time it took, but they were counted.  
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pe.com/2016/12/04/when-will-all-of-californias-votes-be-counted/amp/
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/07/one-month-later-california-finishes-its-vote-count-and-clinton-wins/%3foutputType=amp

Throwing around falsehoods as facts is part of the problem.  

This is just a guess, but I'm betting this has to do with absentee ballots routinely NOT being counted unless there are more absentee ballots than there is a difference in the result.  Many states do this, and I remember it being reported on CNN around 2016.  I suspect there is little chance this will be a problem in most states in 2020, because there is a pandemic and many states have simplified the ballot request process.

[Spy Car]

9 minutes ago, Terabith said:

Yes, you said it much better.  Populist demagogues seize on legitimate problems, and it is those problems that allow them to rise to power.  Donald Trump did not arise out of a vacuum.  Nor did the populist leaders in Europe and South America.  Conditions, global, national and local, that make the rise of populists more likely, predate them.  Our problems won't go away if a populist leader has a heart attack or is voted out of office.  

I mean, the populist leader not being in charge is a necessary precursor to things improving, but we would really need to address the conditions that made him arise.  

And yes, all societies have legitimate issues, but some have more than others, and a sense of inequality and not having a sense of investment in the society, are part of what creates them.  

I abhor populism, and I definitely agree with you that they lead to horrible outcomes.  And maybe this is just quibbling, but I think the left just thinks that if Trump goes away, so will all our problems.  And I'm saying that they won't, because the conditions that created him and the sense of a large percentage of the country that they do not have any voice in it, that they aren't respected or valued, needs to change to heal what's really sick.  We have to both treat the symptoms that are killing the patient, but we also have to eradicate the underlying disease or the symptoms will just come back again.

 

Trying not to get too political here, but this liberal is quite troubled by the rise of populism on the "left" (and the right). Both are an anathema to me.

Improving people's situations is what motivates me politically. 

Bill

[Katy]

So my most conservative relative told me today that she hates Trump.  She wishes he would shut up.  I found that to be a refreshing surprise.

[ktgrok]

It strikes me that the problem with politics and in this country at large is the same that I see in dysfunctional relationships - focusing on PEOPLE as the enemy instead of the problem itself. 

So instead of focusing on say, how to fix healthcare, it devolves into people shouting about how the other guy is the reason things are bad. That doesn't work in a relationship nor when running a country. 

[ktgrok]

Also a lot of the issues right now are because certain things we thought were a matter of law are actually a matter of tradition, norms, etc. As one person put it, the constitution doesn't ensure a peaceful transition of power, it presumes it. 

[Terabith]

7 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Trying not to get too political here, but this liberal is quite troubled by the rise of populism on the "left" (and the right). Both are an anathema to me.

Improving people's situations is what motivates me politically. 

Bill

Totally agree.

[Not_a_Number]

15 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I'm a Constitutionalist so don't have "a side" but in real life do call out people from "both" sides when they do/say egregious things. Trump supporters I know absolutely talk badly about things he's said that they don't support, too. In this very thread you can see who has already said it's a problem with both sides and who has blamed one side for the problem.

Well, arguing that one side is currently breaking more norms isn't actually evidence you don't call out both sides. It might just be true. 

I've experienced serious issues with groupthink in both left-leaning and right-leaning contexts. I do think that one side has had the populists reach the levers of power and the other one has not. But it's not like either side is immune. 

[frogger]

3 minutes ago, Katy said:

So my most conservative relative told me today that she hates Trump.  She wishes he would shut up.  I found that to be a refreshing surprise.

I'm more conservative in the traditional sense of the word with libertarian thrown in.  Most of us adamantly dislike Trump. I don't understand the surprise.  There is a populist mob that has taken over my party and I don't like it. There is a populist rising on the Demoratic side too. 

There is populist rumblings across Europe. Social media echo chambers  combined with bored isolated people who are frustrated by life in a pandemic is bound to escalate anger and populist thinking. 

 

 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Of the people in the spaces I listen to? Nobody to condemn at present beyond some low level trolling tweets. I don’t even know anyone involved I the stupid Q crap, though I’ll call that out all day it’s not actually mainstream for conservatives or Christians. Also at the present moment? In my sphere a pastor and two parishioners were arrested today for singing hymns without the government appointment social distance outdoors and a bunch of people are praying for abortion to end. Memes mocking the worst of the rhetoric on the other side are being made. Lots of good editorial content and some with some dubious sourcing, though not in what I curate for myself. Nobody is kicking, spitting on, throwing molotovs at, encouraging acts of civil disobedience or illegal confession al behavior. Etc. That’s not our thing, it isn’t equal. But if I see if I’ll condemn it, especially actions and actual material corruption or crime.

Once you decide there's basically no one to condemn on your side at present, you should probably think seriously what it would take for you to condemn your side. 

As for the Q crap, I think it's becoming more mainstream. But you'd never vote for a Q supporter, right? 

[Moonhawk]

8 minutes ago, Not_a_number said:

Go ahead. Condemn it. Has anyone at all on your side said anything you'd like to condemn? Because condemning the other side isn't condemning. It has no cost. 

I've been kicked out of groups for saying things that aren't supposed to be said BY MY SIDE of the political divide. My local friend who is not talking to me because of COVID votes just like I do. Calling out people who are on your side HURTS. That's why it's so important. 

 

2 minutes ago, kdsuomi said:

I'm a Constitutionalist so don't have "a side" but in real life do call out people from "both" sides when they do/say egregious things. Trump supporters I know absolutely talk badly about things he's said that they don't support, too. In this very thread you can see who has already said it's a problem with both sides and who has blamed one side for the problem.

The big problem I'm seeing (here, and real life) is that people will softly condemn their side "I wish he didn't say that" or "I wish he had chosen different words" or "I disagree with a lot of what she has said on a and b topics" and then follow it with a "but" and either talk about what they've done right, and-or a whataboutism on the other side, such as  "At least it wasn't as bad as THIS guy over here" or "but the other side has done that for years" or "and it's not as bad as it could be."

I'm getting irritated at claims of "the other side" breaking the rules and the claims of victimization and suffering for years and years and now what "the other side" gets is their own fault and they had it coming. I could copy+paste whole paragraphs from both sides of the aisle that are exactly the same on this count and you can't tell who it's from.

Both sides see themselves as just so right that anything they do is justified now, because what-about-this-thing-the-other-side-did. 

I'm waiting to see someone condemn their side without the "but" following it. I see it sometimes and it's refreshing, but the time between these nice moments is getting longer and longer.

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, frogger said:

There is a populist rising on the Democratic side too. 

I think, from what I've seen, it's currently much more at the grassroots level and less at the actually powerful level. Not that I disagree with you. 

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, Moonhawk said:

I'm waiting to see someone condemn their side without the "but" following it. I see it sometimes and it's refreshing, but the time between these nice moments is getting longer and longer.

Are you including me? I've been yelling about de Blasio for about 6 months now, if under a different name. I call 'em as I see 'em. 

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Bagels McGruffikin said:

No, I’m saying I am careful with my media sources and who I listen to, and have a circle that is more Christian than partisan. And the Q thing is stupid, but I support the right of people to be stupid if they’re not breaking a law or causing material harm to a person or their property. Even wingnuts have rights.

Except some Q conspiracies do cause harm. And there's plenty of right-wing domestic terrorism. 

[Spy Car]

19 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Of the people in the spaces I listen to? Nobody to condemn at present beyond some low level trolling tweets. I don’t even know anyone involved I the stupid Q crap, though I’ll call that out all day it’s not actually mainstream for conservatives or Christians. Also at the present moment? In my sphere a pastor and two parishioners were arrested today for singing hymns without the government appointment social distance outdoors and a bunch of people are praying for abortion to end. Memes mocking the worst of the rhetoric on the other side are being made. Lots of good editorial content and some with some dubious sourcing, though not in what I curate for myself. Nobody is kicking, spitting on, throwing molotovs at, encouraging acts of civil disobedience or illegal confession al behavior. Etc. That’s not our thing, it isn’t equal. But if I see if I’ll condemn it, especially actions and actual material corruption or crime.

So I take it that you are applauding the arrest of the pastor and those potentially aerosolizing and spreading a deadly virus as they make a mockery of being "pro-life?"

It's a clearly an act of violence to behave in such a reckless fashion, right? 

Bill

 

 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Spy Car

[HeartString]

3 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Of the people in the spaces I listen to? Nobody to condemn at present beyond some low level trolling tweets. I don’t even know anyone involved I the stupid Q crap, though I’ll call that out all day it’s not actually mainstream for conservatives or Christians. 

What about Roger Stone calling for martial law if Trump loses?  That seems worthy of condemnation. He did it on Alex Jones show, he seems to be a very popular figure on the right.  
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/13/roger-stone-to-donald-trump-bring-in-martial-law-if-you-lose-election

 

[Moonhawk]

1 minute ago, Not_a_number said:

Are you including me? I've been yelling about de Blasio for about 6 months now, if under a different name. I call 'em as I see 'em. 

No, sorry, I'm trying to keep this as general as possible and say I don't see it often. I actually can't remember too many people+their politics from thread to thread. A lot of what I talk about is also based on my IRL experiences.

[Not_a_Number]

Just now, Moonhawk said:

No, sorry, I'm trying to keep this as general as possible and say I don't see it often. I actually can't remember too many people+their politics from thread to thread. A lot of what I talk about is also based on my IRL experiences.

No, I agree with that. I don't see it very often, either. 

[Not_a_Number]

2 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

I’ve never listened to Jones a day in my life, and maybe seen a full page of quotes from him in written media ever. That’s why this isn’t about me, or any other normal boring person. You’re missing the bigger picture with focusing on me individually, because people like me aren’t the ones trying to ruin the lives of other people and calling it righteous and just and socially necessary.

But lots of people do listen to Alex Jones. He's popular. 

I'm not focusing on you individually. I'm pointing out that movements are generally composed of individuals unwilling to call out their own side. Individuals who maybe think their side goes "too far" occasionally, but not punishing their side for crossing lines. And if you're sure that's not you, you should think about what your own uncrossable lines are. They don't have to be mine. They just have to exist. 

[Not_a_Number]

3 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Anyway, have fun finding all the reasons to deflect from the actual major burning and shooting and republic shredding issues. That’s the real problem and I’ve offered more than a few solutions and thoughts on it already.  

I'm sorry, I'm afraid I didn't see your solutions. What are they? 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Anyway, have fun finding all the reasons to deflect from the actual major burning and shooting and republic shredding issues. That’s the real problem and I’ve offered more than a few solutions and thoughts on it already.  
 

I hope the conversation from here is constructive and fair 🙂

Compare for a moment the deaths caused by "major burning and shooting and republic shredding issues" (where the finger of blame is highly debatable) with the Covid deaths caused by irresponsibly reckless behaviors and lies.

Not really a close contest, methinks.

And I'm one who wishes the protestors would stand down and pursue justice via different means. Too many from the violent finge have taken advantage of the situation.

Bill

 

[Terabith]

6 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

Anyway, have fun finding all the reasons to deflect from the actual major burning and shooting and republic shredding issues. That’s the real problem and I’ve offered more than a few solutions and thoughts on it already.  
 

I hope the conversation from here is constructive and fair 🙂

Could you point out the major burning and shooting and republic shredding issues?  

I'm not disagreeing with you that they exist.  There seem to be a LOT of legitimate issues to have concerns about.  Partly, I think it has to do with how we weight issues.  I have real issues with things like the police officers shot last night in Louisville.  That's horrific.  But I ALSO have real issues with the ongoing violence by the police at protests against police violence.  Can't we condemn both of those things?

[HeartString]

Just now, Spy Car said:

And I'm one who wishes the protestors would stand down and pursue justice via different means. Too many from the violent finge have taken advantage of the situation.

I agree with this.
 I think the idea of a “leaderless” movement was a good one to try, but I think the protests and Occupy from a decade ago show that it’s not workable. A movement needs strong leadership to prevent the fringe from ruining things.  
Also-there’s an example of me calling out my side.  

[ktgrok]

21 minutes ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

I don’t expect either candidate to prognosticate on an unknown future and stake out territory on election counts right now, it was a stupid question for either side. But whatever.

Really? You don't think that either candidate can or should agree to a peaceful transfer of power if they lose the election? 

Again, that doesn't mean that they can't and won't appeal to the courts, or demand a recount, or all the other peaceful things that could happen within the bounds of our laws. One can agree to a peaceful transition of power if they lose and still plan on appealing if they think the election was't legit. 

But that is VERY different than refusing to agree to a peaceful transfer of power, if they lose. Because the alternative to a peaceful transfer of power is violence. You think that candidates should wait to say which side of that they fall on??

[Jaybee]

6 hours ago, Bagels McGruffikin said:

I am a voter, not a fascist loving racist bigot. And you are a voter, not a socialist police hating baby killer. Before policing your neighbor, check your own thinking and motives and heart. Then sit the hell down and show some love to another person instead of adding to the polarization.

I'm way behind on this thread--it grew really fast!!--and it may be way beyond this by now. But I appreciate the above, because I think there are many who aren't pleased with either choice. We may stand for certain policies, but not for a certain candidate. And we may love others who stand for other policies, but not the whole big deal. To be painted with such stark, harsh labels doesn't help any of us.