The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

To pile on to M2’s last point, there may be discussion from some on the right about how the current divisions could spark a civil war. However, the number of ppl openly calling for the use of violence against members of the opposite party has been predominantly from voices on the left. It’s been almost commonplace these days to hear a media figure make a quip about the use of violence, read a tweet from a celebrity about using violence, or watch a political candidate speak at a rally organized by a group who endorses violent crime as a means of enforcing their politics.

The most concerning part is this violent rhetoric is accepted as a being righteous. We have ppl getting canceled for their faith and people being celebrated for urging violence against members of the opposite party. 

I’ve not seen this (the notable exception being Kathy Griffin tastelessly parading around with Trump’s severed head a while back). Not necessarily disputing your analysis but can you provide some examples?

[Sua Sponte]

On 6/10/2023 at 9:37 AM, DFRESH said:

Admin note - Filthy_Liar went off the deep end. I was allowing most of his posts until they were all complete crazy-town, "shoot em' up", civil war nonsense. It's a tough line to draw because I'm all about letting folks post whatever they want, but there's definitely a limit, and Filthy_Liar exceeded it. My hope is that it was some kind of drunken keyboard warrior stuff... That said, I've tipped off the appropriate authorities. "Free speech" doesn't apply to shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, nor "I'm going to start shooting". 

The old “fuck around and find out.”

[Boomer6]

If you ignore who posted this video compilation and just watch the contents, there are a few examples of what I mentioned. This just happened to be the first link that showed up from google..

 

Edited June 11, 2023 by Boomer6

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, Boomer6 said:

If you ignore who posted this video compilation and just watch the contents, there are a few examples of what I mentioned. This just happened to be the first link that showed up from google..

 

Dude, that’s an awful lot of three second clips with zero context whatsoever. I could post dozens of similar montages that make the right seem unhinged as there’s plenty of the same garbage being passed around by lefties. I won’t because that kind of thing is garbage regardless of where it comes from and is disseminated with the sole purpose of fomenting anger and division. Again, not saying you’re necessarily wrong. We all have blind spots and I’m open to the prospect that I’ve missed Democratic leaders and pundits actually calling for violence. But the montage you posted is far from a smoking gun. 

[uhhello]

4 hours ago, Prozac said:

I’ve not seen this (the notable exception being Kathy Griffin tastelessly parading around with Trump’s severed head a while back). Not necessarily disputing your analysis but can you provide some examples?

You're actively avoiding them then.  Flip on twitter.  It's real simple.  

[Boomer6]

30 second google search turned these up. Let’s be honest though, I could drop link after link and you would argue against it. Meanwhile it only takes a single right leaning person on BO to mention their worry of a civil war and the prominent liberals on here immediately exclaim “Look the GOP wants a civil war!!” 

I think uhhello is right, political ppl see what they want to see and ignore what they don’t want to see. Just like the hardcore conservatives on here can claim to be conservative Christians and then explain away every single drastic character flaw Trump has. 

I prefer political hypocrisy to be balanced if nothing else.

[FourFans]

14 hours ago, Prozac said:

They feel that the rural minority often gets to dictate to them what goes on in their communities. ... the electoral college, ... are just a few of the issues that the urban population (you know, the majority of Americans) feel are being jammed down their throats by conservatives. 

I'm willing to ignore all the other items that feel are being rammed down your throat and that you feel you should, instead be able to ram a whole bunch of OTHER items the other way down conservative throats.  You've proven that you think you're right and should not consider other points of view that might force you to evaluate what you believe.  Hopefully someday you'll realize you can't fix hate with more hate.

Regardless, can we get back to this above quote?  Do you seriously disagree with the basic foundational civics of our republic, such as the electoral college?  You were asked once and obviously completely ignored it.  

Do you realize that without the electoral college, our country would not exist?  The city dwellers are 100% reliant on the country dwellers for their ability to live in a city.  That sparsely populated center section of our country that you appear to despise is THE ONLY REASON CITIES EXIST TODAY.  Urbanites who believe they can and should be able to exist and be compensated largely based on the intellectual products they create have clearly forgetten where their out of season avocados come from (try looking in the Columbia river valley or Mexico) for their all so important avocado toast.  It appears they don't realize just how dependent they are on things that come from outside the city.

If the cities didn't exist, the quality of farm life would be lower, but they'd survive...as they know how to make their own food and in general survive without much outside input.  If farms didn't exist.  Cities would disperse out of pure necessity. 

Without the electoral college, our country would be effectively a pure democracy where the 51% decide how everyone lives.  In every instance in history where that's happened, pure democracy leads to mob rule leads to dictatorship, and ruin.  Put another way, if the city dwellers are allowed to dictate how farmers live and work, farms would cease to function.  The USSR and China are fantastic examples.  The first forced non-farmers to become farmers.  The second now imports a huge section of it's needs.  Neither of those are sustainable in the future that's dawning right now.  In North America (and even some of south America, depending how we team up), we can exist largely separated from extra-hemispheric imports...IF and only IF we properly manage our natural resources.  That's a skill city dwellers claim to have, but in reality have demonstrated they largely lack.  Doubt that?  Go make your own tortilla from scratch with products made and produced only in a city.

The electoral college prevents the domination of one portion of society over the other.  The door swings both ways, for which you should be grateful.  You may scream for it to be gone now, but you probably not do so when republicans are in control.  Why is that?

That's basic civics.  Not politics.  CIVICS.  The thing all Americans should understand and appreciate. I highly urge you to re-examine your baseline understanding of our government and WHY it was framed the way it is. 

Stop calling for re-writes before you re-read. 

Edited June 12, 2023 by FourFans

[lloyd christmas]

13 hours ago, Prozac said:

I could post dozens of similar montages that make the right seem unhinged as there’s plenty of the same garbage being passed around by lefties. 

Please post a similar montage of prominent Republican politicians, A list Hollywood actors and members of the main stream media calling for violence against Democrats.  Not the fringe whackos.  Powerful people with large audiences. 

I would honestly like to see it.  

[Guest nsplayr]

As and you shall receive! 6.9 seconds on google:

 

[Guest nsplayr]

8 hours ago, FourFans said:

Regardless, can we get back to this above quote?  Do you seriously disagree with the basic foundational civics of our republic, such as the electoral college?

I too support ending the electoral college and yet I can still say I support the constitution! I bet you hold a view like that too.

I also think SCOTUS decisions like Heller and Citizens United were wrong, even though because of those decisions, the constitution currently means things I don't think are correct.

I would venture you may have felt the same way about Roe or any number other SCOTUS decisions, and I know a few conservatives that would move to repeal various amendments (e.g. 17th amendment) if they could. Many conservative legal experts have big plans to overturn even more currently constitutionally protected rights via their control of the Supreme Court.

So it’s not like there is some fixed, sacred thing here beyond some bare basics. What the constitution says can and will continue to change both by passing or repealing amendments (very rare now), or mostly via the courts. Prozac saying he’s in favor of some changes in legal ways (such as the NPVIC) is perfectly normal and not some kind of sacrilege against the founders.

[FourFans]

4 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I too support ending the electoral college

For what reason?  Would you support ending the electoral college if your party were in the minority?

Edited June 12, 2023 by FourFans

[Biff_T]

 

 

 

[Guest nsplayr]

5 hours ago, FourFans said:

For what reason?  Would you support ending the electoral college if your party were in the minority?

Yes. I truly wish Kerry would have barely won Ohio in 2004, thus giving him the presidency while losing the popular vote. Both parties would have ditched the thing straight away. It’s a vestigial anachronism that modern America no longer needs. The person with the most votes should win, period, just like in literally every other election we hold.

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Yes. I truly wish Kerry would have barely won Ohio in 2004, thus giving him the presidency while losing the popular vote. Both parties would have ditched the thing straight away. It’s a vestigial anachronism that modern America no longer needs. The person with the most votes should win, period, just like in literally every other election we hold.

someone explain it to him

[tac airlifter]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

 The person with the most votes should win, period, just like in literally every other election we hold.

The person with the most votes does win. The most electoral votes.  Everybody knows the rules, it’s not a surprise, and they should campaign in light of the system.
Otherwise Houston, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York would decide every election.  And in that case, eventually states in the rest of the country would ask “Why are we in this union?”  And then the USA would fall apart.  The founding fathers thought of this, and developed the electoral college accordingly.

In another thread, you asked a profound question: “why can’t Republicans convince voters in major metropolitan areas to support them?”  I’ve been thinking on it, although I’m not ready to answer yet. But it’s a great question and it would be fun to discuss over bourbon sometime.  However in this context I will turn it around on you: why can’t Democrats convince voters in middle America or rural areas to support their policies?  That’s the only reason they want to divest the electoral college; it challenges their grasp on National offices.  You say it’s an anachronism, but I find it fundamental to national cohesiveness.

[Guest nsplayr]

Y'all, I am perfectly aware of how the system currently works. In great detail.

Like, do you wanna talk about NE-3 and how in a weird scenario a Dem winning that single electoral vote in an otherwise red state could seal the election for them 270-268? I am a huge f*ing elections nerd if that is not abundantly clear. All candidates should and do campaign for the EC win today and I'm not advocating for them to do otherwise until the system changes. Lol except maybe Hillary who f-ing forgot to campaign in WI 🤦‍♂️

That being said, I would like the system to be different. The NPVIC is a viable and Constitutional way this might happen one day not too long from now.

BL: I would like the national popular vote winner to win the election, just like in every other election at every level. I understand the reasons why the founders set up the electoral college, the compromise between rural and at-the-time urban states, but I disagree that it's continuing to serve a valid purpose today. The country is vastly different in 2023 than when the Constitution was written. Like I said, it's a vestigial anachronism of the 1700s that's downsides outweigh any remaining benefit.

I also disagree that eliminating the EC would cause the nation to disintegrate, we're way stronger than that, and there is no state that would be better off on it's own than as part of the United States. Also today's divides are not longer regional but are urban/rural. People in Missoula have more in common politically with people in Madison or Austin or NYC than the rest of the state, and vice-versa for the rural parts of most states.

I also really do support eliminating the EC on principal, regardless of the fact that it's also painful that it hurts my preferred political party and has cost us the Presidency now twice. Like I posted before, if Kerry had become President over Bush due to a narrow EC win paired with a popular vote loss, A) I would have still thought that was unfair even though I much preferred Kerry in that race, and B) I firmly believe the GOP would have suddenly "seen the light" and joined the Dems to eliminate the EC forever.

14 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

In another thread, you asked a profound question: “why can’t Republicans convince voters in major metropolitan areas to support them?”  I’ve been thinking on it, although I’m not ready to answer yet. But it’s a great question and it would be fun to discuss over bourbon sometime.

Outstanding, I'd love to read your response if you ever want to post it.

15 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

However in this context I will turn it around on you: why can’t Democrats convince voters in middle America or rural areas to support their policies?

There is a whole cottage industry of think-pieces on why this is, what to do about it, etc. I've read a lot of them. The most persuasive ones either point to needing a nationally transcendent figure like Obama who just beats the pants off of his opponent, delivering states like Indiana and really cutting into typical GOP rural margins, or you need the type of Dem who is perhaps more in line with rural attitudes on trade, immigration, etc., someone like Sherrod Brown or Tim Ryan in Ohio, etc. I don't disagree that's what you'd need to improve rural margins.

What the last couple of elections have shown though, 2018-2022, is that as the electorate continues to change and morph and people move and etc., that Dems really don't have to make a ton of progress in truly rural areas. Not that you write them off, but that you can live even with 80-20 margins, similar to how Republicans do in cities.

The suburbs remain king and even when you lose a bit of margin in the urban cores (as Biden did comprated to Hillary 2020 to 2016), you can more than make up for it by campaigning hard in and winning the suburbs. So finding out what appeals to your wine moms, your 9-5 officer worker guys, etc. and not getting too suckered into what Billy Bob on the farm or Devonte in the inner city is most concerned with (oh no, stereotypes!), that's a viable path to win. This is the path Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock took in GA, Gretchen Whitmer took in MI, and the path Biden took in GA, AZ, MI & PA that delivered him the White House.

Happy to discuss in detail anytime brother, it truly is my wheelhouse of nerdery 🍺

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, nsplayr said:

Y'all, I am perfectly aware of how the system currently works. In great detail.

Like, do you wanna talk about NE-3 and how in a weird scenario a Dem winning that single electoral vote in an otherwise red state could seal the election for them 270-268? I am a huge f*ing elections nerd if that is not abundantly clear. All candidates should and do campaign for the EC win today and I'm not advocating for them to do otherwise until the system changes. Lol except maybe Hillary who f-ing forgot to campaign in WI 🤦‍♂️

That being said, I would like the system to be different. The NPVIC is a viable and Constitutional way this might happen one day not too long from now.

BL: I would like the national popular vote winner to win the election, just like in every other election at every level. I understand the reasons why the founders set up the electoral college, the compromise between rural and at-the-time urban states, but I disagree that it's continuing to serve a valid purpose today. The country is vastly different in 2023 than when the Constitution was written. Like I said, it's a vestigial anachronism of the 1700s that's downsides outweigh any remaining benefit.

I also disagree that eliminating the EC would cause the nation to disintegrate, we're way stronger than that, and there is no state that would be better off on it's own than as part of the United States. Also today's divides are not longer regional but are urban/rural. People in Missoula have more in common politically with people in Madison or Austin or NYC than the rest of the state, and vice-versa for the rural parts of most states.

I also really do support eliminating the EC on principal, regardless of the fact that it's also painful that it hurts my preferred political party and has cost us the Presidency now twice. Like I posted before, if Kerry had become President over Bush due to a narrow EC win paired with a popular vote loss, A) I would have still thought that was unfair even though I much preferred Kerry in that race, and B) I firmly believe the GOP would have suddenly "seen the light" and joined the Dems to eliminate the EC forever.

Outstanding, I'd love to read your response if you ever want to post it.

There is a whole cottage industry of think-pieces on why this is, what to do about it, etc. I've read a lot of them. The most persuasive ones either point to needing a nationally transcendent figure like Obama who just beats the pants off of his opponent, delivering states like Indiana and really cutting into typical GOP rural margins, or you need the type of Dem who is perhaps more in line with rural attitudes on trade, immigration, etc., someone like Sherrod Brown or Tim Ryan in Ohio, etc. I don't disagree that's what you'd need to improve rural margins.

What the last couple of elections have shown though, 2018-2022, is that as the electorate continues to change and morph and people move and etc., that Dems really don't have to make a ton of progress in truly rural areas. Not that you write them off, but that you can live even with 80-20 margins, similar to how Republicans do in cities.

The suburbs remain king and even when you lose a bit of margin in the urban cores (as Biden did comprated to Hillary 2020 to 2016), you can more than make up for it by campaigning hard in and winning the suburbs. So finding out what appeals to your wine moms, your 9-5 officer worker guys, etc. and not getting too suckered into what Billy Bob on the farm or Devonte in the inner city is most concerned with (oh no, stereotypes!), that's a viable path to win. This is the path Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock took in GA, Gretchen Whitmer took in MI, and the path Biden took in GA, AZ, MI & PA that delivered him the White House.

Happy to discuss in detail anytime brother, it truly is my wheelhouse of nerdery 🍺

Absolutely not

[Prozac]

On 6/11/2023 at 10:38 PM, FourFans said:

Hopefully someday you'll realize you can't fix hate with more hate.

WTF dude? You’ve got a lib on the forum and you feel that you can place all of your angst about what you think liberals represent on me? You don’t know me. GTFO with your assumptions. Here’s a tip for you: don’t debate individuals as if they represent the entirety of positions you don’t like. Individual human beings are nuanced and complex, with wide ranging viewpoints on various topics. If you knew me at all, you’d know I don’t hate anyone. Hopefully someday you’ll realize you can’t fix the world with your head all the way up your ass (said with love). 

[ClearedHot]

[FourFans]

5 hours ago, Prozac said:

WTF dude? You’ve got a lib on the forum and you feel that you can place all of your angst about what you think liberals represent on me? You don’t know me. GTFO with your assumptions. Here’s a tip for you: don’t debate individuals as if they represent the entirety of positions you don’t like. Individual human beings are nuanced and complex, with wide ranging viewpoints on various topics. If you knew me at all, you’d know I don’t hate anyone. Hopefully someday you’ll realize you can’t fix the world with your head all the way up your ass (said with love). 

Interesting response. Clearly you've been triggered. Thanks for not illuminating your position with any facts or responding to any of the questions that are asked to you. This response really does tell me a lot about you. 

You, likewise, don't know very much about me, and as far as I can see, you've not asked very many people here why they believe what they believe. Instead, you've actively displayed disgust, disbelief, and emotive response of distain for viewpoints that are not your own, including the above post. That's telling. 

Frankly, I'm not concerned if you call yourself a liberal, conservative, independent or other.  Do you think you deserve some special treatment because of your viewpoint?

One of the two of us actually tries to engage and present nuanced arguments. My comment about hate had nothing to do with liberals. It has to do with views you personally have expressed on this board, the contempt you've repeatedly expressed toward opinions you don't like, and the fact that you feel entitled to throw shade at opposing viewpoints just because you don't like them, not because you have a factually based argment against them that you're willing to share.  That's an expression of hate, hence my comment.

Edited June 13, 2023 by FourFans

[Prozac]

19 minutes ago, FourFans said:

That's an expression of hate, hence my comment.

And I’m the one who’s triggered?  A little over sensitive/borderline histrionics here man. Sorry you think I’m hateful because I don’t want to engage with your painfully meandering and obtuse arguments. I’ll try and keep your sensitivities in mind in the future. 

[Vito]

 I’m curious how many of our resident Liberals live in Liberal states and cities paying huge liberal taxes and exposing their families to liberals committing crime with impunity. At my airline, the few liberals amongst us, all preach social justice, equality, compassion etc as they sit ensconced in their safe, well run, low tax Republican States. I grew up in the Bronx, and it’s hard to be liberal when you see their policies and programs crash and burn around you on a daily basis for decades.

Edited June 13, 2023 by Vito

[Day Man]

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/vincent-delorenzo-priest-michigan-child-abuse-funeral/

must have been a drag queen on his days off🙄

 

[Guest nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Vito said:

 I’m curious how many of our resident Liberals live in Liberal states and cities paying huge liberal taxes and exposing their families to liberals committing crime with impunity. At my airline, the few liberals amongst us, all preach social justice, equality, compassion etc as they sit ensconced in their safe, well run, low tax Republican States. I grew up in the Bronx, and it’s hard to be liberal when you see their policies and programs crash and burn around you on a daily basis for decades.

Resident liberal here. Obviously I disagree with your premise. “Oh how can you live in evil red states where your daughters and wives can’t get healthcare, the government bans books, gay people are ostracized, the Bible is shoved down your throat, etc.” /sarcasm. It’s a bad faith question. I’m not asking that, just parroting back the inverse of what you asked just to be clear.

That being said, I’ll answer it!

I grew up in what is now a fairly blue state, went to school is a very liberal city, and have since moved because of the Air Force. If I could have landed a job or assignment in a big city, I would have loved that! My family will likely move back to the city where my wife and I went to college at some point after I retire.

What is your point in asking this question? Because obviously lots of liberals do in fact live in liberal-voting cities and states…that’s why they’re liberal-voting! The land itself is neutral and lacks consciousness.

Also not for nothing, many of the safest states are solidly blue. 9 of the top 10 by these measures!

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/homeowners/safest-states-in-the-us.html

Re: taxes it all depends on your income and situation…different states balance income, sales and property taxes differently and YMMV, plus there are not clear ideological dividing lines there in all cases.

Edited June 14, 2023 by nsplayr

[pawnman]

9 hours ago, Vito said:

 I’m curious how many of our resident Liberals live in Liberal states and cities paying huge liberal taxes and exposing their families to liberals committing crime with impunity. At my airline, the few liberals amongst us, all preach social justice, equality, compassion etc as they sit ensconced in their safe, well run, low tax Republican States. I grew up in the Bronx, and it’s hard to be liberal when you see their policies and programs crash and burn around you on a daily basis for decades.

Seems pretty obvious that liberals live in these liberal cities, or they wouldn't be liberal cities.

I don't know how they see the disaster that is downtown LA and decide to vote for more of the same...but they do.