US Politics - Trump cancels summit having to do with North Korea

They should be engaged on levels other than racism and bigotry - the economy sits high in many of these people's priorities lists, so that's one area the Democrats can engage them without fear of pandering to their worst views. When in office, they can begin to re-normalize the marginalization of racist, bigoted white nationalism.

Karl wrote:I know I prattle on about it, but here 'engaging' with the far-right has got us into a situation where even ostensibly left-wing politicians use barely-concealed racist code-phrases like [/b] "legitimate concerns about immigration"[/b] to appeal to racist voters. How do liberal centrists convince far-right voters that they 'understand' them, without giving the impression that it's OK to hold their horrible views? Normalising those points of view will make things worse -- look at the spike in hate crime after the referendum.

I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

Trump didn't win by just convincing far right America. He convinced enough of the centre ground to support him in key states.

captain red dog wrote:

Karl wrote:I know I prattle on about it, but here 'engaging' with the far-right has got us into a situation where even ostensibly left-wing politicians use barely-concealed racist code-phrases like [/b] "legitimate concerns about immigration"[/b] to appeal to racist voters. How do liberal centrists convince far-right voters that they 'understand' them, without giving the impression that it's OK to hold their horrible views? Normalising those points of view will make things worse -- look at the spike in hate crime after the referendum.

I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

Trump didn't win by just convincing far right America. He convinced enough of the centre ground to support him in key states.

Honestly, the world is becoming a smaller place whether people like it or not. I wouldn't say its racist, but I would say its utterly backwards.

I read an interesting article somewhere by a guy who was a life long Republican despite being dirt poor and depending on welfare for survival much of his life, who only recently saw the light and changed his voting habits. Basically, he described having a massive inferiority complex due to his own 'failures' and a sense of guilt at having to be supported by people who were in his view much more talented and industrious than himself. This was despite him struggling working several jobs to feed his family. Eventually he came to the realisation that no one in the ruling class was voting against their own interests; in fact that were predictably voting in their own interests every single time and numerous aspects of government and law had been crafted to better suit them so he decided to "give myself a break" and start voting for what was best for him and his family rather than out of a sense of self-loathing.

IMO, if you want to win over poor right wing voters you to make them stop hating themselves. The whole setup of American society, from the constant advertisements for products people cannot afford and television shows about families living lives they can never have is just a relentless hammering home of the message "YOU ARE INADEQUATE, YOU DO NOT MEASURE UP!" day in and day out. It's not surprising that so many people have taken the message to heart. The challenge the left has is to convince these people they are not as bad as they think and they actually deserve more than they are getting, be it in the form of better wages, healthcare and social security.

captain red dog wrote:I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

I've yet to see someone rationally assess the available economic data & models and conclude "yes, immigration is a problem for the UK." In that sense, I'm yet to be convinced that these 'legitimate concerns' actually exist. I'm sure plenty of people with such 'concerns' are simply ignorant rather than bigoted, but it's certainly become a dog-whistle phrase for cowardly politicians and smug tabloids to appeal to closeted racists.

DML wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Karl wrote:I know I prattle on about it, but here 'engaging' with the far-right has got us into a situation where even ostensibly left-wing politicians use barely-concealed racist code-phrases like [/b] "legitimate concerns about immigration"[/b] to appeal to racist voters. How do liberal centrists convince far-right voters that they 'understand' them, without giving the impression that it's OK to hold their horrible views? Normalising those points of view will make things worse -- look at the spike in hate crime after the referendum.

I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

Trump didn't win by just convincing far right America. He convinced enough of the centre ground to support him in key states.

Honestly, the world is becoming a smaller place whether people like it or not. I wouldn't say its racist, but I would say its utterly backwards.

I think there is plenty of room to legitimately criticise immigration and how it has been handled, certainly in the UK at least. I'm not overly familiar with the problems people say they have in the US as I find it difficult to understand when they have so many ethnic groups from a long history of immigration and actually seem to have tighter border restrictions than Europe.

In terms of the Trump appeal, I put it down to a long line of factors that he has been able to capitalise on. Jobs have been lost to automation (which will only increase), cheap overseas labour, the economic downturn earlier this decade and to a much smaller scale immigration and illegal immigration. I think those communities have been largely abandoned in a similar way I guess to northern mining towns, former fishing communities and the motor industry in the UK.

Ironically the Republicans are responsible for most of those issues in my opinion, but Trump isn't your typical republican.

captain red dog wrote:

Karl wrote:I know I prattle on about it, but here 'engaging' with the far-right has got us into a situation where even ostensibly left-wing politicians use barely-concealed racist code-phrases like [/b] "legitimate concerns about immigration"[/b] to appeal to racist voters. How do liberal centrists convince far-right voters that they 'understand' them, without giving the impression that it's OK to hold their horrible views? Normalising those points of view will make things worse -- look at the spike in hate crime after the referendum.

I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

Trump didn't win by just convincing far right America. He convinced enough of the centre ground to support him in key states.

What are those legitimate concerns though? That Muslims are invading or that illegal Mexicans are stealing all the jobs?

Legitimate concerns over immigration wouldn't be racist. I've heard very few legitimate concerns though, the majority of concerns usually lead straight to racism or bigotry.

captain red dog wrote:

DML wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Karl wrote:I know I prattle on about it, but here 'engaging' with the far-right has got us into a situation where even ostensibly left-wing politicians use barely-concealed racist code-phrases like [/b] "legitimate concerns about immigration"[/b] to appeal to racist voters. How do liberal centrists convince far-right voters that they 'understand' them, without giving the impression that it's OK to hold their horrible views? Normalising those points of view will make things worse -- look at the spike in hate crime after the referendum.

I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

Trump didn't win by just convincing far right America. He convinced enough of the centre ground to support him in key states.

Honestly, the world is becoming a smaller place whether people like it or not. I wouldn't say its racist, but I would say its utterly backwards.

I think there is plenty of room to legitimately criticise immigration and how it has been handled, certainly in the UK at least. I'm not overly familiar with the problems people say they have in the US as I find it difficult to understand when they have so many ethnic groups from a long history of immigration and actually seem to have tighter border restrictions than Europe.

And?

I like the fact the UK is an open country. We're stronger for it.

Yet more smoke:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins/a-former-trump-adviser-met-with-a-russian-spy?utm_term=.naRyAnkjx#.eqvoEqm4P

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Karl wrote:I know I prattle on about it, but here 'engaging' with the far-right has got us into a situation where even ostensibly left-wing politicians use barely-concealed racist code-phrases like [/b] "legitimate concerns about immigration"[/b] to appeal to racist voters. How do liberal centrists convince far-right voters that they 'understand' them, without giving the impression that it's OK to hold their horrible views? Normalising those points of view will make things worse -- look at the spike in hate crime after the referendum.

I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

Trump didn't win by just convincing far right America. He convinced enough of the centre ground to support him in key states.

What are those legitimate concerns though? That Muslims are invading or that illegal Mexicans are stealing all the jobs?

Legitimate concerns over immigration wouldn't be racist. I've heard very few legitimate concerns though, the majority of concerns usually lead straight to racism or bigotry.

Right but you need to distinguish between the majority of voters who aren't racist, and the types the media love to interview. Just stating that all people that voted Trump are racist is ridiculous in my view (particularly in a 2 party system like the US) and if the Dems choose to do nothing to win over that slice of the vote then I expect them to be out of power for a long time.

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Karl wrote:I know I prattle on about it, but here 'engaging' with the far-right has got us into a situation where even ostensibly left-wing politicians use barely-concealed racist code-phrases like [/b] "legitimate concerns about immigration"[/b] to appeal to racist voters. How do liberal centrists convince far-right voters that they 'understand' them, without giving the impression that it's OK to hold their horrible views? Normalising those points of view will make things worse -- look at the spike in hate crime after the referendum.

I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

Trump didn't win by just convincing far right America. He convinced enough of the centre ground to support him in key states.

What are those legitimate concerns though? That Muslims are invading or that illegal Mexicans are stealing all the jobs?

Legitimate concerns over immigration wouldn't be racist. I've heard very few legitimate concerns though, the majority of concerns usually lead straight to racism or bigotry.

Right but you need to distinguish between the majority of voters who aren't racist, and the types the media love to interview. Just stating that all people that voted Trump are racist is ridiculous in my view (particularly in a 2 party system like the US) and if the Dems choose to do nothing to win over that slice of the vote then I expect them to be out of power for a long time.

Which 'concerns' in particular do you think it's helpful for the Dems to engage Trump voters over? Alvin raised a good point earlier with making the economy a priority, convincing people that centrism is better for their wallets than far-right ideologies. But you seem focused on immigration. On which immigration-related points do you feel the Dems could seek common ground?

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Karl wrote:I know I prattle on about it, but here 'engaging' with the far-right has got us into a situation where even ostensibly left-wing politicians use barely-concealed racist code-phrases like [/b] "legitimate concerns about immigration"[/b] to appeal to racist voters. How do liberal centrists convince far-right voters that they 'understand' them, without giving the impression that it's OK to hold their horrible views? Normalising those points of view will make things worse -- look at the spike in hate crime after the referendum.

I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

Trump didn't win by just convincing far right America. He convinced enough of the centre ground to support him in key states.

What are those legitimate concerns though? That Muslims are invading or that illegal Mexicans are stealing all the jobs?

Legitimate concerns over immigration wouldn't be racist. I've heard very few legitimate concerns though, the majority of concerns usually lead straight to racism or bigotry.

Right but you need to distinguish between the majority of voters who aren't racist, and the types the media love to interview. Just stating that all people that voted Trump are racist is ridiculous in my view (particularly in a 2 party system like the US) and if the Dems choose to do nothing to win over that slice of the vote then I expect them to be out of power for a long time.

Nobody has seriously stated that all people that voted Trump are racist. The only people that ever state things like that are Trump supporters that wave it around like it excuses the fuckwit they voted for.

The Dems did win over the majority of voters. Clinton had 3 million more votes. 4 disastrous years of Trump and a half decent candidate should swing things back the Dem way in 2020.

captain red dog wrote:

Moggy wrote:

captain red dog wrote:

Karl wrote:I know I prattle on about it, but here 'engaging' with the far-right has got us into a situation where even ostensibly left-wing politicians use barely-concealed racist code-phrases like [/b] "legitimate concerns about immigration"[/b] to appeal to racist voters. How do liberal centrists convince far-right voters that they 'understand' them, without giving the impression that it's OK to hold their horrible views? Normalising those points of view will make things worse -- look at the spike in hate crime after the referendum.

I'm confused there, you think having legitimate concerns over immigration is a racist position?

Trump didn't win by just convincing far right America. He convinced enough of the centre ground to support him in key states.

What are those legitimate concerns though? That Muslims are invading or that illegal Mexicans are stealing all the jobs?

Legitimate concerns over immigration wouldn't be racist. I've heard very few legitimate concerns though, the majority of concerns usually lead straight to racism or bigotry.

Right but you need to distinguish between the majority of voters who aren't racist, and the types the media love to interview. Just stating that all people that voted Trump are racist is ridiculous in my view (particularly in a 2 party system like the US) and if the Dems choose to do nothing to win over that slice of the vote then I expect them to be out of power for a long time.

The truth is the Dems could do nothing and they will be the leaders of the Free World come 2020.

Anyone else worried that the Democrats are picking the wrong fight in the filibuster of Gorsuch? I mean, I'm as incensed as anyone, and the pressure on the Senate Democrats to deny Gorsuch the job must be immense, but I'd rather have Gorsuch on the bench and the filibuster intact for the next justice to leave or die than waste it on essentially preserving the Scalian status quo.

Reducing the Senate to a mere majority rules chamber would be a huge blow to American democracy as well. The Senate is widely regarded as the greatest deliberative body in the world, and to end that now would send a terrible message. I would hope that Schumer might restore the filibuster, but I don't know if he would or not.

Spicer: Syrian chemical attack a 'consequence' of Obama 'weakness'

White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Tuesday that a gas attack in a rebel-controlled area of Syria was perpetrated by the forces tied to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and are a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution."

Multiple activist groups in Syria tell CNN that dozens of people, including children, were killed in one of the deadliest gas attacks in years. The activists have also blamed the attack in the rebel-held city of Khan Sheikhoun on Assad.

"Today's chemical attack in Syria against innocent people including women and children is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world," Spicer said. "These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution."

Spicer added: "President (Barack) Obama said in 2012 he would establish a red line against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable act."

Despite the attack, the Trump administration has said that it is up to the people of Syria to pick a leader and that their priority is not getting Assad out of office.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/04/polit ... index.html

Obama couldn't make good on his red line pledge because Congress wouldn't hold a vote on it. Since they're the only branch of government explicitly mentioned in the constitution as being granted the power to declare an overseas war, and given his background as a constitutional professor/scholar, Obama wasn't about to violate that - well, not in that instance. This is why US troops in the area are specifically there as advisers, unable to engage explicitly in combat operations. The whole 'temporary conflict zone' thing (that Trump is now embiggening) was a massive deviation from the powers set out in the constitution though.

Trump is just beyond reprehensible .

The problem he's got of course is that it's his turn to respond to the awful balancing act in Syria. Part of Obama's reluctance to go all in was the question of what comes next (ISIS or worse). Now it is his administration that needs to respond. Having criticised Obama for treading a careful line, we may be heading towards his first dangerous international intervention, although starting a war with North Korea may yet come first.

Bannon taken off National Security Council.

Something's gonna break I reckon.

Putin's Bannon mask must have fallen off when someone bumped into him.

Photek wrote:Bannon taken off National Security Council.

That was quick