General politics

[USAFChief]

 

If it is a military anthem, and not about the nation as a whole, then it is not the national anthem.

And I am not required to stand for ideas at all.

no you're not required.  

 

which seems to me to illustrate why the decision NOT to stand is wrong.    

[TheLeviathan]

 

counter productive to march and block the streets

counter productive to sit in the front of the bus, or at the counter with the whites

.....

 

if we were in teh 60s, everyone would be typing how it was counter productive to do what the civil rights movement did.

 

Well, was it counter-productive locally?  Most certainly.  Nationally?  I don't know....was it? 

 

I hear this retort a lot and it sounds good, but can you show me how the bus boycott was received nationally at the time to back up this contention?

[Craig Arko]

Alternatively, we could unite to foster a culture where homage to tribal symbols is less important than respecting and seeking justice for all of our fellow citizens. Not just the ones that look and act the same way we do.

 

It’s a thought.

 

You know what I will stand for? Today’s launch of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy. That is humanity reaching for our greatest common factor instead of our least common denominator.

[Badsmerf]

Here's the thing with the national anthem protests, supporting them is about supporting personal freedom and peaceful protest. To me, this issue comes from the same ideology that the colonists revolted against, starting the revolutionary war. Democrats need to walk a fine line on this issue, Republicans too btw. Trump and people like Steve King get too much leeway by their supporters on these types of topics.

 

I can see why some value the national anthem, but I caution against a sense of worship. The national anthem was an idea, it was written by someone. However, I see the US constitution as a much much bigger idea, and way more powerful. Just like the flag, I can take it or leave it. They are symbols. They can be destroyed and remade. These assaults on personal freedoms are real, and are the real threat to the constitution.

 

I don't agree that democrats are in the wrong on this topic, among others. People also thought Lincoln was wrong on slavery too. The population as a while is moving more liberal, but there are still vicious opponents of some social ideas that paint all democrats as demons. The "morality" card used against republicans doesn't find as much traction. Franken resigned over his allegations, before they ethics committee even investigated it, but Roy Moore almost won a Senate seat, and Trump was voted president.

[PseudoSABR]

Others have already touched on a lot of my thoughts, but I'll just add that Democrats haven't been campaigning on anthem protests or black lives matters--people's issues are generally with liberals who do scream loudly about those phenomenon.   I think we need to be careful about being so pragmatic that we end up with a lot more Clintons, Gores, and Kerrys as candidates, who fence-sit and try to limit their liability rather than really standing for something.   I also think we should be wary of equating pragmatism with making it easier for old, white men to accept a specific candidate or campaign (because that's how the specific examples come across to me).

 

For my part, I want to see authenticity. Sure having a simple message is great, but it needs to be sincere, and it's okay to take a stance on issues that may push some people away (that's really what having a stance is). Why Trump resonated is that he seemed (clearly he is not) authentic, and that appeals to people in non-rationale ways--maybe much in the same way Sanders had more success than was anticipated.  

 

I do think our idealism does break down when we actually do the work of coming up with a single message. Even in this forum, we are a distinct group of individuals who really are aligned on the enemy of my enemy is my friend notion than having a discernible shared belief.  We're not a bunch of liberals (in fact, there's really only a handful of those). What's a slogan that we can all get behind? "**** the rich" "The rich should pay their fair share" "Jobs aren't coming back" "Free stuff"  "Helping people is good" "Let's steal Jack's dollar and give it to Jane"; I don't think generic messages like "Change" and "Hope" are going to work again. There needs to be some substance, and as I've said, authenticity.

[Mike Sixel]

The message needs to not lose the base, and energize/convince the people on the fence that the Dems are the better choice.....I don't know what that message is. Here are some options:

 

1. Universal Health care.....it is a bogeyman, for sure, but it is inevitable. I give this one a 1% chance of being part of the message.

 

2. Public infrastructure to get jobs ..... the delta here is public vs privatization. I think this will be part of the message, but is not interesting enough to get the margins moving.

 

3. Safety nets and "its your money"....a message about medicare and social security, it is your money, you should still get it...blah, blah, blah.....true, but not energizing.

 

4. Liberty and freedom for ALL.....this would be fascinating, as we seem to be back to the dems being about this, vs the GOP. I never would have guessed this 30 years ago....is this energizing? I doubt it.

 

Frankly, I don't know what people CARE about, other than not liking or liking Trump, at this point.

[Craig Arko]

Have you read the words?

 

And yes, it's wrong not to stand. It's not "a song." It's an idea.

 

Meanwhile, the R's control both houses and the White House.

 

Have you? What do you think about the third stanza?

 

https://amhistory.si.edu/starspangledbanner/pdf/ssb_lyrics.pdf

 

And by the way, it’s a poem. The music was taken from a British song about drinking and sex. Maybe we should lie down instead of standing.

 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-star-spangled-banner-200-anniversary-20140912-story.html

[TheLeviathan]

 

Others have already touched on a lot of my thoughts, but I'll just add that Democrats haven't been campaigning on anthem protests or black lives matters--people's issues are generally with liberals who do scream loudly about those phenomenon.   I think we need to be careful about being so pragmatic that we end up with a lot more Clintons, Gores, and Kerrys as candidates, who fence-sit and try to limit their liability rather than really standing for something.   I also think we should be wary of equating pragmatism with making it easier for old, white men to accept a specific candidate or campaign (because that's how the specific examples come across to me).

 

I largely agree with your post, but I greatly dislike the idea that pragmatism/moderation = fence sitting.  Both sides have cultivated this idea that anyone who isn't fiercely liberal or fiercely conservative is some kind of tumbleweed drifting aimlessly around.  

 

I could not disagree more strongly with that insinuation.  And I cannot stress enough how dangerous I think it is to continue to push that idea from either side.  

 

As for the message?  How about we go back to John Cena's brilliant little video about "We are America" with the emphasis on "we".  And take Mike's list and be brave enough to capture 1 and 2.  Don't hide from it - embrace it.  And have good, practical selling points for people.  

[nicksaviking]

 

It's wrong not to stand for the national anthem.

 

And it's counterproductive, to boot.

 

I have no problem with peaceful protest, and I'm a registered Democrat.  But The Kaepernick thing?  Well, congratulations, people.  You simultaneously dis'd the very people who have fought and died for your rights, and hurt your own cause in the process.  

 

Well played.  Fox News appreciates the video.

 

I appreciate what you have dedicated your life to, and I'm fairly confident in saying that support of the military is strong in nearly every area of our nation, but why does the military get to claim sole dominion over the National Anthem?

 

Doesn't it represent school teachers, firemen, bankers, bakers and construction workers too? Doesn't it represent police officers and politicians also? They tend to wear our nation's flag on their uniforms and suits and those are the targets of the protests.

 

I think the problem is that Republican's have falsely claimed the right to the flag, the national anthem and everything patriotic. If I were to protest, I'd protest their bogus confiscation of those principles and the fact that they have blasphemously started injecting Fascism into them. 

[jimmer]

I appreciate what you have dedicated your life to, and I'm fairly confident in saying that support of the military is strong in nearly every area of our nation, but why does the military get to claim sole dominion over the National Anthem?

 

Doesn't it represent school teachers, firemen, bankers, bakers and construction workers too? Doesn't it represent police officers and politicians also? They tend to wear our nation's flag on their uniforms and suits and those are the targets of the protests.

there are plenty of active duty personnel and veterans who feel that they served so people could continue to exercise their rights guaranteed to them by the constitution to include peaceful protest of the national anthem. I am one of them.

[nicksaviking]

 

there are plenty of active duty personnel and veterans who feel that they served so people could continue to exercise their rights guaranteed to them by the constitution to include peaceful protest of the national anthem. I am one of them.

 

I'd never kneel during the anthem and I'd rather the athletes find a better way to protest.

 

But I also don't worry about myself or my family getting shot during a traffic stop or struggling in any way because of racially pointed political policies so I'm sympathetic to the message which was in no way getting through to people until they did something bold and eye-opening to much of our population.

 

Nothing is working for them. Nothing is changing, it's going backwards in fact. If it was me, I'd probably try about anything to make the world better for my kids. Very little would be off limits.

 

 

[TheLeviathan]

 

I'd never kneel during the anthem and I'd rather the athletes find a better way to protest.

 

But I also don't worry about myself or my family getting shot during a traffic stop or struggling in any way because of racially pointed political policies so I'm sympathetic to the message which was in no way getting through to people until they did something bold and eye-opening to much of our population.

 

Nothing is working for them. Nothing is changing, it's going backwards in fact. If it was me, I'd probably try about anything to make the world better for my kids. Very little would be off limits.

 

I agree with you, I don't blame them or condemn them for their actions.  I just think it's time to get out of these weeds.  The problem still needs solving.  Can I suggest another, perhaps even more bold alternative?

 

Appeal to the gun-loving 2nd amendment folks as allies.   It may be too late for that now, but it would've been a more effective tact IMO.

 

I think about this sort of thing a lot on political issues we have deep divides on.  You could find some unusual bedfellows that would really agree with you if you're willing to look past some issues for common ground.  It used to be how things got done.....back in the olden days....but now I'm diverging more in Chief's territory so I should probably stop.  Still, our goal should be to make the world a better place, sometimes that route isn't as clean cut as we'd like it to be, but nevertheless it needs to happen.

[TheLeviathan]

I hear there is a bipartisan budget deal.

 

I'm not sure I totally understand what those words mean anymore.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I hear there is a bipartisan budget deal.

 

I'm not sure I totally understand what those words mean anymore.

 

two years!

 

inconceivable.

 

Increases in spending, decreases in tax revenue! Hello higher interest rates.

[jimmer]

two years!

 

inconceivable.

 

Increases in spending, decreases in tax revenue! Hello higher interest rates.

yup, I am planning to buy a house next year. Should be greeeat mortage rates available.

 

Fortunately, my property taxes should be really low to offset that.

[Mike Sixel]

Interesting observation I read on line today:

 

"If you can't understand why poor people vote for Trump, just read the discussions about player salaries."

 

The point being, there are a lot of people that think "owners" have more rights to money than "workers", and that somehow rich workers are greedy, but rich owners are not. Obviously, there are more things to how you vote, but this, to me, goes back to the study that said the number 1 thing coorelated with voting for Trump was that many of his voters believe in authoritarianism/want to be told what to do/how to feel. I can't relate to that at all. It's such a fundamental difference, that I feel our two party system only makes "worse" by pushing the power to the extremes on that view (among others).

 

Ultimately, we'll have to figure out how not to have a two party system.

[Badsmerf]

Interesting observation I read on line today:

 

"If you can't understand why poor people vote for Trump, just read the discussions about player salaries."

 

The point being, there are a lot of people that think "owners" have more rights to money than "workers", and that somehow rich workers are greedy, but rich owners are not. Obviously, there are more things to how you vote, but this, to me, goes back to the study that said the number 1 thing coorelated with voting for Trump was that many of his voters believe in authoritarianism/want to be told what to do/how to feel. I can't relate to that at all. It's such a fundamental difference, that I feel our two party system only makes "worse" by pushing the power to the extremes on that view (among others).

 

Ultimately, we'll have to figure out how not to have a two party system.

Good luck on that.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Good luck on that.

 

thanks!

[TheLeviathan]

I think we are getting close to a time for a third party. Just needs the right front person.

[jimmer]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/retirement/an-obscure-court-decision-against-a-rhode-island-towns-police-officers-and-firefighters-could-be-a-warning-sign-for-social-security/ar-BBIQf5o?li=BBnb7Kz

 

[nicksaviking]

 

Interesting observation I read on line today:

 

"If you can't understand why poor people vote for Trump, just read the discussions about player salaries."

 

The point being, there are a lot of people that think "owners" have more rights to money than "workers", and that somehow rich workers are greedy, but rich owners are not. Obviously, there are more things to how you vote, but this, to me, goes back to the study that said the number 1 thing coorelated with voting for Trump was that many of his voters believe in authoritarianism/want to be told what to do/how to feel. I can't relate to that at all. It's such a fundamental difference, that I feel our two party system only makes "worse" by pushing the power to the extremes on that view (among others).

 

Ultimately, we'll have to figure out how not to have a two party system.

 

I buy into just about all of that except for the bolded sentence. I buy that many Trump supporters lack the education and/or the desire to think about complex subjects themselves and would prefer to have someone tell them what to BELIEVE, but these are the same people who buy cabins in the mountains of Montana and build bunkers in their backyards in Arkansas to avoid government intrusion and these are the same people who absolutely lose their minds when anyone utters the word taxes. I don't know that I buy that  these people want to be told what to do, it seems to me that nearly all of them at least want the illusion that NO ONE tells them what to do.

 

[Mike Sixel]

I'll try to find the study again. It was surprising to me also.

[TheLeviathan]

 

 I don't know that I buy that  these people want to be told what to do, it seems to me that nearly all of them at least want the illusion that NO ONE tells them what to do.

 

Many of them are also married, so their whole life is probably a delusion.

 

[ashbury]

Many of them are also married, so their whole life is probably a delusion.

 

I wouldn't let a ten-foot pole touch the 11-foot pole that touched that line.

[Badsmerf]

Anybody else watching this town hall? I'm enjoying it thoroughly. Really raw. The nra spokeswoman is getting grilled right now. Rubio got grilled. They are actually answering questions, and the crowd is responding forcibly.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Anybody else watching this town hall? I'm enjoying it thoroughly. Really raw. The nra spokeswoman is getting grilled right now. Rubio got grilled. They are actually answering questions, and the crowd is responding forcibly.

 

The response to gun owners is finally starting to catch up in ferocity to the degree that gun owners speak about guns.

[Badsmerf]

The response to gun owners is finally starting to catch up in ferocity to the degree that gun owners speak about guns.

Exactly. It should also be noted, I don't think law enforcement wants to see easy access to guns either. I was glad to hear some of Rubio's responses. It was also painfully obvious how much power the nra has over him. He even had a chance to spin the nra topic into campaign finance reform and citizens United and he didn't.

 

Some of the students were great, others were to emotional and let the stage get the better of them. All the politicians did a good job. The nra spokeswoman wasn't great. Pretty much embodied what I would expect out of that organization, and that isn't saying much. She argued with students and the audience, she was arrogant in her responses, and wanted to talk at people the entire time. They have 6 million members, and I'd say a large majority thought she was brilliant.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

The response to gun owners is finally starting to catch up in ferocity to the degree that gun owners speak about guns.

One can only hope the tide is shifting on this (and I'm rather pro-gun, just not irrationally so).

 

Like so many other things, conservatives have drifted so far to the right that we can't even have a rational discussion about what should be some rather easy concessions to fix an obvious problem.

 

I mean, you can line up conservative politicians from pre-1990 and so many made statements against what modern conservatives are arguing for today. It's sheer lunacy.

 

I don't like to paint with broad strokes but modern conservatives seem to have absolutely *no* grasp of actual history, even of their own party.

[TheLeviathan]

I just love how I have to pay out of my own pocket to give my students things like pencils, but they think it's totally workable to arm and train every teacher.

 

There is no other word than lunacy for all of it.  They've abandoned all principles and judgment and embraced full on crazy.  And I say that, knowingly including people I love and care about....but there are no other adequate words to describe what they embrace.

[Badsmerf]

Wow, the nra ceo is ****ing nuts. I didn't know how bad it was until listening this morning. He just said the right to own guns is a God given right.....

 

I'm also pro gun. The things people want in gun control are widely supported. It's not even close. Gun people are too hung up on semantics. Just try to institute what we know is right and try to save a few lives. Save a few kids.