But wouldn't that make them more likely to criticize traditional Republicans over liberals? Presumably they wouldn't have the "we don't criticize our own" instinct.
They have gone after people like Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, but I think they have bigger fish to try when it comes to social liberals. These people aren't exactly policy wonks (I'm willing to bet that you if you put the policy platform of each candidate down in front of them, a majority would prefer the Democratic one) they're obsessed with the idea that "their" America is under attack. They aren't screaming mad about public health care, but they are losing their minds over mentions of white privilege and some of the behaviour that's happening on college campuses. I've gone to a bunch of their "news" sites, it's all outrage-driven headlines about feminists and millennials. They find obscure stories and rare examples and present them like they're wide spread major threats.
I kinda don't understand all the anger Fox News type Republicans have for all us lefty snowflakes. Y'all won! You won everything, why are they acting like a scared, cornered animal? Reminds me of a child who has all the toys and is just fiercely trying to keep hands off their loot instead of actually getting down to playing.
Did anyone watch the segment on Sarah Silverman's America I Love You when she had dinner with Trump voters? It seems to just come down what it always does - people are generally good and want the best for each other. Alarmist media works really hard to undo our best instincts.
@aberry89 - Most of my extended family in GA voted for Trump. The family in that video clip resembles them very much. We get along great, and when the subject goes to politics, things are civil for the most part. I can tell when they've been fed a line, though. And when they bad-mouth liberals, that's when something comes over them... they're less themselves, more frustrated/afraid. It's like a phase that passes.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
@aberry89 - Most of my extended family in GA voted for Trump. The family in that video clip resembles them very much. We get along great, and when the subject goes to politics, things are civil for the most part. I can tell when they've been fed a line, though. And when they bad-mouth liberals, that's when something comes over them... they're less themselves, more frustrated/afraid. It's like a phase that passes.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
I have noticed another trend. When Republicans can't fully explain why something is going wrong, or if it appears to be the fault of the right, they will instantly just blame liberals.
When FoxNews posts a story about a kid with a giant American flag shirt being sent home from school for violating the schools rule on logo size on a shirt, everyone freaks about how liberals are destroying America, but they completely ignore the fact that the shirt broke a rule that has probably existed in said school for decades and is equally enforced no matter the logo.
Don't get me wrong, the left is totally guilty of this as well, just not nearly as often or for as petty of reasons as the right.
@aberry89 - Most of my extended family in GA voted for Trump. The family in that video clip resembles them very much. We get along great, and when the subject goes to politics, things are civil for the most part. I can tell when they've been fed a line, though. And when they bad-mouth liberals, that's when something comes over them... they're less themselves, more frustrated/afraid. It's like a phase that passes.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
I have noticed another trend. When Republicans can't fully explain why something is going wrong, or if it appears to be the fault of the right, they will instantly just blame liberals.
When FoxNews posts a story about a kid with a giant American flag shirt being sent home from school for violating the schools rule on logo size on a shirt, everyone freaks about how liberals are destroying America, but they completely ignore the fact that the shirt broke a rule that has probably existed in said school for decades and is equally enforced no matter the logo.
Don't get me wrong, the left is totally guilty of this as well, just not nearly as often or for as petty of reasons as the right.
Well, the Right polices language (Merry Christmas, "under God," etc), but not nearly as often or for as petty reasons as the Left. IDK, I want to believe the Right is doing most of the crazy shit, and maybe they are, but I feel the need to point out the Left picks its battles in a realm as uninteresting to the Right as patriotic conformity is to the Left.
I don't think most of us on the boards are that way, FWIW, but man, they are out there and loud.
@aberry89 - Most of my extended family in GA voted for Trump. The family in that video clip resembles them very much. We get along great, and when the subject goes to politics, things are civil for the most part. I can tell when they've been fed a line, though. And when they bad-mouth liberals, that's when something comes over them... they're less themselves, more frustrated/afraid. It's like a phase that passes.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
I have noticed another trend. When Republicans can't fully explain why something is going wrong, or if it appears to be the fault of the right, they will instantly just blame liberals.
When FoxNews posts a story about a kid with a giant American flag shirt being sent home from school for violating the schools rule on logo size on a shirt, everyone freaks about how liberals are destroying America, but they completely ignore the fact that the shirt broke a rule that has probably existed in said school for decades and is equally enforced no matter the logo.
Don't get me wrong, the left is totally guilty of this as well, just not nearly as often or for as petty of reasons as the right.
Well, the Right polices language (Merry Christmas, "under God," etc), but not nearly as often or for as petty reasons as the Left. IDK, I want to believe the Right is doing most of the crazy shit, and maybe they are, but I feel the need to point out the Left picks its battles in a realm as uninteresting to the Right as patriotic conformity is to the Left.
I don't think most of us on the boards are that way, FWIW, but man, they are out there and loud.
I think that the left definitely blows up a lot of issues (this situation in Niger is a GREAT example) and try to blame the right. I just think Republicans do it far more right now and for more petty reasons.
The left has a bigger issue of making situations that are small, big, while ignoring situations that are radicalized versions of the narratives they push. Evergreen college in Washington is a great example of radical left wing principles, yet I have heard relatively little from Democrats on the topic.
The right is better at branding and selling their issue while the left just seems to believe that good ideas should sell themselves.
The marketing on the right has just been awesomely successful for decades. They turned and anti-choice and anti-personal-freedom position into Pro-Life while also being unironically pro-death-penalty. They turned the Estate Tax levied only on couples worth more than $11mil into the Death Tax while pushing for a repeal that would expose everyone to capital gains taxes post-death from which they are currently exempted. Rich Corporate Fat-Cats? No: Job Creators! Income tax cuts for they wealthy? No: tax reform and simplification.
There is a whole lingo on the right populated with well-marketed terms like PC Culture, Social Justice Warriors, Snowflakes, Libtards, RHINOs, etc., etc.
The left could learn a lot because they argue against the right’s policies while conceding the language and thus losing the message.
For example if you could run with Medicare-for-all for the single payer idea, and not concede to it being redefined as a government takeover or government deciding who lives and dies, then it’d be much harder for the right to campaign against it. Just talking about making one of the most popular government program in history available to more people is a winning message, and if you don’t concede the language then the right would have to run against Medicare to fight it and that’s a losing message.
@aberry89 - Most of my extended family in GA voted for Trump. The family in that video clip resembles them very much. We get along great, and when the subject goes to politics, things are civil for the most part. I can tell when they've been fed a line, though. And when they bad-mouth liberals, that's when something comes over them... they're less themselves, more frustrated/afraid. It's like a phase that passes.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
I have noticed another trend. When Republicans can't fully explain why something is going wrong, or if it appears to be the fault of the right, they will instantly just blame liberals.
When FoxNews posts a story about a kid with a giant American flag shirt being sent home from school for violating the schools rule on logo size on a shirt, everyone freaks about how liberals are destroying America, but they completely ignore the fact that the shirt broke a rule that has probably existed in said school for decades and is equally enforced no matter the logo.
Don't get me wrong, the left is totally guilty of this as well, just not nearly as often or for as petty of reasons as the right.
They don't need to be, the media is on their side, so conservatives need to work with grassroots anger. The fact is many rules are not equally enforced.
Like the case of the American flag shirt, if that's a real case, the school administrators are most likely liberals, you can hate on me all you want but statistically that's the most likely political orientation of career education workers, and they're enforcing an illegal rule, the US Supreme Court ruled that students have a right to free expression that doesn't interefere with the educational environment in Tinker v. Des Moines Board of Education
You had the case in West Virginia where education bureaucrats tried to ban a student from wearing an NRA T-shirt and then the police arrested him on false information given to them by the school officials, and when the NRA made it public and stepped in with a legal team the school and prosecutors office backed down, conservative groups can get outcomes by channeling the silent majority and that's the way that works. It's not petty to stand up for a student who's exercising their rights.
So you tell me, what was more petty? bringing such an obvious injustice to light and preparing for battle? or letting the bureaucrats railroad some kid who did nothing wrong in the darkness? The fact they back down once these issues are brought shows the truth, that these people were on the extreme trying to force extremism on someone else and once the public knew "oh we're so sorry, there was a miscommunication, mea culpa of course we didn't mean to violate someone's rights"
@aberry89 - Most of my extended family in GA voted for Trump. The family in that video clip resembles them very much. We get along great, and when the subject goes to politics, things are civil for the most part. I can tell when they've been fed a line, though. And when they bad-mouth liberals, that's when something comes over them... they're less themselves, more frustrated/afraid. It's like a phase that passes.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
I have noticed another trend. When Republicans can't fully explain why something is going wrong, or if it appears to be the fault of the right, they will instantly just blame liberals.
When FoxNews posts a story about a kid with a giant American flag shirt being sent home from school for violating the schools rule on logo size on a shirt, everyone freaks about how liberals are destroying America, but they completely ignore the fact that the shirt broke a rule that has probably existed in said school for decades and is equally enforced no matter the logo.
Don't get me wrong, the left is totally guilty of this as well, just not nearly as often or for as petty of reasons as the right.
Well, the Right polices language (Merry Christmas, "under God," etc), but not nearly as often or for as petty reasons as the Left. IDK, I want to believe the Right is doing most of the crazy shit, and maybe they are, but I feel the need to point out the Left picks its battles in a realm as uninteresting to the Right as patriotic conformity is to the Left.
I don't think most of us on the boards are that way, FWIW, but man, they are out there and loud.
I think that the left definitely blows up a lot of issues (this situation in Niger is a GREAT example) and try to blame the right. I just think Republicans do it far more right now and for more petty reasons.
The left has a bigger issue of making situations that are small, big, while ignoring situations that are radicalized versions of the narratives they push. Evergreen college in Washington is a great example of radical left wing principles, yet I have heard relatively little from Democrats on the topic.
Governor Jay Inslee has said nothing about Evergreen State, our Attorney General has sued Trump like a dozen times, and committed a 9 person legal team to destroying a Christian Florist in Eastern Washington, has done zero about these students threatening state employees, the Thurston County Prosecutor has said nothing, virtually no students have been charged, and it's the bottom ranked college in America and yet the democrats in the state house didn't move to eliminate the college or remove its funding. Evergreen is such a great example of so many things, not only that liberals are quiet about their own misbehaving, but they will fund failure to the end with tax money.
all of our other public colleges are in the top 150 of schools, University of Washington makes the top 25, Washington State and Central Washington (which also has a top Army ROTC program) are top 100, Western is top 150, and all of these colleges are filling their seats, Evergreen is literally the BOTTOM public college in the country, and yet Dems refuse to budge on eliminating funding.
The right is better at branding and selling their issue while the left just seems to believe that good ideas should sell themselves.
The marketing on the right has just been awesomely successful for decades. They turned and anti-choice and anti-personal-freedom position into Pro-Life while also being unironically pro-death-penalty.
They're not equal issues. if they were then it would be equally ironic for a liberal to oppose the death penalty while being pro-abortion.
that's like saying "well legislator x voted to increase penalties for child abduction yet he didn't introduce a bill to make it illegal for the police to arrest someone and drag them to jail" one is a crime that denies someone of their rights, the other is a legitimate judicial process provided for by law.
There is no irony. they're not the same thing.The truth about the abortion issue, is that most people are not hardliners either way, but if you have to pick a side, are you going to side with people like NARAL who support late term abortion of a viable baby? if we're talking early pregnancy and a mass of cells ok sure abortion should be unregulated at that stage, when you have activists who believe that it should be an inalienable right on demand to abort a 7 month viable baby with a developed brain and nervous system? You'll never convince me that's right in any way except in grave medical necessity, and actual necessity for that type of procedure is about as rare as rare can be. if you take an absolutist position that's repugnant to most people then people who are moderate on the issue end up supporting the other absolutist because our primary system empowers extremes and then moderates choose between them.
@emnofseattle No one is getting a late term abortion unless it’s a grave medical issue. This bullshit fairy tale of women just waking up one day and deciding to abort their 7 month foetus for funsies is exactly that.
@aberry89 - Most of my extended family in GA voted for Trump. The family in that video clip resembles them very much. We get along great, and when the subject goes to politics, things are civil for the most part. I can tell when they've been fed a line, though. And when they bad-mouth liberals, that's when something comes over them... they're less themselves, more frustrated/afraid. It's like a phase that passes.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
I have noticed another trend. When Republicans can't fully explain why something is going wrong, or if it appears to be the fault of the right, they will instantly just blame liberals.
When FoxNews posts a story about a kid with a giant American flag shirt being sent home from school for violating the schools rule on logo size on a shirt, everyone freaks about how liberals are destroying America, but they completely ignore the fact that the shirt broke a rule that has probably existed in said school for decades and is equally enforced no matter the logo.
Don't get me wrong, the left is totally guilty of this as well, just not nearly as often or for as petty of reasons as the right.
They don't need to be, the media is on their side, so conservatives need to work with grassroots anger. The fact is many rules are not equally enforced.
Like the case of the American flag shirt, if that's a real case, the school administrators are most likely liberals, you can hate on me all you want but statistically that's the most likely political orientation of career education workers, and they're enforcing an illegal rule, the US Supreme Court ruled that students have a right to free expression that doesn't interefere with the educational environment in Tinker v. Des Moines Board of Education
You had the case in West Virginia where education bureaucrats tried to ban a student from wearing an NRA T-shirt and then the police arrested him on false information given to them by the school officials, and when the NRA made it public and stepped in with a legal team the school and prosecutors office backed down, conservative groups can get outcomes by channeling the silent majority and that's the way that works. It's not petty to stand up for a student who's exercising their rights.
So you tell me, what was more petty? bringing such an obvious injustice to light and preparing for battle? or letting the bureaucrats railroad some kid who did nothing wrong in the darkness? The fact they back down once these issues are brought shows the truth, that these people were on the extreme trying to force extremism on someone else and once the public knew "oh we're so sorry, there was a miscommunication, mea culpa of course we didn't mean to violate someone's rights"
Fox News blew up a story because a kid was sent home because he wore a shirt with giant Air Force logos on it. The school's uniform policy stated that kids can wear personal clothing, but the logos must not be bigger than 4x4" (or some similar size). The kid wore a shirt with an Air Force logo that was over double the required limit. Fox News went off on how liberal administrators were unpatriotic, while ignoring the fact that it was a long-existing rule that would have been applied to a Che shirt, a hammer/sickle shirt, or anything else. That is being petty and trying to blame liberals for something that existed for good reason and for a long time.
The left tends to just jump to conclusions (Michael Brown), but I will concede they do release lazy information (the bump stock video by CNN was atrocious). But the right is far more petty.
We don't even need to go in to the right's blatant denial of climate change in favor of money.
@emnofseattle No one is getting a late term abortion unless it’s a grave medical issue. This bullshit fairy tale of women just waking up one day and deciding to abort their 7 month foetus for funsies is exactly that.
Not only that, but from a governmental regulation issue, isn't it better and more philosophically consistent to have the government make no laws at all restricting the choice a woman makes with her doctor and her family? If it's not ok to hold automakers to emission regulations, why is it ok to hold women to medical regulation?
@Frakkin T True. My personal opinion is that a woman should be able to abort for any reason whatsoever, at any time whatsoever. Having said that, there are siginificant risks associated with late term abortion (it is major surgery after all), so it is not ever something done lightly, and it pisses me off no end that anti-choicers use this strawman to make those who waver on abortion uneasy. I mean, I’m sure they can find one or two random cases where someone just changed their mind and managed to find a willing doctor (and again, I have no issue with that), but this isn’t some damn epidemic.
Governments should just get the fuck out of women’s bodies entirely, but that’s wishful thinking.
Here in TX legislators shut down access to abortion rights and maternity deaths spiked. Like a very bold direct line of cause and effect. Blood on their hands.
@emnofseattle No one is getting a late term abortion unless it’s a grave medical issue. This bullshit fairy tale of women just waking up one day and deciding to abort their 7 month foetus for funsies is exactly that.
Not only that, but from a governmental regulation issue, isn't it better and more philosophically consistent to have the government make no laws at all restricting the choice a woman makes with her doctor and her family? If it's not ok to hold automakers to emission regulations, why is it ok to hold women to medical regulation?
I don't view it as philosophically inconsistent.
Once the fetus has a developed brain and nervous system I consider it a human being that should be given legal protection, just like you can't decide to "abort" an infant after birth. think that's a clear and non-arbitrary demarcation point. it allows for virtually all elective abortions to occur that already occur in this country. before then I believe the process should be completely unregulated.
@emnofseattle No one is getting a late term abortion unless it’s a grave medical issue. This bullshit fairy tale of women just waking up one day and deciding to abort their 7 month foetus for funsies is exactly that.
Correct, but that's not the point of my post. I merely shared some observations, which is that if you have two extremist sides that are fringes arguing about an issue that is emotionally charged, the moderates will side with candidates that hold the less offensive position. in the case of abortion, if you have groups, and you can go to NARAL (which is the predominate abortion rights group in the US) and look at their own stated positions, they view bans on elective late term abortion as an infringment on "Choice". I didn't misrepresent anyone, I used their own website as a source when researching that post.
so on the other side you have another extreme that doesn't want abortion to occur at all, which is position most americans, myself included also don't agree with. But which position do you think is morally better or easier to defend of the two extremes?
so the person I responded to made a claim that the pro-life movement has been more successful due to branding, and I do not agree, I think legislatively they're more successful because people identify closer to that extreme then the other one.
@Frakkin T True. My personal opinion is that a woman should be able to abort for any reason whatsoever, at any time whatsoever. Having said that, there are siginificant risks associated with late term abortion (it is major surgery after all), so it is not ever something done lightly, and it pisses me off no end that anti-choicers use this strawman to make those who waver on abortion uneasy. I mean, I’m sure they can find one or two random cases where someone just changed their mind and managed to find a willing doctor (and again, I have no issue with that), but this isn’t some damn epidemic.
Governments should just get the fuck out of women’s bodies entirely, but that’s wishful thinking.
You wish the government wouldn't regulate something?!
You know there's a whole movement of people like that. <span></span>
@aberry89 - Most of my extended family in GA voted for Trump. The family in that video clip resembles them very much. We get along great, and when the subject goes to politics, things are civil for the most part. I can tell when they've been fed a line, though. And when they bad-mouth liberals, that's when something comes over them... they're less themselves, more frustrated/afraid. It's like a phase that passes.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
I have noticed another trend. When Republicans can't fully explain why something is going wrong, or if it appears to be the fault of the right, they will instantly just blame liberals.
When FoxNews posts a story about a kid with a giant American flag shirt being sent home from school for violating the schools rule on logo size on a shirt, everyone freaks about how liberals are destroying America, but they completely ignore the fact that the shirt broke a rule that has probably existed in said school for decades and is equally enforced no matter the logo.
Don't get me wrong, the left is totally guilty of this as well, just not nearly as often or for as petty of reasons as the right.
They don't need to be, the media is on their side, so conservatives need to work with grassroots anger. The fact is many rules are not equally enforced.
Like the case of the American flag shirt, if that's a real case, the school administrators are most likely liberals, you can hate on me all you want but statistically that's the most likely political orientation of career education workers, and they're enforcing an illegal rule, the US Supreme Court ruled that students have a right to free expression that doesn't interefere with the educational environment in Tinker v. Des Moines Board of Education
You had the case in West Virginia where education bureaucrats tried to ban a student from wearing an NRA T-shirt and then the police arrested him on false information given to them by the school officials, and when the NRA made it public and stepped in with a legal team the school and prosecutors office backed down, conservative groups can get outcomes by channeling the silent majority and that's the way that works. It's not petty to stand up for a student who's exercising their rights.
So you tell me, what was more petty? bringing such an obvious injustice to light and preparing for battle? or letting the bureaucrats railroad some kid who did nothing wrong in the darkness? The fact they back down once these issues are brought shows the truth, that these people were on the extreme trying to force extremism on someone else and once the public knew "oh we're so sorry, there was a miscommunication, mea culpa of course we didn't mean to violate someone's rights"
Fox News blew up a story because a kid was sent home because he wore a shirt with giant Air Force logos on it. The school's uniform policy stated that kids can wear personal clothing, but the logos must not be bigger than 4x4" (or some similar size). The kid wore a shirt with an Air Force logo that was over double the required limit. Fox News went off on how liberal administrators were unpatriotic, while ignoring the fact that it was a long-existing rule that would have been applied to a Che shirt, a hammer/sickle shirt, or anything else. That is being petty and trying to blame liberals for something that existed for good reason and for a long time.
The left tends to just jump to conclusions (Michael Brown), but I will concede they do release lazy information (the bump stock video by CNN was atrocious). But the right is far more petty.
We don't even need to go in to the right's blatant denial of climate change in favor of money.
Fox News? who's that? as in the whole network? one columnist or opinion commentator? wall to wall coverage? one article on the website? define "Fox News Went off"
These stories happen and the media is the best tool to hold education bureacrats honest.
It might well be argued the school administration is unpatriotic. They may have an illegal dress code policy that doesn't conform to federal case law, the policy may just well be wrong. but media attention usually fixes that far faster then going through the courts, although that's an option too. there was a case in Virginia years ago over school officials banning a kid from wearing an NRA shirt and they went to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled that an NRA shirt is protected free speech, obviously the Tinker case which involved an anti-war protest with students wearing black armbands, in Florida there was Gillman v Holmes County public schools cannot just deny students their free speech rights, that's illegal, and the courts have ruled such. So good for Fox news for exposing some school of being in violation of the law.
I still don't see why this is petty, I think standing up for the Constitution is in fact very admirable.
@emnofseattle No one is getting a late term abortion unless it’s a grave medical issue. This bullshit fairy tale of women just waking up one day and deciding to abort their 7 month foetus for funsies is exactly that.
Correct, but that's not the point of my post. I merely shared some observations, which is that if you have two extremist sides that are fringes arguing about an issue that is emotionally charged, the moderates will side with candidates that hold the less offensive position. in the case of abortion, if you have groups, and you can go to NARAL (which is the predominate abortion rights group in the US) and look at their own stated positions, they view bans on elective late term abortion as an infringment on "Choice". I didn't misrepresent anyone, I used their own website as a source when researching that post.
so on the other side you have another extreme that doesn't want abortion to occur at all, which is position most americans, myself included also don't agree with. But which position do you think is morally better or easier to defend of the two extremes?
so the person I responded to made a claim that the pro-life movement has been more successful due to branding, and I do not agree, I think legislatively they're more successful because people identify closer to that extreme then the other one.
It’s not *two* extremist sides, though. One side believes women have a right to bodily autonomy. This is not an extremist belief.
I dont know NARAL, but looking at their website they seem like any other pro-choice (or pro-abortion, if you prefer) organisation. The thing about being pro-choice is there is no “except when...”. As soon as you start adding caveats you’re no longer pro-choice. So it would be very weird to see a pro-choice activist organisation saying “We are all for abortion except in X, Y, Z situations.”
@aberry89 - Most of my extended family in GA voted for Trump. The family in that video clip resembles them very much. We get along great, and when the subject goes to politics, things are civil for the most part. I can tell when they've been fed a line, though. And when they bad-mouth liberals, that's when something comes over them... they're less themselves, more frustrated/afraid. It's like a phase that passes.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
I have noticed another trend. When Republicans can't fully explain why something is going wrong, or if it appears to be the fault of the right, they will instantly just blame liberals.
When FoxNews posts a story about a kid with a giant American flag shirt being sent home from school for violating the schools rule on logo size on a shirt, everyone freaks about how liberals are destroying America, but they completely ignore the fact that the shirt broke a rule that has probably existed in said school for decades and is equally enforced no matter the logo.
Don't get me wrong, the left is totally guilty of this as well, just not nearly as often or for as petty of reasons as the right.
They don't need to be, the media is on their side, so conservatives need to work with grassroots anger. The fact is many rules are not equally enforced.
Like the case of the American flag shirt, if that's a real case, the school administrators are most likely liberals, you can hate on me all you want but statistically that's the most likely political orientation of career education workers, and they're enforcing an illegal rule, the US Supreme Court ruled that students have a right to free expression that doesn't interefere with the educational environment in Tinker v. Des Moines Board of Education
You had the case in West Virginia where education bureaucrats tried to ban a student from wearing an NRA T-shirt and then the police arrested him on false information given to them by the school officials, and when the NRA made it public and stepped in with a legal team the school and prosecutors office backed down, conservative groups can get outcomes by channeling the silent majority and that's the way that works. It's not petty to stand up for a student who's exercising their rights.
So you tell me, what was more petty? bringing such an obvious injustice to light and preparing for battle? or letting the bureaucrats railroad some kid who did nothing wrong in the darkness? The fact they back down once these issues are brought shows the truth, that these people were on the extreme trying to force extremism on someone else and once the public knew "oh we're so sorry, there was a miscommunication, mea culpa of course we didn't mean to violate someone's rights"
Fox News blew up a story because a kid was sent home because he wore a shirt with giant Air Force logos on it. The school's uniform policy stated that kids can wear personal clothing, but the logos must not be bigger than 4x4" (or some similar size). The kid wore a shirt with an Air Force logo that was over double the required limit. Fox News went off on how liberal administrators were unpatriotic, while ignoring the fact that it was a long-existing rule that would have been applied to a Che shirt, a hammer/sickle shirt, or anything else. That is being petty and trying to blame liberals for something that existed for good reason and for a long time.
The left tends to just jump to conclusions (Michael Brown), but I will concede they do release lazy information (the bump stock video by CNN was atrocious). But the right is far more petty.
We don't even need to go in to the right's blatant denial of climate change in favor of money.
Fox News? who's that? as in the whole network? one columnist or opinion commentator? wall to wall coverage? one article on the website? define "Fox News Went off"
These stories happen and the media is the best tool to hold education bureacrats honest.
It might well be argued the school administration is unpatriotic. They may have an illegal dress code policy that doesn't conform to federal case law, the policy may just well be wrong. but media attention usually fixes that far faster then going through the courts, although that's an option too. there was a case in Virginia years ago over school officials banning a kid from wearing an NRA shirt and they went to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled that an NRA shirt is protected free speech, obviously the Tinker case which involved an anti-war protest with students wearing black armbands, in Florida there was Gillman v Holmes County public schools cannot just deny students their free speech rights, that's illegal, and the courts have ruled such. So good for Fox news for exposing some school of being in violation of the law.
I still don't see why this is petty, I think standing up for the Constitution is in fact very admirable.
Thousands of schools across the US have uniform policies. Are they all liberal and suppressing free speech? No, they simply want uniformity in schools and many of them are put in place so poorer kids who have to wear basically the same clothes every day don't get singled out. There is absolutely no violation of free speech when a school says you can't wear shirt with logos over a certain size.
When Fox News puts it up on their website and talk about it on all of their talk shows, that is going off. They literally pick out "stories" that make people angry because they know most of those people are too lazy to actually look into what the true story is.
Their headline story at this very moment is showing B-52's flying over Korea because the US is prepared for the north lol. It isn't a story, that is a very common occurrence but Fox News wants you to be terrified of war and know that our President is super tough, when in reality it is business as usual.
The right is better at branding and selling their issue while the left just seems to believe that good ideas should sell themselves.
The marketing on the right has just been awesomely successful for decades. They turned and anti-choice and anti-personal-freedom position into Pro-Life while also being unironically pro-death-penalty.
They're not equal issues. if they were then it would be equally ironic for a liberal to oppose the death penalty while being pro-abortion.
that's like saying "well legislator x voted to increase penalties for child abduction yet he didn't introduce a bill to make it illegal for the police to arrest someone and drag them to jail" one is a crime that denies someone of their rights, the other is a legitimate judicial process provided for by law.
There is no irony. they're not the same thing.The truth about the abortion issue, is that most people are not hardliners either way, but if you have to pick a side, are you going to side with people like NARAL who support late term abortion of a viable baby? if we're talking early pregnancy and a mass of cells ok sure abortion should be unregulated at that stage, when you have activists who believe that it should be an inalienable right on demand to abort a 7 month viable baby with a developed brain and nervous system? You'll never convince me that's right in any way except in grave medical necessity, and actual necessity for that type of procedure is about as rare as rare can be. if you take an absolutist position that's repugnant to most people then people who are moderate on the issue end up supporting the other absolutist because our primary system empowers extremes and then moderates choose between them.
The irony for Pro-Life is in the branding, not in the positions themselves. The post was broadly about branding and messaging.
I feel fine about being pro-choice, and I can concede that abortions after the 2nd trimester could be subject to medical necessity and/or court approval for extreme circumstances because I understand that neither extreme will get its way without some compromise.
This negotiation from the extremes and unwillingness to compromise on both sides is crippling our politics. Gerrymandered safe districts is part of a the problem here, but so are the party primary systems that only allow purists through to the general election.
If you populate the legislature with hard right/left folks and dismantle the filibuster in the senate, then you get the country flipping from hard right to hard left administrations, laws, tax structures, etc., every 4-8yrs which isn’t healthy for anyone.
The right is better at branding and selling their issue while the left just seems to believe that good ideas should sell themselves.
The marketing on the right has just been awesomely successful for decades. They turned and anti-choice and anti-personal-freedom position into Pro-Life while also being unironically pro-death-penalty.
They're not equal issues. if they were then it would be equally ironic for a liberal to oppose the death penalty while being pro-abortion.
that's like saying "well legislator x voted to increase penalties for child abduction yet he didn't introduce a bill to make it illegal for the police to arrest someone and drag them to jail" one is a crime that denies someone of their rights, the other is a legitimate judicial process provided for by law.
There is no irony. they're not the same thing.The truth about the abortion issue, is that most people are not hardliners either way, but if you have to pick a side, are you going to side with people like NARAL who support late term abortion of a viable baby? if we're talking early pregnancy and a mass of cells ok sure abortion should be unregulated at that stage, when you have activists who believe that it should be an inalienable right on demand to abort a 7 month viable baby with a developed brain and nervous system? You'll never convince me that's right in any way except in grave medical necessity, and actual necessity for that type of procedure is about as rare as rare can be. if you take an absolutist position that's repugnant to most people then people who are moderate on the issue end up supporting the other absolutist because our primary system empowers extremes and then moderates choose between them.
The irony for Pro-Life is in the branding, not in the positions themselves. The post was broadly about branding and messaging.
I feel fine about being pro-choice, and I can concede that abortions after the 2nd trimester could be subject to medical necessity and/or court approval for extreme circumstances because I understand that neither extreme will get its way without some compromise.
This negotiation from the extremes and unwillingness to compromise on both sides is crippling our politics. Gerrymandered safe districts is part of a the problem here, but so are the party primary systems that only allow purists through to the general election.
If you populate the legislature with hard right/left folks and dismantle the filibuster in the senate, then you get the country flipping from hard right to hard left administrations, laws, tax structures, etc., every 4-8yrs which isn’t healthy for anyone.
Well I support Partisan primaries, if you can't choose which side you belong to I don't want you choosing my party's representative in an election. and I don't think non-partisan primaries work any better, WA and CA have "top two" primaries that are non-partisan and I see no evidence it's dragged candidates to a moderate center, at least not candidates who already would've been.
The problem is with desiring "compromise" is we've reached a critical mass where we have two widely branching ideologies and there is no compromise that satisfies both parties.
I've brought this one up before, the gun issue, allowing private sales to take place unregulated was a "compromise" now to anti gunners it's "the gun show loophole" one side has as its eventual goal either an outright ban or an effective ban (a set of regulations so onerous people don't bother to go through them) on firearms, and any step that direction is fine, and they never offer a pro-gun measure in return, so what "compromise" is possible? for a compromise to work both sides must believe it will be honored and there must be something both parties want.
Abortion, some really religious people believe literally life begins at conception, if that's your world view then you're not going to "compromise" on it because that's a compromise on allowing what you believe is murder. Now I do not believe that myself, but I know people who literally do believe that, and so you're not going to reach those people with a "compromise"
slavery, there was a faction that wanted to make a compromise before the civil war to order emancipation and use the public treasury to compensate the slave holders the market value of the lost slaves and several years harvest. this was unnacceptable to Christian abolitionists who were driving the cause in the North on principle. What compromise can you offer there?
refusal to compromise is not new in our politics, and the functional reality is, the people demanding it usually view compromise as "I won't take my full world view today, but I'll settle for this piece of it" like a thief viewing taking only your jewelry instead of your jewelry AND the TV as a "compromise". also "compromises" are usually really just a veiled attempt to move the political center closer to you. I'm trying to remember his name but the first president of the AFL (american federation of labor, a major labor union umbrella) was asked "what does the AFL really want from employers" his answer "just a little bit more" you start by asking for a 15 minute break during a 12 hour shift, then another break, then a lunch, then an 8 hour shift, like boiling a frog. This isn't a knock on liberals, we do it too, in fact I live streamed the gun rights policy conference last year and an attorney described this exact thing as his strategy for picking gun cases for the courts, ask for as little as possible, get an easy win, use that precedent to a get a little more.
If I believe the government takes too much taxes as of today, and lets say you and I are both elected legislators, and you want to pass a law, I don't know lets say increasing car tab fees, what would you offer me as a "compromise" if I say "80 bucks is too much already" and you say "well I'll settle for 100 instead of 120" that doesn't eliminate the source of the dispute.
TLDR
the fact that we have extremes in politics is not new, it's not unique, and compromises are rarely made in good faith so asking for them may not always be the good thing to do.
I don’t view compromise so negatively. Like the assault of the left on free speech by right wing extremists, there appears to be an assault by the right on anything that gives an inch. Folks have to be willing to sacrifice some of their goals to move the ball forward in a diverse society, otherwise you get locked into the status quo because nothing is ever enough: the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.
Some folks feel that abortion is murder, but can’t compromise that less “murder” is a better thing than the status quo so no progress is made. Informative sex ed and widely available cheap birth control are good ways to reduce unwanted pregnancy and thus abortion, and many on the pro choice side would bend to allow restrictions on late term procedures as long as there is a way to address extreme circumstances such as judicial or independent physician involvement. If you want no abortion under any circumstances, abstinence-only or no sex ed, and to impede access to birth control then it would appear that: a) the murder thing is a red herring as you are willing to allow it to continue at a higher rate to avoid facilitating safe sex, b) you want to remake the country into a theocracy based on your personal religious beliefs forcing those who don’t share them to abide by them anyway. Ironically in the case of b) that would echo the situation the pilgrims fled to America to escape.
That’s 3 GOP Senators no longer subject to pressure from Trump or McConnell to push anything through the Senate with which they disagree: McCain, Flake, and Corker. That’s enough to hold the party short of 50 even without Murkowski or Collins.
Bannon is trying to primary several others in his war on McConnell and the “establishment.”
This is not the path to victory on any legislation, though I’m sure it’s satisfying for a burn-it-down in pursuit of absolute unconditional victory kind of mindset.
Best case is that they get enough folks who are “on board” with the agenda, such as it is, to pull the filibuster in 2019 (certainly unlikely to get cooperation from any lame-duck primaried Senators for the balance of 2018) likely just in time for House to flip and provide the stopgap that the Senate has been providing. If the House does not flip, then the stars align and it’s Katy-bar-the-door. Then the Senate map is much less-friendly for the GOP in 2020 and Trump has to stand as well. If the Senate holds, then could get another Supreme Court Justice or two through though before 2020 ends. Obviously going to do away with the whole don’t-confirm-a-Justice-in-a-Presidential-election-year fiction.
Worst case Bannon and Trump put enough wacky people on the ballot in 2018, along with loss of the incumbent advantage in some states, that the Senate could be in play which is all but unthinkable with the 2018 map. If he loses the Senate, then he loses the Supreme Court.
If he loses and the Senate flips In 2020, it sets the country up for Single Payer and all kinds of other Conservative bogeymen legislation to run through in 2021 because of the filibuster being gone. Playing the tactical short game instead of the strategic long game?
That’s 3 GOP Senators no longer subject to pressure from Trump or McConnell to push anything through the Senate with which they disagree: McCain, Flake, and Corker. That’s enough to hold the party short of 50 even without Murkowski or Collins.
Bannon is trying to primary several others in his war on McConnell and the “establishment.”
This is not the path to victory on any legislation, though I’m sure it’s satisfying for a burn-it-down in pursuit of absolute unconditional victory kind of mindset.
Best case is that they get enough folks who are “on board” with the agenda, such as it is, to pull the filibuster in 2019 (certainly unlikely to get cooperation from any lame-duck primaried Senators for the balance of 2018) likely just in time for House to flip and provide the stopgap that the Senate has been providing. If the House does not flip, then the stars align and it’s Katy-bar-the-door. Then the Senate map is much less-friendly for the GOP in 2020 and Trump has to stand as well. If the Senate holds, then could get another Supreme Court Justice or two through though before 2020 ends. Obviously going to do away with the whole don’t-confirm-a-Justice-in-a-Presidential-election-year fiction.
Worst case Bannon and Trump put enough wacky people on the ballot in 2018, along with loss of the incumbent advantage in some states, that the Senate could be in play which is all but unthinkable with the 2018 map. If he loses the Senate, then he loses the Supreme Court.
If he loses and the Senate flips In 2020, it sets the country up for Single Payer and all kinds of other Conservative bogeymen legislation to run through in 2021 because of the filibuster being gone. Playing the tactical short game instead of the strategic long game?
Reports were that McConnell was "emotional" when watching Flake's speech, and that "many" Republicans privately congratulated him.
Meh, if they were this concerned back in 2016 maybe they should’ve spoke up back then and not endorsed the guy. I bet they all still vote yes for tax cuts.
Comments
Did anyone watch the segment on Sarah Silverman's America I Love You when she had dinner with Trump voters? It seems to just come down what it always does - people are generally good and want the best for each other. Alarmist media works really hard to undo our best instincts.
I do think a big blind spot for these people is the fact that they themselves are on "hand-outs," yet they still perceive themselves as hard-working.
When FoxNews posts a story about a kid with a giant American flag shirt being sent home from school for violating the schools rule on logo size on a shirt, everyone freaks about how liberals are destroying America, but they completely ignore the fact that the shirt broke a rule that has probably existed in said school for decades and is equally enforced no matter the logo.
Don't get me wrong, the left is totally guilty of this as well, just not nearly as often or for as petty of reasons as the right.
Well, the Right polices language (Merry Christmas, "under God," etc), but not nearly as often or for as petty reasons as the Left. IDK, I want to believe the Right is doing most of the crazy shit, and maybe they are, but I feel the need to point out the Left picks its battles in a realm as uninteresting to the Right as patriotic conformity is to the Left.
I don't think most of us on the boards are that way, FWIW, but man, they are out there and loud.
The left has a bigger issue of making situations that are small, big, while ignoring situations that are radicalized versions of the narratives they push. Evergreen college in Washington is a great example of radical left wing principles, yet I have heard relatively little from Democrats on the topic.
The marketing on the right has just been awesomely successful for decades.
They turned and anti-choice and anti-personal-freedom position into Pro-Life while also being unironically pro-death-penalty.
They turned the Estate Tax levied only on couples worth more than $11mil into the Death Tax while pushing for a repeal that would expose everyone to capital gains taxes post-death from which they are currently exempted.
Rich Corporate Fat-Cats? No: Job Creators!
Income tax cuts for they wealthy? No: tax reform and simplification.
There is a whole lingo on the right populated with well-marketed terms like PC Culture, Social Justice Warriors, Snowflakes, Libtards, RHINOs, etc., etc.
The left could learn a lot because they argue against the right’s policies while conceding the language and thus losing the message.
For example if you could run with Medicare-for-all for the single payer idea, and not concede to it being redefined as a government takeover or government deciding who lives and dies, then it’d be much harder for the right to campaign against it. Just talking about making one of the most popular government program in history available to more people is a winning message, and if you don’t concede the language then the right would have to run against Medicare to fight it and that’s a losing message.
Ideas are great, but they do not sell themselves.
Like the case of the American flag shirt, if that's a real case, the school administrators are most likely liberals, you can hate on me all you want but statistically that's the most likely political orientation of career education workers, and they're enforcing an illegal rule, the US Supreme Court ruled that students have a right to free expression that doesn't interefere with the educational environment in Tinker v. Des Moines Board of Education
You had the case in West Virginia where education bureaucrats tried to ban a student from wearing an NRA T-shirt and then the police arrested him on false information given to them by the school officials, and when the NRA made it public and stepped in with a legal team the school and prosecutors office backed down, conservative groups can get outcomes by channeling the silent majority and that's the way that works. It's not petty to stand up for a student who's exercising their rights.
So you tell me, what was more petty? bringing such an obvious injustice to light and preparing for battle? or letting the bureaucrats railroad some kid who did nothing wrong in the darkness? The fact they back down once these issues are brought shows the truth, that these people were on the extreme trying to force extremism on someone else and once the public knew "oh we're so sorry, there was a miscommunication, mea culpa of course we didn't mean to violate someone's rights"
all of our other public colleges are in the top 150 of schools, University of Washington makes the top 25, Washington State and Central Washington (which also has a top Army ROTC program) are top 100, Western is top 150, and all of these colleges are filling their seats, Evergreen is literally the BOTTOM public college in the country, and yet Dems refuse to budge on eliminating funding.
that's like saying "well legislator x voted to increase penalties for child abduction yet he didn't introduce a bill to make it illegal for the police to arrest someone and drag them to jail" one is a crime that denies someone of their rights, the other is a legitimate judicial process provided for by law.
There is no irony. they're not the same thing.The truth about the abortion issue, is that most people are not hardliners either way, but if you have to pick a side, are you going to side with people like NARAL who support late term abortion of a viable baby? if we're talking early pregnancy and a mass of cells ok sure abortion should be unregulated at that stage, when you have activists who believe that it should be an inalienable right on demand to abort a 7 month viable baby with a developed brain and nervous system? You'll never convince me that's right in any way except in grave medical necessity, and actual necessity for that type of procedure is about as rare as rare can be. if you take an absolutist position that's repugnant to most people then people who are moderate on the issue end up supporting the other absolutist because our primary system empowers extremes and then moderates choose between them.
The left tends to just jump to conclusions (Michael Brown), but I will concede they do release lazy information (the bump stock video by CNN was atrocious). But the right is far more petty.
We don't even need to go in to the right's blatant denial of climate change in favor of money.
Not only that, but from a governmental regulation issue, isn't it better and more philosophically consistent to have the government make no laws at all restricting the choice a woman makes with her doctor and her family? If it's not ok to hold automakers to emission regulations, why is it ok to hold women to medical regulation?
Governments should just get the fuck out of women’s bodies entirely, but that’s wishful thinking.
Once the fetus has a developed brain and nervous system I consider it a human being that should be given legal protection, just like you can't decide to "abort" an infant after birth. think that's a clear and non-arbitrary demarcation point. it allows for virtually all elective abortions to occur that already occur in this country.
before then I believe the process should be completely unregulated.
so on the other side you have another extreme that doesn't want abortion to occur at all, which is position most americans, myself included also don't agree with. But which position do you think is morally better or easier to defend of the two extremes?
so the person I responded to made a claim that the pro-life movement has been more successful due to branding, and I do not agree, I think legislatively they're more successful because people identify closer to that extreme then the other one.
You know there's a whole movement of people like that. <span>
These stories happen and the media is the best tool to hold education bureacrats honest.
It might well be argued the school administration is unpatriotic. They may have an illegal dress code policy that doesn't conform to federal case law, the policy may just well be wrong. but media attention usually fixes that far faster then going through the courts, although that's an option too. there was a case in Virginia years ago over school officials banning a kid from wearing an NRA shirt and they went to the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals who ruled that an NRA shirt is protected free speech, obviously the Tinker case which involved an anti-war protest with students wearing black armbands, in Florida there was Gillman v Holmes County public schools cannot just deny students their free speech rights, that's illegal, and the courts have ruled such. So good for Fox news for exposing some school of being in violation of the law.
I still don't see why this is petty, I think standing up for the Constitution is in fact very admirable.
I dont know NARAL, but looking at their website they seem like any other pro-choice (or pro-abortion, if you prefer) organisation. The thing about being pro-choice is there is no “except when...”. As soon as you start adding caveats you’re no longer pro-choice. So it would be very weird to see a pro-choice activist organisation saying “We are all for abortion except in X, Y, Z situations.”
When Fox News puts it up on their website and talk about it on all of their talk shows, that is going off. They literally pick out "stories" that make people angry because they know most of those people are too lazy to actually look into what the true story is.
Their headline story at this very moment is showing B-52's flying over Korea because the US is prepared for the north lol. It isn't a story, that is a very common occurrence but Fox News wants you to be terrified of war and know that our President is super tough, when in reality it is business as usual.
I feel fine about being pro-choice, and I can concede that abortions after the 2nd trimester could be subject to medical necessity and/or court approval for extreme circumstances because I understand that neither extreme will get its way without some compromise.
This negotiation from the extremes and unwillingness to compromise on both sides is crippling our politics. Gerrymandered safe districts is part of a the problem here, but so are the party primary systems that only allow purists through to the general election.
If you populate the legislature with hard right/left folks and dismantle the filibuster in the senate, then you get the country flipping from hard right to hard left administrations, laws, tax structures, etc., every 4-8yrs which isn’t healthy for anyone.
The problem is with desiring "compromise" is we've reached a critical mass where we have two widely branching ideologies and there is no compromise that satisfies both parties.
I've brought this one up before, the gun issue, allowing private sales to take place unregulated was a "compromise" now to anti gunners it's "the gun show loophole" one side has as its eventual goal either an outright ban or an effective ban (a set of regulations so onerous people don't bother to go through them) on firearms, and any step that direction is fine, and they never offer a pro-gun measure in return, so what "compromise" is possible? for a compromise to work both sides must believe it will be honored and there must be something both parties want.
Abortion, some really religious people believe literally life begins at conception, if that's your world view then you're not going to "compromise" on it because that's a compromise on allowing what you believe is murder. Now I do not believe that myself, but I know people who literally do believe that, and so you're not going to reach those people with a "compromise"
slavery, there was a faction that wanted to make a compromise before the civil war to order emancipation and use the public treasury to compensate the slave holders the market value of the lost slaves and several years harvest. this was unnacceptable to Christian abolitionists who were driving the cause in the North on principle. What compromise can you offer there?
refusal to compromise is not new in our politics, and the functional reality is, the people demanding it usually view compromise as "I won't take my full world view today, but I'll settle for this piece of it" like a thief viewing taking only your jewelry instead of your jewelry AND the TV as a "compromise". also "compromises" are usually really just a veiled attempt to move the political center closer to you. I'm trying to remember his name but the first president of the AFL (american federation of labor, a major labor union umbrella) was asked "what does the AFL really want from employers" his answer "just a little bit more" you start by asking for a 15 minute break during a 12 hour shift, then another break, then a lunch, then an 8 hour shift, like boiling a frog. This isn't a knock on liberals, we do it too, in fact I live streamed the gun rights policy conference last year and an attorney described this exact thing as his strategy for picking gun cases for the courts, ask for as little as possible, get an easy win, use that precedent to a get a little more.
If I believe the government takes too much taxes as of today, and lets say you and I are both elected legislators, and you want to pass a law, I don't know lets say increasing car tab fees, what would you offer me as a "compromise" if I say "80 bucks is too much already" and you say "well I'll settle for 100 instead of 120" that doesn't eliminate the source of the dispute.
TLDR
the fact that we have extremes in politics is not new, it's not unique, and compromises are rarely made in good faith so asking for them may not always be the good thing to do.
https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2014.htm
I don’t view compromise so negatively. Like the assault of the left on free speech by right wing extremists, there appears to be an assault by the right on anything that gives an inch. Folks have to be willing to sacrifice some of their goals to move the ball forward in a diverse society, otherwise you get locked into the status quo because nothing is ever enough: the perfect becomes the enemy of the good.
Some folks feel that abortion is murder, but can’t compromise that less “murder” is a better thing than the status quo so no progress is made. Informative sex ed and widely available cheap birth control are good ways to reduce unwanted pregnancy and thus abortion, and many on the pro choice side would bend to allow restrictions on late term procedures as long as there is a way to address extreme circumstances such as judicial or independent physician involvement. If you want no abortion under any circumstances, abstinence-only or no sex ed, and to impede access to birth control then it would appear that: a) the murder thing is a red herring as you are willing to allow it to continue at a higher rate to avoid facilitating safe sex, b) you want to remake the country into a theocracy based on your personal religious beliefs forcing those who don’t share them to abide by them anyway. Ironically in the case of b) that would echo the situation the pilgrims fled to America to escape.
57 false claims. Donald Trump shatters his one-week record for dishonesty
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/10/24/daniel-dales-donald-trump-fact-check-updates.html
Bannon is trying to primary several others in his war on McConnell and the “establishment.”
This is not the path to victory on any legislation, though I’m sure it’s satisfying for a burn-it-down in pursuit of absolute unconditional victory kind of mindset.
Best case is that they get enough folks who are “on board” with the agenda, such as it is, to pull the filibuster in 2019 (certainly unlikely to get cooperation from any lame-duck primaried Senators for the balance of 2018) likely just in time for House to flip and provide the stopgap that the Senate has been providing. If the House does not flip, then the stars align and it’s Katy-bar-the-door. Then the Senate map is much less-friendly for the GOP in 2020 and Trump has to stand as well. If the Senate holds, then could get another Supreme Court Justice or two through though before 2020 ends. Obviously going to do away with the whole don’t-confirm-a-Justice-in-a-Presidential-election-year fiction.
Worst case Bannon and Trump put enough wacky people on the ballot in 2018, along with loss of the incumbent advantage in some states, that the Senate could be in play which is all but unthinkable with the 2018 map. If he loses the Senate, then he loses the Supreme Court.
If he loses and the Senate flips In 2020, it sets the country up for Single Payer and all kinds of other Conservative bogeymen legislation to run through in 2021 because of the filibuster being gone. Playing the tactical short game instead of the strategic long game?