[Discussion] What comes next? Liber-all

American liberals and progressives now face their biggest challenge in a generation: What do we do with 4 years of a trump presidency, a republican congress, a likely conservative supreme court and most states under complete republican control?

This thread is not meant as a forum for discussing HOW or WHY democrats got destroyed in the 2016 election. It's meant for finding a way forward.

To put a fine point on this, I’m not asking for much, jdzappa. I’m asking for my conservative friends and family to register their own concerns, assuming they have them, with the preisdent’s lawlessness and volatility. I’ve literally begged in-laws and friends to do this. Especially when Trump is going off about “little Rocket Man”.

I’m asking them to call their representatives and make sure their representatives understand that there will be political consequences for a nuclear war. That there will be consequences for supporting Nazis and the murder or silencing of political opponents.

That’s all I’m asking. Stand on the right side of history and do something, small as it is, to try and keep America safe. If enough conservatives did even these things, their congressmen would realize they don’t have to pander to the awful base Trump panders to. That their constituency is broader and more reasonable than we’ve been led to believe.

This is such a small thing and literally no one I’ve asked has done this.

oilypenguin wrote:

There are a good chunk of conservatives who are one issue (abortion) voters and while they aren't turning a blind eye to any of this terrible sh*t going on, nothing will get them to vote democrat.

The one I spent a few hours talking to this weekend just didn't vote last year.

They aren't bad people.
They aren't dumb.
They aren't ignorant.

They're simply different and have a moral perspective that I disagree with. That's compounded with a victim complex because they see themselves as fighting for a divine right in an immoral world and they see themselves losing. What do people do then? Double down.

And I think a few of them can be converted to think about this differently. It's just so easy to dismiss them because they're so passionate about an issue that's been closed for decades.

The problem I have with this way of thinking is that I can easily see it leading to a lot of liberals saying, "Well, maybe if we were willing to compromise on abortion, then..."

CaptainCrowbar wrote:

The problem I have with this way of thinking is that I can easily see it leading to a lot of liberals saying, "Well, maybe if we were willing to compromise on abortion, then..."

Litmus tests like this are how we end up with Democratic versions of Roy Moore who are absolute garbage fires of human waste but force us to vote against our conscience because certain issues are more important.

There comes a point where you say "No, nothing is worth putting this person in a position of power."

Call that 'willingness to compromise' if you like. I'll call it being a good person and a good citizen. If the only person in an election fit to represent me is an R (and everything that goes with it) versus someone who is completely unfit but has a D you can bet I'm voting R if even my non-vote or write-in vote has a chance of putting the unfit person in office.

Litmus tests are bad. Just ask my mom (faulty litmus test sent her home from the hospital while in labor with me.)

I'll compromise on abortion in a number of ways, including but not limited to:

1: Eliminating abstinence-only sex-ed, which has been shown time and again to not reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies
2: Mandate that long-term reversible birth control (e.g. IUDs) are covered by health insurance plans. They're a cheap and effective way to reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies.
3: Massively fund adoption and foster services so that women who do carry kids they don't want to term have good options.
4: Provide free birth control in every high school in the country.

I want fewer abortions, just like conservatives do too. There's plenty of ways to work towards that, should they care to look.

Jolly Bill wrote:
CaptainCrowbar wrote:

The problem I have with this way of thinking is that I can easily see it leading to a lot of liberals saying, "Well, maybe if we were willing to compromise on abortion, then..."

Litmus tests like this are how we end up with Democratic versions of Roy Moore who are absolute garbage fires of human waste but force us to vote against our conscience because certain issues are more important.

There comes a point where you say "No, nothing is worth putting this person in a position of power."

Call that 'willingness to compromise' if you like. I'll call it being a good person and a good citizen. If the only person in an election fit to represent me is an R (and everything that goes with it) versus someone who is completely unfit but has a D you can bet I'm voting R if even my non-vote or write-in vote has a chance of putting the unfit person in office.

Litmus tests are bad. Just ask my mom (faulty litmus test sent her home from the hospital while in labor with me.)

I would argue that litmus test issues are what defines the core values of both parties.

I would also argue that there's not really single-issue voters.

The note signed by 50 Alabama pastors supporting Roy Moore made that clear. Yes, it mentioned abortion. But it also said that Moore was leading the fight in the culture war. That he was defender of the sanctity of marriage. That he was a champion for religious liberty. And that he was absolutely dedicated to "Biblical principles."

All of those issues are deeply intertwined because they're grounded in a particular flavor of religious belief. That means if someone is deeply against abortion because of their religious beliefs then the odds are very high that they're also going to be against gay marriage, feel that (white) Christianity is under attack, and a whole host of related political issues.

And it's similar for Democrats who are fervently pro-choice. It's an important issue, but it's also part of a constellation of other related issues from women's rights to the appropriate role of religion and religious beliefs in government.

It's not just about that one issue. It's about what that one issue represents.

OG_slinger wrote:

The note signed by 50 Alabama pastors supporting Roy Moore made that clear. Yes, it mentioned abortion. But it also said that Moore was leading the fight in the culture war. That he was defender of the sanctity of marriage. That he was a champion for religious liberty. And that he was absolutely dedicated to "Biblical principles."

FYI about that letter.

UPDATE: Nov. 14 ― The letter from Alabama pastors that Kayla Moore, the wife of Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, posted Sunday to her Facebook page appears to be re-release of an endorsement originally written in August before the GOP primaries, AL.com reports.

The newer version deletes three paragraphs from the original letter, which still appears on Roy Moore’s campaign website and contains sentences urging voters to “join us at the polls on Tuesday, August 15th.”

At least two of the pastors listed as signatories on the recent post have said they were not contacted about the update, and have asked for their names to be removed.

Jolly Bill wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The note signed by 50 Alabama pastors supporting Roy Moore made that clear. Yes, it mentioned abortion. But it also said that Moore was leading the fight in the culture war. That he was defender of the sanctity of marriage. That he was a champion for religious liberty. And that he was absolutely dedicated to "Biblical principles."

FYI about that letter.

UPDATE: Nov. 14 ― The letter from Alabama pastors that Kayla Moore, the wife of Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, posted Sunday to her Facebook page appears to be re-release of an endorsement originally written in August before the GOP primaries, AL.com reports.

The newer version deletes three paragraphs from the original letter, which still appears on Roy Moore’s campaign website and contains sentences urging voters to “join us at the polls on Tuesday, August 15th.”

At least two of the pastors listed as signatories on the recent post have said they were not contacted about the update, and have asked for their names to be removed.

So they were OK, as Christian devouts, with his racism, misogyny, xenophobia, religious intolerance, and calls for violence... but sexual predation based on age is the line.

Well, at least there's a line.

Jolly Bill wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

The note signed by 50 Alabama pastors supporting Roy Moore made that clear. Yes, it mentioned abortion. But it also said that Moore was leading the fight in the culture war. That he was defender of the sanctity of marriage. That he was a champion for religious liberty. And that he was absolutely dedicated to "Biblical principles."

FYI about that letter.

UPDATE: Nov. 14 ― The letter from Alabama pastors that Kayla Moore, the wife of Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore, posted Sunday to her Facebook page appears to be re-release of an endorsement originally written in August before the GOP primaries, AL.com reports.

The newer version deletes three paragraphs from the original letter, which still appears on Roy Moore’s campaign website and contains sentences urging voters to “join us at the polls on Tuesday, August 15th.”

At least two of the pastors listed as signatories on the recent post have said they were not contacted about the update, and have asked for their names to be removed.

I used the number 50 for a reason. Fifty out of the 53 pastors who originally signed the letter are apparently still totally cool with their names and churches being associated with Moore. I'd say you were on to something if half or more of the pastors were distancing themselves from a pedophile, but that's not the case.

And when you add the poll from over the weekend that showed 37% of Alabama Evangelicals being *more* likely to vote for Moore because of the allegations, it tends to support the idea that they're voting for a particular worldview and not just someone who's against abortion.

I'd say that a calling the note 'signed by 50 Alabama pastors' to be a bit of an overstatement when you really mean the note 'after 1 day has yet to be refuted by 50 of the names fraudulently attached to it'.

Which has me kinda sticking with my litmus tests are bad approach.

I don't know, revoking your endorsement of the guy accused of multiple cases of sexual harassment of minors when you're a pastor seems like a bar so low you'd need special equipment to detect it let alone clear it.

I know every day seems like a year right now, but seriously it's only been 1 day. Not that these pastors are shining beacons of morality for their previous support of Moore or anything but I'm giving them at least another day to figure out social media or call a national news outlet before assuming their names on a fraudulent letter of support tacitly endorses him.

Edit: I mean, I'm not even sure I know how to put twitter on blast. I'm not gonna assume some likely 60 or 70 yr old southern preacher is going to know what to do within hours even if they are checking their voicemails.

Jolly Bill wrote:

I'd say that a calling the note 'signed by 50 Alabama pastors' to be a bit of an overstatement when you really mean the note 'after 1 day has yet to be refuted by 50 of the names fraudulently attached to it'.

Which has me kinda sticking with my litmus tests are bad approach.

The Washington Post broke the story about Moore on Thursday, five days ago. Moore's wife posted the edited letter on her Facebook account on Saturday and it was subsequently published by several news organizations.

Yesterday another woman claimed Moore had sexually assaulted her when she was a minor.

That only three out of the 53 pastors who signed that letter have bothered to refute their support of Moore five days after allegations broke nationally says a great deal. I say broke nationally because there's plenty of chatter going on that it was pretty common knowledge throughout certain circles in Alabama that Moore like them young, but they kept their mouths shut for various reasons.

And, yes, I'm going to say that pastors should be be pretty in tune with issues of morality and that it shouldn't take them five days--or five seconds--to weigh in on tricky moral problems like whether or not it's a bad for a man in his 30s to try to rape multiple teenaged girls. They should also remember that they signed a letter vouching for Moore's religious/moral street cred just three months ago and that their reputation--and the reputation of their churches--are now linked to a man that quite a few people say was banned from a shopping mall in the 80s because he bothered high school girls too much.

Apparently Sunday, so we're both wrong there.

Why not fault them for their previous support of Moore or their failure to speak out publicly since the Thursday allegations rather than use their names on a fraudulent letter as proof of even worse hypocrisy?

Is the onus really on the victims of fraud to be aware and refuting the contents of a letter they were not aware of within 48 hours?

Is this deserving of it's own thread?

Jolly Bill wrote:

Apparently Sunday, so we're both wrong there.

Why not fault them for their previous support of Moore or their failure to speak out publicly since the Thursday allegations rather than use their names on a fraudulent letter as proof of even worse hypocrisy?

Is the onus really on the victims of fraud to be aware and refuting the contents of a letter they were not aware of within 48 hours?

Yes. You fault them on all those things. They are at fault for not withdrawing their support on Friday. It's impossible to say who knew what for certain, but its very likely that any of those pastors who know him personally were already aware of his taste for girls. In fact it's not even unreasonable for Mrs Moore to assume that by Sunday, having not had any of those 50 churches withdraw their support, that those churches still support him. Her fraud was in altering the letter, not in asserting the support they had already given.

OG_slinger wrote:

They should also remember that they signed a letter vouching for Moore's religious/moral street cred just three months ago and that their reputation--and the reputation of their churches--are now linked to a man that quite a few people say was banned from a shopping mall in the 80s because he bothered high school girls too much.

Wait, he was banned from a shopping mall, but not the US Senate? Peak 2017?

Mixolyde wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

They should also remember that they signed a letter vouching for Moore's religious/moral street cred just three months ago and that their reputation--and the reputation of their churches--are now linked to a man that quite a few people say was banned from a shopping mall in the 80s because he bothered high school girls too much.

Wait, he was banned from a shopping mall, but not the US Senate? Peak 2017?

State and local control works? Also the Senate is a pretty gross place.

boogle wrote:

Is this deserving of it's own thread?

Also I agree with this.

Mixolyde wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

They should also remember that they signed a letter vouching for Moore's religious/moral street cred just three months ago and that their reputation--and the reputation of their churches--are now linked to a man that quite a few people say was banned from a shopping mall in the 80s because he bothered high school girls too much.

Wait, he was banned from a shopping mall, but not the US Senate? Peak 2017?

If he's elected the National Mall is the only one he'll be welcome at.

thrawn82 wrote:
Jolly Bill wrote:

Apparently Sunday, so we're both wrong there.

Why not fault them for their previous support of Moore or their failure to speak out publicly since the Thursday allegations rather than use their names on a fraudulent letter as proof of even worse hypocrisy?

Is the onus really on the victims of fraud to be aware and refuting the contents of a letter they were not aware of within 48 hours?

Yes. You fault them on all those things. They are at fault for not withdrawing their support on Friday. It's impossible to say who knew what for certain, but its very likely that any of those pastors who know him personally were already aware of his taste for girls. In fact it's not even unreasonable for Mrs Moore to assume that by Sunday, having not had any of those 50 churches withdraw their support, that those churches still support him. Her fraud was in altering the letter, not in asserting the support they had already given.

I'm not sure about that. You're making the assumption that they were contacted in the first place. We're talking about pastors, so they've generally got more important things to deal with on Saturday and Sunday.

From here(which is the source of the huffpost article): http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/201...

A pastor from middle Tennessee said he was never asked to sign the original letter.

Dr. George Grant of Parish Presbyterian Church in Franklin, Tenneessee told WSMV he hadn't had contact with Moore personally in a decade and hadn't spoken to the Senate nominee's campaign since before the election.

Grant said he has no desire to play a role in Alabama politics.

"Not my state. Not my issues," he told the news channel.

Hell, I wonder if anyone's figured out if all 53 exist in the first place.

Jolly Bill wrote:
CaptainCrowbar wrote:

The problem I have with this way of thinking is that I can easily see it leading to a lot of liberals saying, "Well, maybe if we were willing to compromise on abortion, then..."

Litmus tests like this are how we end up with Democratic versions of Roy Moore who are absolute garbage fires of human waste but force us to vote against our conscience because certain issues are more important.

Which specific individual did you have in mind as a "Democratic version of Roy Moore"? Or are you just taking for granted that there must be symmetrically bad people on Both Sides, because of course everybody knows that Both Sides are equally bad?

Way off topic here, folks. Re-read the scope and/or start a new thread if there's a digression you'd like to follow.

Actually, the Democratic party needs some strong litmus tests as in having certain standards that would *not* be compromised. I would *hope* that women's rights would be included in those standards, but women also tend to be the first to be thrown under the bus whenever bargaining chips are needed.

After Trump -
Liberals ecstatic over this month’s election must not forget: Even after this demagogue is finished, a new one will rise in his place

It is interesting to read and realize that, for all of our shock, Trump is A.) Not new and B.) A symptom, not the disease.

What we should be worrying about instead is the remarkable staying power of the American voters who put these guys in office. They’re in for the long game no matter the fate of the current administration. Trumpism predates Trump and Pence by decades and is a more powerful, enduring, and scary force than either of them. Trump learned this himself the hard way when Alabama Republicans voting in the Senate primary this fall chose the more Trumpist candidate, the gun-totin’ crackpot bigot and alleged sexual predator Roy Moore, over Mitch McConnell’s candidate, the garden-variety right-winger Trump had impulsively and mistakenly endorsed. The toxic anger that defines Trumpism — a rage at America’s cultural and economic elites in both political parties as well as at minorities and immigrants — will only grow darker and fiercer once its namesake leaves office, no matter how he does so. If Trump departs involuntarily, his followers will elevate him to martyrdom as the victim of a coup perpetrated by the scoundrels of “fake news” and “the swamp.” If Trump serves one or two full terms, his base will still be livid because he will not have bestowed the lavish gifts he promised, from a Rust Belt manufacturing comeback to a border wall. His voters won’t pin these failures on Trump but on the same swamp creatures they’ll hold responsible if he’s run out of office. They’re already blaming the cratering of “repeal and replace” and other broken Trump promises on what Bannon and his allies call “the McConnell-industrial complex.”

Right-wing nationalist populism is nothing new in America; the genealogical lines of Trump and his immediate antecedents, Sarah Palin and the tea party, trace back at least to the later years of the Great Depression, when the demagogic and anti-Semitic radio priest Father Charles Coughlin turned against the New Deal and vilified Jewish “money changers” masterminding an international conspiracy to plunder his working-class flock. The movement was rebooted with a vengeance once the civil-rights revolution took hold in the 1960s: The term “backlash” grew out of the economic columnist Eliot Janeway’s 1963 observation that white blue-collar workers might “lash back” at new black competitors entering a contracting job market. That anger coursed through the quixotic presidential campaigns of the onetime Nixon aide Pat Buchanan from 1992 to 2000, through Ross Perot’s in 1992, and, most especially, through the four presidential runs of the segregationist Alabama governor George Wallace between 1964 and 1976.

What these campaigns had in common besides a similar core of grievances is that the candidates failed to win national elections. And they lost no matter what banner they ran under; like Trump, they and their voters variously identified as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. But Trump’s unexpected triumph in 2016, claiming the Oval Office for unabashedly nationalist right-wing populism, changed history’s trajectory. His capture of the presidency and a major political party makes it highly unlikely that his adherents will now follow the pattern of their dejected forebears, who retreated to lick their wounds and regroup in the shadows after their electoral defeats.

When Jeff Flake, the self-styled Barry Goldwater conservative from Arizona, announced he was fleeing the Senate, he told Jake Tapper of CNN, “I think that this fever will break.” If only. At each defeat in the pre-Trump history of Trumpism, the rest of the country comforted itself by concluding that this troublesome minority had been vanquished. But these radicals are not some aberrational fringe. The swath of America that has now been reinvigorated and empowered by landing a tribune in the White House for the first time is a permanent mass movement that has remained stable in size and fixed in its beliefs for more than half a century. How large a mass? At the high end, Trumpists amount to the third or so of the country that has never wavered in support of the Trump presidency. A low-end estimate might bottom out at the quarter of the nation that still approved of Trump’s hero Nixon even when he surrendered the presidency rather than face near-certain conviction in an impeachment trial.

Now that Trumpists have tasted real Executive-branch power, they are ravenous for more. Laura Ingraham, Rupert Murdoch’s new all-in Trump host at Fox News, pointedly told the New York Times on the eve of her prime-time show’s premiere last month that while Trump is “invaluable” as “the titular head of the movement,” Trumpism “is about the movement.” Bannon has called Trump “a blunt instrument for us.” Finer-tooled instruments — smarter and shrewder demagogues than the movement’s current titular head — may already be suiting up in the wings.

strangederby wrote:

Time to start buying guns.

I’ll just rely on the old standards. You know. Big stick with nails.

Hmmm... on second thought, I think I’m going to look up my local firing range.

strangederby wrote:

Time to start buying guns.

Dan Harmon brings this up on his podcast occasionally- he reflexively bought a handgun earlier this year in a fit of Trumpfear and almost immediately regretted it.

Interesting Twitter thread by Public Policy Polling.

They released the results of recent polling they've done for 36 Republican held Congressional districts.

Twenty five of those districts show a generic Democrat beating the elected Republican with the swing from 2016 often being in the double digits.

In the other 11 districts Republicans still lead against a generic Democrat, but their lead shrank from double digits to just a few percentage points.

This inauguration speech from Virginia's new Governor is pretty good.

https://governor.virginia.gov/newsro...

Wrong thread