26 ms·

OK, so the transition from Make America Great Again slogan to Make America Decent Again (and Better) reality is inevitable and welcome. It is easy to get overjo

by ablekh 6y ago

OK, so the transition from Make America Great Again slogan to Make America Decent Again (and Better) reality is inevitable and welcome. It is easy to get overjoyed by results of the U.S. Presidential Election (and some celebration certainly is in order). Uniting the country is definitely a commendable goal, though it is easier said than done. The election results across all levels clearly illustrate just how divided and polarized this land is. Thus, it will take quite a lot of time and effort to see a reasonable progress on this front. We all can play our part in it by a polite and constructive dialog with opponents and first finding common ground on such pressing and all-encompassing issues as coronavirus pandemic, environmental protection, social justice and health care reform. In the meantime, let us not forget that, in order to restore the heavily damaged moral fabric of this country, relevant measures should pass through the Congress. And while Democrats retain control of the House, the opposing party might retain control of the Senate. Which most certainly will lead to a significant gridlock in moving forward with the democratic and, in some cases, progressive agenda unless Democrats retake control in the Senate. Remember, winning a battle is not a guarantee for winning a war. That is why the U.S. Senate run-off elections in Georgia to be held on January 5 (https://georgia.gov/vote-2020-runoff-elections https://georgia.gov/vote-2020-runoff-elections) are crucial.

harimau777 6y ago
Is there really any common ground? My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. How do you debate with people who don't care about facts or reason? In addition their leadership appears to be completely unwilling to act and good faith and the rank in file appear unwilling to hold them accountable for that fact. I would love to be able to see some way to find common ground, but It seems to me that doing so would just be playing the sucker.
- miked85 6y ago
  > My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. This absolutely goes both ways; that is the biggest problem.
  - pm90 6y ago
    Sorry, this isn’t true, and it’s important to call out as such. https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-party-pathological https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-...
    - miked85 6y ago
      I think you just proved my point.
      - pm90 6y ago
        How?
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - eagsalazar2 6y ago
        Nothing was proved either way.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        No, no that didn't. Just because someone denies an adverse position doesn't mean that they are fanatically denying evidence, it can easily be the case that the adverse position is false, and that they are open to seeing it proven true but haven't seen it.
      - Mitzi 6y ago
        Perhaps a better question would be: Consider two parties starting out relatively reasonable. Over time, members of both parties claim the other party is becoming unreasonable or outright crazy. This could be true in the following to scenarios: (1) Both parties have become crazy. Both parties would be correct in their claims but of course also guilty of having gone crazy. (2) Party A has stayed reasonable and party B has become crazy. Party A would be correct in their claim and party B's claim would be part of them being crazy. How do you distinguish between (1) and (2) from the outside?
- pm90 6y ago
  Correct and it appears that even though Trump lost, Trumpism allowed most Republican Senators to keep their seats and they even won more seats in the House, and didn’t lose a single Statehouse. This election has been a repudiation of Trump but not Trumpism.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - sokoloff 6y ago
    I think there’s a good chance that the GOP leaders are almost as happy to see the backside of Trump as the DNC leaders are.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dbrueck 6y ago
  Yes, there is a ton of common ground with 99% of the people on the "other" side, whichever side that is from you. If one big problem facing U.S. politics right now is that everything is distilled down to a binary either-or with no room for nuance, its sibling problem is assuming that everyone on the "other side" from you is the same, i.e. that the crazy extremist you see on TV is a prototypical example of everyone in that group. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
  - harimau777 6y ago
    That's what I used to believe, but these aren't people I see on TV, these are people I actually spoke to. When they ignored the facts I asked them what facts would change their mind and was told point blank that there were no facts that would change their mind. I don't see how you can engage with that.
    - dbrueck 6y ago
      Sure, I don't disagree with you on that point at all - but for every 1 of those there are 10 (100? 1000? more?) who aren't like that but who, given what was effectively a binary choice, voted the same way that they did. The die-hard (blind) fanatics on either end of the spectrum don't make a big enough group to win an election, but the assumption that they are representative of everyone in that group is incorrect and - maybe more important - counterproductive.
    - gootdude 6y ago
      Indeed, how does one have a serious discussion with someone that refuses to acknowledge 2+2=4 because they "believe" the answer is 5.
    - centimeter 6y ago
      Without knowing anything about you personally except the distribution of intelligence here on HN and the way you talk about how much smarter you are than these yokels, you are probably not smart enough to have an outsize economically valuable model of the world and your “facts” are probably low-value memes you picked up in school and on television.
- djitz 6y ago
  This is not exclusive to any one side. That’s the problem with having “sides”.
- ablekh 6y ago
  I sincerely believe that there is definitely some common ground. Otherwise I would not have posted that thought. Is it easy to find that common ground? Of course, not. Will it take a lot of time and effort (from all sides)? Absolutely. But, in the end, it is certainly worth trying, at the very least. That is why I have listed the areas, which I think represent some aspects that I hope we all could easier agree on than some other aspects. Finally, I think that it is important not to generalize people, based on our own (limited) experience. Some people on other side(s) are more flexible than others. Moreover, I believe that people can change, including their point of view on various issues. If we will dismiss the idea that others are or can become open minded, we will shut the door to a potential dialog, which could bring us even more trouble.
- rectang 6y ago
  The USA seems bound for "illiberal democracy", a la Orbán in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Erdogan in Turkey, Kaczyński in Poland, and Modi in India. (If you are a Republican, assume a Democratic autocrat, and if you are a Democrat assume a Republican autocrat.) Democracy in general has the weakness that the party in power can constrain the ability of the opposition to compete. We don't yet know how to stop the slide into illiberal democracy from happening.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    Hi, I'm from Australia. Voting is mandatory here! Turn out in our elections is 99.x%. You are not obligated to make a choice, but you are obligated under pain of a $30 fine to be registered at a polling station on election day. You can avoid the fine if you present a valid reason for not voting after the election when notified. Such a reason would definitely include "I was prevented from voting" or "I was threatened if I voted", and would be registered with the AEC and investigated seriously. Our Electoral commission is the most trusted government body in the country, and has maintained a culture of independence and accuracy. We don't have any form of electronic voting, but generally have election results on election night. Our system has multiple viable political parties! Factions on both the left and right of the spectrum at multiple government levels have successfully won and lost seats over the years depending on their ability to poll within the electorate. This has not resulted in them being regarded as "spoilers" to the main political parties, and has acted at times as an effective check on government policy since it encouraged cross-party negotiation through multiple avenues. Is our system perfect? No - no system is. But come election night, our representative government actually represents the people. If you got 51% of the vote, then 51% of the population, through some means, selected you as a preferred candidate.
    - freeone3000 6y ago
      24 hours ago, a group of demonstrators chanted "stop the count" at an elections office. How do you get there from here?
      - old_hat 6y ago
- baybal2 6y ago
  > Is there really any common ground? Politics is all about uncommon ground. People hardly ever can have one, as the word suggests the tragedy of commons follows quickly upon reaching it. Mutually beneficial status qua don't last as somebody always want to get more of the benefit than others, and exploit the situation. People are not born equal, tribes are not equal, nations are not made equal. There are always the weaker, and stronger. Politics is how you get along, and live another day with all above concerned. How somebody weak can live along somebody strong, without having the later kill him simply because he can. Same way, how a strong one can live with peace of mind knowing that if he lets the weak leave, they may well live to grow big, and surpass him in the future. Life is an endless play of king of the hill.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. How do you debate with people who don't care about facts or reason? Your comment about "facts or reason" is sort of odd given your post gives no details concerning what you consider these to be. I mean, I could fill in some but it seems like without you giving a clue as to what you're referring to, people can only shout for you or against you.
  - xnyan 6y ago
    Here's an example. My facts, which I think are shared by almost all people for at least hundreds of years (at least anywhere there has ever been a plauge): 1) Sometimes human spread illness to each other via spit, like when they talk 2) A piece of cloth in the path of spit will probably block some or all of the spit That is the entire argument for wearing masks. Wearing a mask costs almost nothing, and you know it might help save lives if you believe 1 and 2. I live in a state where not wearing a mask is very common. Most people don't even have them on in something like a gas station. People are dying here at 2x the national average. My neighbors, whom I have known for a decade, told me that my personal wearing of a mask was a politically-motivated attack on their beliefs. Millions of people have similar beliefs.
    - abc-xyz 6y ago
      Have you forgotten that we couldn't buy masks or other medical equipment for months because of China, and everyone, including WHO, Fauci, Obama, etc. were advising people against using masks due to shortage? - January 14, WHO: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳(https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152) - January 31, Trump suspends travel from China: Proclamation on Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons who Pose a Risk of Transmitting 2019 Novel Coronavirus(https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation...). A move condemned by many, including WHO and Biden. - February 1, Biden: We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1223727977361338370 https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1223727977361338370) - Feburary 2, Health Commissioner of New York City: As we gear up to celebrate the #LunarNewYear in NYC, I want to assure New Yorkers that there is no reason for anyone to change their holiday plans, avoid the subway, or certain parts of the city because of #coronavirus.(https://mobile.twitter.com/NYCHealthCommr/status/1224043155852537863 https://mobile.twitter.com/NYCHealthCommr/status/12240431558...) - Feburary 24, Pelosi: You should come to Chinatown. Precautions have been taken by our city, we know that there's concern about tourism, traveling all throughout the world, but we think it's very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc) - Feburary 29, U.S. Surgeon General: Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!(https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...) - Feburary 29, WHO: Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact.(https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...) - March 2, Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of WHO: Stigma, to be honest, is more dangerous than the virus itself. Let's really underline that. Stigma is the most dangerous enemy.(https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-final-02mar2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr...) - March 2, U.S. Surgeon General: You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider(https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips) - March 3, Bill de Blasio (NYC Mayor): Since I’m encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives + get out on the town despite Coronavirus, I thought I would offer some suggestions. Here’s the first: thru Thurs 3/5 go see "The Traitor" @FilmLinc. If "The Wire" was a true story + set in Italy, it would be this film.(https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229 https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229) - March 4, Obama: Save the masks for health care workers. Let’s stay calm, listen to the experts, and follow the science.(https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/1235246706817630208 https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/1235246706817630208) - March 8, Fauci (Director of NIAID): People should not be walking around masks. There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better, but it's not providing the perfect protection people think it is, and often there are un-intentioned consequences(https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI) - June 5, WHO: If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.(http://web.archive.org/web/20200605134037/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks http://web.archive.org/web/20200605134037/https://www.who.in...) - June 8, WHO: It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.(https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-08jun2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr...) --- China brought up medical equipment all over the world, which is why you couldn't buy any masks and other medical equipment for many months. This was not just a result of Daigo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gNQ9JnJ90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gNQ9JnJ90), but rather, China had its overseas companies send their employees all over the country to buy up all the medical equipment they could find: - Chinese property developing group Greenland scoured Australia to purchase bulk medical supplies - including masks, gloves and thermometers - which were flown to China. "Basically all employees, the majority of whom are Chinese, were asked to source whatever medical supplies they could," one company insider told the Herald. This exercise went on for weeks through January and February, he said. The entire accounts department, contract managers, the human resources team and even receptionists were sent on a mission to find bulk supplies of surgical masks, thermometers, antibacterial wipes, hand sanitisers, gloves and Panadol. According to a company newsletter, the Greenland Group sourced 3 million protective masks, 700,000 hazmat suits and 500,000 pairs of protective gloves from "Australia, Canada, Turkey and other countries."(https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-backed-company-s-mission-to-source-australian-medical-supplies-20200325-p54du8.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-backed-company-s-mis...) - Chinese-owned Risland Australia, boasted online last month that "90 tons (sic) of selective medical supplies" were sent "air transport direct from Sydney to Wuhan via corporate jet."(https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/second-company-sent-90-tonnes-of-australian-medical-supplies-to-china/news-story/be74b7679d7c8cb910d0f34713b2f008 https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/second-company-sent...) - Sydney-based Mr Kuang, former officer in the People's Liberation Army, imported 35,000 sets of protective medical suits, 200,000 pairs of gloves and 10 tonnes of disinfectant from Australia to China.(https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-chinese-military-man-behind-export-of-tonnes-of-medical-supplies-20200330-p54f8a.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-chinese-military-man-...) - China stockpiled 2 billion face masks and 25m medical items.(https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/revealed-china-stockpiled-2-billion-face-masks-and-25m-medical-items/news-story/5304e5a5080bd4087e4a9be9de210b97 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/revealed-china-stoc...) Other related news: - Beijing demanded praise in exchange for medical supplies(https://www.axios.com/beijing-demanded-praise-in-exchange-for-medical-supplies-16f5183e-589a-42e5-bc25-414eb13841b0.html https://www.axios.com/beijing-demanded-praise-in-exchange-fo...). - Chinese government rejects allegations that its face masks were defective, tells countries to 'double check' instructions(https://www.businessinsider.com/china-face-mask-defective-double-check-instructions-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-face-mask-defective-do...) - Italy gave China PPE to help with coronavirus — then China made them buy it back(https://spectator.us/italy-china-ppe-sold-coronavirus/ https://spectator.us/italy-china-ppe-sold-coronavirus/) --- If Biden/the democrats were interested in uniting the nation then perhaps they should’ve united with Trump against China instead of pushing CCP propaganda to attack Trump and blame him for everything. Perhaps they should’ve been honest about why they didn’t want people to wear masks for the first many months. Accept responsibility for the fact that USA is so heavily reliant on China, largely thanks to the likes of Biden. Perhaps they should acknowledge that they were wrong to encourage people to gather, wrong to attack Trump for limiting flights from China.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  > Is there really any common ground? Some policies, when detached from political partisanship, could be appreciated by voters on both sides. For instance, for those who believe in human rights and social justice (a supposedly 'left' concern), there's good cause for opposition to China. In terms of jobs and national security, wresting some of China's high-tech manufacturing capability back within US borders would be a boon for employment across 'middle-America' (a supposedly 'right' concern). More importantly, I think both the concerns of human rights, and the employment of your fellow citizens, should not be a partisan issue. I think most people want the world to be a better place to live, with better human rights, and a wage. Allowing China to gain leverage on the world, despite a track record of human rights abuses, and building a trade deficit with them, isn't really in the general voters interest. And this is just one example. I'm sure there's more common ground if you look just at policy.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    > More importantly, I think both the concerns of human rights, and the employment of your fellow citizens, should not be a partisan issue. McConnel has already demonstrated that he will make it a partisan issue by ramming through a Supreme Court justice and recessing the Senate without even giving the appearance of considering a second round of COVID relief. > And this is just one example. I'm sure there's more common ground if you look just at policy. It won't force bad faith actors to cooperate, regardless of any common ground between voters because they, as the GP said, won't hold their politicians to account. Acting as the opposition even when they're in power is built into the party at this point, as demonstrated by the President's many legislative failures starting with the ACA repeal. It's just wishful thinking and I'm hoping enough people are done with the feel good woowoo.
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      You've missed my point entirely. I'm not talking about one legislator, I'm talking about an entire nation. At the end of the day, the one leverage you and I have over our policy-maker overlords, is the vote. > It won't force bad faith actors to cooperate [..] as the GP said, won't hold their politicians to account. The only way you can hold this belief, is to also believe that voting behaviour doesn't change over time, and that you don't have a part to play in that. What else could motivate you to speak with such passion if it were only futile? > It's just wishful thinking and I'm hoping enough people are done with the feel good woowoo. You miss every shot you don't take. A platitude, maybe, but also a falsifiable proposition, which is clearly true. For instance, there's nothing magical about taking your vote to any of the independents with much better policies. Sure, their pitch for the white house is impossible, but they might make headway into the senate, and each % point that goes to an independent provides a signal to the established Red/Blue teams that maybe they should adopt some of those policies. Nothing magical about organising with like-minded people, creating and crowd-funding a lobby group. Or even taking part of one that suits your interests.
- centimeter 6y ago
  There’s a slate star codex post that describes research demonstrating that conservative Americans can predict the responses of progressive Americans to political questions, but the converse is not true. It’s not that conservatives are “unwilling to consider” conflicting ideas; in fact, they do a much better job of modeling conflicting ideas than progressives do! Most of the difference is, I think, not based on factual disagreement, but based on principal disagreements on issues like the personhood of fetuses.
  - ghomrassen 6y ago
    It's the old adage, "conservatives think liberals are stupid, liberals think conservatives are evil."
    - klipt 6y ago
      I know a lot of liberals who think conservatives (especially poorer conservatives) are stupidly voting against their class interests.
      - pnw_hazor 6y ago
        They probably still hate those conservatives though. Even now you can see the hate being directed to Blacks or Hispanics that may have voted for Trump.
        crooked-v 6y ago
        One must consider the major confounding factor here that Republicans have made a substantial effort to publicly taunt and insult liberals from positions of power[1], and that being the target of that kind of thing can easily override what would otherwise be more compassionate interaction. [1]: One example: https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1323813315169165313 https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1323813315169165313
      - mythrwy 6y ago
        What that tells you is... they don't understand those interests. Or they don't understand that their proposed solutions don't sound likely to solve the interests.
- davrosthedalek 6y ago
  Try to assume their views, and then work from there. What would you believe if you start out with the opposite's viewpoint? What is the easiest acceptable modification of their believe system? Move them step by step.
- jcims 6y ago
  In most cases you're likely just engaging in rhetorical volleys with the other person. Until someone trusts you to handle their concerns and vulnerabilities with care, you aren't going to get anywhere. The relationship is paramount in communication, and it's the one thing that social media (and the pandemic) has most effectively eliminated from our daily lives. In this particular case I think we all need to 'act local and think global'...stop sparring on the Internet and try to make inroads to mutual understanding with those that you can see and hear.
- Rapzid 6y ago
  I will give you an example: gun control. Wait what?! Doesn't one side want to take the guns away? Doesn't the other side want teachers with guns in schools? Well, it turns out the majority of Americans not only agree on the need for better gun controls, they actually agree overwhelmingly on certain specific controls as well. It's a classic wedge issue though, and FUD is deployed to drive that wedge between both sides which prevents most major cooperation on the matter. Unless there is a crisis, and then both sides will make an easy sacrifice to look like they are doing something. Like bump stocks. Nobody really gives AF about bump stocks, so they banned them.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > Is there really any common ground? Florida Amendment 2. That's right, on the same ballot where Florida solidly selected a republican president, republican legislature and republican house delegation, they went >60% on a $15 minimum wage. Progressive legislation is popular. Progressives are not, because of branding and demagoguery (and no small amount of bald-faced lying). That's common ground. It may not look like it, but it's there.
- tomrod 6y ago
  Regarding common ground, I believe so. Just as several people were shy to admit voting for [candidate name redacted] those are the same willing to seek common ground. I worry more about those for whom politics is a team sport, and who ignore whom they marginalize in their quest for ideals.
- lsiebert 6y ago
  A lot of people support cannabis legalization, and Biden wants to decriminalize it and leave it to the states to handle. I've seen a lot of people noting how drug policy liberalization won big across the country, even in red states.
- giardini 6y ago
  harimau777 asks:>Is there really any common ground?< First one must ask whether there is "common ground" within the factions of the Democratic party itself. Once victory has been declared and legislators and executives ensconced in their offices, a feeding frenzy will ensue within the Democratic Party. Each faction will demand that their agenda be pursued first with the most money, time and effort. Unfortunately resources are limited (in particular time is limited to 4 and, in some cases, 2 years). Political infighting amongst these factions will increase to a level so intense that people may long for the return of Donald Trump.
- markvdb 6y ago
  > Is there really any common ground? There can be. On an individual level, where there's mutual trust. At the right time, better not in the heat of this moment. I remember having a very fruitful discussion with a Trump/Pence supporting friend, somewhere in the middle of Trump's presidential term. My friend's background as a conservative evangelical is _very_ different from mine. He is a decent and caring man, and I am 100% sure he'd describe me in the same way. It started with hearing the news together. A few discussion points were Trump's pussy grabbing video, his anti-intellectualism, and the environment. The discussion also meandered through science and religion, religion as a fertile ground for symbolic language and ended up with virtue signaling. We were able to come to the conclusion that this Trump-evangelicals alliance would damage them for years to come. How it would be better for them to ally with decent people instead, whatever their view on religion. And here we are...
- vonwoodson 6y ago
  No. “Common ground” is a false peace flag... a friendly sounding phrase meant to play on liberal preoccupation with “a fair system” If you’re unfamiliar with how conservatives do business, it’s worth investigating. Start here: https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A When you need to expand your knowledge beyond YouTube videos I’d recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Donald/dp/0190692006 https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-... A conservative plea for “common ground” is very similar to a mind game explained here: https://youtu.be/YOqJ4sc9TAc https://youtu.be/YOqJ4sc9TAc
programmertote 6y ago
Since you mentioned about Georgia runoff elections, I'd like to share the link to the Democrats' donation page: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/gasenatebattleground https://secure.actblue.com/donate/gasenatebattleground.
artificialLimbs 6y ago
This site used to not be filled with leftist cheerleaderism, as far as I can remember. Shocking that such a nebulous non comment is at the top. It's my opinion that freedom should be of primary importance in America, not feel good authoritarian inducing woo.
- kzrdude 6y ago
  What kind of freedom? Many would like to be free to be freelancers without having to worry so much about health insurance. How do we get there?
  - JaimeThompson 6y ago
    I am not so sure that they like the freedom to do that but they see no other way to provide for themselves and their families. Such realities make it rather difficult to prioritize what is better in the long term over the more immediate need to eat.
    - crooked-v 6y ago
      While that's true, there's still some number of people who would genuinely rather have freelance and 'gig' jobs for one reason or another if they weren't dependent on the healthcare provided by a 'real' job. The same goes for people who would attempt being entrepreneurs if all they had to worry about losing was money.
  - humanrebar 6y ago
    I think it's not controversial that employer provided health insurance is a silly mechanism. But animosity prevents significant progress away from the status quo.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      It's disingenuous to claim that this is purely because of animosity. It is a calculated decision that some people decided that the status quo is better for them that what could be, and in various ways decide to enforce it. Otherwise, how could you explain Obama (for all the ills he committed) taking Romney's healthcare plan, and then the entirety of the Republican magically turning against the plan that they themselves generated? It's not animosity, it is certainly calculated.
ptero 6y ago
> Uniting the country is definitely a commendable goal This is hard and may backfire in a deeply divided country. To me, instead of trying to achieve a common ground (which, in the current situation often means forcing 49% to the position of the 51%; with the chance of a swap in 2-4 years) we should learn to live, share space and collaborate with folks who hold different political views. We can disagree on politics, but it should not prevent us from working as a team on software or sharing a beer after work. We are not at war with the other half of the country. We should respect their opinions and avoid unnecessary confrontations. My 2c.
- Blammar 6y ago
  I was agreeing with you until your next to last sentence. Sometimes you cannot respect someone else's opinions. I believe the fundamental dichotomy is that, for some of us, our opinions are not who we are. We can change our opinions and remain the same people. For others, their opinions ARE who they are. They cannot separate out their beliefs from themselves, so when you question their opinions, they feel you are attacking them personally.
  - kgwgk 6y ago
    > They cannot separate out their beliefs from themselves, so when you question their opinions, they feel you are attacking them personally. And in that case you cannot respect those opinions?
    - Blammar 6y ago
      Not if their opinions are of the flavor of: female genital mutilation is acceptable; there was massive election fraud in the US Nov. 3 election; the earth is flat; etc. At some point you need to draw a line.
      - kgwgk 6y ago
        I misunderstood. I though the problem was related with people feeling attacked when their opinions are questioned. That can also happen with acceptable opinions.
troydavis 6y ago
Anyone read a practical 20 year plan to decrease divisiveness in the US (say, to 1990s levels)? Or: Ignoring funding, what would you do? An example year 1 goal: "Get X million people to watch 10 hours/year of strangers who they would normally not encounter or agree with, and to see them as real people." To do that, produce and televise + stream a long-form TV show, like a version of Braver Angels' Red/Blue Workshops[1] that's actually fun to watch. Imagine a well-produced show with deep participant profiles - a cross between a reality TV show and a HBO/Netflix long-form movie. It would humanize the participants first, then after viewers care about them, their lives, and their families, the actors gradually explain their backgrounds and opinions - some of which a viewer will disagree with. Viewers would "meet" people they may not interact with regularly. (Sarah Silverman's "I Love You, America"[2] is the closest I've seen to this, and it's not all that close.) This would need to be a multi-decade plan, probably with philanthropic and public funding. [1]: https://braverangels.org/what-we-do/red-blue-workshops/ https://braverangels.org/what-we-do/red-blue-workshops/ [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmQpf-B94mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmQpf-B94mc
- humanrebar 6y ago
  I think any plan that neglects ratcheting down high-stakes issues to more local levels is fighting against strong headwinds. In other words, we can avoid winner-take-all dysfunction by allowing more diversity in governance. If we make every issue national, it makes it too important who runs the national government. Within reason, we should find ways to let California be California and Alabama be Alabama. Alabama and California shouldn't have to struggle against one another as much as they do.
  - harimau777 6y ago
    The only way that I could see that working is if we allowed states to impose tariffs embargoes and on each other. There would need to be some way for states to protect themselves from other states' negative externalities or a race to the bottom.
    - mac01021 6y ago
king_panic 6y ago
The election of the Senate is as representative of the country as election of the president. The idea they have to vote in accordance with your opinion on issues in order to 'restore the moral fabric of the country', whatever that means, is condescending and self-righteous.
- ablekh 6y ago
  I don't think that my post promotes an idea senators have to vote in accordance with my opinion on issues. The point I was trying to make is that there is a very real threat of gridlock in the Congress (especially, considering the voting record of the current majority in the Senate), which might be extremely unproductive and even damaging to the lives of the American people.
  - dashundchen 6y ago
    It drives me nuts that so much order of business is controlled by a majority leader, no matter the party. These rules stifle any legislation to a predetermined show for the most part where votes and "debate" is just scripted for pundits and news. If legislation could hit the floor for actual debate and votes without being filtered through partisan leadership I think we could see a lot more progress on things that are popular and bipartisan. Or at least legislatures would have to put their names to a vote on an issue. Minimum wage hikes, marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform, redistricting and campaign finance reform have all faced great support when put to ballot initiatives around the country. But good luck ever seeing that in Congress.
  - king_panic 6y ago
    Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. Only the most important issues to American people pass through to law, whether or not you agree on those issues, which you clearly lay out in your OP in the name of "repairing moral fabric" -- empty rhetoric.
    - ablekh 6y ago
      Regardless of whether you call gridlock a feature or something else, I think that it should be used to the benefit of the people. Unfortunately, too many times it is used not to the benefit of the relevant constituents, but for playing political games, catering to interests of some financial donors and sometimes even due to an outright lack of responsibility. As for "repairing moral fabric", this has nothing to do with the gridlock issue. I don't know why you even mentioned that in this context.
jariel 6y ago
Please don't assume that 'one side' has the unilateral moral authority to 'make things better and less divided'. This implication directly contradicts the part about 'unity'. 'One side' having the run of the system will absolutely lead to greater divisions. Trump is gone, I think most reasonable people will take solace in that. Now that he is gone, having regular checks and balances is a 'good thing'. Having the 'other side' with a narrow, 1 vote majority in the Senate is probably a really reasonable check on power, as Senators often break ranks with the party so there's plenty of room for a 'really good bit of legislation' to get through if the Dems want to push for it.
- harimau777 6y ago
  Don't we first need to undo the damage that Trump has done? I can see getting to a point where neither side acts unilaterally, but only after things have been balanced to actually be in the center between the sides.
  - jakeogh 6y ago
    Specifically, not some feelings you have, what damage?
- ablekh 6y ago
  I don't make any assumptions about any unilateral moral authority on issues. That is why I call for a constructive dialog at all levels and across all groups of our society. As for your argument on checks and balances - yes, generally, it is definitely a very good thing. However, when one side uses their position of chamber majority not to collaborate and compromise, but to throw a wrench into "wheels of democracy" and gridlock the Congress (especially, considering the voting record of the current majority in the Senate and essentially zero breaking ranks history), which might be extremely unproductive and even damaging to the lives of the American people, that IMO does not represent the "checks and balances" that you're talking about.
  - jariel 6y ago
    I don't see one side looking to 'collaborate' other than if they had to and I object to the notion that only 'one side' tries to stonewall deals. Senate votes [1] are almost never perfectly partisan (52-48 in current form). They are all over the place. Romney, Fluke others have bounced on some big votes for Republicans, and frankly, we don't always see the 'break ranks votes' because they are usually foregone: Senate Whip won't take it to the floor if he knows there are a handful of stragglers so those 'broken ranks' are not as visible. [1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_116_2.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_...
catlifeonmars 6y ago
What is “moral fabric”?
- ablekh 6y ago
  The following definition that was shared by someone on Quora is quite good, though a bit academic. Moral fabric is "a metaphor for the flexible but still assured structure of virtue that forms the basis of integrity and holds society together". To put it simpler, I would define moral fabric as a set of foundational moral principles (common moral ground) that most people in a particular society agree on and recognize as guidelines throughout their daily lives. These principles form a cohesive environment of values, which is referred to a moral fabric. Here's a blog post with a potentially better definition: https://nomoralfabric.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-loss-of-moral-fabric-in-society https://nomoralfabric.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-loss-of-m....
Rapzid 6y ago
It will help to have an Executive administration that doesn't have its heel on the wedge for the next four years gleefully driving it deeper for adulation and ratings.
tekknik 6y ago
Generally I agree with your statement here. But realize you said “we need to find common ground” then went on to say the dems need total control to progress their agenda. These conflict. This attitude is a reason for the division, and are just plain one sided. If you wanted common grounds you’d want the two parties to work together, not one have total control of the entire gov.
- ablekh 6y ago
  Well, let me literally reproduce my other comment in this thread, which was a reply to another person. It is not that easy to find, so, for your convenience, I'm reposting it below. While it talks about "checks and balances" point, I think that exactly the same argument can be made about "common ground". I hope that it makes sense to you. As for your argument on checks and balances - yes, generally, it is definitely a very good thing. However, when one side uses their position of chamber majority not to collaborate and compromise, but to throw a wrench into "wheels of democracy" and gridlock the Congress (especially, considering the voting record of the current majority in the Senate and essentially zero breaking ranks history), which might be extremely unproductive and even damaging to the lives of the American people, that IMO does not represent the "checks and balances" that you're talking about.
  - tekknik 6y ago
    But again, this is only stopping progress from your point of view. From the other, it’s stopping damage. You are implying that your side is right and must have 100% to implement it. Anything short of that is damaging. It’s still one sided.
    - ablekh 6y ago
      Not exactly. That is why I have mentioned above words "collaborate" and "compromise".
      - tekknik 6y ago
        And then go on to say you need total control. You can’t collaborate and compromise if the one party controls the entire gov. Nobody will believe the lie that democrats will work with republicans.
thehappypm 6y ago
It was not inevitable that Biden would win. The electoral college is a major hurdle to overcome — he still came pretty close to losing a few key states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which would have made it much much less likely for him to win. It took hard work, lots of money, and historically high turnout to get here. Incumbents rarely lose. This was pushing a boulder uphill. But it happened. Biden 2020.
coffeemug 6y ago
I can get along with people from a different political camp, no problem. My gf is liberal, I'm conservative. We have lively debates about it, but we respect each other and never let politics get in the way of the relationship. It's as simple as that. But over the last few years friends called me a nazi and a racist, coworkers ostracized me for having unfashionable political views, many people cut contact entirely under the premise that I "support" white supremacy. This isn't some shit you easily forgive, and it isn't something you ever forget. This wasn't just about politics, or teams, or policy preferences, or red vs blue or whatever. This is people denying your humanity on no grounds whatsoever, and when you point it out they say "well, minorities have always felt this way, so shut up and take it." That's fair enough, but it isn't about groups of people oppressing other groups of people. It's about Bill and John and Sally-- people who used to be friends and colleagues-- treating me like I'm a monster for no reason whatsoever other than a mass psychosis. That's not something you can ever come back from.
- thomastjeffery 6y ago
  > This is people denying your humanity on no grounds whatsoever, and when you point it out they say "well, minorities have always felt this way, so shut up and take it." Here's where they are coming from: Donald Trump was denying people's humanity on the grounds that they came from south of the border. He was literally separating children from their parents to scare others away. When I have explained that to Trump supporters, they immediately gaslight me; telling me it wasn't that bad, or Trump's fault. > It's about Bill and John and Sally-- people who used to be friends and colleagues-- treating me like I'm a monster for no reason whatsoever other than a mass psychosis. They don't mean to. Really, they don't. The trouble is, they just can't find a reason. The only reason I can think of is that Trump supporters really don't know what's happening. That they don't believe it. It looks a lot like mass psychosis. It looks even more like a cult. I would know: I grew up in one. If I can come back from that, you can come back from this. The first step is empathy. Are you certain that you aren't in the "group of people oppressing other groups of people"? I know it can be hard to confront that question. I did it about a year ago. When I did, I found out the answer was "no". I dug a little deeper, and realized it wasn't a soft "no", either. I was an instrumental part of an institution that tears families apart and drives children to suicidal ideation. I always knew there were issues, but I had plenty of excuses for those issues and the institution's part in them. If you really aren't a Nazi or a racist, then will you reconsider your support for the GOP? Bill, John, and Sally didn't just pull that out of their asses. What they said to you was disrespectful and dehumanizing, but it didn't come from nothing.

by ablekh 6y ago

harimau777 6y ago

Is there really any common ground? My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. How do you debate with people who don't care about facts or reason? In addition their leadership appears to be completely unwilling to act and good faith and the rank in file appear unwilling to hold them accountable for that fact. I would love to be able to see some way to find common ground, but It seems to me that doing so would just be playing the sucker.

miked85 6y ago
> My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. This absolutely goes both ways; that is the biggest problem.
- pm90 6y ago
  Sorry, this isn’t true, and it’s important to call out as such. https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-party-pathological https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2017/9/22/16345194/republican-...
  - miked85 6y ago
    I think you just proved my point.
    - pm90 6y ago
      How?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - eagsalazar2 6y ago
      Nothing was proved either way.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      No, no that didn't. Just because someone denies an adverse position doesn't mean that they are fanatically denying evidence, it can easily be the case that the adverse position is false, and that they are open to seeing it proven true but haven't seen it.
    - Mitzi 6y ago
      Perhaps a better question would be: Consider two parties starting out relatively reasonable. Over time, members of both parties claim the other party is becoming unreasonable or outright crazy. This could be true in the following to scenarios: (1) Both parties have become crazy. Both parties would be correct in their claims but of course also guilty of having gone crazy. (2) Party A has stayed reasonable and party B has become crazy. Party A would be correct in their claim and party B's claim would be part of them being crazy. How do you distinguish between (1) and (2) from the outside?
pm90 6y ago
Correct and it appears that even though Trump lost, Trumpism allowed most Republican Senators to keep their seats and they even won more seats in the House, and didn’t lose a single Statehouse. This election has been a repudiation of Trump but not Trumpism.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- sokoloff 6y ago
  I think there’s a good chance that the GOP leaders are almost as happy to see the backside of Trump as the DNC leaders are.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dbrueck 6y ago
Yes, there is a ton of common ground with 99% of the people on the "other" side, whichever side that is from you. If one big problem facing U.S. politics right now is that everything is distilled down to a binary either-or with no room for nuance, its sibling problem is assuming that everyone on the "other side" from you is the same, i.e. that the crazy extremist you see on TV is a prototypical example of everyone in that group. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.
- harimau777 6y ago
  That's what I used to believe, but these aren't people I see on TV, these are people I actually spoke to. When they ignored the facts I asked them what facts would change their mind and was told point blank that there were no facts that would change their mind. I don't see how you can engage with that.
  - dbrueck 6y ago
    Sure, I don't disagree with you on that point at all - but for every 1 of those there are 10 (100? 1000? more?) who aren't like that but who, given what was effectively a binary choice, voted the same way that they did. The die-hard (blind) fanatics on either end of the spectrum don't make a big enough group to win an election, but the assumption that they are representative of everyone in that group is incorrect and - maybe more important - counterproductive.
  - gootdude 6y ago
    Indeed, how does one have a serious discussion with someone that refuses to acknowledge 2+2=4 because they "believe" the answer is 5.
  - centimeter 6y ago
    Without knowing anything about you personally except the distribution of intelligence here on HN and the way you talk about how much smarter you are than these yokels, you are probably not smart enough to have an outsize economically valuable model of the world and your “facts” are probably low-value memes you picked up in school and on television.
djitz 6y ago
This is not exclusive to any one side. That’s the problem with having “sides”.
ablekh 6y ago
I sincerely believe that there is definitely some common ground. Otherwise I would not have posted that thought. Is it easy to find that common ground? Of course, not. Will it take a lot of time and effort (from all sides)? Absolutely. But, in the end, it is certainly worth trying, at the very least. That is why I have listed the areas, which I think represent some aspects that I hope we all could easier agree on than some other aspects. Finally, I think that it is important not to generalize people, based on our own (limited) experience. Some people on other side(s) are more flexible than others. Moreover, I believe that people can change, including their point of view on various issues. If we will dismiss the idea that others are or can become open minded, we will shut the door to a potential dialog, which could bring us even more trouble.
rectang 6y ago
The USA seems bound for "illiberal democracy", a la Orbán in Hungary, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Erdogan in Turkey, Kaczyński in Poland, and Modi in India. (If you are a Republican, assume a Democratic autocrat, and if you are a Democrat assume a Republican autocrat.) Democracy in general has the weakness that the party in power can constrain the ability of the opposition to compete. We don't yet know how to stop the slide into illiberal democracy from happening.
- XorNot 6y ago
  Hi, I'm from Australia. Voting is mandatory here! Turn out in our elections is 99.x%. You are not obligated to make a choice, but you are obligated under pain of a $30 fine to be registered at a polling station on election day. You can avoid the fine if you present a valid reason for not voting after the election when notified. Such a reason would definitely include "I was prevented from voting" or "I was threatened if I voted", and would be registered with the AEC and investigated seriously. Our Electoral commission is the most trusted government body in the country, and has maintained a culture of independence and accuracy. We don't have any form of electronic voting, but generally have election results on election night. Our system has multiple viable political parties! Factions on both the left and right of the spectrum at multiple government levels have successfully won and lost seats over the years depending on their ability to poll within the electorate. This has not resulted in them being regarded as "spoilers" to the main political parties, and has acted at times as an effective check on government policy since it encouraged cross-party negotiation through multiple avenues. Is our system perfect? No - no system is. But come election night, our representative government actually represents the people. If you got 51% of the vote, then 51% of the population, through some means, selected you as a preferred candidate.
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    24 hours ago, a group of demonstrators chanted "stop the count" at an elections office. How do you get there from here?
    - old_hat 6y ago
baybal2 6y ago
> Is there really any common ground? Politics is all about uncommon ground. People hardly ever can have one, as the word suggests the tragedy of commons follows quickly upon reaching it. Mutually beneficial status qua don't last as somebody always want to get more of the benefit than others, and exploit the situation. People are not born equal, tribes are not equal, nations are not made equal. There are always the weaker, and stronger. Politics is how you get along, and live another day with all above concerned. How somebody weak can live along somebody strong, without having the later kill him simply because he can. Same way, how a strong one can live with peace of mind knowing that if he lets the weak leave, they may well live to grow big, and surpass him in the future. Life is an endless play of king of the hill.
joe_the_user 6y ago
My experience talking to the other side during this administration is that they are completely unable and often unwilling to consider any argument or information that conflicts with their views. How do you debate with people who don't care about facts or reason? Your comment about "facts or reason" is sort of odd given your post gives no details concerning what you consider these to be. I mean, I could fill in some but it seems like without you giving a clue as to what you're referring to, people can only shout for you or against you.
- xnyan 6y ago
  Here's an example. My facts, which I think are shared by almost all people for at least hundreds of years (at least anywhere there has ever been a plauge): 1) Sometimes human spread illness to each other via spit, like when they talk 2) A piece of cloth in the path of spit will probably block some or all of the spit That is the entire argument for wearing masks. Wearing a mask costs almost nothing, and you know it might help save lives if you believe 1 and 2. I live in a state where not wearing a mask is very common. Most people don't even have them on in something like a gas station. People are dying here at 2x the national average. My neighbors, whom I have known for a decade, told me that my personal wearing of a mask was a politically-motivated attack on their beliefs. Millions of people have similar beliefs.
  - abc-xyz 6y ago
    Have you forgotten that we couldn't buy masks or other medical equipment for months because of China, and everyone, including WHO, Fauci, Obama, etc. were advising people against using masks due to shortage? - January 14, WHO: Preliminary investigations conducted by the Chinese authorities have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel #coronavirus (2019-nCoV) identified in #Wuhan, #China🇨🇳(https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152 https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152) - January 31, Trump suspends travel from China: Proclamation on Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Persons who Pose a Risk of Transmitting 2019 Novel Coronavirus(https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation-suspension-entry-immigrants-nonimmigrants-persons-pose-risk-transmitting-2019-novel-coronavirus/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/proclamation...). A move condemned by many, including WHO and Biden. - February 1, Biden: We are in the midst of a crisis with the coronavirus. We need to lead the way with science — not Donald Trump’s record of hysteria, xenophobia, and fear-mongering. He is the worst possible person to lead our country through a global health emergency.(https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1223727977361338370 https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1223727977361338370) - Feburary 2, Health Commissioner of New York City: As we gear up to celebrate the #LunarNewYear in NYC, I want to assure New Yorkers that there is no reason for anyone to change their holiday plans, avoid the subway, or certain parts of the city because of #coronavirus.(https://mobile.twitter.com/NYCHealthCommr/status/1224043155852537863 https://mobile.twitter.com/NYCHealthCommr/status/12240431558...) - Feburary 24, Pelosi: You should come to Chinatown. Precautions have been taken by our city, we know that there's concern about tourism, traveling all throughout the world, but we think it's very safe to be in Chinatown and hope that others will come.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAEfSHeH4Lc) - Feburary 29, U.S. Surgeon General: Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!(https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/1233725785283932160 https://twitter.com/Surgeon_General/status/12337257852839321...) - Feburary 29, WHO: Travel bans to affected areas or denial of entry to passengers coming from affected areas are usually not effective in preventing the importation of cases but may have a significant economic and social impact.(https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-recommendations-for-international-traffic-in-relation-to-covid-19-outbreak https://www.who.int/news-room/articles-detail/updated-who-re...) - March 2, Tedros Adhanom, Director-General of WHO: Stigma, to be honest, is more dangerous than the virus itself. Let's really underline that. Stigma is the most dangerous enemy.(https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-final-02mar2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr...) - March 2, U.S. Surgeon General: You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider(https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips https://video.foxnews.com/v/6137596907001#sp=show-clips) - March 3, Bill de Blasio (NYC Mayor): Since I’m encouraging New Yorkers to go on with your lives + get out on the town despite Coronavirus, I thought I would offer some suggestions. Here’s the first: thru Thurs 3/5 go see "The Traitor" @FilmLinc. If "The Wire" was a true story + set in Italy, it would be this film.(https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229 https://twitter.com/BilldeBlasio/status/1234648718714036229) - March 4, Obama: Save the masks for health care workers. Let’s stay calm, listen to the experts, and follow the science.(https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/1235246706817630208 https://twitter.com/barackobama/status/1235246706817630208) - March 8, Fauci (Director of NIAID): People should not be walking around masks. There's no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little better, but it's not providing the perfect protection people think it is, and often there are un-intentioned consequences(https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI https://youtu.be/PRa6t_e7dgI) - June 5, WHO: If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.(http://web.archive.org/web/20200605134037/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks http://web.archive.org/web/20200605134037/https://www.who.in...) - June 8, WHO: It still appears to be rare that an asymptomatic individual actually transmits onward.(https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcripts/who-audio-emergencies-coronavirus-press-conference-08jun2020.pdf https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/transcr...) --- China brought up medical equipment all over the world, which is why you couldn't buy any masks and other medical equipment for many months. This was not just a result of Daigo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gNQ9JnJ90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X3gNQ9JnJ90), but rather, China had its overseas companies send their employees all over the country to buy up all the medical equipment they could find: - Chinese property developing group Greenland scoured Australia to purchase bulk medical supplies - including masks, gloves and thermometers - which were flown to China. "Basically all employees, the majority of whom are Chinese, were asked to source whatever medical supplies they could," one company insider told the Herald. This exercise went on for weeks through January and February, he said. The entire accounts department, contract managers, the human resources team and even receptionists were sent on a mission to find bulk supplies of surgical masks, thermometers, antibacterial wipes, hand sanitisers, gloves and Panadol. According to a company newsletter, the Greenland Group sourced 3 million protective masks, 700,000 hazmat suits and 500,000 pairs of protective gloves from "Australia, Canada, Turkey and other countries."(https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-backed-company-s-mission-to-source-australian-medical-supplies-20200325-p54du8.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/chinese-backed-company-s-mis...) - Chinese-owned Risland Australia, boasted online last month that "90 tons (sic) of selective medical supplies" were sent "air transport direct from Sydney to Wuhan via corporate jet."(https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/second-company-sent-90-tonnes-of-australian-medical-supplies-to-china/news-story/be74b7679d7c8cb910d0f34713b2f008 https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/second-company-sent...) - Sydney-based Mr Kuang, former officer in the People's Liberation Army, imported 35,000 sets of protective medical suits, 200,000 pairs of gloves and 10 tonnes of disinfectant from Australia to China.(https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-chinese-military-man-behind-export-of-tonnes-of-medical-supplies-20200330-p54f8a.html https://www.smh.com.au/national/former-chinese-military-man-...) - China stockpiled 2 billion face masks and 25m medical items.(https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/revealed-china-stockpiled-2-billion-face-masks-and-25m-medical-items/news-story/5304e5a5080bd4087e4a9be9de210b97 https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/revealed-china-stoc...) Other related news: - Beijing demanded praise in exchange for medical supplies(https://www.axios.com/beijing-demanded-praise-in-exchange-for-medical-supplies-16f5183e-589a-42e5-bc25-414eb13841b0.html https://www.axios.com/beijing-demanded-praise-in-exchange-fo...). - Chinese government rejects allegations that its face masks were defective, tells countries to 'double check' instructions(https://www.businessinsider.com/china-face-mask-defective-double-check-instructions-2020-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-face-mask-defective-do...) - Italy gave China PPE to help with coronavirus — then China made them buy it back(https://spectator.us/italy-china-ppe-sold-coronavirus/ https://spectator.us/italy-china-ppe-sold-coronavirus/) --- If Biden/the democrats were interested in uniting the nation then perhaps they should’ve united with Trump against China instead of pushing CCP propaganda to attack Trump and blame him for everything. Perhaps they should’ve been honest about why they didn’t want people to wear masks for the first many months. Accept responsibility for the fact that USA is so heavily reliant on China, largely thanks to the likes of Biden. Perhaps they should acknowledge that they were wrong to encourage people to gather, wrong to attack Trump for limiting flights from China.
h0l0cube 6y ago
> Is there really any common ground? Some policies, when detached from political partisanship, could be appreciated by voters on both sides. For instance, for those who believe in human rights and social justice (a supposedly 'left' concern), there's good cause for opposition to China. In terms of jobs and national security, wresting some of China's high-tech manufacturing capability back within US borders would be a boon for employment across 'middle-America' (a supposedly 'right' concern). More importantly, I think both the concerns of human rights, and the employment of your fellow citizens, should not be a partisan issue. I think most people want the world to be a better place to live, with better human rights, and a wage. Allowing China to gain leverage on the world, despite a track record of human rights abuses, and building a trade deficit with them, isn't really in the general voters interest. And this is just one example. I'm sure there's more common ground if you look just at policy.
- akiselev 6y ago
  > More importantly, I think both the concerns of human rights, and the employment of your fellow citizens, should not be a partisan issue. McConnel has already demonstrated that he will make it a partisan issue by ramming through a Supreme Court justice and recessing the Senate without even giving the appearance of considering a second round of COVID relief. > And this is just one example. I'm sure there's more common ground if you look just at policy. It won't force bad faith actors to cooperate, regardless of any common ground between voters because they, as the GP said, won't hold their politicians to account. Acting as the opposition even when they're in power is built into the party at this point, as demonstrated by the President's many legislative failures starting with the ACA repeal. It's just wishful thinking and I'm hoping enough people are done with the feel good woowoo.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    You've missed my point entirely. I'm not talking about one legislator, I'm talking about an entire nation. At the end of the day, the one leverage you and I have over our policy-maker overlords, is the vote. > It won't force bad faith actors to cooperate [..] as the GP said, won't hold their politicians to account. The only way you can hold this belief, is to also believe that voting behaviour doesn't change over time, and that you don't have a part to play in that. What else could motivate you to speak with such passion if it were only futile? > It's just wishful thinking and I'm hoping enough people are done with the feel good woowoo. You miss every shot you don't take. A platitude, maybe, but also a falsifiable proposition, which is clearly true. For instance, there's nothing magical about taking your vote to any of the independents with much better policies. Sure, their pitch for the white house is impossible, but they might make headway into the senate, and each % point that goes to an independent provides a signal to the established Red/Blue teams that maybe they should adopt some of those policies. Nothing magical about organising with like-minded people, creating and crowd-funding a lobby group. Or even taking part of one that suits your interests.
centimeter 6y ago
There’s a slate star codex post that describes research demonstrating that conservative Americans can predict the responses of progressive Americans to political questions, but the converse is not true. It’s not that conservatives are “unwilling to consider” conflicting ideas; in fact, they do a much better job of modeling conflicting ideas than progressives do! Most of the difference is, I think, not based on factual disagreement, but based on principal disagreements on issues like the personhood of fetuses.
- ghomrassen 6y ago
  It's the old adage, "conservatives think liberals are stupid, liberals think conservatives are evil."
  - klipt 6y ago
    I know a lot of liberals who think conservatives (especially poorer conservatives) are stupidly voting against their class interests.
    - pnw_hazor 6y ago
      They probably still hate those conservatives though. Even now you can see the hate being directed to Blacks or Hispanics that may have voted for Trump.
      - crooked-v 6y ago
        One must consider the major confounding factor here that Republicans have made a substantial effort to publicly taunt and insult liberals from positions of power[1], and that being the target of that kind of thing can easily override what would otherwise be more compassionate interaction. [1]: One example: https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1323813315169165313 https://twitter.com/CawthornforNC/status/1323813315169165313
    - mythrwy 6y ago
      What that tells you is... they don't understand those interests. Or they don't understand that their proposed solutions don't sound likely to solve the interests.
davrosthedalek 6y ago
Try to assume their views, and then work from there. What would you believe if you start out with the opposite's viewpoint? What is the easiest acceptable modification of their believe system? Move them step by step.
jcims 6y ago
In most cases you're likely just engaging in rhetorical volleys with the other person. Until someone trusts you to handle their concerns and vulnerabilities with care, you aren't going to get anywhere. The relationship is paramount in communication, and it's the one thing that social media (and the pandemic) has most effectively eliminated from our daily lives. In this particular case I think we all need to 'act local and think global'...stop sparring on the Internet and try to make inroads to mutual understanding with those that you can see and hear.
Rapzid 6y ago
I will give you an example: gun control. Wait what?! Doesn't one side want to take the guns away? Doesn't the other side want teachers with guns in schools? Well, it turns out the majority of Americans not only agree on the need for better gun controls, they actually agree overwhelmingly on certain specific controls as well. It's a classic wedge issue though, and FUD is deployed to drive that wedge between both sides which prevents most major cooperation on the matter. Unless there is a crisis, and then both sides will make an easy sacrifice to look like they are doing something. Like bump stocks. Nobody really gives AF about bump stocks, so they banned them.
newacct583 6y ago
> Is there really any common ground? Florida Amendment 2. That's right, on the same ballot where Florida solidly selected a republican president, republican legislature and republican house delegation, they went >60% on a $15 minimum wage. Progressive legislation is popular. Progressives are not, because of branding and demagoguery (and no small amount of bald-faced lying). That's common ground. It may not look like it, but it's there.
tomrod 6y ago
Regarding common ground, I believe so. Just as several people were shy to admit voting for [candidate name redacted] those are the same willing to seek common ground. I worry more about those for whom politics is a team sport, and who ignore whom they marginalize in their quest for ideals.
lsiebert 6y ago
A lot of people support cannabis legalization, and Biden wants to decriminalize it and leave it to the states to handle. I've seen a lot of people noting how drug policy liberalization won big across the country, even in red states.
giardini 6y ago
harimau777 asks:>Is there really any common ground?< First one must ask whether there is "common ground" within the factions of the Democratic party itself. Once victory has been declared and legislators and executives ensconced in their offices, a feeding frenzy will ensue within the Democratic Party. Each faction will demand that their agenda be pursued first with the most money, time and effort. Unfortunately resources are limited (in particular time is limited to 4 and, in some cases, 2 years). Political infighting amongst these factions will increase to a level so intense that people may long for the return of Donald Trump.
markvdb 6y ago
> Is there really any common ground? There can be. On an individual level, where there's mutual trust. At the right time, better not in the heat of this moment. I remember having a very fruitful discussion with a Trump/Pence supporting friend, somewhere in the middle of Trump's presidential term. My friend's background as a conservative evangelical is _very_ different from mine. He is a decent and caring man, and I am 100% sure he'd describe me in the same way. It started with hearing the news together. A few discussion points were Trump's pussy grabbing video, his anti-intellectualism, and the environment. The discussion also meandered through science and religion, religion as a fertile ground for symbolic language and ended up with virtue signaling. We were able to come to the conclusion that this Trump-evangelicals alliance would damage them for years to come. How it would be better for them to ally with decent people instead, whatever their view on religion. And here we are...
vonwoodson 6y ago
No. “Common ground” is a false peace flag... a friendly sounding phrase meant to play on liberal preoccupation with “a fair system” If you’re unfamiliar with how conservatives do business, it’s worth investigating. Start here: https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A When you need to expand your knowledge beyond YouTube videos I’d recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-Donald/dp/0190692006 https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-Conservatism-Edmund-... A conservative plea for “common ground” is very similar to a mind game explained here: https://youtu.be/YOqJ4sc9TAc https://youtu.be/YOqJ4sc9TAc

programmertote 6y ago

Since you mentioned about Georgia runoff elections, I'd like to share the link to the Democrats' donation page: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/gasenatebattleground https://secure.actblue.com/donate/gasenatebattleground.

artificialLimbs 6y ago

This site used to not be filled with leftist cheerleaderism, as far as I can remember. Shocking that such a nebulous non comment is at the top. It's my opinion that freedom should be of primary importance in America, not feel good authoritarian inducing woo.

kzrdude 6y ago
What kind of freedom? Many would like to be free to be freelancers without having to worry so much about health insurance. How do we get there?
- JaimeThompson 6y ago
  I am not so sure that they like the freedom to do that but they see no other way to provide for themselves and their families. Such realities make it rather difficult to prioritize what is better in the long term over the more immediate need to eat.
  - crooked-v 6y ago
    While that's true, there's still some number of people who would genuinely rather have freelance and 'gig' jobs for one reason or another if they weren't dependent on the healthcare provided by a 'real' job. The same goes for people who would attempt being entrepreneurs if all they had to worry about losing was money.
- humanrebar 6y ago
  I think it's not controversial that employer provided health insurance is a silly mechanism. But animosity prevents significant progress away from the status quo.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    It's disingenuous to claim that this is purely because of animosity. It is a calculated decision that some people decided that the status quo is better for them that what could be, and in various ways decide to enforce it. Otherwise, how could you explain Obama (for all the ills he committed) taking Romney's healthcare plan, and then the entirety of the Republican magically turning against the plan that they themselves generated? It's not animosity, it is certainly calculated.

ptero 6y ago

> Uniting the country is definitely a commendable goal This is hard and may backfire in a deeply divided country. To me, instead of trying to achieve a common ground (which, in the current situation often means forcing 49% to the position of the 51%; with the chance of a swap in 2-4 years) we should learn to live, share space and collaborate with folks who hold different political views. We can disagree on politics, but it should not prevent us from working as a team on software or sharing a beer after work. We are not at war with the other half of the country. We should respect their opinions and avoid unnecessary confrontations. My 2c.

Blammar 6y ago
I was agreeing with you until your next to last sentence. Sometimes you cannot respect someone else's opinions. I believe the fundamental dichotomy is that, for some of us, our opinions are not who we are. We can change our opinions and remain the same people. For others, their opinions ARE who they are. They cannot separate out their beliefs from themselves, so when you question their opinions, they feel you are attacking them personally.
- kgwgk 6y ago
  > They cannot separate out their beliefs from themselves, so when you question their opinions, they feel you are attacking them personally. And in that case you cannot respect those opinions?
  - Blammar 6y ago
    Not if their opinions are of the flavor of: female genital mutilation is acceptable; there was massive election fraud in the US Nov. 3 election; the earth is flat; etc. At some point you need to draw a line.
    - kgwgk 6y ago
      I misunderstood. I though the problem was related with people feeling attacked when their opinions are questioned. That can also happen with acceptable opinions.

troydavis 6y ago

Anyone read a practical 20 year plan to decrease divisiveness in the US (say, to 1990s levels)? Or: Ignoring funding, what would you do? An example year 1 goal: "Get X million people to watch 10 hours/year of strangers who they would normally not encounter or agree with, and to see them as real people." To do that, produce and televise + stream a long-form TV show, like a version of Braver Angels' Red/Blue Workshops[1] that's actually fun to watch. Imagine a well-produced show with deep participant profiles - a cross between a reality TV show and a HBO/Netflix long-form movie. It would humanize the participants first, then after viewers care about them, their lives, and their families, the actors gradually explain their backgrounds and opinions - some of which a viewer will disagree with. Viewers would "meet" people they may not interact with regularly. (Sarah Silverman's "I Love You, America"[2] is the closest I've seen to this, and it's not all that close.) This would need to be a multi-decade plan, probably with philanthropic and public funding. [1]: https://braverangels.org/what-we-do/red-blue-workshops/ https://braverangels.org/what-we-do/red-blue-workshops/ [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmQpf-B94mc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmQpf-B94mc

humanrebar 6y ago
I think any plan that neglects ratcheting down high-stakes issues to more local levels is fighting against strong headwinds. In other words, we can avoid winner-take-all dysfunction by allowing more diversity in governance. If we make every issue national, it makes it too important who runs the national government. Within reason, we should find ways to let California be California and Alabama be Alabama. Alabama and California shouldn't have to struggle against one another as much as they do.
- harimau777 6y ago
  The only way that I could see that working is if we allowed states to impose tariffs embargoes and on each other. There would need to be some way for states to protect themselves from other states' negative externalities or a race to the bottom.
  - mac01021 6y ago

king_panic 6y ago

The election of the Senate is as representative of the country as election of the president. The idea they have to vote in accordance with your opinion on issues in order to 'restore the moral fabric of the country', whatever that means, is condescending and self-righteous.

ablekh 6y ago
I don't think that my post promotes an idea senators have to vote in accordance with my opinion on issues. The point I was trying to make is that there is a very real threat of gridlock in the Congress (especially, considering the voting record of the current majority in the Senate), which might be extremely unproductive and even damaging to the lives of the American people.
- dashundchen 6y ago
  It drives me nuts that so much order of business is controlled by a majority leader, no matter the party. These rules stifle any legislation to a predetermined show for the most part where votes and "debate" is just scripted for pundits and news. If legislation could hit the floor for actual debate and votes without being filtered through partisan leadership I think we could see a lot more progress on things that are popular and bipartisan. Or at least legislatures would have to put their names to a vote on an issue. Minimum wage hikes, marijuana legalization, criminal justice reform, redistricting and campaign finance reform have all faced great support when put to ballot initiatives around the country. But good luck ever seeing that in Congress.
- king_panic 6y ago
  Gridlock is a feature, not a bug. Only the most important issues to American people pass through to law, whether or not you agree on those issues, which you clearly lay out in your OP in the name of "repairing moral fabric" -- empty rhetoric.
  - ablekh 6y ago
    Regardless of whether you call gridlock a feature or something else, I think that it should be used to the benefit of the people. Unfortunately, too many times it is used not to the benefit of the relevant constituents, but for playing political games, catering to interests of some financial donors and sometimes even due to an outright lack of responsibility. As for "repairing moral fabric", this has nothing to do with the gridlock issue. I don't know why you even mentioned that in this context.

jariel 6y ago

Please don't assume that 'one side' has the unilateral moral authority to 'make things better and less divided'. This implication directly contradicts the part about 'unity'. 'One side' having the run of the system will absolutely lead to greater divisions. Trump is gone, I think most reasonable people will take solace in that. Now that he is gone, having regular checks and balances is a 'good thing'. Having the 'other side' with a narrow, 1 vote majority in the Senate is probably a really reasonable check on power, as Senators often break ranks with the party so there's plenty of room for a 'really good bit of legislation' to get through if the Dems want to push for it.

harimau777 6y ago
Don't we first need to undo the damage that Trump has done? I can see getting to a point where neither side acts unilaterally, but only after things have been balanced to actually be in the center between the sides.
- jakeogh 6y ago
  Specifically, not some feelings you have, what damage?
ablekh 6y ago
I don't make any assumptions about any unilateral moral authority on issues. That is why I call for a constructive dialog at all levels and across all groups of our society. As for your argument on checks and balances - yes, generally, it is definitely a very good thing. However, when one side uses their position of chamber majority not to collaborate and compromise, but to throw a wrench into "wheels of democracy" and gridlock the Congress (especially, considering the voting record of the current majority in the Senate and essentially zero breaking ranks history), which might be extremely unproductive and even damaging to the lives of the American people, that IMO does not represent the "checks and balances" that you're talking about.
- jariel 6y ago
  I don't see one side looking to 'collaborate' other than if they had to and I object to the notion that only 'one side' tries to stonewall deals. Senate votes [1] are almost never perfectly partisan (52-48 in current form). They are all over the place. Romney, Fluke others have bounced on some big votes for Republicans, and frankly, we don't always see the 'break ranks votes' because they are usually foregone: Senate Whip won't take it to the floor if he knows there are a handful of stragglers so those 'broken ranks' are not as visible. [1] https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_116_2.htm https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_...

catlifeonmars 6y ago

What is “moral fabric”?

ablekh 6y ago
The following definition that was shared by someone on Quora is quite good, though a bit academic. Moral fabric is "a metaphor for the flexible but still assured structure of virtue that forms the basis of integrity and holds society together". To put it simpler, I would define moral fabric as a set of foundational moral principles (common moral ground) that most people in a particular society agree on and recognize as guidelines throughout their daily lives. These principles form a cohesive environment of values, which is referred to a moral fabric. Here's a blog post with a potentially better definition: https://nomoralfabric.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-loss-of-moral-fabric-in-society https://nomoralfabric.wordpress.com/2012/10/29/the-loss-of-m....

Rapzid 6y ago

It will help to have an Executive administration that doesn't have its heel on the wedge for the next four years gleefully driving it deeper for adulation and ratings.

tekknik 6y ago

Generally I agree with your statement here. But realize you said “we need to find common ground” then went on to say the dems need total control to progress their agenda. These conflict. This attitude is a reason for the division, and are just plain one sided. If you wanted common grounds you’d want the two parties to work together, not one have total control of the entire gov.

ablekh 6y ago
Well, let me literally reproduce my other comment in this thread, which was a reply to another person. It is not that easy to find, so, for your convenience, I'm reposting it below. While it talks about "checks and balances" point, I think that exactly the same argument can be made about "common ground". I hope that it makes sense to you. As for your argument on checks and balances - yes, generally, it is definitely a very good thing. However, when one side uses their position of chamber majority not to collaborate and compromise, but to throw a wrench into "wheels of democracy" and gridlock the Congress (especially, considering the voting record of the current majority in the Senate and essentially zero breaking ranks history), which might be extremely unproductive and even damaging to the lives of the American people, that IMO does not represent the "checks and balances" that you're talking about.
- tekknik 6y ago
  But again, this is only stopping progress from your point of view. From the other, it’s stopping damage. You are implying that your side is right and must have 100% to implement it. Anything short of that is damaging. It’s still one sided.
  - ablekh 6y ago
    Not exactly. That is why I have mentioned above words "collaborate" and "compromise".
    - tekknik 6y ago
      And then go on to say you need total control. You can’t collaborate and compromise if the one party controls the entire gov. Nobody will believe the lie that democrats will work with republicans.

thehappypm 6y ago

It was not inevitable that Biden would win. The electoral college is a major hurdle to overcome — he still came pretty close to losing a few key states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania which would have made it much much less likely for him to win. It took hard work, lots of money, and historically high turnout to get here. Incumbents rarely lose. This was pushing a boulder uphill. But it happened. Biden 2020.

coffeemug 6y ago

I can get along with people from a different political camp, no problem. My gf is liberal, I'm conservative. We have lively debates about it, but we respect each other and never let politics get in the way of the relationship. It's as simple as that. But over the last few years friends called me a nazi and a racist, coworkers ostracized me for having unfashionable political views, many people cut contact entirely under the premise that I "support" white supremacy. This isn't some shit you easily forgive, and it isn't something you ever forget. This wasn't just about politics, or teams, or policy preferences, or red vs blue or whatever. This is people denying your humanity on no grounds whatsoever, and when you point it out they say "well, minorities have always felt this way, so shut up and take it." That's fair enough, but it isn't about groups of people oppressing other groups of people. It's about Bill and John and Sally-- people who used to be friends and colleagues-- treating me like I'm a monster for no reason whatsoever other than a mass psychosis. That's not something you can ever come back from.

thomastjeffery 6y ago
> This is people denying your humanity on no grounds whatsoever, and when you point it out they say "well, minorities have always felt this way, so shut up and take it." Here's where they are coming from: Donald Trump was denying people's humanity on the grounds that they came from south of the border. He was literally separating children from their parents to scare others away. When I have explained that to Trump supporters, they immediately gaslight me; telling me it wasn't that bad, or Trump's fault. > It's about Bill and John and Sally-- people who used to be friends and colleagues-- treating me like I'm a monster for no reason whatsoever other than a mass psychosis. They don't mean to. Really, they don't. The trouble is, they just can't find a reason. The only reason I can think of is that Trump supporters really don't know what's happening. That they don't believe it. It looks a lot like mass psychosis. It looks even more like a cult. I would know: I grew up in one. If I can come back from that, you can come back from this. The first step is empathy. Are you certain that you aren't in the "group of people oppressing other groups of people"? I know it can be hard to confront that question. I did it about a year ago. When I did, I found out the answer was "no". I dug a little deeper, and realized it wasn't a soft "no", either. I was an instrumental part of an institution that tears families apart and drives children to suicidal ideation. I always knew there were issues, but I had plenty of excuses for those issues and the institution's part in them. If you really aren't a Nazi or a racist, then will you reconsider your support for the GOP? Bill, John, and Sally didn't just pull that out of their asses. What they said to you was disrespectful and dehumanizing, but it didn't come from nothing.