GOP2020: What Becomes Of The Collaborators Post-Trump?
PVW said:
drummerboy said:That analogy doesn't work for me. As you admit, someone may have voted for Trump "based on ignorance, or their basic disconnect from politics, or ... racism." People have multiple motivations in choosing who to vote for (or even whether to vote at all), and multiple levels of engagement.
well, what one does with that information is a personal thing. If you found out that your dentist attended the occasional KKK meeting, what would your reaction be?
Choosing to attend a KKK meeting, by contrast, is inherently an active choice to associate with a group specifically dedicated to the cause of white supremacy. Unlike voting, it's not really possible to attend a KKK meeting out of ignorance, or disconnection, or even from passive (as opposed to active) racism.
So you're willing to give people a pass because they're ignorant of the effects of their actions?
Not me. We do have certain responsibilities as people and citizens. Abdicating that responsibility for something as important as a vote for President should not be taken lightly. Granted, choosing Trump out of ignorance is not as horrible as choosing him actively, but the net difference between the two choices is zero, and they should be treated the same. Because in the end, it's kind of impossible for the outside observer to determine the ultimate motivation for a Trump vote. Rather than assume the best, I'd rather assume the worst. It's safer.
drummerboy said:So you're willing to give people a pass because they're ignorant of the effects of their actions?
Not me. We do have certain responsibilities as people and citizens. Abdicating that responsibility for something as important as a vote for President should not be taken lightly. Granted, choosing Trump out of ignorance is not as horrible as choosing him actively, but the net difference between the two choices is zero, and they should be treated the same. Because in the end, it's kind of impossible for the outside observer to determine the ultimate motivation for a Trump vote. Rather than assume the best, I'd rather assume the worst. It's safer.
What does not "giving them a pass" look like? Cut all social ties with them? Very sternly wag my finger but otherwise take no action?
I personally would pretty radically alter my interactions with a neighbor I learned attended KKK meetings -- you seem to be arguing that learning someone voted for Trump should merit an equally forceful response?
PVW said:
drummerboy said:What does not "giving them a pass" look like? Cut all social ties with them? Very sternly wag my finger but otherwise take no action?
So you're willing to give people a pass because they're ignorant of the effects of their actions?
Not me. We do have certain responsibilities as people and citizens. Abdicating that responsibility for something as important as a vote for President should not be taken lightly. Granted, choosing Trump out of ignorance is not as horrible as choosing him actively, but the net difference between the two choices is zero, and they should be treated the same. Because in the end, it's kind of impossible for the outside observer to determine the ultimate motivation for a Trump vote. Rather than assume the best, I'd rather assume the worst. It's safer.
I personally would pretty radically alter my interactions with a neighbor I learned attended KKK meetings -- you seem to be arguing that learning someone voted for Trump should merit an equally forceful response?
Absolutely. Personally, I think voting for Trump is worse than attending a KKK rally. Certainly the vote has more far-reaching effects, which happen to include the desires of the KKK rally. Voting for Trump is like endorsing a superset of bad-behaviors.
But as I said - people judge other people in different ways. I have never prescribed what someone else should do in response to someone's voting behavior. I'm talking about what I would do, and why I would do it.
as NJ and N.Y. push for legalizing weed gains support, it is good to understand that present day pot is not the same as you might remember from your youth...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/opinion/marijuana-pot-health-risks-legalization.html
mtierney said:
as NJ and N.Y. push for legalizing weed gains support, it is good to understand that present day pot is not the same as you might remember from your youth...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/opinion/marijuana-pot-health-risks-legalization.html
Anything new that is controversial is often decried as a dangerous risk. Like the Luddites crying over automobiles as a danger to horses, pedestrians, etc.
Yet, here we are with cars even though there is some risk. But then pedestrians were also run over by horse carriages.
I know emergency rooms have opiate and alcohol patients. I haven't seen them being visited by pot users.
mtierney said:
as NJ and N.Y. push for legalizing weed gains support, it is good to understand that present day pot is not the same as you might remember from your youth...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/opinion/marijuana-pot-health-risks-legalization.html
I believe everybody is aware of this. And there is, for me at least, a growing awareness that using marijuana is not without consequences, especially for teens. For me, the biggest reason for legalization is that attempts to outlaw marijuana were a costly failure. The cost of legal marijuana will be less than the cost of illegal marijuana.
mtierney said:
as NJ and N.Y. push for legalizing weed gains support, it is good to understand that present day pot is not the same as you might remember from your youth...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/opinion/marijuana-pot-health-risks-legalization.html
if the federal government would decriminalize cannabis, scientists could actually do rigorous studies of the effects/benefits/risks. They can also help people understand dosage levels, and as a legal product, be educated on the potency of what they are buying.
I'm not sure why you are so opposed to the common sense legalization of a product that is obviously less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.
ml1 said:
mtierney said:if the federal government would decriminalize cannabis, scientists could actually do rigorous studies of the effects/benefits/risks. They can also help people understand dosage levels, and as a legal product, be educated on the potency of what they are buying.
as NJ and N.Y. push for legalizing weed gains support, it is good to understand that present day pot is not the same as you might remember from your youth...
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/04/opinion/marijuana-pot-health-risks-legalization.html
I'm not sure why you are so opposed to the common sense legalization of a product that is obviously less dangerous than alcohol or cigarettes.
Don’t blame the messenger!
How many people have started using marijuana in states when it became legal? It's not as if it was hard to get before it was legalized.
mtierney said:Don’t blame the messenger!
Please. You have made it clear for some time that you are against legalization of cannabis.
tjohn said:
How many people have started using marijuana in states when it became legal? It's not as if it was hard to get before it was legalized.
And black market continues to thrive, trying to undercut expensive legal weed. Not everyone can grow grapes or distill whiskey. But weed? Lots of good gardeners, big and small, be it a few acres or a back yard or a solarium.
Couldn't have come at a more opportune time, given the Trump mentality and its toxic mix:
American Psychological Association links 'masculinity ideology' to homophobia, misogyny
For the first time in its 127-year history, the American Psychological Association has issued guidelines to help psychologists specifically address the issues of men and boys — and the 36-page document features a warning.
“Traditional masculinity ideology has been shown to limit males’ psychological development, constrain their behavior, result in gender role strain and gender role conflict and negatively influence mental health and physical health,” the report warns.
The new “Guidelines for the Psychological Practice with Boys and Men” defines “masculinity ideology” as “a particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.” The report also links this ideology to homophobia, bullying and sexual harassment.
The new guidelines, highlighted in this month’s issue of Monitor on Psychology, which is published by the APA, linked this ideology to a series of stark statistics: Men commit approximately 90 percent of all homicides in the U.S., they are far more likely than women to be arrested and charged with intimate partner violence in the U.S., and they are four times more likely than women to die of suicide worldwide.
Heaven help us if Rush, Sean, and the war-on-men crowd gets hold of this one.
GL2 said:
Heaven help us if Rush, Sean, and the war-on-men crowd gets hold of this one.
they already have. Heads are exploding in the wingosphere.
Well, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) is as much a political organization as a health-centered group. As many of you may already know, the way the DSM initially (early 1950s) was developed was to send a questionnaire to 10% of APA members, 46% of whom responded. Essentially, the questionnaire was based on the work of Adolf Meyer, a former president of the APA, who was known for developing extensive case histories of clients. The survey simply asked the sampled members to “vote” on what they considered to be the symptoms associated with certain disorders and the DSM was born. So, it wasn’t necessarily “hard research” that created the manual used to diagnose mental illness, it was a “vote” of the opinions of about 5% of the APA membership.
Infamously, homosexuality was considered to be a psychological disorder until 1973 when an earnest group of post-Stonewall activists within the APA managed to get the leadership to consider reclassifying homosexuality. As a result of their lobbying efforts (again, not so much research), the APA asked all members attending its annual convention that year to vote on whether they believed homosexuality to be a mental disorder. 5,854 psychiatrists voted to remove homosexuality from the DSM, and 3,810 to retain it….so, pooof, it was gone! (although it actually was converted to something called “sexual orientation disturbance” to apply to those who still struggled with being Gay.)
Dr. William Glasser has been a harsh critic of the APA and the DSM. Here is an interesting clip (a bit dated and he does push his own theory in the second half) of him talking about the subject of psychiatric diagnosis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AghOT3oCaM4
Finally, for those with time on their hands or an insatiable interest in such things, Men and Boys aren’t the only group to get their own practice manual. Here’s some light reading:
2015 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People
https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf
2011 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with lesbian and gay clients
https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx
2007 Guidelines for Psychological Practice with Women and Girls
https://www.apa.org/about/policy/girls-and-women-archived.pdf
Norman, for some reason, American Psychological and American Psychiatric both use APA initials.
GL2 said:
Norman, for some reason, American Psychological and American Psychiatric both use APA initials.
You are correct. I blurred the two in my post...largely because of my issues with the psychiatric group. And, many in the American Psychological Association also rely on the DSM developed by the psychiatric group. I should have been more precise. Sorry about that.
Wasn’t going for a gotcha. And I don’t think it invalidates your points. It’s confusing for two similar groups to use the same letters.
"Shocking" Finding: Old Cons Are Most Conned
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sharing false information on Facebook is old.
People over 65 and ultra conservatives shared about seven times more fake information masquerading as news on the social media site than younger adults, moderates and super liberals during the 2016 election season, a new study finds.
The first major study to look at who is sharing links from debunked sites finds that not many people are doing it. On average only 8.5 percent of those studied — about 1 person out of 12 — shared false information during the 2016 campaign, according to the study in Wednesday’s journal Science Advances. But those doing it tend to be older and more conservative.
“For something to be viral you’ve got to know who shares it,” said study co-author Jonathan Nagler, a politics professor and co-director of the Social Media and Political Participation Lab at New York University. “Wow, old people are much more likely than young people to do this.”
Another issue found with many elderly is:
A second possibility, they noted, is that the findings are a specific case of the general effect of ageing on memory. “Memory deteriorates with age in a way that particularly undermines resistance to ‘illusions of truth’,” the authors wrote.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/10/older-people-more-likely-to-share-fake-news-on-facebook
We see that with British elderly who largely, unlike other age groups, voted for Brexit driven by fake propaganda. A lot of youngsters are now complaining that the elderly ruined their future, the ones who will remain dealing with the Brexit effects.
What is an answer? Restrict elderly voting? We deny voting of those under 18 because we feel their brains are not well developed, not mature enough to responsibly be given that opportunity. Aging does cause a loss of mental facility. Would the brains of elderly such as over 75 be degraded to the level of the under 18 age group? If we can deny the under 18's, why not the over 75's?
GL2 said:
So we got Trump and you got Brexit. Nice.
Well, if it makes you feel better, Trump only lasts for 4 years, worst case 8. Brexit is forever.
But you are right, they are very comparable, self-inflicted wounds.
AOC Derangement Syndrome
...The obvious explanation is that men have literally never seen a woman in her 20s in the halls of Congress before. She’s attractive, telegenic and good at social media. She dances outside her Cannon House office. Conservative men are confused at being drawn to this bright rising star in the Democratic Party while loathing everything she stands for.
But that doesn’t fully explain the fervor with which conservatives hang on her every word, waiting for her to slip, and dig through her past for any feeble sign that she isn’t who she says she is. There’s an existential, panicked tinge to the behavior here ― what you might call “AOC Derangement Syndrome.” Indeed, some experts say conservative men are obsessed with Ocasio-Cortez because they’re threatened by her.
Conservatives tend to respond to fear more strongly than liberals do, according to Bobby Azarian, a neuroscientist whose expertise in anxiety has led him to examine political behaviors. His research has found that the brains of conservative people are likely to display the same attention biases as the brains of people with anxiety.
“The one main cognitive difference is that conservatives are more sensitive to threat,” he said. “Their fears are sometimes exaggerated. I think they fear her.”
Ocasio-Cortez’s power is a direct threat to conservatives because her very existence in Congress as a young, Latina, working-class woman threatens to upend the social order that has kept white men in the ruling class for centuries. (Eighty-eight percent of House Republicans are white men, most are over the age of 50, and the party’s voters are majority white and male.) On top of that, she is using her position and platform to directly challenge that order ― to attempt to get money out of politics, raise taxes on the super-rich and level the playing field.
“She doesn’t just challenge the patriarchy, she’s challenging the race, class, and gender hierarchies all at once, as well as the capitalist system that requires member of Congress be wealthy before they get there,” said Caroline Heldman, a gender and politics professor at Occidental College. “That’s remarkably threatening.”
HuffPost
Hey, it really didn’t take “experts” to come to this conclusion. I think most of us had this analysis w/o a degree.
My fave line: “Conservative men are confused at being drawn to this bright rising star in the Democratic Party while loathing everything she stands for.”
Ah, the temptation of the flesh. The Scarlet Letter in the halls of Congress.
Nice poll. Here's a bag of cash and a boxing glove.
In early 2015, a man who runs a small technology company showed up at Trump Tower to collect $50,000 for having helped Michael Cohen, then Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, try to rig online polls in his boss’s favor before the presidential campaign.
In his Trump Organization office, Mr. Cohen surprised the man, John Gauger, by giving him a blue Walmart bag containing between $12,000 and $13,000 in cash and, randomly, a boxing glove that Mr. Cohen said had been worn by a Brazilian mixed-martial arts fighter, Mr. Gauger said.
Mr. Cohen disputed that he handed over a bag of cash. “All monies paid to Mr. Gauger were by check,” he said, offering no further comment on his ties to the consultant.
Mr. Gauger owns RedFinch Solutions LLC and is chief information officer at Liberty University in Virginia, where Jerry Falwell Jr., an evangelical leader and fervent Trump supporter, is president.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
That analogy doesn't work for me. As you admit, someone may have voted for Trump "based on ignorance, or their basic disconnect from politics, or ... racism." People have multiple motivations in choosing who to vote for (or even whether to vote at all), and multiple levels of engagement.
Choosing to attend a KKK meeting, by contrast, is inherently an active choice to associate with a group specifically dedicated to the cause of white supremacy. Unlike voting, it's not really possible to attend a KKK meeting out of ignorance, or disconnection, or even from passive (as opposed to active) racism.