I'm constantly confounded by the assertion that papers should be able to blatantly lie, with the assurance that people should instead be free to figure out whatever the truth is themselves. It's a laudable goal for someone I'm sure, but my question is always: why should this always end with the papers? Should politicians also be free to lie, with nothing but the freedom to search for the truth yourself? What about police? Car salesman? At what point exactly do we draw the line where lying is no longer okay, because the truth is still potentially obtainable somewhere else?
Pretty sure fraud and consumer protection laws aren't going to be as strong 4 years from now.
I will be honestly surprised if even half of the regulatory framework constructed by the Obama administration survives the next four years.
It's like Detroit under the state of Michigan. Loot it for all its assets, abandon the people.
Gov Rauner was trying to take over CPS for the same reason. But we don't really fall for that shit. If anybody is going to defraud Chicago it is going to be Chicagoans, damnit.
+15
Options
Giggles_FunsworthBlight on DiscourseBay Area SprawlRegistered Userregular
Honestly I think the biggest problem for the politics of our country is just the general lack of awareness or care people have.
When only half of the public votes, of course problems arise.
At the presidential level as well as the state and local level.
How do you solve a problem of such widespread voter apathy and lack of care for civic issues?
Vote by mail.
+3
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
edited January 2017
I forget where I saw the stat but something like half the people who don't vote specifically don't vote not because they don't care but because they feel the electoral college renders their vote pointless. Obviously that means we need to get people more excited about downticket, but it's not specifically broad political apathy, it's people going "why expend the time/effort/money to vote when I'm a blue in a deep red state or a red in a deep blue state?"
Although that still leaves 25% of the country who do simply not give a shit, apparently.
I forget where I saw the stat but something like half the people who don't vote specifically don't vote not because they don't care but because they feel the electoral college renders their vote pointless. Obviously that means we need to get people more excited about downticket, but it's not specifically broad political apathy, it's people going "why expend the time/effort/money to vote when I'm a blue in a deep red state or a red in a deep blue state?"
Although that still leaves 25% of the country who do simply not give a shit, apparently.
Given that it's clear the electoral college will not do what it was designed to, I am now fully on board with killing it.
I'm alright with Democrats running on killing it in 2020. It doesn't have to be true. Because if they don't run on it, the 3rd parties will. They can use the narrative of it being a waste of taxpayer money.
What exactly do these mystery liberals "like" about Putin?
His totalitarianism? His persecution of all religions that aren't the Russian Orthodox Church? His repeated annexations of sovereign states for the purposes of more lebensraum?
I would say that if such people exist they are a tiny minority who if they are calling themselves liberal it's only because they don't have a clue what the word means.
I can see liberal leaning folks having a pro-Russian bias because of an ingrained suspicion caused by conservative Cold War propaganda. Still, I would have thought that whole effect would have run its course over 20 years ago. It's been a long time since USSR/Russia was literally the boogie man used to justify every shitty thing the US government ever did.
In a good sign, Democrats are apparently tell precedent to go fuck itself and are going to oppose cabinet picks as strenuously as possible. At least eight of them, anyway:
McConnell's office is, of course, blatant hypocritical about the whole thing:
“It’s curious that they’d [Democrats] object to treating the incoming president’s nominees with the same courtesy and seriousness with which the Senate acted on President Obama’s nominees,” Antonia Ferrier, a McConnell spokeswoman, said in an email. “Our committees and chairmen are fully capable of reviewing the incoming Cabinet nominations with the same rules and procedures as the same committees did with President Obama’s nominations.”
Fuck McConnell, and fuck whoever has the gall to say this shit as a supreme Court nominee is just sitting there without even a finger lifted to confirm him.
McConnell is easily one of the main people responsible for the US government being pretty close to the brink. Fucker does not give a single shit about anything.
You know, I used to hear stories about people in the UK celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death. And my reaction for so long was "That's just distasteful, no matter what the woman was like."
Folks like McConnell have slowly been changing my opinion over the years.
In a good sign, Democrats are apparently tell precedent to go fuck itself and are going to oppose cabinet picks as strenuously as possible. At least eight of them, anyway:
McConnell's office is, of course, blatant hypocritical about the whole thing:
“It’s curious that they’d [Democrats] object to treating the incoming president’s nominees with the same courtesy and seriousness with which the Senate acted on President Obama’s nominees,” Antonia Ferrier, a McConnell spokeswoman, said in an email. “Our committees and chairmen are fully capable of reviewing the incoming Cabinet nominations with the same rules and procedures as the same committees did with President Obama’s nominations.”
Fuck McConnell, and fuck whoever has the gall to say this shit as a supreme Court nominee is just sitting there without even a finger lifted to confirm him.
McConnell is easily one of the main people responsible for the US government being pretty close to the brink. Fucker does not give a single shit about anything.
You know, I used to hear stories about people in the UK celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death. And my reaction for so long was "That's just distasteful, no matter what the woman was like."
Folks like McConnell have slowly been changing my opinion over the years.
The thing is that ultimately these people make decisions that impact or destroy people's lives and they do so without care or consequence. So why would you give them any more consideration?
In a good sign, Democrats are apparently tell precedent to go fuck itself and are going to oppose cabinet picks as strenuously as possible. At least eight of them, anyway:
McConnell's office is, of course, blatant hypocritical about the whole thing:
“It’s curious that they’d [Democrats] object to treating the incoming president’s nominees with the same courtesy and seriousness with which the Senate acted on President Obama’s nominees,” Antonia Ferrier, a McConnell spokeswoman, said in an email. “Our committees and chairmen are fully capable of reviewing the incoming Cabinet nominations with the same rules and procedures as the same committees did with President Obama’s nominations.”
Fuck McConnell, and fuck whoever has the gall to say this shit as a supreme Court nominee is just sitting there without even a finger lifted to confirm him.
McConnell is easily one of the main people responsible for the US government being pretty close to the brink. Fucker does not give a single shit about anything.
You know, I used to hear stories about people in the UK celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death. And my reaction for so long was "That's just distasteful, no matter what the woman was like."
Folks like McConnell have slowly been changing my opinion over the years.
The thing is that ultimately these people make decisions that impact or destroy people's lives and they do so without care or consequence. So why would you give them any more consideration?
The thing is that ultimately these people make decisions that impact or destroy people's lives and they do so without care or consequence. So why would you give them any more consideration?
The same reason Shirley Chisholm visited George Wallace in the hospital after the assassination attempt?
Chisholm wanted to convey, in part, her belief that it was important in a democracy to respect contrary opinions without “impugning the motives” and “maligning the character” of one’s opponents. To view it any other way, Chisholm argued, was to encourage “the same sickness in public life that leads to assassinations.”
The thing is that ultimately these people make decisions that impact or destroy people's lives and they do so without care or consequence. So why would you give them any more consideration?
The same reason Shirley Chisholm visited George Wallace in the hospital after the assassination attempt?
Chisholm wanted to convey, in part, her belief that it was important in a democracy to respect contrary opinions without “impugning the motives” and “maligning the character” of one’s opponents. To view it any other way, Chisholm argued, was to encourage “the same sickness in public life that leads to assassinations.”
A political assassin kills far less people then, say, GWB ultimately did. I can't see Trump being any better. The distance makes it somehow more palitable. It's like drone warfare I guess.
And we should 100% “impugn the motives” and “malign the character” of these people. Not doing so is exactly how you underestimate how far they have been willing to go for power. The real sickness in public life is the one that leads to a guy like Trump getting elected because "he's on our side" or politicians openly violating the fundamental tenets of democracy to get their agenda passed.
EDIT: I guess just to be safe I should clarify that I am not endorsing political assassination.
shryke on
+10
Options
MayabirdPecking at the keyboardRegistered Userregular
In a good sign, Democrats are apparently tell precedent to go fuck itself and are going to oppose cabinet picks as strenuously as possible. At least eight of them, anyway:
McConnell's office is, of course, blatant hypocritical about the whole thing:
“It’s curious that they’d [Democrats] object to treating the incoming president’s nominees with the same courtesy and seriousness with which the Senate acted on President Obama’s nominees,” Antonia Ferrier, a McConnell spokeswoman, said in an email. “Our committees and chairmen are fully capable of reviewing the incoming Cabinet nominations with the same rules and procedures as the same committees did with President Obama’s nominations.”
Fuck McConnell, and fuck whoever has the gall to say this shit as a supreme Court nominee is just sitting there without even a finger lifted to confirm him.
McConnell is easily one of the main people responsible for the US government being pretty close to the brink. Fucker does not give a single shit about anything.
You know, I used to hear stories about people in the UK celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death. And my reaction for so long was "That's just distasteful, no matter what the woman was like."
Folks like McConnell have slowly been changing my opinion over the years.
The thing is that ultimately these people make decisions that impact or destroy people's lives and they do so without care or consequence. So why would you give them any more consideration?
"When they go low, We go high!"
Tried to be the better people and lost forever. Tried to take the high ground and had our feet cut out from under us permanently. The only thing left is to rage against the dying of the light.
Given that the republicans were obstructionist shitbirds for 8 years and wound up being rewarded with the keys to the kingdom, I'm really not that bothered by the democrats doing everything in their power to fuck over the rancid carrot in chief.
The thing is that ultimately these people make decisions that impact or destroy people's lives and they do so without care or consequence. So why would you give them any more consideration?
The same reason Shirley Chisholm visited George Wallace in the hospital after the assassination attempt?
Chisholm wanted to convey, in part, her belief that it was important in a democracy to respect contrary opinions without “impugning the motives” and “maligning the character” of one’s opponents. To view it any other way, Chisholm argued, was to encourage “the same sickness in public life that leads to assassinations.”
A political assassin kills far less people then, say, GWB ultimately did. I can't see Trump being any better. The distance makes it somehow more palitable. It's like drone warfare I guess.
I think you've missed her point. A democracy cannot function well (if at all) if political races become a battle between good and evil. The fact that Chisholm recognized this in the context of one candidate being a living, breathing, actual segregationist should give us pause in labeling Trump as the antichrist, worst thing to ever happen in US Presidential politics, or wishing him harm personally. Even ignoring that, it gives Trump an incredibly low bar to clear in seeking a second term and isn't smart politically.
And we should 100% “impugn the motives” and “malign the character” of these people. Not doing so is exactly how you underestimate how far they have been willing to go for power. The real sickness in public life is the one that leads to a guy life Trump getting elected because "he's on our side" or politicians openly violating the fundamental tenets of democracy to get their agenda passed.
The problem with going personal--as Chisholm suggested--is that it adds to a toxic campaign environment where facts don't matter. Sound familiar? And dems can properly estimate the other side's deviousness without employing their methods.
Given that the republicans were obstructionist shitbirds for 8 years and wound up being rewarded with the keys to the kingdom, I'm really not that bothered by the democrats doing everything in their power to fuck over the rancid carrot in chief.
They should certainly obstruct everything that deserves it, including Rex Tillerson and several other garbage nominations. I desperately hope Chuck Schumer and company can also find a few things Trump wants to do that's against GOP orthodoxy and fracture their coalition in the process. There are lots of cracks in the foundation to exploit.
Given that the republicans were obstructionist shitbirds for 8 years and wound up being rewarded with the keys to the kingdom, I'm really not that bothered by the democrats doing everything in their power to fuck over the rancid carrot in chief.
They should certainly obstruct everything that deserves it, including Rex Tillerson and several other garbage nominations. I desperately hope Chuck Schumer and company can also find a few things Trump wants to do that's against GOP orthodoxy and fracture their coalition in the process. There are lots of cracks in the foundation to exploit.
There isn't much, unless you want to drag the Medicare/Social Security fight front and center.
+1
Options
No-QuarterNothing To FearBut Fear ItselfRegistered Userregular
Given that the republicans were obstructionist shitbirds for 8 years and wound up being rewarded with the keys to the kingdom, I'm really not that bothered by the democrats doing everything in their power to fuck over the rancid carrot in chief.
They should certainly obstruct everything that deserves it, including Rex Tillerson and several other garbage nominations. I desperately hope Chuck Schumer and company can also find a few things Trump wants to do that's against GOP orthodoxy and fracture their coalition in the process. There are lots of cracks in the foundation to exploit.
There isn't much, unless you want to drag the Medicare/Social Security fight front and center.
This is the biggest and easiest one, though. If Dems can't hang the albatross entirely around the GOP's neck, then they're useless as a national party.
The thing is that ultimately these people make decisions that impact or destroy people's lives and they do so without care or consequence. So why would you give them any more consideration?
The same reason Shirley Chisholm visited George Wallace in the hospital after the assassination attempt?
Chisholm wanted to convey, in part, her belief that it was important in a democracy to respect contrary opinions without “impugning the motives” and “maligning the character” of one’s opponents. To view it any other way, Chisholm argued, was to encourage “the same sickness in public life that leads to assassinations.”
A political assassin kills far less people then, say, GWB ultimately did. I can't see Trump being any better. The distance makes it somehow more palitable. It's like drone warfare I guess.
I think you've missed her point. A democracy cannot function well (if at all) if political races become a battle between good and evil. The fact that Chisholm recognized this in the context of one candidate being a living, breathing, actual segregationist should give us pause in labeling Trump as the antichrist, worst thing to ever happen in US Presidential politics, or wishing him harm personally. Even ignoring that, it gives Trump an incredibly low bar to clear in seeking a second term and isn't smart politically.
And we should 100% “impugn the motives” and “malign the character” of these people. Not doing so is exactly how you underestimate how far they have been willing to go for power. The real sickness in public life is the one that leads to a guy life Trump getting elected because "he's on our side" or politicians openly violating the fundamental tenets of democracy to get their agenda passed.
The problem with going personal--as Chisholm suggested--is that it adds to a toxic campaign environment where facts don't matter. Sound familiar? And dems can properly estimate the other side's deviousness without employing their methods.
This is a ridiculous attempt at some sort of relevance. The truth is that no, it exactly doesn't sound familiar or resemble anything we've actually seen with the GOP.
The truth is the opposite of what you claim. A democracy cannot function if one is incapable of labeling things as fundamentally dangerous to a civil and just society. The more we pretend like things like segregation or voter suppression or whatever you wanna call the shit the NC GOP is up to, the more a nation begins to crack and fall apart. It's important to not normalize this kind of behaviour. That's how you actually end up where we are now.
Trump is the result of a long line of people pretending like the Republican party has not become a threat to the USA.
And that's why the Democrats need to oppose him and his party at every turn. This is what it has come down to.
The singer tweeted she would "graciously accept" the invitation from the American president-elect if she can perform Strange Fruit, a song that was blacklisted in the United States.
...
The words of Strange Fruit describe the lynching of African Americans in the early 20th century: "Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze".
It's been described as one of the first great protest songs.
Rebecca wrote that the song "speaks to all the disregarded and down trodden black people" in the US and if she can sing it she will "see [Mr Trump] in Washington".
Hehehehehe.
"Blacklisted"? What does that mean?
Twenty Sided on
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Given that the republicans were obstructionist shitbirds for 8 years and wound up being rewarded with the keys to the kingdom, I'm really not that bothered by the democrats doing everything in their power to fuck over the rancid carrot in chief.
They should certainly obstruct everything that deserves it, including Rex Tillerson and several other garbage nominations. I desperately hope Chuck Schumer and company can also find a few things Trump wants to do that's against GOP orthodoxy and fracture their coalition in the process. There are lots of cracks in the foundation to exploit.
There isn't much, unless you want to drag the Medicare/Social Security fight front and center.
I think there are a few more than that. Think of Trump as the party's attempt to follow through on promises it's made but doesn't want to actually follow through on, either because it doesn't believe in it or because it doesn't want the political consequences. Immigration is a big one, because the establishment doesn't actually believe in the kind of policy Trump's proposed. On the political consequences front, getting rid of Obamacare or attacking entitlements is a great drum to beat when you're out of office but not so hot when you're gonna get the full blame for throwing people off their health insurance and government income.
There will very shortly be a lot of real issues for the Democrats to attack on, which is good; we need to get off the character attacks as soon as possible because they don't work.
The singer tweeted she would "graciously accept" the invitation from the American president-elect if she can perform Strange Fruit, a song that was blacklisted in the United States.
...
The words of Strange Fruit describe the lynching of African Americans in the early 20th century: "Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze".
It's been described as one of the first great protest songs.
Rebecca wrote that the song "speaks to all the disregarded and down trodden black people" in the US and if she can sing it she will "see [Mr Trump] in Washington".
The truth is the opposite of what you claim. A democracy cannot function if one is incapable of labeling things as fundamentally dangerous to a civil and just society. The more we pretend like things like segregation or voter suppression or whatever you wanna call the shit the NC GOP is up to, the more a nation begins to crack and fall apart. It's important to not normalize this kind of behaviour. That's how you actually end up where we are now.
Where did you get this from? The conversation was about attacking ideas versus attacking people, and you seem to be fine with both while I'm saying the latter is corrosive to democratic (small d) discourse.
Shirley Chisholm was against segregation for obvious reasons--I'm pretty sure she saw it as 'fundamentally dangerous to a civil and just society'. She didn't let that view turn into demonizing George Wallace personally or celebrating his getting shot.
The truth is the opposite of what you claim. A democracy cannot function if one is incapable of labeling things as fundamentally dangerous to a civil and just society. The more we pretend like things like segregation or voter suppression or whatever you wanna call the shit the NC GOP is up to, the more a nation begins to crack and fall apart. It's important to not normalize this kind of behaviour. That's how you actually end up where we are now.
Where did you get this from? The conversation was about attacking ideas versus attacking people, and you seem to be fine with both while I'm saying the latter is corrosive to democratic (small d) discourse.
Shirley Chisholm was against segregation for obvious reasons--I'm pretty sure she saw it as 'fundamentally dangerous to a civil and just society'. She didn't let that view turn into demonizing George Wallace personally or celebrating his getting shot.
You said "A democracy cannot function well (if at all) if political races become a battle between good and evil". But the opposite of that is the actual truth. A democracy cannot function is a political race cannot become a matter of "this is fundamentally wrong". To do otherwise is to normalize extremist ideas and policies and individuals who are corrosive to the health of democratic societies.
To say we should "respect contrary opinions without “impugning the motives” and “maligning the character” of one’s opponents" is bullshit because it makes of their dangerous motives a policy disagreement rather then an issue of fundamental danger to a just and stable democracy. We should not respect all contrary opinions nor those that make them. That shit is dangerous.
Trump is practically the most perfect example of this. We should exactly impugn his motives and malign his character because more even then his politics, those are what are incredibly dangerous about the man.
The singer tweeted she would "graciously accept" the invitation from the American president-elect if she can perform Strange Fruit, a song that was blacklisted in the United States.
...
The words of Strange Fruit describe the lynching of African Americans in the early 20th century: "Black bodies swinging in the southern breeze".
It's been described as one of the first great protest songs.
Rebecca wrote that the song "speaks to all the disregarded and down trodden black people" in the US and if she can sing it she will "see [Mr Trump] in Washington".
You said "A democracy cannot function well (if at all) if political races become a battle between good and evil". But the opposite of that is the actual truth. A democracy cannot function is a political race cannot become a matter of "this is fundamentally wrong". To do otherwise is to normalize extremist ideas and policies and individuals who are corrosive to the health of democratic societies.
Calling your opponent evil has limited political and practical benefits, is completely subjective, and does nothing to stop anyone from saying that candidate's views are fundamentally wrong. It does, however, lower you to their level and contribute to a substance-free mudfest. Didn't work last time, probably won't work next time.
To say we should "respect contrary opinions without “impugning the motives” and “maligning the character” of one’s opponents" is bullshit because it makes of their dangerous motives a policy disagreement rather then an issue of fundamental danger to a just and stable democracy. We should not respect all contrary opinions nor those that make them. That shit is dangerous.
Where did I say we should respect all opinions? That's exactly the point of attack where they are most vulnerable and we need to focus. It's certainly more important than going after Trump's motives and character, which you inexplicably see as more dangerous than his actual political maneuverings. Focusing on his character also puts that front and center in media coverage instead of the actual policy, which is what really matters.
House GOP conference voted for a bill to gut the ethics office and make a weaker non-independent facsimile to replace it. Ryan and McCarthy opposed it, so maybe it never gets introduced, but kind of darkly hilarious.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Actually if I remember right, the Republicans gutted the ethics committee the last time they had the Presidency and Pelosi restored it as one of the first actions of the Democratic Congress in 2007.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Posts
I will be honestly surprised if even half of the regulatory framework constructed by the Obama administration survives the next four years.
Well that's an unsettling suggestion
I'm guessing his idea of Federal help is martial law.
I mean he is going to make a run at sanctuary cities but I had hoped it was just fiscal and not..... something else.
Gov Rauner was trying to take over CPS for the same reason. But we don't really fall for that shit. If anybody is going to defraud Chicago it is going to be Chicagoans, damnit.
Vote by mail.
Although that still leaves 25% of the country who do simply not give a shit, apparently.
PSN: ShogunGunshow
Origin: ShogunGunshow
To be fair to the electoral college, had Trump been a Democrat it totally would have put Republican Clinton into the white house.
Why can't the mayor just kill the enemies? Does he need a powerup to restore low energy?
I know you're joking, but CPD has performed extrajudicial killings in its history. Most big city police departments have.
Are we confusing the electoral college as a body with the electoral college method of proportioning votes by state?
I'm alright with Democrats running on killing it in 2020. It doesn't have to be true. Because if they don't run on it, the 3rd parties will. They can use the narrative of it being a waste of taxpayer money.
I can see liberal leaning folks having a pro-Russian bias because of an ingrained suspicion caused by conservative Cold War propaganda. Still, I would have thought that whole effect would have run its course over 20 years ago. It's been a long time since USSR/Russia was literally the boogie man used to justify every shitty thing the US government ever did.
You know, I used to hear stories about people in the UK celebrating Margaret Thatcher's death. And my reaction for so long was "That's just distasteful, no matter what the woman was like."
Folks like McConnell have slowly been changing my opinion over the years.
The thing is that ultimately these people make decisions that impact or destroy people's lives and they do so without care or consequence. So why would you give them any more consideration?
"When they go low, We go high!"
Bravely Default / 3DS Friend Code = 3394-3571-1609
The same reason Shirley Chisholm visited George Wallace in the hospital after the assassination attempt?
A political assassin kills far less people then, say, GWB ultimately did. I can't see Trump being any better. The distance makes it somehow more palitable. It's like drone warfare I guess.
And we should 100% “impugn the motives” and “malign the character” of these people. Not doing so is exactly how you underestimate how far they have been willing to go for power. The real sickness in public life is the one that leads to a guy like Trump getting elected because "he's on our side" or politicians openly violating the fundamental tenets of democracy to get their agenda passed.
EDIT: I guess just to be safe I should clarify that I am not endorsing political assassination.
Tried to be the better people and lost forever. Tried to take the high ground and had our feet cut out from under us permanently. The only thing left is to rage against the dying of the light.
I think you've missed her point. A democracy cannot function well (if at all) if political races become a battle between good and evil. The fact that Chisholm recognized this in the context of one candidate being a living, breathing, actual segregationist should give us pause in labeling Trump as the antichrist, worst thing to ever happen in US Presidential politics, or wishing him harm personally. Even ignoring that, it gives Trump an incredibly low bar to clear in seeking a second term and isn't smart politically.
The problem with going personal--as Chisholm suggested--is that it adds to a toxic campaign environment where facts don't matter. Sound familiar? And dems can properly estimate the other side's deviousness without employing their methods.
They should certainly obstruct everything that deserves it, including Rex Tillerson and several other garbage nominations. I desperately hope Chuck Schumer and company can also find a few things Trump wants to do that's against GOP orthodoxy and fracture their coalition in the process. There are lots of cracks in the foundation to exploit.
There isn't much, unless you want to drag the Medicare/Social Security fight front and center.
This is the biggest and easiest one, though. If Dems can't hang the albatross entirely around the GOP's neck, then they're useless as a national party.
This is a ridiculous attempt at some sort of relevance. The truth is that no, it exactly doesn't sound familiar or resemble anything we've actually seen with the GOP.
The truth is the opposite of what you claim. A democracy cannot function if one is incapable of labeling things as fundamentally dangerous to a civil and just society. The more we pretend like things like segregation or voter suppression or whatever you wanna call the shit the NC GOP is up to, the more a nation begins to crack and fall apart. It's important to not normalize this kind of behaviour. That's how you actually end up where we are now.
Trump is the result of a long line of people pretending like the Republican party has not become a threat to the USA.
And that's why the Democrats need to oppose him and his party at every turn. This is what it has come down to.
I think there are a few more than that. Think of Trump as the party's attempt to follow through on promises it's made but doesn't want to actually follow through on, either because it doesn't believe in it or because it doesn't want the political consequences. Immigration is a big one, because the establishment doesn't actually believe in the kind of policy Trump's proposed. On the political consequences front, getting rid of Obamacare or attacking entitlements is a great drum to beat when you're out of office but not so hot when you're gonna get the full blame for throwing people off their health insurance and government income.
There will very shortly be a lot of real issues for the Democrats to attack on, which is good; we need to get off the character attacks as soon as possible because they don't work.
Radios refused to play any recording of it.
Where did you get this from? The conversation was about attacking ideas versus attacking people, and you seem to be fine with both while I'm saying the latter is corrosive to democratic (small d) discourse.
Shirley Chisholm was against segregation for obvious reasons--I'm pretty sure she saw it as 'fundamentally dangerous to a civil and just society'. She didn't let that view turn into demonizing George Wallace personally or celebrating his getting shot.
You said "A democracy cannot function well (if at all) if political races become a battle between good and evil". But the opposite of that is the actual truth. A democracy cannot function is a political race cannot become a matter of "this is fundamentally wrong". To do otherwise is to normalize extremist ideas and policies and individuals who are corrosive to the health of democratic societies.
To say we should "respect contrary opinions without “impugning the motives” and “maligning the character” of one’s opponents" is bullshit because it makes of their dangerous motives a policy disagreement rather then an issue of fundamental danger to a just and stable democracy. We should not respect all contrary opinions nor those that make them. That shit is dangerous.
Trump is practically the most perfect example of this. We should exactly impugn his motives and malign his character because more even then his politics, those are what are incredibly dangerous about the man.
Southern radio stations specifically.
Calling your opponent evil has limited political and practical benefits, is completely subjective, and does nothing to stop anyone from saying that candidate's views are fundamentally wrong. It does, however, lower you to their level and contribute to a substance-free mudfest. Didn't work last time, probably won't work next time.
Where did I say we should respect all opinions? That's exactly the point of attack where they are most vulnerable and we need to focus. It's certainly more important than going after Trump's motives and character, which you inexplicably see as more dangerous than his actual political maneuverings. Focusing on his character also puts that front and center in media coverage instead of the actual policy, which is what really matters.