Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

[cb aaron judge]

If you're asking if I’d rather have President Biden (and a Democratic controlled senate) or President Mike Pence (and a Democrat controlled senate), I’d take the former. It’s also unlikely that the Dems win control of the senate without winning the presidency - split ticket voting really isn’t a thing these days, and I don’t see AZ and NC going for Trump and a Dem senator. If AZ and NC go Dem, Trump would have to run the table in WI, MI, PA, FL and OH to win out. So like, the electoral realities of getting a Democrat controlled senate almost necessitate Biden winning, some close to unprecedented split ticket voting, or a very odd combination of swing state results.

split-ticket voting is definitely a thing in some states (MA/MD/VT are the best examples that come to mind as all have been solid blue states from 1992 on at the presidential levels but currently have moderate republican governors). democrat control of the senate is indeed extremely unlikely if biden does not win the presidency, but if anything I would feel much better about a biden presidency if republicans maintain control of the senate. democrats have already used the pandemic & civil unrest in numerous states to advance government overreach & a federal democrat trifecta would likely make it even more prevalent due to the increasingly progressive nature of the democratic party. it is also worth noting the last two times democrats held a federal trifecta it was wiped out in two years by republican waves in both chambers (1994) & the house (2010). many swept out office in these wave elections were moderate democrats that are sorely lacking these days at the federal level. regardless, the hyperpartisan nature of both parties is extremely concerning especially to a libertarian-conservative such as myself.

 

[Bughouse]

If you think a single Republican senator genuinely deserves to hold onto their seat (Mitt Romney excepted) after failing to vote to convict in the impeachment trial, but then you bemoan hyperpartisanship, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[cb aaron judge]

If you think a single Republican senator genuinely deserves to hold onto their seat (Mitt Romney excepted) after failing to vote to convict in the impeachment trial, but then you bemoan hyperpartisanship, I don't know what to tell you.

the entire process was hyperpartisan, as one can count on one hand the number of individuals who voted against their party’s position in both houses combined. that isn’t to say trump actions were in the right, but i wouldn’t be shocked if there were others who privately held an opposing position to their party on both sides but voted with the party position to save themselves from a primary challenge & criticism from their party leaders (who are the best example of why legislative term limits are necessary)

 

[Myzozoa]

Doesn't seem too many people have posted predictions, so I thought I'd share mine.

very optimistic.

I think it's just like this with arizona and nc as the only unusual toss-ups with the whole thing coming down to ohio michigan and wisconsin or if the dems win florida and az it's a land slide for them I suppose. i figure voter suppression will keep dems from achieving a result in florida, wisconsin, and nc tho.

Hide

 

[BP]

i figure voter suppression will keep dems from achieving a result in florida, wisconsin, and nc tho.

From my standpoint, I see Wisconsin ending up blue. I know of a lot of college students particularly those that go to UW-Madison that plan to vote. If you know anything about UW-Madison or really just colleges in general they tend to be full of blue voters. I don't think voter suppression will play too much of a role. I guarantee those students at UW-Madison give more of a shit about the election than I do and I still plan on voting.

Deceit, just leave this site. Your views are disgusting and you have a sub-human level of compassion for others. Your posts are divisive, argued in bad faith, and never in any form producing constructive content. You are an actively negative influence on everyone who has to experience your presence here.

Go away.

I'm not a moderator of this forum nor does my opinion on these types of things hold any weight, but I want to just say that this is not okay. This is incredibly insulting towards Dece1t and frankly, it does not matter how bad of a poster he actually is. If he truly is a toxic presence in the subforum than report him to the mods and argue for a Cong ban. I am against this level "clowning" as its borderline bully behavior. Fighting toxicity with more toxicity is not something that should become a norm.

 

[Bughouse]

I honestly don't even see AZ as much of an "if" at this point.
Sinema won her senate seat by 2.4 points in a midterm year
Kelly is polling ahead by somewhere between 7-10 points.

Sure, part of that is McSally's unpopularity, but even so Biden is still polling ahead by around 4 points.

It's also, last I'd seen, the ONLY state where the governor was polling worse than Trump on COVID response. Arizonans have just quickly become quite fed up with the Republicans they've been electing, some time within the last ~4 years. The fundamentals are frankly all in Biden's favor, and he's certainly not hurt by the fact that Arizona republicans are the type to like McCain and Flake, who endorsed Biden (or would have endorsed if alive).

I can see some of what you've predicted, but AZ (and FL) red and OH blue just doesn't make sense. AZ's (and FL's) margin will definitely be comparably better for Biden than OH's. OH is by far the least in reach of the three, though the fundamentals there might have changed recently with the whole Goodyear flap.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I'm not a moderator of this forum nor does my opinion on these types of things hold any weight, but I want to just say that this is not okay. This is incredibly insulting towards Dece1t and frankly, it does not matter how bad of a poster he actually is. If he truly is a toxic presence in the subforum than report him to the mods and argue for a Cong ban. I am against this level "clowning" as its borderline bully behavior. Fighting toxicity with more toxicity is not something that should become a norm.

There is a report button at the bottom of every post.

Although, when I reported this obviously racist statement:

I do remember that tweet, I spoke about it openly in another thread. That tweet is not racist.

It got ignored, so ymmv...

 

[billymills]

Blue Ohio but red Arizona?

Agree on voter suppression preventing any chance in florida, but hopefully NC and WI have some sort of chance.

I'm not a moderator of this forum nor does my opinion on these types of things hold any weight, but I want to just say that this is not okay. This is incredibly insulting towards Dece1t and frankly, it does not matter how bad of a poster he actually is. If he truly is a toxic presence in the subforum than report him to the mods and argue for a Cong ban. I am against this level "clowning" as its borderline bully behavior. Fighting toxicity with more toxicity is not something that should become a norm.

I think he stands as a reminder of what 40% of the country really believes.

You can ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist, but that's what we're all up against. I think it's better to know your enemy than try to banish him away.

 

[lilyhollow]

^ I know my enemy well enough to know that the best way to deal with them is to remove them. I feel like people here just enjoy reading racist shit or whatever

 

[Aizaik]

Although, when I reported this obviously racist statement:

It got ignored, so ymmv...

Look, I’m no Deceit fan, but I will say that calling that post of his racist isn’t a measured response. In his post he is asserting that he interprets a questionable statement as not being racist. That assertion is not inherently racist unless he supports it with racist rhetoric, and in that specific post he doesn’t support it with any rhetoric at all (although he does reference a separate post. If that post had the racist rhetoric, then that is the one that should be reported.)

I bring this up because it is important not to use accusations of racism overzealously. Calling honest (or at least, mostly good) people evil racists tends to make them unhealthily defensive and dismissive of all charges of racism, justified or not. (This is part of why I think that we need a larger vocabulary for describing the stronger and weaker shades of racism)

^ I know my enemy well enough to know that the best way to deal with them is to remove them.

I don’t generally support this sentiment because, frankly, the best way to deal with “them” (from vicious racists to redeemable mild ones) is usually to keep them in the ideological discussion. Their ideas are dangerous, but if history shows anything it is that they continue to loose ground to more egalitarian ideas. I believe silencing them alienates them when we could let them eventually come around. Silencing them is also bad optics (I can hear the conservative side of my brain shouting “Orwellian?”) that further confuses social conservatives who might otherwise be becoming gradually more liberal. I see the intention and I’m open to counterpoints, but silencing people is often overzealous and unhelpful.

 

[vonFiedler]

Look, I’m no Deceit fan, but I will say that calling that post of his racist isn’t a measured response. In his post he is asserting that he interprets a questionable statement as not being racist. That assertion is not inherently racist unless he supports it with racist rhetoric, and in that specific post he doesn’t support it with any rhetoric at all (although he does reference a separate post. If that post had the racist rhetoric, then that is the one that should be reported.)

I bring this up because it is important not to use accusations of racism overzealously. Calling honest (or at least, mostly good) people evil racists tends to make them unhealthily defensive and dismissive of all charges of racism, justified or not. (This is part of why I think that we need a larger vocabulary for describing the stronger and weaker shades of racism)


I don’t generally support this sentiment because, frankly, the best way to deal with “them” (from vicious racists to redeemable mild ones) is usually to keep them in the ideological discussion. Their ideas are dangerous, but if history shows anything it is that they continue to loose ground to more egalitarian ideas. I believe silencing them alienates them when we could let them eventually come around. Silencing them is also bad optics (I can hear the conservative side of my brain shouting “Orwellian?”) that further confuses social conservatives who might otherwise be becoming gradually more liberal. I see the intention and I’m open to counterpoints, but silencing people is often overzealous and unhelpful.

This whole post dances around the issue of bad faith dialogues.

Dece1t didn't "assert that he interprets a questionable statement", he has been here for two years shooting down any and all accusations of racism, even against "vicious racists", derailing every thread that comes within a mile of race, and early on even quoting white supremacists to do so. He's not interested in an "ideological discussion", but he loves those spaces because he can clog them up with fake news. He said in this thread "America is the best in the world at beating corona if you look at cases per million". He had the same approach to race, the secret police activity happening and the current voter suppression.

I'd love to change some minds wrt to the magical reality that racists are living in, but how is it remotely helpful to have someone who is not going to change because they have no intention of coming to the playing field with basic facts?

The idea that we are becoming more egalitarian is another fantasy. Maybe a lot of people are way more egalitarian than they were five years ago... but speaking as a former conservative, a lot of people on the other end are way more openly racist as well. The bar for what conservatives themselves allowed as far as racism plummeted in 2015, and I'm not sorry to call a cigar a cigar. Now they call themselves race realists, or say all the old racists things but then call racist a "buzzword" to defend themselves. What side do you want to be on?

 

[Hipmonlee]

Look, I’m no Deceit fan, but I will say that calling that post of his racist isn’t a measured response. In his post he is asserting that he interprets a questionable statement as not being racist. That assertion is not inherently racist unless he supports it with racist rhetoric, and in that specific post he doesn’t support it with any rhetoric at all (although he does reference a separate post. If that post had the racist rhetoric, then that is the one that should be reported.)

I disagree.

Firstly, the statement isnt questionable---it's racist. Like, even the most generous reading of it where we pretend that we don't know that Trump would never say that about a white person, it is still saying that Americans shouldnt be allowed to criticise the American if their family comes from the wrong country. That's clearly outrageously racist, and that is the most generous reading I can imagine.

So to then come in and defend that statement, we are one step removed from the original claim, and I would agree that to some extent this mitigates the racism of it. And the fact that it comes from a person holding the office of the presidency, that's probably an extenuating circumstance to apply when evaluating the racism of Deceit's post. But that tweet was a long, long way past the line of what is and isnt racist, so I don't think that the mitigation here is bringing us anywhere near an acceptable post, regardless of how he supports it.

And then there's your post, defending Deceit's defence of Trump. I think this is further mitigated, like, youre defending someone who may have misinterpreted a racist tweet and chosen to defend that. And you might be falling for a common error where you have an understanding of an aesthetic of racism, and his post doesnt match that aesthetic, so it makes it seem like it might not be racist, when it really is. So I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here.

But enabling racism is racism. Everyone is a little bit racist, and everyone is gonna fuck it up from time to time. But, honestly "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." Who could really argue, in good faith, that this isn't a racist statement?

 

[Aizaik]

This whole post dances around the issue of bad faith dialogues.

Dece1t didn't "assert that he interprets a questionable statement", he has been here for two years shooting down any and all accusations of racism, even against "vicious racists", derailing every thread that comes within a mile of race, and early on even quoting white supremacists to do so. He's not interested in an "ideological discussion", but he loves those spaces because he can clog them up with fake news. He said in this thread "America is the best in the world at beating corona if you look at cases per million". He had the same approach to race, the secret police activity happening and the current voter suppression.

I'd love to change some minds wrt to the magical reality that racists are living in, but how is it remotely helpful to have someone who is not going to change because they have no intention of coming to the playing field with basic facts?

The idea that we are becoming more egalitarian is another fantasy. Maybe a lot of people are way more egalitarian than they were five years ago... but speaking as a former conservative, a lot of people on the other end are way more openly racist as well. The bar for what conservatives themselves allowed as far as racism plummeted in 2015, and I'm not sorry to call a cigar a cigar. Now they call themselves race realists, or say all the old racists things but then call racist a "buzzword" to defend themselves. What side do you want to be on?

I don’t see my position as dancing around bad faith dialogues; my entire position is that bad faith dialogues lose out to good faith arguments that are thoroughly constructed. My objections about calling this or that racist are meant only for accusations that aren’t thorough enough, which is admittedly a bit of an ask on a Pokémon forum.

Regarding Deceit, I included the asterisk that I’m not a fan of him for a reason. His involvement often doesn’t seem very productive, especially in the Democratic primary discussion that his broader arguments really had little place in. I’m only interested in defending Deceit insofar as it allows me to develop my critique of the left-wing political discourse that I’m continuing to have more in common with.

And of course, irredeemable racists generally aren’t going to be coming into a discussion hoping to be productive, and I have no problem with racists getting banned for breaking established forum rules.

I can definitely see where you are coming from when you point out the current trends in the Republican party, and I personally am disappointed by the state of the right as well. But when I say that egalitarianism is winning, I’m looking at American history as a whole; we have undoubtedly made great progress, even if it is never complete and takes generations of effort. As long as this continues, I have no fear of engaging with redeemable social conservatives.

EDIT:

I disagree.

Firstly, the statement isnt questionable---it's racist. Like, even the most generous reading of it where we pretend that we don't know that Trump would never say that about a white person, it is still saying that Americans shouldnt be allowed to criticise the American if their family comes from the wrong country. That's clearly outrageously racist, and that is the most generous reading I can imagine.

So to then come in and defend that statement, we are one step removed from the original claim, and I would agree that to some extent this mitigates the racism of it. And the fact that it comes from a person holding the office of the presidency, that's probably an extenuating circumstance to apply when evaluating the racism of Deceit's post. But that tweet was a long, long way past the line of what is and isnt racist, so I don't think that the mitigation here is bringing us anywhere near an acceptable post, regardless of how he supports it.

I haven't read the original tweet in a while, but I personally believe that Trump's statement does qualify as racist. I call it questionable in this context because you could be a defender of it without being a racist. Many people will simply not pay attention or be in denial when their own allies are in the wrong - that is something that I've been unhappy with myself about, and I would imagine that most of us can relate to that. This practice can't be said to be "good faith" argumentation, but as far as bad faith arguments go, self-denial is one of the most redeemable ones. In these cases, they should be called on their dishonesty and encouraged to choose the better path, as I argue in the rest of my original post.

And then there's your post, defending Deceit's defence of Trump. I think this is further mitigated, like, youre defending someone who may have misinterpreted a racist tweet and chosen to defend that. And you might be falling for a common error where you have an understanding of an aesthetic of racism, and his post doesnt match that aesthetic, so it makes it seem like it might not be racist, when it really is. So I am gonna give you the benefit of the doubt here.

But enabling racism is racism. Everyone is a little bit racist, and everyone is gonna fuck it up from time to time. But, honestly "Why don't they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came." Who could really argue, in good faith, that this isn't a racist statement?

I can appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt; I see that as a sign of a healthy dialogue.

 

[JTD783]

Here's a better idea: rather than try and interpret nuances of phrasing, how about we just fucking ask what a person's opinions are and go from there. Frankly I'm lost as to why this is hard for you guys.

Try asking "Do you think [insert group of people], as a group, are less capable than others? Socially, intellectually, responsibly, etc? If so, why? What causes do you attribute to [insert sociopolitical issue]? Are there any common points of white nationalism that you agree with? Do you think Muslims are inherently threatening because of their religious views? Etc". And genuinely listen and critique the response, or you'll never get through to them.

Seriously, enough with all the bullshit about "dialogue" and "enabling" crap. Just be direct.

 

[vonFiedler]

Here's a better idea: rather than try and interpret nuances of phrasing, how about we just fucking ask what a person's opinions are and go from there. Frankly I'm lost as to why this is hard for you guys.

Try asking "Do you think [insert group of people], as a group, are less capable than others? Socially, intellectually, responsibly, etc? If so, why? What causes do you attribute to [insert sociopolitical issue]? Are there any common points of white nationalism that you agree with? Do you think Muslims are inherently threatening because of their religious views? Etc". And genuinely listen and critique the response, or you'll never get through to them.

Seriously, enough with all the bullshit about "dialogue" and "enabling" crap. Just be direct.

Do you expect direct answers?

 

[JTD783]

Do you expect direct answers?

Yes, I do. And if someone is incapable of giving direct answers, then they're not intellectually capable of making any arguments, and therefore deserve no attention.

 

[Hipmonlee]

I dunno how more direct I could be dude. I don't need to quiz him to know he's racist, it's obvious from his posts.

 

[lilyhollow]

I believe silencing them alienates them

ya me too

As long as this continues, I have no fear of engaging with redeemable social conservatives.

You make it clear that you specifically have no fear of racists, but I guess you may want to consider whether others are in the same position as you are in that regard.

 

[Aizaik]

lilyhollow I can't quite tell if you are throwing shade or if you are agreeing to disagree. I feel miss-characterized, but I don't think you were making counter points so much as acknowledging our two different perspectives. I guess we are cool.

 

[chimp]

So is it likely that this whole USPS fiasco will actually effect things or is just all just fearmongering? It bums me the hell out that Trump can just blatantly admit to doing it for the purpose of effecting the election with literally zero consequence, but I am curious if his plan has a good shot of working out?

Either way, I am very... anxious... For November this year. Honestly the most unforgivable thing Trump has done (aside from well, most of everything) is what he said about accepting the election results should he be defeated. Voting is the heart and soul of America and no one should accept an elected official saying "we'll see" when it comes to election day results. Sorry... It's not up to YOU to see, it's the decision of the voters.

Anyway, that's my rant.

 

[lilyhollow]

I can't quite tell if you are throwing shade or if you are agreeing to disagree. I feel miss-characterized, but I don't think you were making counter points so much as acknowledging our two different perspectives. I guess we are cool.

I mean basically your position is "from where I'm sitting everything is getting better, so personally I'm totally comfortable engaging with racist people." And what I'm saying is, sure you might be comfortable with that. But what about the people who are absolutely not comfortable with racists having a prominent voice here? Are you 'tolerant' of them too, or is it only the racists (or uh 'redeemable conservatives') you want to protect? That question can probably go to the poster before who got really upset about deceit getting yelled at by texas cloverleaf too.

I dont wanna get too deep into this here and I probably shouldn't have spoken up in the first place, centrism just like freaks me the fuck out though lol. Seeing people be like "hey don't be too mean to racists... they're humans just like u and me... everyone makes mistakes" and I'm sitting here like "wait so you wont ban him and we cant call him a bitch like come on how is this fair"

 

[JTD783]

Banning someone who’s openly and/or obviously racist is fine by me, and probably by everyone else here. Someone who’s merely rude and insensitive is still worth engaging with. Anyone who feels uncomfortable with that should find a different thread to post in, or grow a spine.

So is it likely that this whole USPS fiasco will actually effect things or is just all just fearmongering? It bums me the hell out that Trump can just blatantly admit to doing it for the purpose of effecting the election with literally zero consequence, but I am curious if his plan has a good shot of working out?

Either way, I am very... anxious... For November this year. Honestly the most unforgivable thing Trump has done (aside from well, most of everything) is what he said about accepting the election results should he be defeated. Voting is the heart and soul of America and no one should accept an elected official saying "we'll see" when it comes to election day results. Sorry... It's not up to YOU to see, it's the decision of the voters.

Anyway, that's my rant.

This is presently my greatest concern regarding the election. It’s true that mail-in ballots create a potential for voting manipulation, and elections must be kept honest. Regardless of this concern, however, Trump is already seeding an idea among his voters, and even some moderates, that the election’s outcome might be dishonest (whether or not it is, in reality). Trump might argue a conspiracy should he lose in November, and then we’ll have a crisis should he refuse to step down come January 2021.

He can just get arrested, sure, but a whole lot of people will see it as a left-wing coup... then shit goes bad really fast. 160 years later, we’ll have a new civil war on our hands. A Trump victory, however, might incite far-left groups to protest and/or riot, and if that provokes enough right-wingers to intervene... well there’s another civil war scenario. I just hope we can make it through the next 6 months without society collapsing.

 

[Aizaik]

I mean basically your position is "from where I'm sitting everything is getting better, so personally I'm totally comfortable engaging with racist people." And what I'm saying is, sure you might be comfortable with that. But what about the people who are absolutely not comfortable with racists having a prominent voice here? Are you 'tolerant' of them too, or is it only the racists (or uh 'redeemable conservatives') you want to protect?

I can understand that. The points that I made earlier were largely meant to be applied to our national dialogue as a whole, but there are obviously places (i.e. Pokemon forums) that aren't meant to be the open forum where we all have to deal with nasty perspectives. I do, however, view this specific thread as a smaller outlet of the national discussion that needs to be able to engage with these issues in order to serve its purpose. I wouldn't flip over the table, though, if the Smogon mods banned Deceit right now. I want people to be comfortable, but you have to be willing to get uncomfortable to have important discussions, but I can understand wanting to set stricter ground rules.

You have been challenging my words choices a lot; in some ways you've been miss-characterizing me, but I see that as forgivable given that we are still figuring each other out. To clarify: 1.) I'm 'comfortable with engaging with racist people' in the tactical sense; we come out on top if we argue thoroughly and in good faith no matter how vile or misleading racists may be - I don't feel uncomfortable risk. I am uncomfortable personally when I encounter people who are racist or otherwise inegalitarian. 2.) I'm not out to 'protect' or to 'tolerate' racists (both of which are your words). When someone's arguments are suspicious (let's say, Deceit), I grant them the benefit of the doubt and engage with the innocent interpretation of their argument. Doing so does racists little service - there isn't any innocent argument that will make people racist; but doing so does prevent honest people from feeling attacked or alienated, which is important for bringing these people (conservatives/centrists) to the social left. I can understand not liking this approach because it doesn't attempt to hunt down and expose racists right away, but people can still build a track record that will inform how suspect we should consider them to be. This is the methodology that I’ve applied to Trump, and is part of why I won’t be voting for him. 3.) My "redeemable conservatives" phrase is a pretty vague term, but I use it to mean social conservatives who aren't deep into white supremacism, AKA people who can realistically be brought to the social left.

I dont wanna get too deep into this here and I probably shouldn't have spoken up in the first place, centrism just like freaks me the fuck out though lol. Seeing people be like "hey don't be too mean to racists... they're humans just like u and me... everyone makes mistakes" and I'm sitting here like "wait so you wont ban him and we cant call him a bitch like come on how is this fair"

I sympathize with that a lot, and I'm definitely not looking to draw this out either. I think you speaking up was fine; we've been civil, so there is nothing to be embarrassed about. Thanks for talking, time for me to hit the hay.

 

[blank]

conservatism and racism are not different things.

 

[vonFiedler]

conservatism and racism are not different things.

I disagree, I would say conservatives today aren't conservative (what with the big government bordering on fascism).

Racism has always been the cornerstone of southern politics, but all their others stances have changed over time. They weren't always allegedly for "small government" or "state's rights", and certainly neither was the republican party.