Political Discussion

I hate Trump and the Republicans, but for the love of GOD, Dems need to stop playing nice, being polite and trying to take the moral high ground.........you can't win when the other side plays dirty and you play by the rules. Those days are long gone, there is no respect for "Democratic Courtesy". It's hard to back either part now a days, but Dems aren't doing themselves any favors.
 
I got into a very heated political discussion with my dad yesterday. I wound up telling him I can't discuss politics with him any more.

Background:
My dad served in the Navy in Vietnam. He is a proud NRA member, and per his words, a "Constitutional conservative". During the 2016 election, he despised Trump, but hated Hillary more, so he did what so many people did, held his nose and voted for Trump. The first 3 1/2 years of Trump's presidency, we didn't discuss politics whatsoever, so I had always hoped he was one of those people who voted for him, but later regretted it.

Turns out that was a fantasy.

During a different discussion where this information came to light, I reminded him how much he hated Trump, and asked what changed his mind. "He kept his promises", he said. We went on and on about how this mindset was a farce, that besides electing conservative judges, he hasn't kept a single promise. There was no getting through to my dad.

He really enjoyed having these talks, obtaining perspective from a liberal. And at first, I did too, hoping to gain some insight into the MAGA mind, but they quickly became painful. Since the time I no longer wanted to have these draining, soul sucking conversations, he would try to bait me into more discussions, but I never obliged. That is until yesterday.

It all started with sports. He told me he doesn't watch sports any more, because they've become "too political". I reminded him of a time when nobody paid any attention to what athletes did during the anthem, because in the pre-9/11 world, they were in the locker room. I also informed him that those who kneel aren't protesting the flag itself, but racism. "I understand that", he said, to which I asked myself, "then why are you upset?"

He lives in Minneapolis, and he was telling me about how there was an area downtown marked off in remembrance of George Floyd. He said, "George Floyd was a 'thug'", and that pissed me off. "He didn't die from the cops, he died because he had fentanyl in his system!" he exclaimed. I said, "no, he died from asphyxiation because a cop had his knee on his neck for 8 minutes, the autopsy reports confirm this." I asked him, even if it was true that illegally used fentanyl and had it in his system, does that mean he deserved to die. "Well, no", he said. I said "it's irrelevant whether or not he had ingested fentanyl....it doesn't matter". Then it became more about how people "worship" Floyd who was a "thug". I told him "they aren't praising HIM, but he represents something to the movement, as a reminder of the injustice and racism that is rampant in our society, you need to see it from their perspective." His only response was "ok ok", apparent that he was just placating me.

It was then that I said I can't have the discussions any longer. He asked why. I said "because I respect you and look up to you for the service you gave to our country, and you now support the most anti-constitutional president this country has ever known, you're a member of the Republican party, who is full of hypocrites who'll stop at nothing to win".

"What do you mean we're hypocrites?". I asked him if they should fill RBGs seat. "Absolutely", he said. I asked if he believed they should have held a hearing for Merrick Garland. "No", he said. I asked him what the difference was between then and now. "He was a liberal", he said. "Exactly", I said. "You aren't consistent, it's all about what's best for you and winning, if you were basing your decision on your principles, you'd be consistent". I then told him he was a member of a cult, his party is full of hypocrites and he doesn't see it. He truly could not see how it was hypocritical of him to have two different opinions on filling the Supreme Court seat. I did not tell him that I have since lost a lot of respect for him. We agreed to not discuss politics again, and I hung up physically drained and nauseated.
 
Last edited:
I got into a very heated political discussion with my dad yesterday. I wound up telling him I can't discuss politics with him any more.

Background:
My dad served in the Navy in Vietnam. He is a proud NRA member, and per his words, a "Constitutional conservative". During the 2016 election, he despised Trump, but hated Hillary more, so he did what so many people did, held his nose and voted for Trump. The first 3 1/2 years of Trump's presidency, we didn't discuss politics whatsoever, so I had always hoped he was one of those people who voted for him, but later regretted it.

Turns out that was a fantasy.

During a different discussion where this information came to light, I reminded him how much he hated Trump, and asked what changed his mind. "He kept his promises", he said. We went on and on about how this mindset was a farce, that besides electing conservative judges, he hasn't kept a single promise. There was no getting through to my dad.

He really enjoyed having these talks, obtaining perspective from a liberal. And at first, I did too, hoping to gain some insight into the MAGA mind, but they quickly became painful. Since the time I no longer wanted to have these draining, soul sucking conversations, he would try to bait me into more discussions, but I never obliged. That is until yesterday.

It all started with sports. He told me he doesn't watch sports any more, because they've become "too political". I reminded him of a time when nobody paid any attention to what athletes did during the anthem, because in the 9/11 world, they were in the locker room. I also informed him that those who kneel aren't protesting the flag itself, but racism. "I understand that", he said, to which I asked myself, "then why are you upset?"

He lives in Minneapolis, and he was telling me about how there was an area downtown marked off in remembrance of George Floyd. He said, "George Floyd was a 'thug'", and that pissed me off. "He didn't die from the cops, he died because he had fentanyl in his system!" he exclaimed. I said, "no, he died from asphyxiation because a cop had his knee on his neck for 8 minutes, the autopsy reports confirm this." I asked him, even if it was true that illegally used fentanyl and had it in his system, does that mean he deserved to die. "Well, no", he said. I said "it's irrelevant whether or not he had ingested fentanyl....it doesn't matter". Then it became more about how people "worship" Floyd who was a "thug". I told him "they aren't praising HIM, but he represents something to the movement, as a reminder of the injustice and racism that is rampant in our society, you need to see it from their perspective." His only response was "ok ok", apparent that he was just placating me.

It was then that I said I can't have the discussions any longer. He asked why. I said "because I respect you and look up to you for the service you gave to our country, and you now support the most anti-constitutional president this country has ever known, you're a member of the Republican party, who is full of hypocrites who'll stop at nothing to win".

"What do you mean we're hypocrites?". I asked him if they should fill RBGs seat. "Absolutely", he said. I asked if he believed they should have held a hearing for Merrick Garland. "No", he said. I asked him what the difference was between then and now. "He was a liberal", he said. "Exactly", I said. "You aren't consistent, it's all about what's best for you and winning, if you were basing your decision on your principles, you'd be consistent". I then told him he was a member of a cult, his party is full of hypocrites and he doesn't see it. He truly could not see how it was hypocritical of him to have two different opinions on filling the Supreme Court seat. I did not tell him that I have since lost a lot of respect for him. We agreed to not discuss politics again, and I hung up physically drained and nauseated.
This is a common dilemma, discussion had by a lot of people with the same result, unfortunately.
 
I got into a very heated political discussion with my dad yesterday. I wound up telling him I can't discuss politics with him any more.

Background:
My dad served in the Navy in Vietnam. He is a proud NRA member, and per his words, a "Constitutional conservative". During the 2016 election, he despised Trump, but hated Hillary more, so he did what so many people did, held his nose and voted for Trump. The first 3 1/2 years of Trump's presidency, we didn't discuss politics whatsoever, so I had always hoped he was one of those people who voted for him, but later regretted it.

Turns out that was a fantasy.

During a different discussion where this information came to light, I reminded him how much he hated Trump, and asked what changed his mind. "He kept his promises", he said. We went on and on about how this mindset was a farce, that besides electing conservative judges, he hasn't kept a single promise. There was no getting through to my dad.

He really enjoyed having these talks, obtaining perspective from a liberal. And at first, I did too, hoping to gain some insight into the MAGA mind, but they quickly became painful. Since the time I no longer wanted to have these draining, soul sucking conversations, he would try to bait me into more discussions, but I never obliged. That is until yesterday.

It all started with sports. He told me he doesn't watch sports any more, because they've become "too political". I reminded him of a time when nobody paid any attention to what athletes did during the anthem, because in the pre-9/11 world, they were in the locker room. I also informed him that those who kneel aren't protesting the flag itself, but racism. "I understand that", he said, to which I asked myself, "then why are you upset?"

He lives in Minneapolis, and he was telling me about how there was an area downtown marked off in remembrance of George Floyd. He said, "George Floyd was a 'thug'", and that pissed me off. "He didn't die from the cops, he died because he had fentanyl in his system!" he exclaimed. I said, "no, he died from asphyxiation because a cop had his knee on his neck for 8 minutes, the autopsy reports confirm this." I asked him, even if it was true that illegally used fentanyl and had it in his system, does that mean he deserved to die. "Well, no", he said. I said "it's irrelevant whether or not he had ingested fentanyl....it doesn't matter". Then it became more about how people "worship" Floyd who was a "thug". I told him "they aren't praising HIM, but he represents something to the movement, as a reminder of the injustice and racism that is rampant in our society, you need to see it from their perspective." His only response was "ok ok", apparent that he was just placating me.

It was then that I said I can't have the discussions any longer. He asked why. I said "because I respect you and look up to you for the service you gave to our country, and you now support the most anti-constitutional president this country has ever known, you're a member of the Republican party, who is full of hypocrites who'll stop at nothing to win".

"What do you mean we're hypocrites?". I asked him if they should fill RBGs seat. "Absolutely", he said. I asked if he believed they should have held a hearing for Merrick Garland. "No", he said. I asked him what the difference was between then and now. "He was a liberal", he said. "Exactly", I said. "You aren't consistent, it's all about what's best for you and winning, if you were basing your decision on your principles, you'd be consistent". I then told him he was a member of a cult, his party is full of hypocrites and he doesn't see it. He truly could not see how it was hypocritical of him to have two different opinions on filling the Supreme Court seat. I did not tell him that I have since lost a lot of respect for him. We agreed to not discuss politics again, and I hung up physically drained and nauseated.

That's a tough thing. Unfortunately the cult of "never wrong" is a strong and significant force.

Next time you want to see how racist he is ask him to define "thug" for you.
 
That's a tough thing. Unfortunately the cult of "never wrong" is a strong and significant force.

Next time you want to see how racist he is ask him to define "thug" for you.
yeah, "thug" is the new "n word" of our times, but he also used the term to describe the cop who killed Floyd.
 
My dad voted trump cause Hillary and he says things like trump has done everything he said he would. He thinks trump hasn't been bad but is unpresidential mainly cause Twitter. He thinks Obama basically did nothing and at least trump does things. I think he is probably on the fence. I think he could easily be swayed. I'll definitely keep him over your guys' dads. He's definitely one to vote around issues like abortion and gun control.
 
If 'because Hillary' is the justification, whatever the excuse is about was going to happen anyway; whether it be not voting (the blue version) or voting for Trump (the red version).
Maybe. My dad has a history of voting both parties pretty evenly. I think he really comes down to either religious issues or how much he likes the candidate. I would not put it past my dad to have despised Hillary for being a woman although I don’t think he could ever actually see that or come near admitting it. If I remember correctly he voted Obama the first go round. I know he voted Clinton and Carter. He’s clearly not a party line voter. He did say for the Trump vote he came very close to writing in Bob Dylan but he felt he couldn’t throw his vote away.

Any time I have been over and news is on it’s Fox News. Talking with him from time to time it’s clear that is where he gets his talking points but I don’t get the sense he flat out drinks the kool-aid full stop.

I say all that to say that there are definitely Boomer fence sitters out there who could be swayed although they are veritable mine fields of push button issues. Bernie is a complete no go for these people, for example.
 
Lindsey Graham says they have the votes needed to pass Trump's nominee and will be moving forward with it before the election.

If they seat a Supreme Court justice before the election or after if they lose, and the dems retake the senate then I think the only choice is to pack the courts when they take over in January. You can't play nice with these guys anymore.
 
Last edited:
After watching this SCOTUS shit show, I have concluded that the worst, most polarizing thing the senate ever did was get rid of the 60-vote rule and changed it to a simple majority. Now, senators don't have to make nice with the other side to get things done, and it shows.

I hate that Harry Reid had to use the nuclear option but what other choice did he have. I mean it is clear the Republicans every since the late 90's have no intention of working with the other side. Actually it is just mostly vitirol.
 
If they seat a Supreme Court justice before the election or after if they lose, and the dems retake the senate then I think the only choice is to pack the courts when they take over in January. You can't place nice with these guys anymore.
I hate that Harry Reid had to use the nuclear option but what other choice did he have. I mean it is clear the Republicans every since the late 90's have no intention of working with the other side. Actually it is just mostly vitirol.
Josh Marshall at TPM had an interesting post about how the Republican party has exhibited such a dangerous pattern of deviating from normal political process that the only remedy is for Democrats to do the same thing. But it creates a secondary set of dangers, where once both parties have engaged that model of behavior, there's a quick slide to there being no normal political process anymore.

As loathe as I am to say it, I think the Republicans are well within their rights to nominate and confirm a justice this year, and their failure to do their duty in 2016 doesn't change that it's still their duty in 2020. The made up, bullshit reason not to hold hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016 is no less a made up, bullshit reason now. RBG was 87 and the more I think about it, the more I think she had no business still being on the court. She had 5 bouts with cancer in her lifetime, and even if she had retired after the second one (!), she still would have been 81, and could have done it in the middle of Obama's second term. What other job in the entire world do we entrust to people approaching 90? I'm not trying to be ageist here, because it seems clear that her mental faculties were still quite sharp, but for any one individual's death to throw the fate of democracy itself into question is a tragic state to be in. She gambled with the safety of her seat on the bench, and America lost.

Elections have consequences, and this is a bad one.

ETA: IMO what McConnell did in 2016 wasn't hypocrisy. He didn't believe his own rationale then and isn't merely failing to live up to it now. It was an out and out lie to offer a pretense for why he was refusing to do his job. And that is, in my view, much worse than hypocritical behavior, because we've all known all along that he was lying and that this is exactly what he'd do if this situation ever arose. The Republican party's strategy is that they will say whatever they need to say to retain power, and that if you believe them, not only are you stupid, but you deserve to lose. That's way more offensive than a bit of "do as I say, not as I do" behavior, as far as I'm concerned. It's an insult to democracy that you're supposed to just know that people like McConnell will never approach the process in good faith.
 
Last edited:
Josh Marshall at TPM had an interesting post about how the Republican party has exhibited such a dangerous pattern of deviating from normal political process that the only remedy is for Democrats to do the same thing. But it creates a secondary set of dangers, where once both parties have engaged that model of behavior, there's a quick slide to there being no normal political process anymore.

As loathe as I am to say it, I think the Republicans are well within their rights to nominate and confirm a justice this year, and their failure to do their duty in 2016 doesn't change that it's still their duty in 2020. The made up, bullshit reason not to hold hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016 is no less a made up, bullshit reason now. RBG was 87 and the more I think about it, the more I think she had no business still being on the court. She had 5 bouts with cancer in her lifetime, and even if she had retired after the second one (!), she still would have been 81, and could have done it in the middle of Obama's second term. What other job in the entire world do we entrust to people approaching 90? I'm not trying to be ageist here, because it seems clear that her mental faculties were still quite sharp, but for any one individual's death to throw the fate of democracy itself into question is a tragic state to be in. She gambled with the safety of her seat on the bench, and America lost.

Elections have consequences, and this is a bad one.

ETA: IMO what McConnell did in 2016 wasn't hypocrisy. He didn't believe his own rationale then and isn't merely failing to live up to it now. It was an out and out lie to offer a pretense for why he was refusing to do his job. And that is, in my view, much worse than hypocritical behavior, because we've all known all along that he was lying and that this is exactly what he'd do if this situation ever arose. The Republican party's strategy is that they will say whatever they need to say to retain power, and that if you believe them, not only are you stupid, but you deserve to lose. That's way more offensive than a bit of "do as I say, not as I do" behavior, as far as I'm concerned. It's an insult to democracy that you're supposed to just know that people like McConnell will never approach the process in good faith.
As much as I would like the Dems "To grow a pair", I have to agree with all of this.............and continually hope for the best.
 
It's a tough call. There's only three real pathways I can see. If the Republicans maintain control of the Presidency and/or Senate, it's survival mode or stalemate mode really (obviously if they get all three, well...).

If Democrats do get legislative and federal control, I think the two pathways are either scorched Earth or fixing the system to ensure some level of bipartisanship. I think they have to pursue both really. Scorched Earth (pack the courts, pass every piece of legislature that's sat at McConnell's desk for two years from the House) is really tempting and probably should happen, but it feels very likely to lead to a 2010 repeat with a Red counterwave. It may be worth it, and I think they should do it, but it needs to do way more than 2009-2010 did where they just got a watered down ACA for their efforts which has been heavily dismantled. Further, with the job Republicans have done of stalling late Obama era court noms and expediting Trumps, this has skewed the balance a ton and threatens to severely undermine that for generations as well. Keeping control of this process for at least four years holds a lot of value if they can do so.

And it's patently unfair that Republicans can go scorched Earth and have a great chance at winning while Dems cannot, but that's the reality of the situation right now. It's part of a reason I think that a Top 3 or so priority of any Dem administration should be to push expansion of voting rights in every possible manner.

Also, as sad as it makes me...Democrats really stink at this hardball activity. Republicans are very good, except that one time with healthcare, of getting their caucus on board. Democrats aren't, and even if the Dems win a senate, a Manchin and Sinemia veto exists on nearly anything too radical. Like if the Senate were 51-49, I trust McConnell to bring in Murkowski and Collins more than Schumer to bring in Manchin and Sinemia on a vote on the margins. I do think some Democrats get that Republicans have brought a bazooka to the former knife fight but others don't. Getting everything you want for two years, and then losing Senate and House in 2022 leading into President Tom Cotton in 2024 isn't really a trade Dems can take long term.

This is all assuming a normalish election though. Obviously, if this election is not normal, that changes the entire thing for a way worse direction. My fear is we're going to get something like a substantial Biden popular vote win, where Trump ekes out Electoral College due to judicial interference (challenging mail in votes that goes to the SC with his new nominee making that kind of decision) and we get blood in the streets, that changes the priorities of any leadership structure a lot.

Edit:
I know it can't be done officially but any judge with liberal leanings who is Medicare age, if the Dems can get control of the process, should consider resigning to refresh that age gap. It's how Republicans almost lost the Scalia seat and how the Dems will lose the RBG seat. Kennedy making that decision on his own got his preferred guy in there before nature forced that call.

Personally, this has gotten me to considering what life outside of the U.S. would look like, and I never would have thought about that before. It's probably the only way I'd be willing to have kids at this point.
 
Josh Marshall at TPM had an interesting post about how the Republican party has exhibited such a dangerous pattern of deviating from normal political process that the only remedy is for Democrats to do the same thing. But it creates a secondary set of dangers, where once both parties have engaged that model of behavior, there's a quick slide to there being no normal political process anymore.

As loathe as I am to say it, I think the Republicans are well within their rights to nominate and confirm a justice this year, and their failure to do their duty in 2016 doesn't change that it's still their duty in 2020. The made up, bullshit reason not to hold hearings for Merrick Garland in 2016 is no less a made up, bullshit reason now. RBG was 87 and the more I think about it, the more I think she had no business still being on the court. She had 5 bouts with cancer in her lifetime, and even if she had retired after the second one (!), she still would have been 81, and could have done it in the middle of Obama's second term. What other job in the entire world do we entrust to people approaching 90? I'm not trying to be ageist here, because it seems clear that her mental faculties were still quite sharp, but for any one individual's death to throw the fate of democracy itself into question is a tragic state to be in. She gambled with the safety of her seat on the bench, and America lost.

Elections have consequences, and this is a bad one.

ETA: IMO what McConnell did in 2016 wasn't hypocrisy. He didn't believe his own rationale then and isn't merely failing to live up to it now. It was an out and out lie to offer a pretense for why he was refusing to do his job. And that is, in my view, much worse than hypocritical behavior, because we've all known all along that he was lying and that this is exactly what he'd do if this situation ever arose. The Republican party's strategy is that they will say whatever they need to say to retain power, and that if you believe them, not only are you stupid, but you deserve to lose. That's way more offensive than a bit of "do as I say, not as I do" behavior, as far as I'm concerned. It's an insult to democracy that you're supposed to just know that people like McConnell will never approach the process in good faith.


Very well said, I can't disagree with anything that you said. RBG absolutely should have hung it up early in Obama's second term, just like Kennedy had the gumption to do under Trump.
 
Back
Top