🇺🇸 Discussion: The DEMOCRATIC P - Part 3

[chaseter]

Gender is more than physical characteristics.. Skin complexion is just skin complexion, but gender is much more than that.

Race is more than just skin complexion...there’s history, language, religion, cultural heritage, etc behind it.

It’s an identity.

 

[Zarex]

People have been "passing" for members of a different racial group for years, particularly light skinned African Americans for some reason back in the day, without a whole lot of uproar. It's quite common nowadays for people to adopt the language, music and dress of another culture, and even the silly *******s don't get all that offended when it happens. White ladies pump up their lips and darken their skin. Black ladies straighten their hair. Jewish ladies get rhinoplasty, Asian gals get blepharoplasty. No biggie!

What does offend folks is people lying about their racial or ethnic background in order to claim victim hood for economic or social advantage. Or when people change their appearance in a way that is demeaning and insulting to actual members of said group.

This is not the case for transexuals, who are adding to rather than reducing their misery by being true to themselves.

 

[MaceB]

Race is more than just skin complexion...there’s history, language, religion, cultural heritage, etc behind it.

It’s an identity.

I'm talking biology. If you took a black man and a white man and raised them in isolation, just the same... they'd be comparable. Men and women are different biologically.

 

[Donner]

Are we really doing this? Chaseter is just being a troll.

The term "transracial" is in itself a convuluted one. There is a difference between race and culture but the lines become blurred when, for example, an Asian couple adopts a white baby. Or a black couple adopts an Asian baby. The child looks genetically like their race, but their upbringing is different. An Asian baby adopted by black parents will look Asian, but their life experience will differ from other Asians. Being "black" or "Asian" has more to do than just their skin colour, it also has to do with their culture, and that's not something that you can alter with a medical procedure. The lived experience wouldn't be there and as such, any medical procedure would just change the physical.

With being transgendered, it's a neurological difference. And hormonal. And biological. It's not a choice and it can't be "changed" based on lived experience. Being a woman by sex and living as a female but feeling like a male won't make the person female. Male and female isn't rooted in culture, it's rooted in biology and as we've already established before, sometimes your sex organs and your hormones don't match. We've come far enough, I hope, that we can allow transgendered people to figure out their best selves on their own, without trying to force them into a role.

 

[DJ Kornphlake]

So does anyone remember when this topic was about the Democratic Party?

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

 

[Sithborg]

It is a solid plan to start with such a legislative push, even if McConnell will never bring anything the House votes on to a vote.

 

[CaptainWagner]

It is a solid plan to start with such a legislative push, even if McConnell will never bring anything the House votes on to a vote.

Force McConnell to do choose to do his job or obstruct popular legislation out of partisan spite. If he chooses the latter, as he likely will, use his complete and utter failure to observe the duties of his office to drive our push to retake the Senate and possibly even end his own career.

 

[Marvolo]

Just you wait. The GOP will convince their voters that gerrymandering protects their rights or helps them get their preferred representatives into office. Their voters will believe it. And in a way it wouldn't even be a lie. Gerrymandering does help keep the GOP in power.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Letting voters choose their politicians AKA elections: good, regardless of the result
Letting politicians choose their voters AKA gerrymandering: bad

For me it's simple. To the uneducated goombas of goombatown it's not as clear cut.

 

[Marvolo]

I follow elections and politics so I kow about gerrymandering and I know that it turns districts into a cluster**** and disproportionately helps one party, but off the top of my head I couldn't tell you all the mechanics of it. Someone like my parents,they dont know anything about it. They may recognize the word but they dont have a clue what it really is nor do they really care. They care that they can vote and that there are results. The who, what, and why between the ballot box and the final results is pretty much a mystery. I fear that's the case for many Americans. And the first explanation of gerrymandering, no matter how wrong, especially from a preferred party will be the explanation that a voter believes.

 

[Sithborg]

Just you wait. The GOP will convince their voters that gerrymandering protects their rights or helps them get their preferred representatives into office. Their voters will believe it. And in a way it wouldn't even be a lie. Gerrymandering does help keep the GOP in power.

That's literally what the GOP tried to convince my state of when we had an anti-gerrymandering proposition up to be voted for. Of course, that was after they tried to keep it off the ballot, and was burned by 2 of their own judges.

 

[Marvolo]

Democrats Are Poised to Wipe Out Republicans’ North Carolina Gerrymander In Time for the 2020 Election

It's a good and disturbing look at how undemocratic NC currently is because of GOP gerrymandering. It also deals with past lawsuits against this and how a current lawsuit may finally end this BS.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

New York Times - Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook’s Leaders Fought Through Crisis

While Mr. Zuckerberg has conducted a public apology tour in the last year, Ms. Sandberg has overseen an aggressive lobbying campaign to combat Facebook’s critics, shift public anger toward rival companies and ward off damaging regulation. Facebook employed a Republican opposition-research firm to discredit activist protesters, in part by linking them to the liberal financier George Soros. It also tapped its business relationships, persuading a Jewish civil rights group to cast some criticism of the company as anti-Semitic.

In Washington, allies of Facebook, including Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic Senate leader, intervened on its behalf. And Ms. Sandberg wooed or cajoled hostile lawmakers, while trying to dispel Facebook’s reputation as a bastion of Bay Area liberalism.

The Washington Post - Do Democrats want Nancy Pelosi as speaker again? Poll finds more prefer ‘someone else.’

Gallup - U.S. Democrats Favor Someone Other Than Pelosi as Speaker

 

[samsnee]

Schumer is a horrible leader. He has never really stuck his neck out on anything and folds quicker than a cheap suit.

 

[Sithborg]

The leadership battle is going to be interesting.

I just hope that whoever is Speaker, that the Dems unite under them. I don't want another situation like with the Freedom Caucus.

 

[AResistor]

Are those against Pelosi in the house progressive or conservatives wanting to work with Trump (which is the LAST thing that should happen) ?

If it’s Dem-Trumpsters, can they simply be overlooked?

 

[Schlosser85]

They’re a mix of old veterans and newly elected progressives.

A lot of people, especially young progressives, think it’s time to mix things up with fresh blood, especially after being fired up by the young newcomers like Ocasio-Cortez who just got elected.


Meet the Democrats Who Want Pelosi to Step Aside

 

[CaptainWagner]

Are those against Pelosi in the house progressive or conservatives wanting to work with Trump (which is the LAST thing that should happen) ?

If it’s Dem-Trumpsters, can they simply be overlooked?

Personally, I think it's very important for the House to work on the things they can agree on with Trump. The Dems have to able to show that they can govern efficiently in contrast to the mess that was GOP control. Some things, like criminal justice reform, are already through the House. But working on infrastructure and medication pricing are some of the few issues that we can find common ground on right now, and we should capitalize on that. Especially because we need strong bipartisan legislation that a certain Senator from Alabama can sign on to and boost his reelection prospects.

 

[THORin]

Personally, I think it's very important for the House to work on the things they can agree on with Trump. The Dems have to able to show that they can govern efficiently in contrast to the mess that was GOP control. Some things, like criminal justice reform, are already through the House. But working on infrastructure and medication pricing are some of the few issues that we can find common ground on right now, and we should capitalize on that. Especially because we need strong bipartisan legislation that a certain Senator from Alabama can sign on to and boost his reelection prospects.

Exactly! We definitely don't want any more political gridlock in Washington. Obviously McConnell thinks otherwise, but we have to use the time that is given us to demonstrate that we are committed to working across the aisle.

 

[Sithborg]

I mean, it really isn't hard to get the toddler on board. We would have an immigration deal if Miller and Kelly and other racist Senators didn't get to Trump last.

 

[AResistor]

Of that list Jeff Van Drew is utterly terrifying.

I’m not one for working bipartisan with Trump. If Dems can pull Trump towards them, that’d be one thing (however with Trump and Reps it’s “all our way or nothing” - they don’t want bipartisanship they want “loyalty”/obedience) - Trump and Reps pushing Dems towards their side (which is already extremist) for appeasement would be another.

Miller and Kelly are racist, BUT Trump is a bigot all by himself as well. Trump isn’t like Bush with Dick Chaney whispering in his ear - Trump is Trump. He won’t have a Scrooge/Grinch moment; what we see is what we have.

 

[THORin]

Of that list Jeff Van Drew is utterly terrifying.

I’m not one for working bipartisan with Trump. If Dems can pull Trump towards them, that’d be one thing (however with Trump and Reps it’s “all our way or nothing” - they don’t want bipartisanship they want “loyalty”/obedience) - Trump and Reps pushing Dems towards their side (which is already extremist) for appeasement would be another.

Miller and Kelly are racist, but Trump is certainly a bigot all by himself as well. Trump isn’t like Bush with Dick Chaney whispering in his ear - Trump is always Trump.

I don't relish the thought of the Democrats working with Trump, and it's unlikely to happen anyway since they'll be investigating him. He won't like that, I'm sure. But working with the Republicans is what we should be doing.

 

[AResistor]

I don't relish the thought of the Democrats working with Trump, and it's unlikely to happen anyway since they'll be investigating him. He won't like that, I'm sure. But working with the Republicans is what we should be doing.

Again, there. Depends on which republicans - the sane ones or Trump’s lap dogs. He has many of them well trained.

 

[Schlosser85]

Compromise where we can, and where we can’t, don’t.

Something like the bipartisan prison reform bill was a good thing.

Other things, like the Trump administration trying to dismantle the EPA and erode LGBT rights, should be strongly opposed.