The racist idea of reviewing a policy with regard to constitutionality?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Democratic Senator Joe Donnelly Open to Legislation Ending Birthright Citizenship
- Thread starter Deleted member 22490
- Start date
The racist idea of reviewing a policy with regard to constitutionality?
90% of your posts is just you posing one question after another.
YES!
Check academic works on Mayans and Olmecs. I have some books, but they are on Spanish. Let me see if I can find and article in English.
Again, "bigoted rhetoric" is a giant jump to make from what he said, but ignoring that, you don't have that choice. It's Joe Donnelly, or it's a Republican, who will actually help enact all the bigoted policies you are talking about.
Thinking otherwise is just naive.
Nope. It's not racist to anyone who's smart.
(I can use generalizations to dismiss too)
Neither the Mayans or the Olmecs were Republics, and in fact the Mayans at least were well versed in political machinations and subterfuge.
Look, you were very rude before, and you are now trying desperately to avoid saying you're sorry. I picked Athens and Rome as examples not because of a bigoted Western viewpoint, but because they were two early Republics of which we know a lot about, and can speak on their political environment. The fact that you can't actually come up with another ancient Republic that disputes my claim is proof of that.
And you, yet again, fail to realize what dumb RACISTS are going to pick up from this.
But it's OK, because white people won't be affected.
I don't care what dumb racists pick up from it since a dumb racist won't be in that seat as long as Donnelly is.
It sets a national and political precedent. If the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment can be questioned, so can the equal protection clause. Yet you seem to think this is all a game. Someone's a sociopath when it comes to minorities.
Questioned? He said he's open to reviewing it. That's not a qualitative statement.
The people treating this like a game are the loons who think a "real" democrat will be elected instead and their stupid fantasy won't lead to straight Republican representation in these states.
If you want ancient Republics check the Licchavis. Their judiciary practice was really interesting.
From America you can check Tlaxcala (Nahua state) as they categorize it as a confederacy or republic.
It sets a national and political precedent. If the birthright citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment can be questioned, so can the equal protection clause. Yet you seem to think this is all a game. Someone's a sociopath when it comes to minorities.
Yeah, no. In no way does the Licchavi prove any point in your favor, unless what you are suggesting is the good old days were a caste-system dominated oligarchy that still had a central ruler.
Dude, either apologize or just stop posting.
Tell me, which of the following is more "like a game"?
a) I will support this candidate despite his noncommittal rhetoric because it's clear from his own and his opponent's record that he will do more to help more people.
b) I will not support this candidate because of his noncommittal rhetoric even though it's clear from his own and his opponent's record that he will do more to help more people.
Get your head out of the Clouds.
No, the point is the idea of politics as justice.
And if you want a modern example look at the Zapatistas. If you want a Republic Rojava Confederalism is the closest even with all the problems they have with Turkey. If what you want is a big-state Republic then yeah, I do not think one like than existed. I just now of some pre-conquest civilizations in America that had a different idea of politics but they never made a republic like political system.
So, the examples I employed were, in fact, the most applicable examples from ancient history, and you were wrong to make assumptions and attack me and others based on that false premise?
If no comparable nation has ever practiced the politics you speak of, then I was absolutely right to say that's how things have always been. Political theory is not the same as political practice.
User Banned (2 Days): Inflammatory Generalizations
yeah it simply shifts the overton window further to the right and im not surprised the usual feckless libs of this forum are using weasel words like purity politics to hide behind their latant racism
Right?
I mean if I wanted it ended why wouldn't I vote for the candidate whose party is in full throated endorsement of the idea.
You want Republics, so yeah, I give you that.
You want examples of political systems based on the idea of politics as justice then check los Zapatistas and the Kurds in Rojava. Their practice is not perfect, but they are two groups that are making changes.
Because politics, and how people vote, is a little more complicated than that.
Politics is one of those things that a lot of people think they know a lot about, when in fact they are completely clueless.
I mean yeah there are tons of clueless voters out there but I think the GOP brand with regards to this particular issue under Trump is one thing nobody struggles with.
Yeah, both of those groups are rather recent, and not models that anyone should follow.
So why does this thread even exist? Joe Donnelly should never had won in the first place. Indiana should have nothing but mini Ted Cruzs running around.
How does maintaining a swing seat and quite possibly contributing to Democratic control of the Senate shift the Overton Window right? If Democrats in Indiana reject Donnelly and in so doing implicitly allow Braun to win, they're getting a 100% full-throated Republican advocate where there once was a Democrat, and the rhetoric coming from that seat goes from unfortunate at worst to deplorable at best. That's what shifts the window of public discourse way to the right.
And we're not even talking about policy.
His opponent in 2012 said when a woman gets pregnant from a rape it's something God intended to happen.
Honestly there should not exist a model. Every region should find the political organization that benefits them as long as justice and liberty of all prevail. But their core ideas, the Zapatista one of governing obeying, and Rojava democratic confederalism are two good political practices that makes everyone engage in politics and make everyone understand the other and change with the other. Model like the nation state and the likes have bought too much damage to the world.
Agreed, but elections are often won on the backs of the people that can be convinced one way or another. It's possible to be against birthright citizenship, but believe in higher taxes on the wealthy, for example.
Donnelly saying this completely meaningless and toothless statement very well might swing votes his way from such people. And, since this is Indiana, he NEEDS those votes to win.
iirc his opponent in 2012 said something about it being ok that raped women got pregnant. That's probably the real reason why he won or he probably would've lost in 2012.
Which is actually a fantastic representation of the problem with a lot of the thinking on display in this thread.
Richard Lugar was the Republican incumbent to that seat, but he lost the Primary against Tea Party- backed Mourdock. If the radical right had not thrown off Lugar for not being conservative enough, he would have easily beaten Donnelly in the general election.
That's my point I don't think people who are concerned with a relatively fringe issue like ending birthright citizenship are necessarily sway-able, and even if they were, a statement you admit is "meaningless and toothless" is unlikely to get the job done.
Wouldn't that the Tea Party won a primary but lost a general in 2012 be a pretty obvious indication they shouldn't be emulated?
Yeah and that sounds very Republican to me. Joe Donnelly still should have lost if the ultimate winning strategy is to just seem more Republican than your opponent.
Yeah, the "making" people part is where their systems break down.
Except it very would could. And even if it alone doesn't, a record of appearing more centrist is absolutely the only record that can get a Democrat elected in Indiana.
In no way is that his strategy. Please actually read the thread.
No not at all. I was responding to someone saying the "Republican-lite" strategy doesn't work.
He admitted voting for Trump because they were desperate and Trump actually campaigned there, even if it was easy for you and me to see Trump was lying through his teeth. The only thing he is stuck on is coal mining jobs, but is completely open to anything that can replace it. Other than that, he is running on progressive ideals and is now about tied in a district where Trump won by 49 points.
It could also cause people inclined to vote for Donnelly to simply not vote at all though.
How many people is this going to turn into non-voters vs. how many people are going to be enticed by Donnelly's racism-lite?
Yes...and that's what people in this thread are trying to argue. Letting perfect be the enemy of good cost the Republicans Indiana, and Delaware, and Colorado, and more.
Let's not be that way. We can't afford it.
Say it with me: THIS IS INDIANA NOT CALIFORNIA. Perhaps if you say it like a billion times you'll understand that candidates differ depending on where they run. Trump won Indiana by almost 20 points. I really don't think it's rocket science but between you and Helios insisting on these types of purity tests and then whining when called out on it I'm not really sure what to think. Perhaps you simply think the American people, by definition one of the more conservative countries in the West, are suddenly going to wake up one day and change. And part of that change can be Indiana, a place that almost never elects Democratic congresspeople and almost never votes for Democratic presidents.
It's like ignoring the most basic of evidence because they don't meet your definition of progressivism. Take your No True Scotsman tests elsewhere. They certainly don't belong in a country where by and large white people are still fragile as fuck and racist and also the largest voting group.
There's nothing to review. And the fact that he's open to it is indeed questioning it.
When I say "shouldn't be emulated", I mean shouldn't be followed to the far right wing fringe.
Yes, and no Democrat is doing that.
The lesson of Richard Lugar isn't that Indiana is a liberal state waiting for an actual progressive to come along and win it. The lesson is that it's a conservative state that isn't so conservative a Republican can win no matter what. You aren't going to get a perfect liberal there, and chasing that dream will only lead to failure and actual bad policy being made.
I'm gonna have to go with A, chief.
And lol I live for those literary references.