A Note For Conservatives And Christians About Capitol Riot (3 Viewers)

[JAA]

FTR, I have no issue with a group that pushes to register Republicans and educate them on Republican/conservative issues (like abortion, gun laws, etc.).

Sounds like a church - I mean, you go to church to learn about what their belief system offers

 

[JAA]

4 hours ago, Tom Skerritt said:
Sam Harris put out a podcast on Tuesday. I look forward to his next one, and first one since the Trump insurrection. 
 

But in the Tuesday pod, he equates the Right-wing QAnon/Nationalist whackos with the Left-wing Woke/SJW whackos. Sam suggests that it is the dramatic wealth inequality that is driving all of the chaos. The very wealthy simply cannot receive all of the benefits of tax breaks and privilege while we also have so many people struggling to put food on the table. And this disparity is definitely divided along racial lines among others.

Sam has ideas that could help, but admits that it will take some time. And that’s assuming the wealthy even get on board, which many of them will not. 
 
Expand  

I agree with the idea that the wealthy of this country have too large of a piece of the pie and that’s a massive problem but I’m not sure I believe it’s the defining characteristic behind the Trump movement.

First - Im really enjoying this thread.  Thank you for all who have/are participating.

I would like to take the above statement one step further.  Now, I'm going out on a limb here with this thought, please no judgement.  This is not an accusation, but an observation.

If we took the total set of racists in this country (assuming more than 1 exist), how do we believe the percentage of their vote would breakdown?  Would it be 50% of the racists voted for Trump and 50% of the racists in the country voted for Biden?  Or would it be something else?

 

[JAA]

dup

 

[Tom Skerritt]

I agree with the idea that the wealthy of this country have too large of a piece of the pie and that’s a massive problem but I’m not sure I believe it’s the defining characteristic behind the Trump movement.

Sam did not claim that wealth inequality is the defining characteristic of the Trump movement. If I understand him correctly, he is saying that wealth inequality is the primary reason for the division and chaos we are witnessing. It really has nothing to do with Trump. 

 

[JAA]

I am of the opinion that the more polling places we have, the better. All about accessibility and low wait times, right? There's a standard for decorum at a polling place that should be met whether it's a church or not.

I am in a red state and most of our voting is done at our public schools. We close schools for election day and open up the gymnasiums and auditoriums for voting. There are a few churches on the roll, but mostly because of the space they can provide with their own gymnasiums and auditoriums. In many towns.

Agree here - Election Day should be a national holiday.  Why cant we get this done?

 

[JAA]

We need to make sure it's actually the person who receives the ballot who is casting the vote, and that they're doing so of their own accord.

No we don't.  From a security perspective all we need to verify is a submitted ballot.  Those are the only ballots which matter.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Agree here - Election Day should be a national holiday.  Why cant we get this done?

Because it would be disadvantageous to Republicans, and they would never let it pass. 

 

[JAA]

Agree here - Election Day should be a national holiday.  Why cant we get this done?

Because it would be disadvantageous to Republicans, and they would never let it pass. 

Why is that?

 

[dgreen]

First - Im really enjoying this thread.  Thank you for all who have/are participating.

I would like to take the above statement one step further.  Now, I'm going out on a limb here with this thought, please no judgement.  This is not an accusation, but an observation.

If we took the total set of racists in this country (assuming more than 1 exist), how do we believe the percentage of their vote would breakdown?  Would it be 50% of the racists voted for Trump and 50% of the racists in the country voted for Biden?  Or would it be something else?

I think that will depend on how one defines racist.

 

[Tom Skerritt]

Why is that?

Most (if not all) voter suppression tactics favor Republicans. Urban/inner-city/minority voters are less likely and/or able to take a day off from work in order to vote. Republicans count on this as a way to reduce those from voting. A national holiday would absolutely increase the number of votes for Democrats, far more than Republicans. 

 

[RnR]

I agree that this practice would be very problematic. Has there been any evidence that this tactic was used in Georgia (honest question)?

.No, not that I've seen. Sorry if I gave the impression that it was--  I was just replying to his hypothetical.

 

[RnR]

We can have accessibility and low wait times without using churches.

Dismissing my concerns by saying "there's a standard" is no different than dismissing your concern with the exact same phrase.

 I was not dismissing your concern. Sorry if it came off that way.

 

[JAA]

34 minutes ago, JAA said:
First - Im really enjoying this thread.  Thank you for all who have/are participating.

I would like to take the above statement one step further.  Now, I'm going out on a limb here with this thought, please no judgement.  This is not an accusation, but an observation.

If we took the total set of racists in this country (assuming more than 1 exist), how do we believe the percentage of their vote would breakdown?  Would it be 50% of the racists voted for Trump and 50% of the racists in the country voted for Biden?  Or would it be something else?
Expand  

I think that will depend on how one defines racist.

Does it?

 

[JAA]

Why is that?

Most (if not all) voter suppression tactics favor Republicans. Urban/inner-city/minority voters are less likely and/or able to take a day off from work in order to vote. Republicans count on this as a way to reduce those from voting. A national holiday would absolutely increase the number of votes for Democrats, far more than Republicans. 

Has there been any studies on this?

 

[dgreen]

Does it?

Yes

 

[RnR]

It SEEMS like your concern is integrity, which I get.  What I don't understand is how one accurately attaches "how" one votes to that concern.  Every method has issues.  And to be clear, we go year in and year out with a 3-4% rejection of votes for a myriad of reasons.  That means 96-97% are successful.  I appreciate that people are concerned with election integrity, but the timing is conspicuous to me....or maybe "selective" is the better word?  Not sure.  Very few people do I hear harping on this all the time.

I don't disagree with this.

Selective in what way? Selective in that we're talking about it after our second consecutive presidential election that boiled down to a pinprick of votes in a handful of counties in a few battleground states?

I think it is pretty natural that it'd topical right now. The foundation for future voting integrity is laid in post-election discussion and analysis.

 

[RnR]

In NYC they publish a voters guide. It explains each position (bc nobody actually knows that the Public Advocate actually does), thumbnail candidate bios, gives you a summary of where they fall on the spectrum, concisely explains ballot initiatives. I’m allowed to take it with me into the voting booth. If I couldn’t do that, I’d be absolutely guessing on down ballot candidates and issues.

This is great. Wish we had the same around here.

 

[Sea Duck]

Because it would be disadvantageous to Republicans, and they would never let it pass. 

Why is that?

Under the current configuration, Republicans have historically had a larger voter turnout. (Back in my Republican Party days, we used this as justification for "our side" being better than the other guys. But that's a topic for another thread.)

Therefore, there are generally a larger percentage of Democrats who are nonvoters.

Therefore, anything that increases overall turnout will ultimately benefit Democrats more than Republicans.

To put it another way from a former Republican's POV: Democrats are inherently lazier than Republicans. If we make it easy for them to vote on election day by giving them the day off, then our side will get crushed.

 

[Sea Duck]

In NYC they publish a voters guide. It explains each position (bc nobody actually knows that the Public Advocate actually does), thumbnail candidate bios, gives you a summary of where they fall on the spectrum, concisely explains ballot initiatives. I’m allowed to take it with me into the voting booth. If I couldn’t do that, I’d be absolutely guessing on down ballot candidates and issues.

This is great. Wish we had the same around here.

Voter guide features by state

 

[RnR]

Voter guide features by state

Thanks. My state ranks as "poor" ... let's just say I spend a lot of time on campaign websites that I wish I didn't have to.

 

[JAA]

Yes

Im not sure it does

 

[The Commish]

I don't disagree with this.

Selective in what way? Selective in that we're talking about it after our second consecutive presidential election that boiled down to a pinprick of votes in a handful of counties in a few battleground states?

I think it is pretty natural that it'd topical right now. The foundation for future voting integrity is laid in post-election discussion and analysis.

Selective in that this was about election fraud and "legitimacy" despite of our consistent 3-4% rejection rate that we have year over year.  I also think there is a significant difference between "Hey, this election is stolen and fraud was rampant (in the Presidential race only) and "What were Russia's attempt to influence our election?"  Personally, I don't think "margin of win" is all that much a concern.  

 

[gianmarco]

Voter guide features by state

That's interesting.  It's also interesting to note that some of the most consistent voting states (i.e. the blue West Coast) had the highest ratings.  And then states like Alaska and Mississippi also did really well.  Meanwhile, NY has an awful rating.

Fascinating, honestly.

 

[The Commish]

Nice article on what the Deep State actually is and why all this QAnon cosplaying was a really bad idea:

https://arcdigital.media/qanon-woke-up-the-real-deep-state-72bbfcb79488

really good read  

 

[dgreen]

Im not sure it does

I mean, it matters how each and every word is defined that was in your original question, but "racist" is the only word that I assume doesn't have universal agreement on what it means and what it looks like. I'm sure we agree on what "vote" means and what "country" means and what "percentage" means. I'd guess we agree on what the meaning of "is" is. But "racist"?

I feel like at least 10% of the posts in this forum are arguing about whether or not something was racist or not. We can all look at the exact same act and if by some miracle we could get fully into someone's brain and understand why they did what they did, we'd still have disagreement on whether it was racist or not.

Very few people consider themselves to be racist. I think that's because racism is one of those things that people mostly recognize in others. And, generally, we draw the line somewhere farther down the line from wherever I am.

In keeping with the OP, I'll give an example of something that someone in my church mentions all the time. He says it's like there's a cliff and we are all arguing over how close we can get to the edge. Everyone draws their own line in different places and then criticizes anyone who draws their line in a different spot. Those who draw their line closer to the cliff are clearly lost souls. Those who draw it farther away from the edge of the cliff are clearly being too legalistic and judgmental of me, who has obviously drawn the line in the correct place. Maybe less relevant here is then to point out that what's most important is which way you are facing; towards the cliff trying to justify where you are and figuring out where the line should be or are you facing away from the cliff and towards God.

I knew someone who once said, "I'm not racist, I just prefer not to be around them." And he was being serious. He truly would not count himself in the "total set of racists" that you mentioned. I'd disagree with him, even though I really don't recall any other racist moments in my interactions with him. I'm guessing you'd disagree with him. But, the point isn't whether something is objectively racist or not. What matters more for your question is whether or not people agree with where that line is.

 

[JAA]

I mean, it matters how each and every word is defined that was in your original question, but "racist" is the only word that I assume doesn't have universal agreement on what it means and what it looks like. I'm sure we agree on what "vote" means and what "country" means and what "percentage" means. I'd guess we agree on what the meaning of "is" is. But "racist"?

I feel like at least 10% of the posts in this forum are arguing about whether or not something was racist or not. We can all look at the exact same act and if by some miracle we could get fully into someone's brain and understand why they did what they did, we'd still have disagreement on whether it was racist or not.

Very few people consider themselves to be racist. I think that's because racism is one of those things that people mostly recognize in others. And, generally, we draw the line somewhere farther down the line from wherever I am.

In keeping with the OP, I'll give an example of something that someone in my church mentions all the time. He says it's like there's a cliff and we are all arguing over how close we can get to the edge. Everyone draws their own line in different places and then criticizes anyone who draws their line in a different spot. Those who draw their line closer to the cliff are clearly lost souls. Those who draw it farther away from the edge of the cliff are clearly being too legalistic and judgmental of me, who has obviously drawn the line in the correct place. Maybe less relevant here is then to point out that what's most important is which way you are facing; towards the cliff trying to justify where you are and figuring out where the line should be or are you facing away from the cliff and towards God.

I knew someone who once said, "I'm not racist, I just prefer not to be around them." And he was being serious. He truly would not count himself in the "total set of racists" that you mentioned. I'd disagree with him, even though I really don't recall any other racist moments in my interactions with him. I'm guessing you'd disagree with him. But, the point isn't whether something is objectively racist or not. What matters more for your question is whether or not people agree with where that line is.

Properly defining racist is important but impossible.  There is too much perspective to make it possible.  We have the same issue with the word "privilege".  Way to perspective to properly define.

That said, I dont think we need to define it for my question.  I think its OK people answer it based on their own definition.

 

[renesauz]

I was trying to have a serious conversation about how I feel about this.

I'm here to listen. I think we probably share some differing view points politically, but I think we want the same things from a discourse perspective. To me, that's the first step.

I think that, generally speaking, many right-leaning Christians feel as though the left looks down upon their world view. The country has become increasingly secular, and it's nearly impossible to get a large portion of the population to take you seriously on social media if you start from a position of faith. That's incredibly disheartening for some people. And, understandably, different folks handle that differently.

AAA Batteries' original reply is a great example of the choice people face. Instead of seeking to understand why someone would have felt the way they do about voting for Trump and then living through the frightening events yesterday, it was a simple "I don't care what that person has to say because I've already made up my mind on what type of person they are."

If your buddy was in this thread, there's a good chance that rubs him the wrong way. And so maybe he chooses to shelve the discourse, or worse yet, maybe it hardens him to the point that he chooses not the take this stance in future situations. Those are both bad outcomes, imo.

I think it's more complex then this. I grew up in a Christian household, I'm the oldest of ten kids and the only one who doesn't still spend every Sunday in church. I went to a private Christian school and am more familiar with the Word then most regular church goers. My family is overwhelmingly conservative. BUT....outside of one or two specific issues (abortion, maybe gay marriage) , I don't see anything in the Bible that should push believers strongly right  (or left for that matter)....so why are they? For some it starts with something like abortion, and (IMO) gets co-opted by faith. IE: If conservatives have this topic so right, and the left are so wrong on abortion, they (conservatives) must be the party of God. Then, BECAUSE they start from FAITH....faith by definition is not proven....they require less proof from their party. They're MORE vulnerable to being misled by their leaders.

I see this every day from my family. And I'm tired of beating my head against a wall about it. WORSE, any questioning or disagreement with their political decisions is seen as an attack on their religious beliefs...I'VE become an atheist in their minds. (I'm not, though I am thoroughly disillusioned with the modern Christian church....something is dramatically wrong with it)

 

[renesauz]

First - Im really enjoying this thread.  Thank you for all who have/are participating.

I would like to take the above statement one step further.  Now, I'm going out on a limb here with this thought, please no judgement.  This is not an accusation, but an observation.

If we took the total set of racists in this country (assuming more than 1 exist), how do we believe the percentage of their vote would breakdown?  Would it be 50% of the racists voted for Trump and 50% of the racists in the country voted for Biden?  Or would it be something else?

It depends on whether or not you believe a non-white man can be racist?

 

[dawgtrails]

It depends on whether or not you believe a non-white man can be racist?

OK, let's go with the hypothesis that people of any race can be considered racist - and those races have an equal percent of people who are in fact racist. 

White folks make up 60%. Latino 18.5. Black 13.5%. Asian 6%.

Looks like 57% of white population voted for Trump.

Maybe you don't feel this way, but I think it is fairly safe to assume that racist white folks were more likely to vote for Trump than Biden. And if that is the case, it is a landslide as to what candidate racists voted for, right?

 

[JAA]

On 1/11/2021 at 2:30 PM, JAA said:
First - Im really enjoying this thread.  Thank you for all who have/are participating.

I would like to take the above statement one step further.  Now, I'm going out on a limb here with this thought, please no judgement.  This is not an accusation, but an observation.

If we took the total set of racists in this country (assuming more than 1 exist), how do we believe the percentage of their vote would breakdown?  Would it be 50% of the racists voted for Trump and 50% of the racists in the country voted for Biden?  Or would it be something else?
Expand  

It depends on whether or not you believe a non-white man can be racist

The point of my question was to allow the answerer to define it

 

[JAA]

OK, let's go with the hypothesis that people of any race can be considered racist - and those races have an equal percent of people who are in fact racist. 

White folks make up 60%. Latino 18.5. Black 13.5%. Asian 6%.

Looks like 57% of white population voted for Trump.

Maybe you don't feel this way, but I think it is fairly safe to assume that racist white folks were more likely to vote for Trump than Biden. And if that is the case, it is a landslide as to what candidate racists voted for, right?

US is 73% white last time I counted

 

[dawgtrails]

US is 73% white last time I counted

Yea, not sure how or why I typed 60

But now I see why - non-hispanic white

 

[renesauz]

OK, let's go with the hypothesis that people of any race can be considered racist - and those races have an equal percent of people who are in fact racist. 

White folks make up 60%. Latino 18.5. Black 13.5%. Asian 6%.

Looks like 57% of white population voted for Trump.

Maybe you don't feel this way, but I think it is fairly safe to assume that racist white folks were more likely to vote for Trump than Biden. And if that is the case, it is a landslide as to what candidate racists voted for, right?

I believe its a landslide which candidate racist white folks voted for....I assume that's what you're digging for

Racist black folks (and there are plenty out there) would be pretty overwhelmingly Biden.

Need to be careful not to derail the original discussion here though

 

[mr roboto]

I saw a lot of ‘pray for our country’ and scripture verses posted by my religious Christian family when 8 weeks ago they were posting support for Trump prior to the election. They want ‘healing of our land’ without any admission of being wrong. 
 

Kinda like the gun/mass shooting ‘praying for the victims’ bull#### dynamic. Maybe we use our brains and engage in discourse and flex the muscle of representative democracy and ####### stand up and do something.