It's struck me, for a long time, that a major difference between the conservative and liberal coalitions in the US is that the conservative coalition sees only themselves as holding legitimate claim to be "Americans." c.f. Sarah Palin's "real americans" comments or Trump's clear belief that he's only the president of "red" America. In contrast, I've always seen the liberal coalition as claiming to act in the interests of all Americans, even those who don't support them -- or even for those who actively oppose them. Contrast Trump's targeting of his tax bill to harm blue states with the ACA's goals of helping even (especially?) rural low-income Americans.
I don't really get what you're hoping to accomplish by labeling Americans as "enemies." Surely a Biden presidency and Democratic Congress is duty-bound to work for the welfare of even these Americans you're labeling as enemies? And if so, how is it helpful, or even coherent, to talk about people as being simultaneously constituents and enemies?
I know that to make a sweeping generalization is unwise, but for the life of me, I can't recall ever hearing about, or from, a Trump supporter that makes me feel like they're a reasonable person.
Maybe they're out there, but I've not seen them.
But if that's what the issue is, the percentage of enemies seems to me to be pretty damn high.
At best, the most reasonable people are probably the low-information voters who simply aren't aware of how bad Trump actually is, but you know, that's not much of an excuse, considering the stakes.
from comments I see on social media, an awful lot of Trump voters know exactly how bad he is. But after a lifetime of brainwashing, they see Democrats as WORSE. They have been led to believe that electing Joe Biden means a turn to "socialism" which they interpret as an authoritarian dystopia. They think electing a Democrat puts us on the slippery slope to becoming the Soviet Union, East Germany or Venezuela. Sure it's Trump who is the true authoritarian, and the idea that the Democratic Party is "socialist" is pretty crazy. But that's what they believe, and they think they aren't "enemies" of the rest of the U.S., they sincerely think they are saving the U.S.
It's struck me, for a long time, that a major difference between the conservative and liberal coalitions in the US is that the conservative coalition sees only themselves as holding legitimate claim to be "Americans." c.f. Sarah Palin's "real americans" comments or Trump's clear belief that he's only the president of "red" America. In contrast, I've always seen the liberal coalition as claiming to act in the interests of all Americans, even those who don't support them -- or even for those who actively oppose them. Contrast Trump's targeting of his tax bill to harm blue states with the ACA's goals of helping even (especially?) rural low-income Americans.
I don't really get what you're hoping to accomplish by labeling Americans as "enemies." Surely a Biden presidency and Democratic Congress is duty-bound to work for the welfare of even these Americans you're labeling as enemies? And if so, how is it helpful, or even coherent, to talk about people as being simultaneously constituents and enemies?
Well, as I said in the OP, I'm not really sure what we get by calling them enemies either, so we're in agreement. Respondents in this thread are doing a lot of projection about how I think they should be treated, because I've said nothing about that.
It doesn't have to do with how they are treated by us. It has to to do with how they are considered.
All I can see right now is that by supporting either Trump or the Republican Party they have firmly planted themselves on the side of anti-democracy and authoritarianism, with a hefty chunk of anti-science, anti-reality conspiracism.
Sounds like an enemy to me. But they still get to have their SS checks.
ETA: to say nothing of the fact that they are openly trying to steal this election. That alone makes them the enemy.
It doesn't have to do with how they are treated by us. It has to to do with how they are considered.
"Enemies" isn't a neutral word. To consider someone an enemy has implications for how one treats them.
Not in the sense of what rights they retain as citizens of the U.S., which is what you were referring to.
ETA: I mean, just because Trump treats blue states as enemies and goes so far as to allow people in those states to die as part of his pandemic "plan" doesn't mean we as Democrats would do the same thing.
There are wealthy people who support Trump because their stock portfolios are doing well.
There are Jewish people who care only about Israel and support Netanyahu and the Israeli Right and see Trump as an ally. (Of course there are far more Jewish Americans who see Trump as an antisemite and a very serious threat).
There are "Pro-Life" single issue voters.
I believe the rest are just ignorant or racist or both.
It doesn't have to do with how they are treated by us. It has to to do with how they are considered.
"Enemies" isn't a neutral word. To consider someone an enemy has implications for how one treats them.
Not in the sense of what rights they retain as citizens of the U.S., which is what you were referring to.
ETA: I mean, just because Trump treats blue states as enemies and goes so far as to allow people in those states to die as part of his pandemic "plan" doesn't mean we as Democrats would do the same thing.
I can't improve on Lincoln. At a time when Americans literally took up arms against each other, with a portion of them attempting to destroy the country in defense of human bondage, he was clear-eyed on the stakes and situation but still managed to call for "malice toward none with charity for all."
The enemy is ourselves. Wasn't it Harry Reid and Democrats who did away with requiring a 60 vote majority to appoint a judge to the SCOTUS? Trump is likely going to get his 51 votes and I'm betting by going straight to a vote with no debate.
The enemy is ourselves. Wasn't it Harry Reid and Democrats who did away with requiring a 60 vote majority to appoint a judge to the SCOTUS? Trump is likely going to get his 51 votes and I'm betting by going straight to a vote with no debate.
If the Democrats hadn't made that change none of Obama's judicial nominees would have been seated. Blaming the Dems for the elimination of the judicial filibuster gets it backwards. It is the fault of the GOP, and now they get to benefit from it. It's long past time for the Democrats to start playing the same kind of constitutional hardball.
The enemy is ourselves. Wasn't it Harry Reid and Democrats who did away with requiring a 60 vote majority to appoint a judge to the SCOTUS? Trump is likely going to get his 51 votes and I'm betting by going straight to a vote with no debate.
We're not the enemy. We just haven't played hardball. Hopefully that changes now. Expand SCOTUS. Expand the federal judiciary. Make DC and PR states. End the filibuster. Then legislate.
Wasn't it Harry Reid and Democrats who did away with requiring a 60 vote majority to appoint a judge to the SCOTUS?
No. The Democrats eliminated the filibuster for most federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court. The Republicans got rid of it for the Supreme Court.
ok, are the people cheering for the shooting of Ali Velshi "enemies" as I explained in the OP?
or should we just leave it as "deplorables"?
I missed this! Horrible. Anyone who has ever watched Ali Velshi knows his coverage is decent, direct and professional. I'm a big fan. The only thing that could provoke such a comment is pure vicious racism. Part of my complaint on another thread, about MSNBC moving hosts around, was a reaction to Ali Velshi being moved from two daily weekday spots to a weekend host. Not sure if he is on weekdays at all. He had his own spot and one that he shared with Stephanie Rhule.
We have a significant portion of the R's thinking that Biden is an illegitimate President who stole the election.
Aren't these people enemies?
Nope, just idiots.
If they believed that his election was not "stolen" but wanted to depose him and replace him with a Dictator they would be enemies.
Not all of them are idiots.
The "ringleaders", people like Hawley and Cruz and Rand Paul, who tell these "stolen election" fables to the idiots, are morally culpable for their dishonest statements and actions.
We have a significant portion of the R's thinking that Biden is an illegitimate President who stole the election.
Aren't these people enemies?
Nope, just idiots.
If they believed that his election was not "stolen" but wanted to depose him and replace him with a Dictator they would be enemies.
Not all of them are idiots.
The "ringleaders", people like Hawley and Cruz and Rand Paul, who tell these "stolen election" fables to the idiots, are morally culpable for their dishonest statements and actions.
Pick whatever word you want for their label.
I can't believe they're not going to be expelled from the Senate.
Greenwald was also on Fox with a similar rant. I'm sure some people out there are probably retweeting him a lot these days.
The mob who stormed the capitol to try to stop Congress from carrying out its constitutional responsibilities were behaving like domestic enemies of our country. But let us be clear, the John Brennan's, Adam Schiffs and the oligarchs in Big Tech who are... pic.twitter.com/Q3VssCiz5l
So, what is the problem with Tulsi Gabbard's comments again?
First of all, why is Adam Schiff in her list?
Secondly, though I know how everyone hates Brennan, in the clip what exactly did he say that is causing a constitutional crisis? Why is that clip even there?
And her attempt to diminish the role of the rioters is kind of disconcerting, especially as more and more evidence comes out with each passing day. What was her point in making that distinction?
My biggest problem with her statement was that it had little point and was unsubstantial.
It's struck me, for a long time, that a major difference between the conservative and liberal coalitions in the US is that the conservative coalition sees only themselves as holding legitimate claim to be "Americans." c.f. Sarah Palin's "real americans" comments or Trump's clear belief that he's only the president of "red" America. In contrast, I've always seen the liberal coalition as claiming to act in the interests of all Americans, even those who don't support them -- or even for those who actively oppose them. Contrast Trump's targeting of his tax bill to harm blue states with the ACA's goals of helping even (especially?) rural low-income Americans.
I don't really get what you're hoping to accomplish by labeling Americans as "enemies." Surely a Biden presidency and Democratic Congress is duty-bound to work for the welfare of even these Americans you're labeling as enemies? And if so, how is it helpful, or even coherent, to talk about people as being simultaneously constituents and enemies?