Dog Whistles

[evince]

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.[1]

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

Dog whistles? What a lame term!

Let me tell you what it really is- it's Dog Shit!

Donnie goes out on the stump and lays a load of dog shit on stage- and the Trump idiots swarm on it, wallows in it, and eats up up like "Flies on Shit"!

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello anonymoose,

I'd be willing to negotiate with dims. Repeal the 2nd Amendment and the 14th.

It is an interesting proposal.

I could certainly talk about that.

But I think it's just academic.

No way it would ever gain enough popularity.

 

[anonymoose]

why?

Hello anonymoose,



It is an interesting proposal.

I could certainly talk about that.

But I think it's just academic.

No way it would ever gain enough popularity.

Old school politics. Compromise. Those days are long gone.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

We have to work together.

This all seems quite obvious to me.

Less so to me, PoliTalker.
I don't think that you're recognizing the ideological difference in people,
nor the sincerity of both sides in their beliefs.

The two major parties mean something.

My party stands for a more comprehensive public sector and a more regulated private sector.
We believe that when something important is accomplished more effectively and efficiently when done collectively,
then that's the way it should be done. That's democratic socialism.

The Republicans believe that all laws and tax codes should be oriented to benefit corporate oligarchs
and what spills off their table will trickle down to the working class.
They're also racists, misogynists, xenophobes, theocrats, and generally worthless scum--without exception.

So here's what we've got.
Enlightened Democratic socialists.
Repugnant Republican fascists.
Clueless and irrelevant centrists.

And you want them to all work together, PoliTalker.
How does that work?
How is that even possible?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello NiftyNiblick,

Less so to me, PoliTalker.
I don't think that you're recognizing the ideological difference in people,
nor the sincerity of both sides in their beliefs.

The two major parties mean something.

My party stands for a more comprehensive public sector and a more regulated private sector.
We believe that when something important is accomplished more effectively and efficiently when done collectively,
then that's the way it should be done. That's democratic socialism.

The Republicans believe that all laws and tax codes should be oriented to benefit corporate oligarchs
and what spills off their table will trickle down to the working class.
They're also racists, misogynists, xenophobes, theocrats, and generally worthless scum--without exception.

That's not true. Not true! By believing this, you are making negative assumptions about those with whom you disagree. It amounts to demonizing the other side. Why even concern yourself with the character of those with whom you disagree? The most common reason to do that is because you are looking for a reason to hate. Hatred is not productive.

What is 'worthless scum???'

That's nothing but a made-up term. There is not test to determine whether an individual is 'worthless scum' or not. This is an example of vilifying those with whom you disagree. By doing this, you are no longer arguing policy, you are essentially trying to make the policy argument inapplicable because you've chosen to focus on character. It's like saying you shouldn't believe anything a person of such character says, because their character indicates nefarious intent. No. That's wrong. There are Republicans who want a good America, a good community, and a good country. They simply disagree on what creates those things, and are willing to choose the lessor of what they see as two evils in order to ensure the things they feel are important.

Demonizing the other side is just a way to refuse to talk or compromise. It is trying to establish that there is no point in talking about the issues which are important to us. We have to talk about the issues, so we need to be willing to talk to anybody who will discuss the issues in a manner of civil discourse. We must have civil discourse or our country breaks down. Our system of government depends on civil discourse.

So here's what we've got.
Enlightened Democratic socialists. [and some whackos on our side, too!]
Repugnant Republican fascists. [along with very good people who simply believe differently]
Clueless and irrelevant centrists. [Wrong! Both party bases are pretty predictable. The fate of the nation often is decided by the middle, depending on which side makes the better argument]

And you want them to all work together, PoliTalker.
How does that work?
How is that even possible?

Just gotta spread the love, man. Gotta open some eyes. Remind people of how our nation is designed to work. Point out how our self-government cannot possibly function without healthy debate among a well-informed and actively engaged populace consisting of representatives of all points of view.

There is no shutting up the other side. Forget eliminating them. They are not going away. Both sides contain elements which would like to eliminate the opposite side, but these desires are absurd, never going to happen. Hoping to shut down or eliminate the opposing view is unrealistic. We must have dialog.