President Donald Trump

[Bernie Brewer]

I don't understand why identity politics is ok for individuals unless they're running for office? Historically, white men have dominated the political landscape so why can't they promote their difference from that status quo? Should someone's race or gender be their only platform? Of course not, but nor should they feel obligated to stay silent either.

A message board where acknowledging racism gets one ostracized sounds like a real party

Agreed and I never suggested they should stay quiet. I just don't think anyone, especially powerful people, and many of them white, whether male or female, should make broad (again, no pun intended) generalized assumptions, that just because a woman chooses to vote one way that she is voting against her own self-interest. Who should STFU, using Chance's parlance, are the people in power, particularly White males who presuppose to know what every women, every Jew, every wheel chair-bound individual, every evangelical, every child of an immigrant, etc. should think or act like.

[OaklandA's]

It pisses me off when, for example, Hillary Clinton, (or more recently Michele Obama) says something along the lines of women who voted Republican voted against their own interests, as if to imply that all women should vote for her because she is a woman.

But that isn't Identity Politics. They are asking women to vote Democratic because Democrats are promoting ideas that help women (equal pay, anti-discrimination, anti-violence against women, pro-choice, paid family leave, etc.). If it was just Identity Politics, then they would have supported Sarah Palin too.

[Hi.I'm.Mandy]

Personally, I love that women are charged up after the Times Up and #Metoo movement/moments. I'm glad they are running for office in large numbers. I wish more Republican women were running..

I think it is great that more women are involved, but it's still an uphill battle for them. Gina Haspel had to torture twice as many people as a man would to become head of the CIA.

[Bernie Brewer]

But that isn't Identity Politics. They are asking women to vote Democratic because Democrats are promoting ideas that help women (equal pay, anti-discrimination, anti-violence against women, pro-choice, paid family leave, etc.). If it was just Identity Politics, then they would have supported Sarah Palin too.

I understand. And, I understand that the Democrats "promote" that. Other than a ongoing disagreement on right to life and pro-choice, which as Baldgriff once said, is settled law, are Republicans really prompting the opposite of these virtuous things. Are Republicans really saying let's "keep women in their place", "work against equal pay", "promote misogyny and discrimination against women (and before you go all "grab 'em by the pussy" on me, that's not Republican and Bill Clinton (yes, I went there!)!)? Because, I'm not hearing that. I understand that Republicans have work to do to more actively fight this notion, but as I have said before, the Democrats are over reacting and culling their herd (Al Franken) to win this war that their opponent s aren't fighting. Its good marketing I guess. Or as they say on TV it makes for good optics.

But, when Hillary bemoans that fact that the women who didn't vote for her, or voted for Trump, that's blame placing and she is essentially calling them stupid! Its OK for her to make demeaning statements because she's a woman?

[OaklandA's]

Are Republicans really saying let's "keep women in their place", "work against equal pay", "promote misogyny and discrimination against women (and before you go all "grab 'em by the pussy" on me, that's not Republican and Bill Clinton (yes, I went there!)!)? Because, I'm not hearing that.

This isn't optics - it is about actual bills supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. Here are a few examples:

Equal Pay (Paycheck Fairness Act) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Fairness_Act. The vote was on party lines.
Violence Against Women Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violen...inst_Women_Act. Opposed by most conservative Republicans.
Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act - Democrats promoted a bill with a 0.2% tax to guarantee universal paid leave. Republicans oppose it.

And even if abortion is settled law, it is clear that the Republicans want to change that. It is standard for Mike Pence to say at GOP events that "we will end abortion in our lifetime." http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...us-in-our-time

[Bernie Brewer]

This isn't optics - it is about actual bills supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. Here are a few examples:

Equal Pay (Paycheck Fairness Act) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paycheck_Fairness_Act. The vote was on party lines.
Violence Against Women Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violen...inst_Women_Act. Opposed by most conservative Republicans.
Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act - Democrats promoted a bill with a 0.2% tax to guarantee universal paid leave. Republicans oppose it.

And even if abortion is settled law, it is clear that the Republicans want to change that. It is standard for Mike Pence to say at GOP events that "we will end abortion in our lifetime." http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare...us-in-our-time

I feel like we’re now going to play Schoolhouse Rock “I’m just a bill.”

We’ll agree to disagree. It’s all optics. Isn’t it always a matter of what’s in a bill? Those bills weren’t opposed by the GOP, as much as the GOP didn’t want trial lawyers, like John Edwards, benefiting at the expense of women. And, as the minority party they wanted to add or remove amendments that the Dems said no too! Yes most votes are long party lines but that because the majority wants it their way. As for abortion, I’d never support a change in the law and I seriously doubt the GOP is ever going to seriously try to change it. Pence is saying this for optics for a segment of their base not the full GOP. I find it interesting if not wildly inconsistent that many on the left believe nothing Trump or Pence say unless it is raw meat. Then You believe it like a heartattack?!?!

[OaklandA's]

We’ll agree to disagree. It’s all optics. Isn’t it always a matter of what’s in a bill? Those bills weren’t opposed by the GOP, as much as the GOP didn’t want trial lawyers, like John Edwards, benefiting at the expense of women. And, as the minority party they wanted to add or remove amendments that the Dems said no too! Yes most votes are long party lines but that because the majority wants it their way. As for abortion, I’d never support a change in the law and I seriously doubt the GOP is ever going to seriously try to change it. Pence is saying this for optics for a segment of their base not the full GOP. I find it interesting if not wildly inconsistent that many on the left believe nothing Trump or Pence say unless it is raw meat. Then You believe it like a heartattack?!?!

Sorry, but this is gibberish. One party is trying to pass bills that promote equal pay, anti-discrimination, and family leave. One party is opposing it. One party is nominating justices that want to ban abortions, and one party isn't. One party campaigned on defunding Planned Parenthood, and threatened to shut down the government over it. The other party fought them on it.

This is not optics - these bills actually affect people's lives. This is not about tribalism, or "both parties are the same." The differences between the two parties are very clear on these issues.

[Bernie Brewer]

Sorry, but this is gibberish. One party is trying to pass bills that promote equal pay, anti-discrimination, and family leave. One party is opposing it. One party is nominating justices that want to ban abortions, and one party isn't. One party campaigned on defunding Planned Parenthood, and threatened to shut down the government over it. The other party fought them on it.

This is not optics - these bills actually affect people's lives. This is not about tribalism, or "both parties are the same." The differences between the two parties are very clear on these issues.

Ok, now is the “gibberish” comment one to which I’m not to become defensive or is defensive ok on that one? Because I get so confused being this backwards and all. Like I said, its optics. It’s all optics. You call it as you see it, I’ll call it as I and my half of the registered voters see it. And, once again, we’ll agree to disagree.

How did I get into this debate anyway? Was it because I said I’m not hearing the GOP promoting anti-women positions? I’ll admit I don’t always hear the dog whistles that the left hears from the right either. And in some conflated way, you have proven your point by linking bills which Democrats put forth, that Republicans found objectionable for reasons even discussed in your links and somehow that’s promoting anti-women positions? By the way, the first bill has been put forth many times by Dems, why when the Dems controlled the Senate and House, were put they higher priorities?

From your link:

Republicans gave several different reasons for voting against ending debate. One reason for their opposition, given by Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), was that Majority Leader Harry Reid had refused to allow votes on any of the amendments that Republicans had suggested for the bill.[3] Republicans also objected because it would strongly benefit trial lawyers and would "remove caps on punitive damages against businesses found guilty of discrimination."[3] Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) said that the legislation would "line the pockets of trial lawyers" not help women

[chancellor]

Sorry, but this is gibberish. One party is trying to pass bills that promote equal pay, anti-discrimination, and family leave. One party is opposing it. One party is nominating justices that want to ban abortions, and one party isn't. One party campaigned on defunding Planned Parenthood, and threatened to shut down the government over it. The other party fought them on it.

This is not optics - these bills actually affect people's lives. This is not about tribalism, or "both parties are the same." The differences between the two parties are very clear on these issues.

Sorry, but you’re the one talking gibberish here. The Paycheck Act had one independent study done on it it 2009 for the Obama administration DEpt. of Labor. It rejected the premise of the bill, which was systemic pay discrimination.

So, yes, it’s optics. It’s not solving a real problem.

[Fresno Bob]

if you are not in the .01% and vote republican, you are voting against your economic interests. Only you can tell me if it is against your social interests, but it is 100% against your economic interests, both short and long term

[nots]

if you are not in the .01% and vote republican, you are voting against your economic interests. Only you can tell me if it is against your social interests, but it is 100% against your economic interests, both short and long term

I will play along although i rarely vote Republican. I am by no means in the .01%. We are solidly middle class. I own a very small seasonal restaurant (12 seasonal college aged employess) and my wife is a spec ed teacher. The GOP just enacted a tax cut that gets us an extra $1900/yr, which i think is pretty good (but obviouslycrumbs to the Pelosi crowd). We have health care thru her job. Please tell me what the Dems have done ECONOMICALLY for people like me that will allow me to ascertain that i would be 100% voting against my interests to vote GOP

[cardboardbox]

I will play along although i rarely vote Republican. I am by no means in the .01%. We are solidly middle class. I own a very small seasonal restaurant (12 seasonal college aged employess) and my wife is a spec ed teacher. The GOP just enacted a tax cut that gets us an extra $1900/yr, which i think is pretty good (but obviouslycrumbs to the Pelosi crowd). We have health care thru her job. Please tell me what the Dems have done ECONOMICALLY for people like me that will allow me to ascertain that i would be 100% voting against my interests to vote GOP

Pelosi says she will take your crumbs away and since they were just crumbs you wont even notice.

[onejayhawk]

Pelosi says she will take your crumbs away and since they were just crumbs you wont even notice.

The dog was getting them, so she'll notice.

J

[Bernie Brewer]

But that isn't Identity Politics. They are asking women to vote Democratic because Democrats are promoting ideas that help women (equal pay, anti-discrimination, anti-violence against women, pro-choice, paid family leave, etc.). If it was just Identity Politics, then they would have supported Sarah Palin too.

I had something else writtten here, but I decided to let Orrin Hatch’s op ed from yesterday’s WSJ speak for itself. I agree with his comments and that’s why Identity politics sucks. Again, your mileage will very likely vary.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/identit...ent-1526680162

Identity Politics Threatens the American Experiment
Increasingly we sort each other into groups, making sweeping assumptions based on binary labels.

Our tendency to use labels to box each other in is indicative of a much larger societal problem: the unleashing of identity politics. Identity politics is tribalism by another name. It is the deliberate and often unnatural segregation of people into categories for political gain. Under this cynical program, the identity of the group subsumes the identity of the individual, allowing little room for independence, self-realization or free thought.

Some play down the dangers of this practice, but identity politics is a blight on our democracy. It feeds fear, division, acrimony and anger. Worse, identity politics is inimical to the very idea of what it means to be American.

For more than two centuries, we have been able to weave together the disparate threads of a diverse society more successfully than any nation on earth. How? Through the unifying power of the American idea that all of us—regardless of color, class or creed—are equal, and that we can work together to build a more perfect union. It’s the idea that our dignity comes not from the groups to which we belong but from our inherent worth as individuals—as children of the same God and partakers of the same human condition.

[Sour Masher]

Republicans play identity politics just as much as Deomcrats, and some of the identities they have played to recently are highly disturbing. As I have brought up before, Trump courted and instigated racists and white nationalists throughout his campaign. He won on a platform of tribalism, so I take anything hatch, an ardent supporter of trump with a large hunk of salt. He only sees the fault in his opposition without recognizing it in himself. No Republican on this board has challenged the fact that trump played to racists in his campaign (even before, with his birtherism), even though several still voted for him and support him. Still hard for me to wrap my head around that.