The Struggles of the Politically 'Purple'

[Callie Del Noire]

The problem with 'not voting' as a protest is that it makes everyone else's vote count infinitesimally more. 

So, thanks - go ahead if you want to.  You won't get that 0/0 result until I'm cold in the grave.

I’ve sat in on local GOP discussions about increased voting. It does get noticed. Not by a lot but it does. You want to see a fat man who has been chairman since the Reagan era sweat, you should have heard about the Tea party and Trumpsters on his county level. New voters can be a boon (we have more luck in these spots) or a bane (we lost this district or,,so and so is getting more popular is my position in danger..)

[Markus]

As an outsider, having spent a lot of time in the US, but still an outsider, it amazes me how the country as a whole seems to have this whole 'black and white' mentality. A country of extremes where it's either for or against, right or wrong, Elephant or Donkey, with absolutely no possibility of a middle ground.

^ This. I find as long as there is sincere give and take, middle ground and compromise, things tend to remain fairly civil. As positions harden and things devolve into an us vs them, it ceases to be so.

[Twisted Crow]

A victory for peace is never within the grasp of those that reach out a closed fist. One can strive to be a champion of peace, unification and protecting the people...or, they can walk the path of the warlord and conquer them through division.

In the dimensions of war and peace, one cannot be both.

:-\

[Twisted Crow]

... At least, this philosophy stuck with me since I left the army. I have tried to apply it in political dialogue.

[Twisted Crow]

Sorry. I had this whole thing to type up, but had accidentally hit ‘reply’ while attempting to preview it. In the middle of helping my father with a few surprise tasks now... so I will elaborate on the conflicted feeling I have regarding this when I have more time.

[Twisted Crow]

So, for better context now that I have a break in between...



I tend to have regular verbal jousts between family and peers in regards to politics. These tend to be rather harrowing, draining experiences for me. And talking about this here is somewhat difficult, given that it edges on being personal for me. Let’s just say I feel that I would have more hair on my head these days if I kept these thoughts and feelings to myself… but who knows? Perhaps that sort of self-imposed isolation would have been worse.   *shrug*

My father is predominantly right-wing these days, though he does have moments where he humors my attempt at ‘bipartisan virtue’. He is also part of the disenfranchised that we have talked about. While he and I differ strongly on various views, I still revere him for the lessons that stuck on me. This man has been through three divorces, had been put on overtime as a father over several children and step-children. A couple of which had contributed more to his grey hair than others. But he was never abusive, never raised a hand to the women he was with. And he taught me the importance and value of honor and integrity. You might say that he was my first drill instructor of life. We don’t agree on everything, but I had strived to be the man that I used to see him as. But, as we grow older, we realize that our parents are not superheroes. My father is strong, but still mortal. Flesh and blood. He thinks, he breathes, he feels. He is human.

Then there are those such as another of my kin, one that I was once quite close with but… people grow apart. He and I used to be like brothers. Now? Not so much anymore... I used to say that he so far left that it seems to come full circle on contrived craziness. But now, I just feel that his perspective is just... out there. Believes freedom of speech should be outlawed, feels that veterans are a parasite on the country... things like that.

I could go into my peer circle that remains in touch with me but I would rather not get too far in those weeds for brevity’s sake. What to take from them is that they all have differing opinions from issue to issue. The irony I notice in most of them is that they claim to side with a team (again, the majority of them) but seem to paint in a reddish-blue pastel and most don’t appear to realize it.

Recently, these (among my social connections, in some form or another) have been engaging talks of war, as well as riots and protests. On riots and protests, I have little to speak about. I have my own thoughts and feelings... but little that needs to be said when I know that others have little to no inclination to, at least, listen. Not just listen to facts (information), but to pain and experience. To the human ‘spirit’, rather. It is harder to do when dealing with something virtually intangible and, at times, irrational.

But I have felt this to be a necessity given my experiences. I am not the only one in this world with blood and taint on their soul. I am, however, one that believes that he has mastered it and achieved control over it. Because, you see, I walk upon one road after leaving the other. I choose to believe that I can guide another’s heart that feels lost. Yet, that requires one to listen and hold their tongue for a moment. Not anticipate when it is one’s turn to speak, but consider the merit of what is being said.

It is more than just “tolerance”, it is virtue. It is honor. It is due diligence in pursuit of that answer that both often attempt to explore in confused minds and hearts...

... But I digress.

I am more than a little bothered by people (in my life and beyond) that speak so casually of war. To speak of it so liberally as some gallant crusade to right a wrong. Or a be-all solution to end some pest or vermin, like an exterminator dealing with a bug problem. To seriously compare war to things like this overshadows the harsh reality of what I have known to be truly destructive to a human heart. An academic type can handwave it as a means of an end, or a necessary evil. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, I cannot argue that. Sometimes war is inevitable, but it must be seen as a final solution when the path to peace has ultimately failed.

Generally speaking, in war, there is always a force that seeks to attack and there is a force that desires to defend. Good and evil are largely immaterial (at this level). But, an ideal time to pick up your weapon is when you are about to be invaded by an enemy force that has outright refused your offer of peace. There is no honor in taking such a campaign to those that have no means to fight (innocents). This also extends to the choice of venue in which such engagements are to take place.

But generally, there is always a conquering force and always a defending force. The force intent on defending home still remains on their aspired path, even if they have chosen to fight. This is because the conqueror has decided this for them, and the defense must protect their land and the people it inhabits. If such a scenario indeed applies, the defender cannot help but fight to survive and protect.

The conqueror seeks to invade and devour with great strength. This is the other path in the realm of war. Conquest is a choice, just as Peace remains a choice.

But aside from this attempt at a bird’s eye perspective, it is a heavy decision with potential lasting consequences. It is not like hiring a bug exterminator to take care of an infestation. It is not a heroic endeavor to celebrate when those that cannot defend themselves are callously dismissed as casualties.

I wish I could get people to understand the gravity of that world, so that they might consider what it is that they say so carelessly. But as per the usual, some choose not to listen. And some things just do not need to be said, typically. So, that is one of the main purposes in my venting a bit of my pain that has been eating at me with this particular subject. People that talk so casually about war when they clearly have no knowledge of what that world is.

Yet, I often bite my tongue. When people just handwave the notion of war trivially when they have insufficient experience and/or knowledge in that area. Or worse... secondhand knowledge from friends and relatives that is ‘mentally cleared’ as being equal to my own experiences (or that of those I had known personally).

It just... bothers me. And I wish I were a better orator to adequately explain the weight of these sorts of dismissals. :-(

[Sabre]

It's the natural progression of the culture war, which isn't ironic. You're in an unenviable position where you interact daily with both Red State and Blue State folks, while feeling like you don't quite fit with either. Most people will self-segregate into their respective tribes, but family is something that forces an unwanted interaction. Most deal with it by moving far away and growing distant, while tolerating both sides is inevitable for those who think to look back. For those left behind or who never looked back, it's impossible to see the difference between universal truths and local culture. Fish don't know they're wet.

Talk of war was inevitable ever since our current iteration of the culture war took root (let's say around 2000). It's the end result of an aggressive and hostile form of politics that treats war as yet another political game - because every previous political game was treated as a war. The reason it's taken lightly is because culture warriors had always fought in safe, virtual battlegrounds with known, enforced rules. So if an actual war is the next step, the next escalation, it's only natural that they speak from experience defined by these safe, virtual battles.

What they don't take seriously is how an actual war tends to have greater consequences for cheeky rule breaking. When someone stuffs a ballot box, or redraws a district, or puts out a smear campaign, it's just the equivalent of nudging a piece on the chessboard when no one's looking, or faking an injury to get the other side carded. Their opponent rages, but they soon return to the game and see it through. They haven't had to deal with the chaos that follows when different sides begin to escalate with weapons and war crimes.

It's not the first time it's happened in America. You could take these culture wars back not just to the American Civil War, but the Revolution and even the English Civil War. You could probably find people lamenting the belligerent rhetoric of family members on opposing sides in each generation, too. It's an old hate, and you'd probably find the better orator you're searching for in an old soldier who tried to caution against those old wars.

[Missy]

It's the natural progression of the culture war, which isn't ironic. You're in an unenviable position where you interact daily with both Red State and Blue State folks, while feeling like you don't quite fit with either. Most people will self-segregate into their respective tribes, but family is something that forces an unwanted interaction. Most deal with it by moving far away and growing distant, while tolerating both sides is inevitable for those who think to look back. For those left behind or who never looked back, it's impossible to see the difference between universal truths and local culture. Fish don't know they're wet.

Talk of war was inevitable ever since our current iteration of the culture war took root (let's say around 2000). It's the end result of an aggressive and hostile form of politics that treats war as yet another political game - because every previous political game was treated as a war. The reason it's taken lightly is because culture warriors had always fought in safe, virtual battlegrounds with known, enforced rules. So if an actual war is the next step, the next escalation, it's only natural that they speak from experience defined by these safe, virtual battles.

What they don't take seriously is how an actual war tends to have greater consequences for cheeky rule breaking. When someone stuffs a ballot box, or redraws a district, or puts out a smear campaign, it's just the equivalent of nudging a piece on the chessboard when no one's looking, or faking an injury to get the other side carded. Their opponent rages, but they soon return to the game and see it through. They haven't had to deal with the chaos that follows when different sides begin to escalate with weapons and war crimes.

It's not the first time it's happened in America. You could take these culture wars back not just to the American Civil War, but the Revolution and even the English Civil War. You could probably find people lamenting the belligerent rhetoric of family members on opposing sides in each generation, too. It's an old hate, and you'd probably find the better orator you're searching for in an old soldier who tried to caution against those old wars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJP9o4BEziI

[Twisted Crow]

I didn’t have much time to reply to that for a while, but I can relate a lot to that clip, actually. More so than I expected.



On what has happened today...

I had thought that I would be relieved with a Biden victory, but... not really. My anxiety is still very much present, but for different reasons.

An irony to my situation is that I have always been somewhat in the middle of the spectrum politically. It primarily varied on the issues themselves, not so much who wore whatever team jersey. I feel it dismissive to ignore dangers of ignorance, no matter where it comes from. It has taken me some time to identify my actual enemy: media feeding people crap that they just take on gospel. Coloring a narrative in such a way to renew that old paint job on our Culture of Fear. Fear and division are crucial problems here that threaten any means of cultural symbiosis. It is what makes the concept of the ‘United States’ a tragic contradiction. A cruel joke namesake. Nevertheless, my enemy is not gone with this ‘victory’, and so my ‘war’ continues indefinitely. Because it is basically a war on bullshit, ignorance, genuine malice and fear.

On a more down-to-earth perspective? I am currently listening to trying to tune out my father and stepfather go on and on about how this is the ‘beginning of the end’. That this is why they need to stock up on more ammo to protect the home front. About how they can’t wait for that first big kill. Shit like that. This is the second front in my invisible war, when I do not even have adequate resources to fight my first, really.

My father’s motto was that there were three sides to most people’s stories. His side, her side... and that the actual truth was actually somewhere in the middle — somewhere between both sides and their collective petty bullshit and straw man logic to solidify it in their minds. Now, his views have abandoned a lot of the former wisdom and has been further pushing for one extreme or another. Both fear and pride have eaten at this man to a point where there might not even be a return. It has been harder to recognize and relate to him anymore. Though I don’t say this for obvious reason, he and Pops are both pushing me further left of center, and I have no real support group in this world to deal with how that is turning out.  -_-

This could indeed be the beginning of something. This is ‘the end’ if one has decided that is the course to take.

[Oniya]

There's a guy on Twitter, name of David Weissman (@davidmweissman), who used to be a full-on Trump troll.  He got turned around, and has been amazing in his change of attitude.  You might consider scrolling through his timeline for ideas on how to deal with your family.

[Twisted Crow]

Had a bit of a spat with him and Pop today in another episodes of ‘This Is Why The World Is Ending’ rants and raves back and forth. It went in the direction of ‘who’s side are you on?’ when finally turning to me at the table.

I picked my own. I have always been on my side. Not ‘yours’ or ‘theirs’. My heart is my road, and it has never once led me astray. Whenever I actually choose to trust it, that is.  ::)

Before, I didn’t believe that rioting was a viable solution for the problem that we need to solve. Nor do I now. People can call me another coward on the fence and remain ignorant in their own way, but I choose to remain consistent. Which is the least I can say for many of those that hastily dog me on my ‘unpopular’ views.  ^-^

*shrug*

Meh. I am always going to be on my side.

[Twisted Crow]

Clarification: I choose to aim for consistency, rather.

[Skynet]

trigger warning: suicide and violent death mention

This isn't really the ideal time to proclaim oneself a fence-sitter who's "above it all." Five people died, far more hospitalized. Of the deaths, a man committed suicide, another was bludgeoned to death by an angry mob, and a woman was shot, wrapped in the flag bearing the name of Trump. A man who was caught on tape asking an election official in Georgia to give him a precise number of votes to turn the state in his favor, all the while screaming to the heavens about voter fraud.

And all for what? For some conspiracy theorists who wanted to overturn democratic results, in the name of the man mentioned above.

As an American citizen, as a human being, I want you to reflect on this. With the hindsight of history we can look at past tragedies, shake our heads, and say "this must not happen again." January 6th was a tragedy, and there's nothing praiseworthy or fair in what happened.

I'd like to think that you'd look on this event the same today as those who will 30 to 50 years down the road.

[Skynet]

Double-post: I'm sorry for the way I came off in that last message. The last week has been not an ideal one for me.

[Missy]

"What makes a man go neutral kiff? Lust for gold, power or was he just born with a heart full of neutrality"

Of course that line is one of the funniest lines from Futurama (at least in my opinion anyway), but I have to be honest, I've lost all respect for the conceit of the moderate. Certainly I would like to believe there are people out there who weigh the merits of differing points of views and judge them accordingly to those merits, but truthfully, what's the basis these merits are to be weighed against? What is the standard by which moderacy measures these views, or is there a real independent standard at all? Is moderacy, as it is defined in it's adjective form, little more than the 'average' the aggregate middler of ideology absent of any independent moral standing?

This isn't the first time the moderate has been subjected to criticism for taking no stance and it's far from the last, it is the achilless heel of the moderate that he refuses to recognize the right and wrong of one 'side' or the other in favor of proudly being 'above all that', proudly in favor of 'not succumbing to all their weaknesses'. In truth the moderate has a long history of standing for nothing and truthfully only in favor of the fantasy they can somehow do it better than conservatives and liberals alike. The moderate who in the words of Martin Luther King Jr. was the greatest obstacle to the advancement of civil rights.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

This says nothing of the truly subjective nature of politically ideological scope, as clearly the range and limitations of ideology in the day of MLK are distinct from those of today; yay even the range and limitation of such scope in Europe is fundamentally distinct from that of America, indeed one time and place's moderate is another time and places extremist, just ask Americans of a past era about the validity of slavery.

I used to believe it was possible to review the merits of 'either side' to judge the rights and wrongs of either, but such outlook demands one first sees oneself as above either to think it possible to be such an adjudicator. Even so, the moderate oft instead of embracing rightness find themself occupying a place in between and without merit to anything except the relative station of left and right; without meaning to use the moral implication of such terms, if one side is white and the other medium grey the moderate will be light gray, alternatively if one side is black and the other medium grey then the moderate will be dark grey and there is nothing respectable about that. In simpler terms "One who stands for nothing will fall for anything".

I've lost all belief that the moderate is anything worth aspirant towards. My sole impression of the moderate is that of a figure of conceit, pride unworthy and devoid of humility.

[Twisted Crow]

Speaking out in opposition to two louder voices in a room about what one finds as wrong is not necessarily ‘neutral’ or ‘careless indifference’. It is simply another side or viewpoint. Though, it is one that does not have any real unified voice.

Life is life. Humans still remain the biggest insufferable hypocrites on this planet. Do they deserve death for it? No. But that is something I would like apply across the board. Even to my enemies.

I would like to say that I am more of a third flank. But it would be more accurate to say that I am a broken blade stained from the road of war. Another disposable ‘man’ in a land hellbent on dividing itself into two. What can one man possibly do when he has no voice of his own to speak with? When he is told to mime the tongues of others, but is never actually allowed use his own? That might work for things like fascism, maybe... but not in a democracy. I threw this at some of my kinfolk and they just had nothing to say.

Anyway, even before my days as a soldier, I was taught to value all human life. Again, even in my enemies. As a soldier this became all the more critical. In my early twenties, I had to learn to consider what I was deciding to kill and what I was allowing to live. And I had to learn the importance of this quickly. Nothing was more ‘real’ or humbling than that for me. Those are worlds that aren’t really divided by ‘fences’.

That is one considerable trial all my life. There really never has been a fence for me to sit on. Just as water is to oil, there is peace and there is war. There is the sword or there is an offering of bread to a hungry brother or sister.

As an unfortunate member of that small little club of ‘people that have seen more fucked up shit than most humans ever get to see in their lifetime’, I both die and laugh a little more inside every time someone tells me that my voice doesn’t matter when I stress the dangers of a violent path, no matter which “team” would suffer most losses.

My voice does matter, but I do feel the temptation to follow through with my earlier desire to ‘renounce my own humanity’, in a matter of speaking.  :-\

[Twisted Crow]

Erm. To clarify, as I have yet to have coffee. Sorry...  ^-^

Speaking out in opposition to two louder voices in a room about what one finds as wrong is not necessarily ‘neutral’ or ‘careless indifference’. It is simply another side or viewpoint. Though, it is one that does not have any real unified voice.

Life is life. Humans still remain the biggest insufferable hypocrites on this planet. Do they deserve death for it? No. But that is something I would like apply across the board. Even to my enemies.

Heh. What I mean by this is life across the board. Not death. Yikes.

Like I said, I need to grab some coffee.  :P

[Remiel]

"What makes a man go neutral kiff? Lust for gold, power or was he just born with a heart full of neutrality"

Ah, Zapp Brannigan.  Hee hee hee...



I consider myself a proud moderate, and definitely "purple", by the simple expedient that any ideal--Left or Right--left unchecked and taken to its logical extreme inevitably results in some form of tyranny.  I believe the most prudent social and political attitude to have is the arithmetic mean of the population, where you take the sum of all political beliefs across the spectrum and then divide by n.  It's not a perfect system, but then, as Winston Churchhill once aptly noted, the only forms of government worse than the one we have are all of the other ones that have so far been tried.

Unlike many, I viewed the events of last weekend not with shock, or horror, but with a grim resignation.   This, to me, seemed only the natural extension of Donald Trump's assault on the value of a free and critical press, and indeed, on truth itself.  It validated everything I have said over the last four years about why the man was so dangerous, and why the Left underestimated his intelligence, charisma, and power to persuade at their own peril.  After all, if you honestly, genuinely believed--and I'm here to tell you that a great many people do, by the way--that the election was "stolen", that there was voter fraud occurring on such a scale so as to oust a legitimately democratically elected President--then why wouldn't you prepare for the End Times?  Why wouldn't you believe that extreme action was needed to take America back from its usurpers and restore the natural order of things?  Wouldn't the only patriotic recourse be but to take up arms against the Leftist oppressors and their RINO enablers?

This is how millions of Americans genuinely think, ladies and gentlemen.  Ever since Trump successfully branded the mainstream media with the label "fake news", Americans have been unable to agree on even the most basic of facts.  And how can we have a productive discussion, if we can't even agree on the facts?  If we can't even trust the institutions we rely on to report on and to inform us about the world in which we live, how can we ever agree on a reference point from which to argue? 

I posit that the Biden Administration has a rare opportunity to heal some of this rift, to undo some of the damage that Trump has done.  But it is critical that he does so from a point of reconciliation, that he makes the attempt to reach out to Trump voters.   He must tell them "I understand how you feel, and I get where you're coming from, even if we don't agree on some things." 

There will be those, of course, who will never listen to him, no matter what.  There is always going to be a certain percentage of people who believe that the earth is flat, after all, or that Elvis Presley is still alive.  But I think that if we are to move forward as a country, we cannot adopt the attitude of branding the other side as racists and homophobes, as backwards-thinking Bible-thumping gun nuts, even though many of them may be.  The pendulum swings back and forth, after all, and trying to shout down or silence your enemy will only serve to drive him further underground, only to resurface once again in 2024, or 2028, or 2032.  And, if so, I predict it will be even worse.  We thought George W. was bad, but in hindsight he seemed relatively benign in light of Trump's tenure.

I'll close this post with one of my favorite quotes:

As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy.

-Christopher Dawson, historian.

[Regina Minx]

I posit that the Biden Administration has a rare opportunity to heal some of this rift, to undo some of the damage that Trump has done.  But it is critical that he does so from a point of reconciliation, that he makes the attempt to reach out to Trump voters.   He must tell them "I understand how you feel, and I get where you're coming from, even if we don't agree on some things."

Here's why I have to reject this. I have yet to see a single elected Republican who encouraged the delusion about election fraud and #stopthesteal come out and say "I was wrong. Joe Biden won this election fair and square. Democrats won the Senate fair and square. We fought a good fight but the people chose them over us, and it was wrong to encourage the kind of delusions that resulted in six deaths as they tried to sedition the results of a fair election." All the calls for reconciliation and healing have been from how Biden and the new administration can be less objectively terrible to their opponents than their opponents have been to them. There's not been a move towards reconciliation from the people that literally encouraged sedition.

Now, unity and kumbayah is one way to approach this situation. But there's another one. And that is to believe that the party that dictates the terms of reconciliation is the winning one. The Democrats have defeated Trump and the GOP in every election since 2016. Trump is the first President since Hoover to have his party lose every election in a single 4-year term. If the GOP wants to move on, it should be on the Democrats' terms, not theirs. If they don't like it they should win some damned elections.

[TheGlyphstone]

Here's why I have to reject this. I have yet to see a single elected Republican who encouraged the delusion about election fraud and #stopthesteal come out and say "I was wrong. Joe Biden won this election fair and square. Democrats won the Senate fair and square. We fought a good fight but the people chose them over us, and it was wrong to encourage the kind of delusions that resulted in six deaths as they tried to sedition the results of a fair election." All the calls for reconciliation and healing have been from how Biden and the new administration can be less objectively terrible to their opponents than their opponents have been to them. There's not been a move towards reconciliation from the people that literally encouraged sedition.

Mitt Romney's been pretty consistent on this, so that is one. I'd struggle to name a second, though. Murkowski, maybe?

[Aiden]

It is a bunch of horse shit the GOP wants "unity" now that they have been exposed as a bunch of traitors.

Fuck them.

Cry more conservatives, look who turned out to be the actual snowflakes after all.

[Remiel]

Here's why I have to reject this. I have yet to see a single elected Republican who encouraged the delusion about election fraud and #stopthesteal come out and say "I was wrong. Joe Biden won this election fair and square. Democrats won the Senate fair and square. We fought a good fight but the people chose them over us, and it was wrong to encourage the kind of delusions that resulted in six deaths as they tried to sedition the results of a fair election." All the calls for reconciliation and healing have been from how Biden and the new administration can be less objectively terrible to their opponents than their opponents have been to them. There's not been a move towards reconciliation from the people that literally encouraged sedition.

Now, unity and kumbayah is one way to approach this situation. But there's another one. And that is to believe that the party that dictates the terms of reconciliation is the winning one. The Democrats have defeated Trump and the GOP in every election since 2016. Trump is the first President since Hoover to have his party lose every election in a single 4-year term. If the GOP wants to move on, it should be on the Democrats' terms, not theirs. If they don't like it they should win some damned elections.

You'll notice that I said Trump voters.  I did not say GOP representatives, like McConnell or Graham.  These are the people who hitched their wagons to Trump's rabid mule, thinking it would advance their career prospects, and are only now, that his ship is finally sinking, abandoning him.  As Aiden said, fuck them.  They've sold their souls.  Biden owes them nothing.  (Jeff Flake of Arizona is the other Republican I can think of who stood up to Trump, and possibly Susan Collins of Maine).

I'm talking about the voters, mostly the disenfranchised working class/ lower-middle-class whites who gave Trump the margins he needed in 2016.  The kind who elected Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Sure, it's easy to say "we are the majority, we won, it's our turn to gloat."  It may even be satisfying.  But the wheel goes around and around, the pendulum swings back and forth, and today's majority may become tomorrow's fractured minority.  That's not how hearts and minds are changed.  I merely propose we take the Daryl Davis route, try to understand the mind of a Trump voter, so that someone like Donald Trump will never be elected President of the United States again.

[Azuresun]

I’ve sat in on local GOP discussions about increased voting. It does get noticed. Not by a lot but it does. You want to see a fat man who has been chairman since the Reagan era sweat, you should have heard about the Tea party and Trumpsters on his county level. New voters can be a boon (we have more luck in these spots) or a bane (we lost this district or,,so and so is getting more popular is my position in danger..)

Going back a bit, but any particular reason you mentioned his weight? Is that intended as shorthand for his being unpleasant or immoral?

[Twisted Crow]

Heh. One of the things I have always took from Daryl Davis was that in the end, people need to talk. If people refuse to talk and listen, then there is no peace. If there is no peace desired, then war and destruction are inevitable. One man pacified and turned some (50 or so?) away from the KKK. Without violence, without property damage, without raw hostility.

That is the power of one voice.

Now, I wouldn’t advise every black man to just seek out a KKK member and try giving them a hug right off the bat. It took a considerable amount of wit and courage to do the things that Daryl has done in the battle against White Supremacy. But then again, not everyone on the other side of the line is cut of that given cloth. Not everything is a nail when holding a hammer in hand, after all. While one might say that not everyone has Daryl’s intelligence, it is less about what he knew and more about what he did. Even if one wants to argue that his knowledge and articulation gave him an advantage (which it did), education can only be achieved by communicating with others. Even about opposing views.

The “Kill them all and let God sort them out” mentality does nothing to educate, inform or provide any true change at all. It only spins the same cycle we are on. Before one can demand any change in the world, they must become the change that they desire to see. And before they attempt this, they must introspect and ask themselves what sort of change that could be. If I can’t expect to change myself and come to the table at the middle of the room... then I cannot make any demands of others when it is something I refuse to do.

:-)

[Remiel]

Upon reflection, I feel I should clarify something, lest my words be misinterpreted.

I am not saying that we should try to find common ground with white nationalists or those who stormed the Capitol with intent to inflict violence.  That is domestic terrorism, and should rightfully be treated as such.

What I am saying is that 74,223,744 votes, or 46.9% of the votes cast, were counted for Donald Trump in 2020, even after everything he has done the last four years.  That is not an insignificant number, nor one that can be attributed to "right-wing extremists".

I have friends that honestly, genuinely believe that the election was "stolen", that fraud occurred on such a scale as to alter the results of a U.S. Presidential election.

That is a problem.   And it is a problem that will not be solved if we deny each other's humanity.

That is my point.