Disowned by your family over politics?

seebell

Hall of Fame
Mar 12, 2012
11,919
5,105
187
Gurley, Al
Never met a family that didn't have some degree of "dysfunction". Including mine, of course...;)
LOL. When I was young I used to think " man, my family is really messed up!" As I grew older, I began to realize that all families are messed up to some degree and my family wasn't that bad.
t
 

Aledinho

All-SEC
Feb 22, 2007
1,377
3
57
At the hotel before the Florida State game...

my mom "Can you believe the way Trump attacks the press."

Me: "Well may be the press shouldn't suck so bad."

mom "What about the inauguration crowd? We've never had a president who brazenly lies like that."

Me "Well actually if you take the number of times he has lied per month and draw a best fit curve, then he is on pace to be our most honest president by December."

mom "Just shut. Just shut up. Don't say another word."

mom [hugs me] "Oh, I'm so glad you came to the game with us."

:biggrin:
 

GrayTide

Hall of Fame
Nov 15, 2005
18,810
6,245
187
Greenbow, Alabama
The older I get the less conservative I get. I think a lot of this has to do with certain family members and friends who believe that conservative christian values, fiscal and social conservatism is the only way to fix what is wrong with our country. Due to my upbringing in small town Alabama of the 1960's; I am not totally opposed to these principles and believe that in moderation, they can be beneficial. The problem I have, and what drove me away from the GOP, is that there is no longer any moderation. The GOP has succumbed and sold its very soul to the Alt Right, evangelicals, Freedom Caucus, NRA, et al. It seems, at least to me, that they have no compassion and understanding of the poor and marginalized segment of our country. The guiding political concept of finding a middle ground consensus where the most can benefit is dead. Being a centrist in today's society is political suicide.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
The older I get the less conservative I get. I think a lot of this has to do with certain family members and friends who believe that conservative christian values, fiscal and social conservatism is the only way to fix what is wrong with our country. Due to my upbringing in small town Alabama of the 1960's; I am not totally opposed to these principles and believe that in moderation, they can be beneficial. The problem I have, and what drove me away from the GOP, is that there is no longer any moderation. The GOP has succumbed and sold its very soul to the Alt Right, evangelicals, Freedom Caucus, NRA, et al. It seems, at least to me, that they have no compassion and understanding of the poor and marginalized segment of our country. The guiding political concept of finding a middle ground consensus where the most can benefit is dead. Being a centrist in today's society is political suicide.
Well the GOP doesn’t have Buckley preventing the real radicals from taking power anymore. The truth is that the GOP has less restrictions on their radicals than the DNC on theirs.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
We are a society where civil disagreement is dead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Somewhere along the way it began to be decided that if you voted for Candidate X, that meant you approved of EVERYTHING
candidate X ever did. So, if he was a draft dodger, it meant you approved of that (etc).

That is transparently ridiculous but people - both Left and Right - actually believe that about folks.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
The older I get the less conservative I get. I think a lot of this has to do with certain family members and friends who believe that conservative christian values, fiscal and social conservatism is the only way to fix what is wrong with our country. Due to my upbringing in small town Alabama of the 1960's; I am not totally opposed to these principles and believe that in moderation, they can be beneficial. The problem I have, and what drove me away from the GOP, is that there is no longer any moderation. The GOP has succumbed and sold its very soul to the Alt Right, evangelicals, Freedom Caucus, NRA, et al.
There's a lot I could say on this that would take us away from the central point. However, the GOP has no more kowtowed to their groups than the DNC has to blacks, women, socialists, and gun control nuts. You're correct there's not any moderation - but there isn't really any in either party. Look at who the deputy chair of the DNC right now for Pete's sake. Farrakhan is every bit as distasteful and bigoted as the David Duke that Trump had to be goaded to denounce. It's not that I personally care who holds the position as its mostly nonsense anyway.

I just have already seen what would happen if the shoe was on the other foot.



It seems, at least to me, that they have no compassion and understanding of the poor and marginalized segment of our country. The guiding political concept of finding a middle ground consensus where the most can benefit is dead. Being a centrist in today's society is political suicide.
True, but it's only political suicide because there is no centrism in EITHER party; if there was, every centrist could run to whichever one provided them aid and comfort.

I sit here actually - right now - HOPING that the Democrats can put someone semi-decent up there worth voting for in 2020. Pocahontas had reservations about running and said today she won't. That's the first good news the Democrats have had since Doug Jones won. But they're a rigidly stubborn party who thinks that their echo chamber is reality. I fear they're going to pass off Kamala Harris on the electorate under the guise of, "Now that people have actually SEEN what Trump is like, we need a principled liberal so we can get what we need passed."

And then Trump wins 40 states, the GOP takes back the House, and the DNC holds a December 2020 meeting about how the election was stolen.

I haven't told many folks this as my distaste for the Hildabeast is well-known, but I VERY nearly voted for that shrew. Much as I despise her, I nearly did. I was with my brother at the WKU game in 2016, drove over from Atlanta after watching the Braves lose. On that trip I had resolved to myself that, oh well, I gotta vote the witch. I was sitting down at the Pizza Hut in Northport scrolling through Twitter.......and it was right then the story had hit the airwaves about how in a "private" conversation none of us were supposed to hear (a la Romney's 47%), she called half of Trump's voters "deplorable."

She literally reinforced every single reason I wouldn't vote for her in one sentence. (At least Trump would come right out and snort his hatred in public and be himself). I was a reluctant voter taking the bigger picture to heart.....and she turns right around and pulls a Romney (and I didn't vote for him, either). (To be fair, the emails didn't bother me all that much save for the classified material stuff).
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Well the GOP doesn’t have Buckley preventing the real radicals from taking power anymore. The truth is that the GOP has less restrictions on their radicals than the DNC on theirs.
Because the GOP doesn't rig the outcome with super delegates.

(There's something to be said for super delegates - but let's not pretend they're impartial arbiters).
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Because the GOP doesn't rig the outcome with super delegates.

(There's something to be said for super delegates - but let's not pretend they're impartial arbiters).
That’s the reason I don’t see Pocahontas or Bernie winning the Democratic nomination. Granted I still don’t think they win without the SD, but the SD pretty much guarantees they don’t.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,145
44,863
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Somewhere along the way it began to be decided that if you voted for Candidate X, that meant you approved of EVERYTHING
candidate X ever did. So, if he was a draft dodger, it meant you approved of that (etc).

That is transparently ridiculous but people - both Left and Right - actually believe that about folks.
trump is a pretty uniquely awful human being. the man has no redeeming characteristics at all. trying to both sides what is going on now doesn't really do much but continue to normalize this crap. it started with falwell, et al in the moral majority and as gray mentioned above, the moderating influences have been drummed out.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
trump is a pretty uniquely awful human being. the man has no redeeming characteristics at all.
No argument here at all.


trying to both sides what is going on now doesn't really do much but continue to normalize this crap.
You know what? I've lived long enough to see the very same things said about Reagan, Bush 43, and Romney.

Your folks cried "wolf" so long that nobody listened when a real wolf showed up.

Trump is the manners of Andrew Jackson combined with the spending habits of Lyndon Johnson.

And let's be clear: I was referring to the party apparatus here.


it started with falwell, et al in the moral majority
WHAT started with Falwell and the Moral Majority? Extremism? What exactly? (I'm well aware of the cherished political myths, but I'm also aware of reality). It wasn't Falwell who rioted at the 1968 Democratic Convention. It wasn't Falwell who voted for George Wallace in the 1972 Michigan and Florida primaries, either.

And how much clout are you suggesting Falwell had? Reagan's first nominee to SCOTUS was Sandra Day O'Connor and Falwell opposed it. Didn't do him any good. Guess what? He was back supporting Reagan three years later. In fact, O'Connor was recommended by Barry Goldwater and when Falwell said, "Every good Christian ought to be concerned" about O'Connor's appointment, Goldwater responded, "Every good Christian ought to kick Falwell right in his (behind)."



and as gray mentioned above, the moderating influences have been drummed out.
He's right. I didn't argue that point. They were drummed out years ago. The Democrats drummed out theirs in 1968 (Carter won for much the same reason Trump did - the ten other major candidates all took votes from each other) and the GOP drummed theirs out between 1980 and 1994.

I never disputed that part.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
That’s the reason I don’t see Pocahontas or Bernie winning the Democratic nomination. Granted I still don’t think they win without the SD, but the SD pretty much guarantees they don’t.
Bernie cannot because he isn't "really" a Democrat. Well, he "is" but he doesn't wear the label, and the party has no loyalty to him and shouldn't. (Of course, he shouldn't have any to them, either).

Warren was their dream girl, an unreconstructed hard-left liberal who talked a lot of sassy smack but didn't really do anything. (It's difficult to take seriously someone ranting about income inequality who has a net worth of $14 million).
 

Bazza

TideFans Legend
Oct 1, 2011
35,577
21,205
187
New Smyrna Beach, Florida
trump is a pretty uniquely awful human being. the man has no redeeming characteristics at all. trying to both sides what is going on now doesn't really do much but continue to normalize this crap. it started with falwell, et al in the moral majority and as gray mentioned above, the moderating influences have been drummed out.
Right - but in the interest of the thread's message......

Doesn't mean you have to turn your back on those with a different opinion.

I mean - as long as they don't get all up in your grill about it.

Just remember that the slimy filthy scummy nature of politics is something no one will ever change.

No matter who is in office and no matter what that office is. They are all parasitic vermin!

And they love nothing more than to turn folks against each other.

;)
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
That’s the reason I don’t see Pocahontas or Bernie winning the Democratic nomination. Granted I still don’t think they win without the SD, but the SD pretty much guarantees they don’t.
Now to be fair.....maybe the GOP SHOULD have super delegates. The SD scheme was concocted by the Hunt Commission in 1983 (fwiw, my aunt was one of the medical caregivers for Governor Hunt, not that she had any influence on it). The committee was stacked with Mondale and Ted Kennedy supporters. What they were trying to do was prevent something like Trump, although it was clear in their case that they didn't want another Jimmy Carter, a moderate who won the system fair and square. But they were also concerned - but don't expect any of them to be honest enough to admit it - that what would happen was that you might have five white candidates splitting the vote and Jesse Jackson getting large portions of the black vote and getting the nomination. Indeed, that happened during the middle phase of the 1988 race and scared the party structure to death. When Gephardt, Gore, and Dukakis were still in the race, they were splitting the white votes while Jackson was cornering the black vote to the tune of 96%. He won Illinois and Michigan and scared the super delegates to death - so there was a mammoth rush to get on board and declare publicly for Dukakis.

Again, I don't blame them for having it. There ARE legitimate reasons for a party to favor it, in fact (see Trump as a great example).

But you can't then be surprised when the public doesn't understand and you build the perception of rigging the nomination for someone. Make no mistake, the 1984 outcome was certainly rigged for Mondale. The fact he won the most votes was just a way to give them cover - they were still going to nominate him (this is laid out real nice in Germond and Witcover's "Wake Us When It's Over"). Also - the whole party was happy when Ted Kennedy announced in late 1982 that he wasn't running. They sort of had the same view about him that they had about Hillary - could easily win the nomination but might be toxic in the general.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,145
44,863
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
Right - but in the interest of the thread's message......

Doesn't mean you have to turn your back on those with a different opinion.

I mean - as long as they don't get all up in your grill about it.

Just remember that the slimy filthy scummy nature of politics is something no one will ever change.

No matter who is in office and no matter what that office is. They are all parasitic vermin!

And they love nothing more than to turn folks against each other.

;)
outside of a few cousins that i occasionally keep in touch with i don't deal with much family and of the one's i keep in touch with, i didn't learn much new about them after the election. i was moderately surprised with one cousin i assumed would be all in for trump, but he had apparently moderated once he had moved back to the states with his family.

none of the ones in my family have asked me to give them a pat on the head and a participation trophy for their trump support, so i'm mainly in this thread to derail it
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
Right - but in the interest of the thread's message......

Doesn't mean you have to turn your back on those with a different opinion.

I mean - as long as they don't get all up in your grill about it.

Just remember that the slimy filthy scummy nature of politics is something no one will ever change.

No matter who is in office and no matter what that office is. They are all parasitic vermin!

And they love nothing more than to turn folks against each other.

;)

Look, I try to seek common ground even with folks I strongly disagree with.

92tide and I actually agree on a lot of things. Hell, we agree on a lot of things about Trump.

I think Trump is a distasteful, disgusting pig, a sexual assaulter, and thoroughly unqualified to hold the office he now holds. And no, I don't THINK the Democratic Party has anything similar to offer unless Farrakhan ran for President as a Democrat. But that wasn't the point I was making, either.

Both parties at the nomination level are dominated by single cause activists, nutbags, and people who have no hobbies other than politics - usually the mushrooms of the human race. This has been true ever since we went to the primary system in 1972 - and it was, in fact, inevitable given human nature. (Yes, there were primaries before 1972 but that was the first year there were enough to swing the delegate haul differently; the GOP only had 3 contested primaries in 1964, for example - New Hampshire, Oregon, and California).

This extremism at the local level is what creates the vacuum that gives us a lack of centrism.

I'll tell anyone what.....go back and look at the CONTESTED primaries on the Democratic side (I'll do the GOP in a minute).

1972 - McGovern was the most liberal guy in the race except for NYC Mayor John Lindsay, who had been a Republican just a few years earlier. He promised them the moon and won the nomination - and got waxed by Nixon the centrist (who played a conservative on TV).

1976 - Carter won as a centrist.....but only because eight liberals split the vote while Carter's only competition was from the centrist Henry Jackson (who was called a "conservative" at the time because he was strong on defense), Lloyd Bentsen, and George Wallace (and Carter got a LOT of votes from Southerners who wanted Wallace gone.....and some from folks who liked Wallace but the wheel chair wasn't their thing ya know)

1980 - Ted Kennedy gave Carter a fright because Carter wasn't liberal enough...

1984 - Mondale collars the special interests that dominate the party....and gets creamed in the election

1988 - Dukakis wins NH because he's the MA governor, he has the most money and once it comes down to a contest between him and Jesse Jackson.....and he gets waxed...


1992 - Bill Clinton WAS a centrist.....the party wasn't very high on his politics....he was pro-death penalty and had a wretched record on the environment....he also played the race card quite skillfully (name another candidate who could leave the NH primary and go execute a lobotomized black man to show his "law and order" - Sister Souljah was public but Clinton had a LOT of other racial incidents that got passed over, including playing golf at an all-white country club).......but Clinton was pretty much an accident. He was NOT who the liberal activists wanted - but they didn't have decent choices otherwise (they wanted Cuomo or Bill Bradley at the time)

1996 - Clinton's re-nomination was a formality

Now....for the first 20 years, it was the Democrats who really focused on activist candidates........

The GOP?

1980 - Reagan AT THE TIME was called an extremist. He'd been called one in 1976 by Ford as well. It was the moderate Bush vs the conservative extremist Reagan. But Reagan, while generally conservative, was quite a bit like Clinton as far as political skills. Reagan won because if you'll go back and look, the GOP used to use the "whose turn is it" argument.

And Ford begat Reagan (76 loser) and Reagan begat Bush (80 loser) and Bush begat Dole (88 loser).....

The extremism now inherent in the nominating process for the GOP got their arrogance with the success of the 80s and especially Emporer Newt in the 90s. Jerry Falwell was long gone out of politics by then, focusing instead on gay Teletubbies.

In 2000, Bush was the hard-core conservative nominee. Extremists in the party turned against McCain, suggesting his wife was a drug addict, suggesting he had a black baby somewhere, and playing to the Bob Jones crowd. This continued in 2004.

In 2008, we were back to it being McCain's turn. A lot of the religious right didn't like him. He picked Palin. Some voted for him.

In 2012, the Christian vote collapsed towards Newtie in South Carolina. Mitt won the thing and alienated group by group until he lost.

I would argue that in 2008, the hardcore left got their man. Barack Obama was much further to the left than Hillary was. He was also - by happy coincidence - a MUCH better candidate.

The hardcore left wanted Bernie in 2016. It's true as they say he got fewer votes. Just don't anyone pretend it actually mattered. If the vote totals were reversed, Hillary still would have been the nominee.

So I reiterate: I don't DISAGREE with the point about a lack of centrism. But you can't win either party's nomination by appealing to centrism, either.
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
36,432
29,735
287
54
outside of a few cousins that i occasionally keep in touch with i don't deal with much family and of the one's i keep in touch with, i didn't learn much new about them after the election. i was moderately surprised with one cousin i assumed would be all in for trump, but he had apparently moderated once he had moved back to the states with his family.

none of the ones in my family have asked me to give them a pat on the head and a participation trophy for their trump support, so i'm mainly in this thread to derail it

I'll tell you the stunner for me: how many of my co-workers who fit the prototype of the typical middle class, moderate Democratic voter.....that I've found out voted for Trump.

It has been absolutely shocking to me.

Keep in mind I work with almost ALL females.
 

81usaf92

TideFans Legend
Apr 26, 2008
35,306
31,375
187
South Alabama
Now to be fair.....maybe the GOP SHOULD have super delegates. The SD scheme was concocted by the Hunt Commission in 1983 (fwiw, my aunt was one of the medical caregivers for Governor Hunt, not that she had any influence on it). The committee was stacked with Mondale and Ted Kennedy supporters. What they were trying to do was prevent something like Trump, although it was clear in their case that they didn't want another Jimmy Carter, a moderate who won the system fair and square. But they were also concerned - but don't expect any of them to be honest enough to admit it - that what would happen was that you might have five white candidates splitting the vote and Jesse Jackson getting large portions of the black vote and getting the nomination. Indeed, that happened during the middle phase of the 1988 race and scared the party structure to death. When Gephardt, Gore, and Dukakis were still in the race, they were splitting the white votes while Jackson was cornering the black vote to the tune of 96%. He won Illinois and Michigan and scared the super delegates to death - so there was a mammoth rush to get on board and declare publicly for Dukakis.

Again, I don't blame them for having it. There ARE legitimate reasons for a party to favor it, in fact (see Trump as a great example).

But you can't then be surprised when the public doesn't understand and you build the perception of rigging the nomination for someone. Make no mistake, the 1984 outcome was certainly rigged for Mondale. The fact he won the most votes was just a way to give them cover - they were still going to nominate him (this is laid out real nice in Germond and Witcover's "Wake Us When It's Over"). Also - the whole party was happy when Ted Kennedy announced in late 1982 that he wasn't running. They sort of had the same view about him that they had about Hillary - could easily win the nomination but might be toxic in the general.
I think the GOP needs it. They don’t have the influence of Buckley anymore that can keep the David Dukes, Ayn Rands, and Buchanans from ascending in the GOP. Granted Buckley backed Goldwater, but he mostly put the most deplorables outside the party, and inadvertently gave power to the neo conservatives (who most are considering going back to the Democrats or going third party with the rise of Trump). But I think super delegates are a good thing and a bad thing, but the GOP might be better respected with them.
 

New Posts

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.