Have a deplorable to dinner.

    Who remembers “National Brotherhood week?" When Lena Horne and Sheriff Clark were dancing Cheek to Cheek. Or amusing invitations posted to "have a cripple to dinner." And similar laugh riots at the expense of Blacks. Ah the good old days. We won’t see their like again. But I digress.

    If only perfect people got to vote the electorate would be reduced to…well…let’s say American Legion Hall wouldn’t be crowded. All those currant buns I bought for the poll workers, wasted! (Actually it was the Republican poll watcher who clued me in the first time that I--like him-- should make myself less unacceptable by showing up at 6am with currant buns.) Groan. Here comes the hoary Flavius serm…thought through position (thank you mother) on having a Republican to dinner. Metaphorically.

    Did a Republican ever offer you a seat on the Number 7? Or come out in nine inches of snow to push your car because the noise of tire churning meant you’d be there for a good long time unless he and his 17 year old pushed. “I can’t imagine just staying inside when you hear that," he said. Although a street full of other neighbors were successfully doing that.

    Sad though it is , the country is in this mess because millions of nice people like him voted for whom they did… And will do it again. Because they mostly approve the dreadful things he intends.

    Spending the summer as usual far away from the Number 7 I’m struck as usual at how many people can’t imagine how AA, PP and rmrd disagree since they sound so much the same. Or would imagine that if they ever read a word of any of theirs.

    Living here I’m reminded Hillary’s failure was not in calling the“deplorables,” deplorables. It was letting herself think that in the first place.

    How did that line go?

    Marry the man today. Give him the girlish laughter.

    Marry the man today. And change his ways



    I've had car trouble and some stranger gave me a jump or a lift to town to buy a part. And I've done the same for some stranger. They might have been republicans. They might have been someone I'd dislike if I spent some time talking to them. So what?

    When I was young I'd go out to bars to pick up women. I'd meet women I'd happily fuck but after talking for a while I couldn't bring myself to. People talk about hate fucking. I've never hate fucked anyone. I can't imagine ever doing that. It seems to be a thing though. At least actors on tv shows talk about it. It's in the script but I wonder if it's really a real thing people do.

    I don't get what point you're trying to make here. A simple act of kindness doesn't mean I want to go out and have a beer with you. It doesn't mean I like you and I want to chat and get to know you better. It doesn't mean we're friends or that there's even a possibility we could be friends. It doesn't mean I'd like to hate fuck you. It just means I have enough free time to push or jump start your car. What does it mean to you?

    I'm pretty sure Jeffrey Epstein would've helped push the car in the snow, maybe offer a seat on the Number 7. He was still deplorable, along with all the people who backed and enabled him (Dersh as one of many). Many Southern whites would speak politely to blacks during the day, maybe do something kind, but maybe show up for a cross-burning here or there at night. Do a few jelly doughnuts acquit one of being deplorable?

    AA and I largely agree. With rmrd it's largely a question of tribe vs universalists and bludgeoning one with quotes - neither particularly "deplorable". Hillary was more than proven right - a tribe that'll keep supporting the Prez with huge margins despite cruel, crude, threatening and illegal behavior that even threaten the core functions of the country are "deplorable" - they've sold their birthright for a pot of porridge. Whether they can be redeemed is mostly not in doubt, but at the moment they're in league with a devil, and sympathy/compassion are far from my heart. On a political level, how to bring *some* of these into our fold (or even neutral non-brainwashed-by-hate territory) is tough. Amash did it, Mooch did it, Bill wasshisname at Bulwark never swallowed the koolaid nor did Rick Wilson or Michael Steele. It's unfair to lump the ones who've displayed moral conscience in with the to-date simply deplorables. Yes, as good Christian-culture ethics it's great to try to forgive, but post-Rwanda or Srebrenice that wasn't top priority, and watching deaths and callous witholding aid in Puerto Rico or inhumane/lethal conditions at the border, excusing people withour judgment hardly seems warranted. By their acts you will know them. Stupid is as stupid does.

    Re: . It's unfair to lump the ones who've displayed moral conscience in with the to-date simply deplorables. 

    It's just plain stupid, who cares if it's unfair or not.

    I do believe that just one comment by one anonymous liberal poster on the internet yelling about how all Republicans are deplorable contributes some to the "us vs. them" situation we are in, does more damage. That one comment might be the straw that broke the camel's back for one other person. It's bottom up and cumulative, since blogs started up. (Sure the media can exacerbate.) Trump is a reaction to those sick and tired of the political correctness where the only people that can be smeared as deplorable are conservatives and whites. It has actually resulted in more Trump type Independents than it has in Republicans, it's "a pox on both your houses" and "he speaks for me, up yours back". He's got the one-third of the country that was always nutsy conservative plus just enough more who are fed up enough with liberal political correctness.

    He's actually done a lot of damage to the cohesiveness of the GOP by "fighting back" against political correctness with similar technique. The only thing holding them together is the current Senate situation and Mitch McConnell forcing cohesiveness. To the point of things looking like there should be 3 or 4 parties, not 2.

    So it's stupid to highlight egregious behavior on the right vs normal opinionated sentiment? Gotcha. Sure, freaks screaming on the internet can be counterproductive - i've met more than my share. But I still think identifying deplorables as deplorable is just kind of basic, pointing out newly demented behavior. Not particularly to shame them, as they largely have no shame, but to give those more sane the idea they can still pull back from the abyss. 

    no, what I meant is to lump them in with a label of "all Republicans" 

    just as you wouldn't like being made responsible for the excessively p.c. crowd

    Yes, unfair, and in language we often lump together "the GOP did this, Dems did that". Which is different from "all Republicans are X", and quite vastly different from "perhaps half of Republicans are Y while others are still Z."

    I don't think it was that tough to identify quite what some of the worst Trump deplorables were (think Joe Arpaio for one. Maybe Bundys? Think excessive Charlottesville hateful raving torch bearers.) Now, think - " do I associate with them, agree with them, or draw the line with Q behavior is too far? 

    You like Martha Stewart - how would she have settled down the group to your satisfaction?

    "You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?” Clinton said. “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.”

    She said the other half of Trump’s supporters “feel that the government has let them down” and are “desperate for change.”

    “Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well,” she said.

    And then the press clutched their collective pearls - you can't speak so direct and bold, we neeed wiggle room.

    You and AA are the Tribalists, running to always defend the “misunderstood” white people. White people of good conscience voted for Obama. They were the minority of whites

     Clinton’s election was marked by the Sista Souljah speech and the 1994 Crime Bill. 

    There's a lot I agree with in what you both wrote,

    What I want is to win elections. I think we have a better chance of doing that if we make ourselves treat our opponents civilly . In many cases they even deserve it , mistaken-as I think-they are.

    It's satisfying- even fun- to take strong positions and  confront  odious opponents. Doesn't win elections.

    Confrontation does win elections. People of good conscience could not vote for Barry Goldwater according to MLK Jr. Goldwater lost. David Duke was called a racist. Duke lost his race for Louisiana Governor. Calling out Trump as a white nationalist will bring out decent people.

    Can you cite when appeasement worked?

    What you call "appeasement" is what you've got to do to win presidential elections while there is still an electoral college and gerrymandering. Bill Clinton and Barack Obama each won the presidency twice by "appeasement". You confuse apples and oranges: winning presidential elections is not the same thing as passing legislation in Congress.

    I am not confused. Racism was a major issue in 2008. Obama required Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate. Obama was labeled as an “other” by Republicans. 

    John Lewis pointed out that McCain and Palin were playing with fire.


    While Republican character smears are a tried-and-tested tactic, how they go about using them requires good judgment. In this case, playing on staunch conservatives' fears about such sensitive issues – issues which could potentially cause an unbalanced individual to feel that they should somehow protect their country by using violence against Obama – is dangerously reckless. 

    The belief that Obama could, God forbid, be assassinated has been in the back of many people's minds since the beginning of his campaign. It is also a very real fear, and as a result Obama was afforded secret service protection earlier than any other presidential candidate in history. Hopefully McCain's attempts to quell the disquiet will dampen down the frenzied climate that has been building amongst some of his supporters. 

    I hope that, as Congressman and civil rights leader John Lewis said in a statement denouncing the negative tone of the republican campaign, McCain and Palin will realize that "as public figures with the power to influence and persuade, [they] are playing with fire, and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all".


    You must have slept through that. Both Clinton and Obama got 39% of the white vote


    I repeat myself: they won their elections.

    And the fear of assassination argument is just plain straw man crap to draw in here. Every president is subject to that from opposing extremists.

    But not surprised here because as usual you just love you some fear and loathing and victimhood angle to everything. Shorter rmrd: fear and hate of the other is what rules and motivates the human race.

    The need for Secret Service protection for the first viable African American candidate was a reality.

    Off topic. The Secret Service felt the threats against Obama justified early protection.

    Who are you talking to? We all know that. We are all veterans of Obamamania 2007 and 2008 @ TPMCafe, we have the T-shirts to prove it, the founder of this website and his pal Articleman were main participants.

    You put up the post.

    Edit to add:

    Trump is a white nationalist who has control of the GOP. We have concentration camps and Russian hacks. You are so deep in the bubble that you hear crowds yelling “Send them back” and you think this election can be compared to those of Clinton and Obama

    Without majority white support.

    Trump cannot be defeated without addressing the fact that he is a white nationalist. We will need ethnic minorities.

    Nobody said we didn't. Carry on with your straw men, I guess. More's the pity for Flavius trying to have a discussion about "have a deplorable to dinner."

    I work with deplorables. I have shared meals with deplorables. They will essentially say that they agree with Trump’s economic policies but reject his racism. They will still vote for Trump. Racism is not a major issue for them, or for you and PP. It is more important to you and PP A not to upset white people. I believe that decent whites will reject Trump, you and PP don’t.

    Racism is not a major issue for me? Curious. I don't reject Trump? Curiouser. You've pretty severely jumped the shark.

    Your common theme is that we talk too much about race or that everything is always about race. You are dismissive. The discussion here is about how to soothe the savage souls of the deplorables. How much belly crawling can Democrats do to win back the votes of the deplorables? Omar makes a statement and she is immediately told what bowing and scraping she has to do. The deplorables who are silent on concentration camps, Russian hacks, and obstruction of justice by Trump must be handled with kid gloves. You have no problem with AA’s use of the disgusting term pity olympics.

    You see racism as something that is only operational on occasion. You do not see it as “everything”. The A Erica’s Academy of Pediatrics put out a first of its kind position paper on the impact of racism on black children.


    As noted in the WaPo

    The report, crafted into a first-of-its-kind policy statement from the American Academy of Pediatrics, calls racism “a socially transmitted disease passed down through generations, leading to the inequities observed in our population today.” It draws on 180 studies to reach its conclusions and includes specific recommendations.

    It also notes that in Trump’s America (read: “the current political and cultural atmosphere,” according to the Washington Post), the danger to children is more acute and the work more urgent.

    “If you look at what’s in the news today, in social media, on Twitter, there is so much kids are exposed to,” said Jackie Douge, a pediatrician who co-wrote the policy, to the Post. “As much as you want to keep it in the background, it’s not in the background. It’s having direct health effects on kids.”



    The effects of racism have long been documented by the medical community and has dire effects on our health, as The Post reports:

    Exposure to racism in adults has been linked to an increased risk of heart diseasedepression and other ailments. And researchers have increasingly identified dangers racism presents to the development of babies and children. Studies have found lower birth weights in babies born to African American mothers who experience discrimination. A recent analysis found an increased risk of premature birth among Latina women following Trump’s election, part of a pattern of poorer health outcomes among Latinos during his administration. Other recent studies have found an increased risk of depression, obesity and greater susceptibility to sickness among children who are exposed to racism. Researchers have linked racism experienced by children to worsened sleep, higher rates of doctor visits and lower self-esteem.

    One of the main mechanisms responsible for those effects, researchers say, is the way prolonged stress wears away at people’s bodies. Experiences of discrimination can flood the body with stress hormones such as cortisol — a chemical that readies the body to fight or flee. Studies have show that even the anticipation of discrimination can trigger the stress response. Over time, stress hormones can lead to inflammatory reactions that make the body more susceptible to chronic diseases.

    Though it can sometimes be difficult to parse out racism from all the other structural inequalities, including a disproportionate number of black children being jailed, poverty, violence and food insecurity, clearly there is a link to health outcomes in black children, according to researchers.

    As Kyle Yasuda, president of the American Academy of Pediatrics notes to the Post: “It’s more than just medicine and genetic makeup. It means looking at all the determinants of health. And science has shown us racism plays a part in that equation.”



    You have no problem with the term pity olympics, but you do sympathize with white Trump voters. You and AA are white tribalists.


    Perfect - I object to *you* blacksplaining with a ton of only halfway relevant copy-pasted text while ignoring/twisting what people actual said/believe.

    Oops, you did it again.

    I didn’t twist AA’s words. Gay talks about dismissive attitudes that is presented by you and AA.

    Edit to add:

    This is your BS filled M.O. 

    I point out that you are dismissive of racial issues, saying that it is talked about too much. I provide a link that explains that racism is always operative. Then you complain that I’m blacksplaining. You are full of crap. You are the white tribalist Roxane Gay describes. There is some blacksplaing for you.

    You twist my words, and then you paste in paragraphs and paragraphs of junk.

    You fycking presume to lecture me on "racism is always operative" as if I dont have fucking eyes in my head and a functioning brain and don't blog about police brutality and voter repression and income diatributin and jobs and education already, you pretentious little self-absorbed prick? You're dealing with adults here - well-read, educated, well-travelled adults. Get off your fucking high horse and communicate with this group, not with whatever made up bunch of misfits you dream up when you go to blog. If people disagree, maybe it's because you're wrong or because there is no "right" or because they just have a different opinion. Get used to it.

    The other part of your M.O., 

    You allow AA and her pity olympics, then you claim innocence.

    What in Roxane Gay’s description of a Liberal white tribalist does not fit you?

    Go piddle on someone else's floor, little boy - serious things to discuss today.

    Again your typical M.O.

    The man of a thousand M.O.'s, got it. Wasn't there some over-the-counter medicine, something M.O.?

    I think you'll like this one I just ran across, Flav:

    worth a repost here:

    I don't believe this. On most of the controversial issues that face us there's almost nothing to be learned by talking to the other side. Except that they are either lying or are deluded in that they truly believe the false information they've been fed. How much immigration and how to control it is an opinion. But for much of the right that opinion is based on false information. To what degree we should allow abortions is an opinion. But so much of the anti abortion position is based again on false information. I don't see what can be learned by learning all the false information they spread except to know what lies we need to counter.

    Here's an example. The situation in Trinidad and Tobago is discussed as a refugee problem. The situation in Jordan is a refugee crisis. No one calls the Syrians fleeing war immigrants to Jordan. The situation in Columbia is a refugee problem. But the border crisis in America is discussed as an immigration problem especially  on the right. Whether you believe in a closed border or an open border we can't come up with  a coherent policy until we have a rational discussion of the causes. And that's just the beginning of the false narrative the right is spreading on the problems on our border. So what is the value in listening to the false narrative people on the right believe?

    Another example is the dozens of articles and videos that claim Planned Parenthood sells baby parts and encourages abortions to increase it's profits from the sales. It's nonsense. Some of those pushing these lies know they're false. Most anti abortion foes believe they are true. They've bought into the propaganda. What value is there in having a dialog with those convinced that PP is encouraging abortions so they can make money selling the fetus? I don't think it's possible to convince them it's a false narrative.I don't think that learning the other side's narrative on abortion will depolarize your mind. I don't think we'll learn anything from the conversation.

    At the time  of his father's  death , their son said    the  worst year of  her life , had been  when Dan  ceased to share her  intensely anti abortion feelings.

    Might have learned something from her.



    Should have been included above and identified as from  in last week's Times as a joint News article/ obituary for Dan Callaghan founder of  the Hastings Center.

    Whom I last  saw in my rear view mirror pushing  my  car (!) from  Cambridge to


    And  I last heard on Margot Adler's  NPR program( Talking Justice?) describing his invitation to  discuss with W  the ethics of expanding stem cell research . Back before  9/11 when ethics supposedly mattered to W. Always did to Dan  and his wife with whom  he and she  wrote joint books disputing  one another.





    Let us assume that as a philosopher and an intellectual Callaghan and his wife are neither liars or fooled by the lies. One then might have an interesting discussion or debate based on the facts. But in the end, like the trolley problem, there is no objectively correct answer on the abortion question. I have my opinions based on my weighing the ethics of relative values and of the relative harms of either choice. They have theirs. It's possible they might have an argument or two I haven't heard and considered but I've looked into it and I am neither stupid nor ignorant. I'm unlikely to change my opinion on abortion nor is it likely I will change the opinion of those against abortion. The only somewhat positive outcome is I will have found a rare abortion foe that isn't a liar or a fool.

    Frankly Flavius, you have this tendency to beat around the bush in your posts, never making it clear what your point is, what your views are, and your reasoning that leads you to hold those views. It seems to me there would be more interesting discussions if you explicitly stated your opinions and made your best arguments to support them.

    I've never met a provocation that wouldn't by best answer by a clear cut dodge.

    See this is an example. I have no clue what you're saying here. Did you find my comment provocative? A dodge? it wasn't intended to be either. I've just trying to have an honest civil dialog. Perhaps you're just to deep for a straight forward mind like mine. But what ever the cause we are clearly not communicating. Two ships pass in the night without any illumination between them.

    The approval rating for Trump is heavily reliant on the economic situation, it's right here in Robert Samuelson's op-ed @ WaPo

    Consider a Post-ABC News poll taken in late June and early July. Trump’s overall approval rate was 44 percent, with 53 percent disapproving. But this poor showing already included public support for his economic stewardship, with 51 percent approving and 42 percent disapproving. On every other issue, the public disapproved of his performance.

    On immigration, the public disapproved by a 40 percent-to-57 percent margin. (In all these comparisons, Trump’s approval number comes first.) On taxes, the margin was 42 percent to 49 percent. On health care, it was 38 percent to 54 percent. Here are the remaining results: On women’s issues, he trailed 32 percent to 56 percent; on abortion, 32 percent to 54 percent; on gun violence, 36 percent to 52 percent; on foreign policy, 40 percent to 55 percent; on climate change, 29 percent to 62 percent.

    It's certainly far from rational not to talk to the 5% to 13% who apparently cannot be easily labeled "deplorable" about every issue. Single-issue purity police are possibly election killers; they are certainly Flavius' dinner party killers.

    Well sure, it'd be nice to have a candidate obviously talking to the GOP at different stages, absorbing some of the perceived lessons of 2016 that fit a sane and compassionate outlook, a "We heard you" kind of speech, here's your bridge.

    Personally, Flav, you have not inspired me to give a crap if the guy votes for Trump again, not to mention, invite him over for dinner. 

    Hah, you make me laugh, now there's a good challenge to Flav, something snappy! Maybe get some poesie quotes out of him at the very least.

    Personally I really hate to cook and I suck at it. If he invites me to dinner I can put up with a lot of shit for a good home cooked meal.

    Yeah but what if the hosts say very sorry but they haven't got around to preparing the main course yet, so could you do the chicken with your tasty recipe, like you did, when you had them to dinner? They'll try to help, if you need it...

    It happens.

    My brother in law' s insidious riposte used to be "Have a drink."

    Obama's was " Why  don't you and he have a beer with Biden?"

    Wise man.

    Or then Governor Weld's response when  the head of the State Senate introduced him at a St. Patrick's Day Dinner: 

    "And  we're .....honored ......to have with us our  Governor who can tell us how his ancestors arrived on the  Mayflower"

    Weld: " Oh no. The next boat...They  sent the cook and the butler on the Mayflower to open up the cottage.".

    Flavius, the beer summit was in 2009. In 2012, Obama got only 39% of the white vote.This was a lower percentage than he received in 2008. The beer summit was not helpful. Obama never received a majority of the white vote. Beer summits and sitting down at dinner are worthless acts.


    For the cry heard high in the convent

    The telephone call, the kiss

    There's always another reason

    A private meaning to this


    ...or something an excerpt from Auden which I couldn't find so that's what I remember.


    There is always  another reason. And another.

    Between 2008 and 2012 Obama had his beer summit  and the country had an extraordinary peak of

    unemployment.And he still got  39% of the white vote,  Maybe but for the beer summit that would have

    been  38 . Or some other 3 something.

    Certainly you could be  right and I wrong. It would have been the first time

    I was wrong ..except for all the others.

    One can conclude reading your comments here- and

    please continue them they play valuable role,

    (As do those of AA and PP with whom you are locked

    in what sadly  seems to be  unvarying opposition- couldn't someone

    order 4 beers and a picnic  table under a tree somewhere?)

    Oh yeah ......... one can conclude, yeah that there is one absolutely

    undoubted  reason for  everything and  it is:


    ....................................................... darn, I've forgotten.

    Oh well.Back to work.

    We certainly need every non-white vote we can get in

    2020. AOBTW every other one.

    Anyway back to dodging question I was just

    asked by someone, Hope they'll have the

    gentility to forget to  repeat it,





    He is locked in combat here only because he makes correspondents who are trying to introduce nuanced discussion into strawmen in order to have combat. He doesn't want to have dinner or a drink with anyone here, he comes to fight those strawmen and preach of the evil of the straw men to those few who respond with amens and megadittoes. In a less ideologically sympathetic group, that would be called trolling. Targets avoid calling it that, but when one ends up being the target, one ends up feeding the troll because of the sympathy for the apparent reason for trolling.

    You're going to continue to see strife from his participation because he wants it. He's not interested in gentility, gentility is like selling out to the evil strawmen.

    I remember one member here in the past trying to engage him in interacting more socially by talking about his wine connoisseurship. She managed to do it for a few comments. But that didn't last long, he returned to fighting the strawmen.

    He can't let your message of this blog about interacting socially with "the enemy" be broadcast here to the huge (yuge?) dagblog audience without challenging it. Some Dem operative might see it and agree. Then the soul of the country would be lost.

    I think he doesn't use wording like I don't agree with you, Flavius because that would be personalizing things. Socializing on news topics is not what he is here to do, he is here on a crusade to fight the strawmen.

    Here's an article proving it is possible to change people's minds through this kind of dealing with the facts:

    Let’s yell at the bigots and they will magically convert. I like that plan.

    Edit to add

    In the real world, bigots double down.

    He demanded a major apology from Roxane Gay. Why does he still have a job?

    Are you saying that asking for or demanding an apology should always be a firing offense or the Gay occupies a uniquely rarefied position and should never be asked for an apology?

    Sigh. did you read his list of offenses and why he wanted an apology?

    The editor, Jonathan Weisman, came under fire for tweets questioning whether Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) actually represented the Midwest and whether Reps. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.) and John Lewis (D-Ga.) represented the Deep South, given that their districts are primarily urban and heavily minority.

    Weisman said he was questioning whether the districts truly reflected the broader politics of their regions, which are predominantly white and more rural. He deleted the tweets after they were roundly criticized as racist.

    He later asked author and Times contributor Roxane Gay for an “enormous apology” in an email after she called him out for those tweets and for criticizing him for identifying another congresswoman as African American without mentioning that her primary challenger is also African American. Gay posted Weisman’s email to her and her assistant and criticized him for his “audacity and entitlement” for contacting her and her publisher to demand the apology



    So you're admitting your original comment was incorrect and incomplete in that the argument you made was insufficient reason to fire someone.

    No. His comments were inappropriate and not singular events.

    Roxane Gay’s response


    Roxane Gay, a contributing opinion writer to The Times since 2015, joined the discussion with a tweet that said, “Any time you think you’re unqualified for a job remember that this guy, telling a black woman she isn’t black because he looked at a picture and can’t see, has one of the most prestigious jobs in America.”

    According to screenshots posted by Ms. Gay, Mr. Weisman sent messages to her saying she owed him “an enormous apology.” Ms. Gay made it clear in a subsequent tweet that she strongly disagreed with Mr. Weisman’s demand.




    I first took this statement from you literally and not as sarcasm: Let’s yell at the bigots and they will magically convert. I like that plan. Because you yell about bigots. A lot. Like all the time. As if it would accomplish something. In addition, you seem to get angry that others here don't.

    Back in the day I studied all of the many forms of yoga. One that I found interesting was the Yoga of Hate. There was this pair who hated all godliness and all saints and gurus. It was all encompassing, the complete focus of their life. As they were beating a local saint to death they did a complete flip, saw with horror what they were doing and embraced the good with an equal fervor. They are considered two of the greatest saints in Indian history. Any extreme is closest to the opposite extreme. Like a line that circles back on itself. So it is possible that the conservative you refer to was the epitome of evil conservatism in it's most extreme form. And then flipped. But the books warn against attempting to pursue the Yoga of Hate because if you fail to achieve the ultimate goal you will have accumulated so much bad karma you will be condemned to millions of life times as lower based life forms. True story from my research. I didn't make this up.

    Flav, what?

    Marry the man today. Give him the girlish laughter.

    Marry the man today. And change his ways


    Dude, no, you can’t change people, this is a fallacy, they can only change themselves. This sounds like something out of the 40s or earlier.

    Let me tell you something, you are wrong, 100x wrong. This deplorable thing, was just a convenient scapegoat for some folks who simply want to hate. The only way to win in this case is to register more voters and get them to vote. That is how we did it in 2018 and that is how we win in 2020. We don’t have to pander to people who want to cause others pain, mental and physical pain, the fact is we need to quit even talking about them. They are going to do what they are going to do but the future calls on us to push forward with justice, voting rights, universal health care, reform of higher ed cost, police reform, action on climate change, etc, making everyone’s lives better.  

    But we can only do that by ignoring them and moving forward with educating young voters, educating non-voters as to why their vote does count. This will even help those idiots who are acting deplorably, that is an undeniable fact, i.e. lock her up, send her back, kill them, etc they say shit that is nothing if not deplorable and deeply, deeply unAmerican flav.

    Thank you.


    I'll comment tomorrow,

    I need to engage my tiny brain.


    Whatever I may say tomorrow  it was useful  per se and also to break the cycle of  negative comments,

    Your comment will never come. We are undergoing a coup by the GOP and you stand in the middle of the road like roadkill. During and after dinner, we will still have concentration camps for babies.


    Strikes me as absurd to imply that screaming your outrage on Dagblog is better than "standing in the middle of the road." This is just a small group of people exchanging comments, it is not even DKos, much less Facebook, Twitter or the MSM. Do you really think the whole country is reading this thread of comments by a few people writing under pseudonyms? You sound as if I did a blog post here right now titled "man the barricades!" that a bunch of people would really follow my command. It's almost delusional, you constantly preach to this imagined bunch of Dem activists who are not here. You are basically baying at the moon.

    All depends on what your definition of "deplorable" is:

    Hard agree. Being open-minded means carefully curating a collection of people most likely to change your mind, not punctuating your agreefest with crap from shouting idiots. https://t.co/qxtnTEPxxC

    — Paul Crowley (@ciphergoth) August 16, 2019

    I ran across a Liz Warren for Prez ad this afternoon (one of those "contests" some of them are running, give a donation and you're entered into a contest to meet with the candidate,) said





    with an illustration where was seated with two middle-aged white guys on porch, they were drinking  beers and chatting. I got to thinking that maybe soon the only campaign ads where we see people of color is going to be the ones for GOP candidates. cheeky

    I started this  and I 'm  moving on. 



    you mean something like this? wink


    not going to let you go just yet. This little past instance of an invite to dinner just popped into my mind after commenting on another thread. Will just leave it as food for thought:



    But deplorables have caused mass panic by infiltrating the Bloomington, Indiana farmer's market. Clearly not fit for sharing food in a college town, could be a plot to sell poisoned produce to people of color, or maybe just liberals in general, just pointing it out....

    [edit to change link from NYT to Dagblog news thread on same]

    First they came for the kale and cabbages, and I didn't say anything because I don't sell kale and cabbages. THen they cam for the tumeric and butter beans, and I didn't say anything...

    This sounds like an invasion to me - the whole market's infested now? Maybe they can put up a fence.

    Well the fence thing does work to keep dangerous Palestinian vegetables out of Israel, after all.

    I like the idea of reposting your The Onion tweet here, seems appropriate. Plus I love the stock photos they use for facial expressions

    Your link Schooner Creek Farms, home of the Volkmom:

    ....Deep in the 200-page document was a 2018 F.B.I. interview in which Mr. Brewer briefly mentioned meeting with “Sarah and Douglas,” and reported that the woman had been posting as “Volkmom” on a chat board of Identity Evropa, which the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center call a white nationalist or white supremacist group.

    Ok so you've already broached the Godwin's Law thing (with a fab poster > great propaganda find). So I might as well go further and just add that the fact Hitler was a vegetarian is often used by meat-eaters to diss their "others."

    Otherwise. It is not difficult to "boycott" a single stand at a farmer's market if that is your preference, no? Still, trade is what makes the world go round. But Hitler, he eventually outlawed selling anything to Jews.

    Latest Comments