What does a MAGA hat stand for?

[Patine]

Yes, I know all that. I made the qualifier because of it. The fact remains that government being for the people is the keystone of America and democracy in general. That we are not living up to those ideals doesn't mean they aren't real.

Communism is also predicated on the theory that the People have all the power, and the Party is only an instrument of the People's will. There is always, unfortunately, a breaking point between the theory and the practice, and once the practice goes too far astray, it requires literally EXTREME measures to attempt to get it back to any semblance of the theory.

 

[Traitorfish]

Why is that disingenuous? What would have happened if some of the states rejected the Constitution? The states had contractual obligations under the Articles of Confederation but if that was being done away with, the states were sovereign wrt the Constitution.

You're conflating the mechanics of ratification with the implications of the constitution itself. The Federalist position was that, in establishing the constitution, the states subsumed their sovereignty into the federal government. They believed that for the federal government to exercise wide-ranging powers independently of state governments, it must necessarily be a sovereign entity. (And the anti-Federalists mostly agreed in principle, they just didn't think the federal government should exercise this sort of power.)

 

[Farm Boy]

Naskra can't say anything that you can't misunderstand.

I hear ya, it's kind of annoying being a running joke along those lines.

Just remember, misunderstandings are inconsistent. Consistency in misunderstanding indicates correct interpretation matched with incorrect implication. ie, lying.

 

[Patine]

You're conflating the mechanics of ratification with the implications of the constitution itself. The Federalist position was that, in establishing the constitution, the states subsumed their sovereignty into the federal government. They believed that for the federal government to exercise wide-ranging powers independently of state governments, it must necessarily be a sovereign entity. (And the anti-Federalists mostly agreed in principle, they just didn't think the federal government should exercise this sort of power.)

Also, only 16 U.S. States (arguably 18) - the original Thirteen Colonies, Vermont, Texas, Hawai'i, and, arguably, California and Utah - actually had sovereign status to willfully be subsumed. The other States were carved out of non-sovereign "territories," and had no such prior status.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I hear ya, it's kind of annoying being a running joke along those lines.

Just remember, misunderstandings are inconsistent. Consistency in misunderstanding indicates correct interpretation matched with incorrect implication. ie, lying.

Sounds like willfull paranoia and victimhood on your end

 

[Archon_Wing]

So making America great again.... when are we rolling back to? Are we rolling back about 20'ish years where open homophobia was the norm or a bit more to where racial slurs were just another part of life? Or maybe bring back segregation?

Going back isn't a good idea at all.... unless you benefit from that kind of thing.

There's just no way to steer around this. Traditional family values have always been about sending the gays to Hell , accusing people that speak in an accent of stealing your job, and calling the police when you see a black person passing by. It's been that way for years and the packaging really doesn't fool us at all; at least not anyone on the wrong side of it. It's just that lately such behavior is considered by some to be shameful, and because of that America is no longer a great place to live.

So yes, I'm not a liberal, but there is no way I would ever respect a redcap. Sorry. No you're not a racist for having one. Not at all. But there is only so much "I am not a bigot, I just happen to hang around and support a lot of them" you can do.

 

[Farm Boy]

There's that whole being mad about economic stagnation equal's desiring every social ill existent from the last 240 years and "it's always been that way."

Well, that's actually remarkably astute. That's what political/economic rivals have always done, eh? Attacking the slogan itself is a trap.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Oh, I forgot about taxes. This makes the whole thing ok.

Children die in camps but who cares my taxes are lower.

Sadly I probably do think more about the later.

Also does anyone really hate on the hat and not anything else Trump does?

 

[Berzerker]

So making America great again.... when are we rolling back to? Are we rolling back about 20'ish years where open homophobia was the norm or a bit more to where racial slurs were just another part of life? Or maybe bring back segregation?

Going back isn't a good idea at all.... unless you benefit from that kind of thing.

There's just no way to steer around this. Traditional family values have always been about sending the gays to Hell , accusing people that speak in an accent of stealing your job, and calling the police when you see a black person passing by. It's been that way for years and the packaging really doesn't fool us at all; at least not anyone on the wrong side of it. It's just that lately such behavior is considered by some to be shameful, and because of that America is no longer a great place to live.

So yes, I'm not a liberal, but there is no way I would ever respect a redcap. Sorry. No you're not a racist for having one. Not at all. But there is only so much "I am not a bigot, I just happen to hang around and support a lot of them" you can do.

MAGA is defined by the individual, ask an unabashed unrepentant white supremacist and it might mean Jim Crow (or maybe even slavery). Ask the grown children of parents who raised a family on a good factory job and you will get a different answer. Which of those 2 did Trump run on? He barely got elected by people tired of warmongers (Hillary) and a wave of rust belt dis-satisfaction with trade policies. Smearing them as bigots or bigot adjacent may work for 'us' but its fighting words to 'them'.

 

[Gorbles]

He, uh, didn't get voted in by the people's, i.e. the popular vote, at all.

Good job they voted in a pacifist though! Phew!

 

[Berzerker]

He, uh, didn't get voted in by the people's, i.e. the popular vote, at all.

Good job they voted in a pacifist though! Phew!

They didn't vote for a pacifist, they voted for someone who criticized Bush for invading Iraq and all these other wars his predecessors started. And I said he got elected, not that he won the popular vote. Building strawmen to mock is cheap.

 

[Patine]

He, uh, didn't get voted in by the people's, i.e. the popular vote, at all.

Good job they voted in a pacifist though! Phew!

They didn't vote for a pacifist, they voted for someone who criticized Bush for invading Iraq and all these other wars his predecessors started. And I said he got elected, not that he won the popular vote. Building strawmen to mock is cheap.

As I've said several times, it's not like the American voters in 2016 were presented with a "good choice and bad choice," or "moral choice and immoral choice," or "lying choice and trustworthy choice," or "correct choice and wrong choice," they were presented two rotten, monstrous, horrid choices that were the latter of the above four dichotomies, flat-out. Blame games for voting, as I've said, are not appropriate here, because the corrupt party bosses, media tycoons, corporate donors, and moneyed special interest who rig elections as is and steal the Americans' choice of leadership pulled a real - nay, unforgivable and criminal - stolen election in that year. If you want to hold anyone accountable for that election, don't hold the voters for one party or another as such, but the corrupt organized criminals who run the corrupt electoral racket, of which I've listed a bunch by description, above.

 

[Gorbles]

As I've said several times, it's not like the American voters in 2016 were presented with a "good choice and bad choice," or "moral choice and immoral choice," or "lying choice and trustworthy choice," or "correct choice and wrong choice," they were presented two rotten, monstrous, horrid choices that were the latter of the above four dichotomies, flat-out. Blame games for voting, as I've said, are not appropriate here, because the corrupt party bosses, media tycoons, corporate donors, and moneyed special interest who rig elections as is and steal the Americans' choice of leadership pulled a real - nay, unforgivable and criminal - stolen election in that year. If you want to hold anyone accountable for that election, don't hold the voters for one party or another as such, but the corrupt organized criminals who run the corrupt electoral racket, of which I've listed a bunch by description, above.

I'm not blaming anyone in my post. I was just correcting the argument that he was in some way voted in by some mass electorate, when it was random lines on a map that decided it over the mass of voters voting either way.

The American two-party system is fundamentally broken. It's one of the few things I think you and I truly agree on.

 

[Berzerker]

As I've said several times, it's not like the American voters in 2016 were presented with a "good choice and bad choice," or "moral choice and immoral choice," or "lying choice and trustworthy choice," or "correct choice and wrong choice," they were presented two rotten, monstrous, horrid choices that were the latter of the above four dichotomies, flat-out. Blame games for voting, as I've said, are not appropriate here, because the corrupt party bosses, media tycoons, corporate donors, and moneyed special interest who rig elections as is and steal the Americans' choice of leadership pulled a real - nay, unforgivable and criminal - stolen election in that year. If you want to hold anyone accountable for that election, don't hold the voters for one party or another as such, but the corrupt organized criminals who run the corrupt electoral racket, of which I've listed a bunch by description, above.

Trump wasn't the establishment's choice. Well, he was the candidate the Democrats and their media promoted but thats because they thought he was easier to beat.

I'm not blaming anyone in my post. I was just correcting the argument that he was in some way voted in by some mass electorate, when it was random lines on a map that decided it over the mass of voters voting either way.

You're correcting an argument you made on my behalf and now you're making it even more ridiculous. I said he barely got elected by people tired of warmongers (Hillary) and a wave of rust belt dis-satisfaction with trade policies.

 

[Farm Boy]

Oh, I forgot about taxes. This makes the whole thing ok.

Children die in camps but who cares my taxes are lower.

Sadly I probably do think more about the later.

Also does anyone really hate on the hat and not anything else Trump does?

A bit left field, but if that's the way we're skewing, sure. Let's try to tie it.

The taxes are an issue mostly for people who are boring and not politically in play. The loud part of any base that is simultaneously sympathetic and demonized by holding up snippets of it's totality? Yeah, they're stagnant or eroding so meh on taxes. And they're probably not wrong about kids dying in camps before and after Assclown. There's a degree of difference argument to be made and that the base has gotten meaner. It has. But it's not going to ever get effectively argued from sources that won't read the slogan properly. I know that's not what you're doing, you're talking to your group with a "shoring up" position, but bleh. It's still a trap. Which makes it a good slogan, unfortunately.

 

[Gorbles]

You're correcting an argument you made on my behalf and now you're making it even more ridiculous. I said he barely got elected by people tired of warmongers (Hillary) and a wave of rust belt dis-satisfaction with trade policies.

He barely got elected by the Electoral College, in concert with various factors, not least how easy Clinton is to demonise (fairly, in a few cases).

 

[El_Machinae]

He definitely got voted in based on rust-belt dissatisfaction. Plus a strong dose of 'foreigners are making it worse'.

Given that his main competitor, Ted Cruz, tried to seem tough with 'carpet bombing' talk, I guess he was the more peaceful of the two. Though he started his political efforts with 'we should have taken the oil', so that's that.

World would be very different right now if (R) had chosen Kaesich.

 

[Berzerker]

The GOP establishment likes foreign labor, the blue collar class not so much. Whats the point of changing trade policy to bring back jobs if cheap foreign labor is waiting for them. That sentiment is bipartisan among the little people in both parties and crosses racial lines.

 

[Archon_Wing]

MAGA is defined by the individual, ask an unabashed unrepentant white supremacist and it might mean Jim Crow (or maybe even slavery). Ask the grown children of parents who raised a family on a good factory job and you will get a different answer. Which of those 2 did Trump run on? He barely got elected by people tired of warmongers (Hillary) and a wave of rust belt dis-satisfaction with trade policies. Smearing them as bigots or bigot adjacent may work for 'us' but its fighting words to 'them'.

Voting Trump doesn't make you a redcap. You could just not like Democrats. I can sympathize with those you describe.

As for the rest I don't really care about hurting people's feelings on this matter. Sound familiar?

I know that's not what you're doing, you're talking to your group with a "shoring up" position, but bleh. It's still a trap. Which makes it a good slogan, unfortunately.

I bet you don't even know what my group is. It is probably much wider than you think. But yes there are certain points where I feel it is a waste of time to give some of them the time of day.

At least you didn't do the "but Obama did it too" with the camps. Sorta.

 

[Berzerker]

I live in Topeka Kansas and the only place I've seen MAGA hats are on TV