“Wokeness:” Biggest threat for Democrats?

Never let it be said I didn’t offer a different view than mine.  No I don’t know who this guy is. 

From the Washington Post.

This opinion piece is about how Democrats should treat trump supporters.  


“Opinion: Stop insulting Trump voters and their concerns. Talk to them.”


Opinion by
Gary Abernathy
Contributing columnist
Today at 8:00 a.m. EDT

When supporters of former president Donald Trump hear media pundits analyze them with the usual collection of belittling observations, they must be tempted to respond, “Hey, we’re right here! We can hear you!”

Yes, they are indeed here, and living among us. And they have every right to be insulted by being accused of believing a “big lie,” and by the implication that they are violent, or traitors, or mindless sheep — racist sheep, of course. They’re fed up not just with the overt insults, but also with more subtle digs, such as former defense secretary Leon Panetta saying last week that he worries that Trump “will continue to try to somehow sway his followers” to attempt another Jan. 6-style uprising. Followers? No one refers to President Biden’s “followers.” It’s a word generally reserved for adherents of cult figures.

I live in Trump Country. I was a Trump supporter, until he lost me with his actions after the 2020 election. But most Trump voters have stuck with him. With Trump’s encouragement, they sincerely believe the election was stolen. They’re not racists. They’re not traitors. Some of them think anyone who accepts Biden’s win is a traitor. Some of them think I’m traitorous — or at the very least I’ve succumbed to the evil influences of the mainstream media — for accepting Trump’s defeat.

Polls are occasionally produced to perpetuate the myth that Trump voters are ready for war. Even the conservative American Enterprise Institute reported in February that 39 percent of Republicans polled agreed with the statement “if elected leaders will not protect America, the people must do it themselves, even if it requires violent actions.” The survey’s director, Daniel Cox, acknowledged the speculative nature of the question by cautioning, “We shouldn’t run out and say, ‘Oh my goodness, 40 percent of Republicans are going to attack the Capitol.’ ” No, they aren’t. In fact, the Capitol riot wasn’t mentioned in the question, so it wasn’t necessarily what respondents were thinking of when they answered.

It’s my unscientific conclusion that about half of Trump’s supporters will go to their graves believing the election was stolen. The other half can be persuaded otherwise, but only by time and reflection, like accepting a death. Shaming will never work.

Don’t forget how the left loudly claimed in 2016 that Russian hackers had influenced millions of Americans to vote for Trump — an accusation that put an unfair cloud on his victory and his ability to govern. In fact, the 2016 election was fair and honest, but foreign powers tried, as they will try again, to impact the result. The 2020 election was also fair and honest, but don’t pretend there weren’t problems, as always, even if they did not change the outcome.

Considering the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism recently found that the U.S. media ranks last in trust among 46 countries, some self-examination on this issue should be welcomed. In 2016, the New York Times decided to start applying the word “lie” to many of Trump’s claims. “We owed it to our readers,” executive editor Dean Baquet said at the time. Others followed suit. But using words such as “lie” and “falsely claimed” in news stories arrogantly supposes an absolute knowledge of truth and makes it appear the news outlet has chosen sides.

So stop calling people liars. The media should return to the non-accusatory style that worked for decades. Instead of writing that election fraud is a lie, or Republicans are “falsely claiming” fraud, go back to the style that worked for decades: “Republicans again claimed the 2020 election was rigged, but no evidence has emerged to support that allegation and courts have dismissed all suits challenging the results.”

Next, abandon the narrative that Trump supporters are insurrectionists, and stop elevating groups such as QAnon and the Proud Boys beyond the fringe elements they are. As shameful as the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol was, only about 800 people were involved — hardly representative of millions of Trump supporters. Despite their suspicions, the vast majority of Trump voters are not interested in invading federal buildings or overthrowing the government. They’re interested in going to work and church and soccer games, taking care of their families and voting in the next election.

There’s no big mystery to effectively communicating with Trump supporters — or for Trump supporters to communicate with everyone else. Treat each other with politeness and courtesy. Respect other opinions even if you disagree. Acknowledge each other’s patriotism and love of country. Don’t assume you understand each other because you’ve read some think-tank analysis. Reach out, be curious and start a dialogue.

Trump supporters aren’t going away, and those who continue to paint them as the lowest forms of life reveal themselves to be more interested in perpetrating stereotypes and nurturing divisions than in achieving what’s needed for our nation to survive — reaching across our political chasm, respecting our differences and finding common ground where we can.”

 

Typical, predictable Gia.

You cherry pick and/or leave out context to try yo give your response “weight”.

And once again you look silly.

This is what Kamala actually said about the vaccine—when trump was in office AND before the vaccine came out.

She did NOT undermine public trust with her words, given that fuck face Trump was promoting non-proven and dangerous substances pulling his advice out of his big fat ass.

“Democratic vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris said that President Donald Trump's word alone on any potential coronavirus vaccine is not enough.

Asked by CNN's Dana Bash in a clip released Saturday whether she would get a vaccine that was approved and distributed before the election, Harris replied, "Well, I think that's going to be an issue for all of us."

"I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about," she continued in the clip from an exclusive interview airing Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" at 9 a.m. ET. "I will not take his word for it."

One has to put in context what and why something was said.  Especially if it’s going to be use as a comparison with what someone else said or did. Clearly you need some work in this area.


From the Washington Post…. link

“What Andrew Cuomo and Kamala Harris said about vaccine skepticism.”

“As coronavirus vaccinations continue to pick up speed in the United States, the question is less about how many shots are available, and more about how many people will actually get them. The next big battle in the fight against the virus is against vaccine skepticism — something that’s particularly pronounced among one group: Republicans, and more specifically Republican men. I wrote this week about how Fox News host Tucker Carlson’s often haphazard questioning of the vaccines feeds into that.

Every time you write about such things, though, the pushback is similar: What about New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo (D) and Vice President Harris?
Months ago, both made comments of questionable wisdom about the safety of the then-impending vaccines. Both indicated that they didn’t fully trust the Trump administration to oversee the process.

“The View” host Meghan McCain this week played a clip of Harris’s comments, suggesting what we’re now seeing among Republicans is basically the inverse of that, given we now have a Democratic administration. “Both sides are equally responsible for this,” McCain argued.

So it’s worth a closer look at what Cuomo and Harris said, and the apparent impact of those comments.

In September, Harris, then the Democratic Party’s vice-presidential candidate, hesitated when asked if she would take a vaccine that was approved before the election.

“I will say that I would not trust Donald Trump,” Harris said, “and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he’s talking about. I will not take his word for it.”

Cuomo went further, suggesting he mistrusted not just President Donald Trump, but also the Food and Drug Administration under Trump. Asked about his confidence in the FDA, Cuomo indicated he didn’t have much.

“I’m not that confident,” Cuomo said, adding: “You’re going to say to the American people now, ‘Here’s a vaccine, it was new, it was done quickly, but trust this federal administration and their health administration that it’s safe? And we’re not 100 percent sure of the consequences.’ I think it’s going to be a very skeptical American public about taking the vaccine, and they should be.”

Cuomo later announced that New York would conduct its own review of the vaccines, because, “Frankly, I’m not going to trust the federal government’s opinion, and I wouldn’t recommend [it] to New Yorkers, based on the federal government’s opinion.”

The skepticism of Trump expressed by Harris and of the FDA expressed by Cuomo didn’t come out of nowhere. Trump had spent months offering wild commentary about the reality of the coronavirus outbreak and potential treatments for it, such as disinfectant and hydroxychloroquine. There was also plenty of evidence that he had applied political pressure on the FDA when it came to things such as approving hydroxychloroquine for emergency use — a decision that was later reversed.

Trump even admitted applying pressure, which isn’t how the FDA process is supposed to be handled. While then-FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn downplayed that pressure early on, he said upon his departure in January that there was indeed “a substantial amount of pressure” to move faster in the summer and fall.

Harris’s comments are more easily defensible. She was asked specifically about a pre-election vaccine — a timeline that would have been faster than virtually any expert suggested was possible, and that some suggested might have indicated the vaccine would be rushed to benefit Trump’s reelection bid — and her comments were focused on Trump. She added that she “would trust the word of public health experts and scientists” such as Anthony S. Fauci, “but not Donald Trump.” (President Biden also later offered some clarification about his ticket’s stance, saying, “I trust vaccines, I trust scientists, but I don’t trust Donald Trump.”)

Cuomo’s comments were much dicier and could more understandably lead to real skepticism among people who listened to him. He threw a blanket of doubt over the broader administration and nonpartisan health officials, including at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. He was criticized at the time, though not extensively.

From there, it’s about whether those comments actually did seed skepticism. But on that count, the evidence isn’t particularly compelling.
McCain said that there was equal blame to be shared on this and that the GOP skepticism is mostly a reflection of the change of power in Washington — Republicans not trusting Biden and his administration, just as Democrats didn’t trust Trump.

Polls from the very beginning showed that, despite Trump presiding over the government at the time, skepticism and reluctance to get the vaccine was already significantly higher among Republicans. A September Kaiser Family Foundation poll showed just 47 percent of Republicans said they would definitely or probably get the vaccine, vs. 77 percent of Democrats. Two months later — after comments from Harris and Biden and many from Cuomo, and after Biden had won the election — that number for Democrats rose to 86 percent. Republicans also ticked up nine points over that span.

Vaccine skepticism, Democrats vs. Republicans. (Kaiser Family Foundation)
Today, the relative gulf between the two parties remains about where it was then. One poll this month showed 11 percent of Democrats said they wouldn’t get the vaccine, compared with 41 percent of Republicans. Another showed only 6 percent of Democrats said they would probably never get the vaccine, compared with 36 percent of Republicans.

Is it possible that comments such as those of Harris and Cuomo could have created doubt beyond their own party’s base rather than in their own? Sure. But these are the people you’d expect to be most likely to listen to those leaders, and they are overwhelmingly more likely to get vaccinated.

One thing McCain hit on is undoubtedly correct: Skepticism from Republicans is more ingrained, particularly when it comes to trusting the government. There was always a steeper hill to climb in convincing Republicans to take the vaccine. Perhaps the current partisan gap owes in some part to that rather than to Carlson’s programming, Trump’s reluctance to actually promote the vaccine and other factors such as the long-running effort to downplay the severity of the outbreak.

But that makes the actions of those leaders of conservative media more important. Cuomo’s comments were certainly very questionable, but his side was already very much onboard with the vaccine, and it has become even more so since then. He’s also been forceful in recent months encouraging people to get vaccinated. There has been little in the way of a similarly concerted push among top GOP leaders, as best exemplified by Trump declining to tell people to get vaccinated until very recently and also not telling people for weeks that he himself had received one.

If the argument is that the media didn’t call out Cuomo in real time, fair enough. As I wrote in my piece on Carlson, it’s valid to ask questions about these processes — especially given the backstory detailed above — but it should always be done with the utmost care, given vaccines work best when large swaths of the population are confident enough to take them.

But if the argument is that there’s some kind of comparison between Cuomo’s actions and those who have created and affirmed the huge doubt that exists in the GOP right now — despite these vaccines having been approved under a Republican administration? That’s a much more strained argument.”


I will add that CA also put together a panel of independent scientists to review the data from the clinical trials of any vaccine the FDA approved and would require this panel’s approval before allowing the vaccine in the state.  This was done because of trump applying pressure on the FDA to speed up the approval process.  This act of CA and NY was done because of trumps words and actions when it came to the approval process of the vaccine.

Maybe they are "resurrecting Kavanaugh" because that whole thing was a shitshow debacle?? There were red flags waving alllll over the damn place back in 2018. It disgusts me that he was ever approved. I have no doubt there were way better conservative candidates than that belligerent fool.

the biggest reason "the left" was not fine with her is because of the hypocritical Republicans who shoved her through just a few weeks before the election, when they wouldn't let Obama appoint a judge 10 f*ing MONTHS before the 2016 election.
Selective memory ya got there! And yes, I would rather have had her than that asshole Kavanaugh.

Nope. Most weren’t.

You might want to j glue from Fox, Qanon, and those other misinformation channels…

I was fricking kidding.

Maybe not collusion but I’m fairly confident that more information will come out about former’s corrupt connections with Russia.

Kavanaugh is being resurrected because the FBI gave the information to Trump’s White House and they did nothing.

If the Republicans can have more than 33 investigations, committees and hearings on Benghazi, surely an investigation into a sitting Supreme Court Justice is worth taking a look at.  Republicans spent millions of dollars and more time investigating Benghazi than 9/11, years after it happened, so your argument has no merit and is extremely hypocritical.  

And speaking if deflection, the Republicans are doing everything possible to deflect attention and blame away from the Jan 6 insurrection.

The timing, and speaking only for myself, I was very alarmed by what I read about her group, People of Praise.

"Context" is the catch all word that you THINK dismisses your double standard. It doesn't.


If you're going to apply the standard of undermining public confidence to Trumps words, “People are refusing to take the Vaccine because they don’t trust his Administration,” the former president said in a statement Sunday, referring to President Biden. “They don’t trust the Election results, and they certainly don’t trust the Fake News.” You have to apply the standard across the board.

If you're going to make excuses for her "I won't take Coronavirus vaccine if" then excuses can be made for Trump's words too.
You can't have a standard that only applies to the person you don't like.

And Republicans have one standard for the timing of a Republican President nominating a SC Justice, and quite another for the allowed time that a Democratic President can nominate one.

You spin me right round baby, right round like a record player…


Kamala saying she doesn’t have confidence in trump regarding the vaccine, given prior he was spouting off dangerous substances as a “fix” (and said himself he took one of them)

IS SO NOT THE SAME as this imaginary double standard spin you’re attempting now.

Typical Gia comparisons, always missing context, timeline of when something was said, and/or refusing to include up to date/new info…

I’m absolutely speechless by the absurdity of your thinking.  Yeah that’s all I got.


ETA:  You did not make one of your “valid points” you’re so fond of.  Not even close.

That's nothing but a lazy answer for when something is right when YOU want so badly for it not to be.