Steve King, House Republican With a History of Racist Remarks, Loses Primary

[WG53]

44 minutes ago, El Guapo said:

Whatever...if you think those idiots are smart, you are even dumber than I thought, if that is even possible

You can't even stay on point in your own arguments. You said they were racist. I said they weren't.  Then you start in on whether they are smart or not.

 

You are one dumb asshole.

[chef]

8 hours ago, Justafan said:

He was heavily endorsed by Ben Shapiro who urged his supporters to raise money on Feenstra's behalf.  King had a long history of crude remarks and questionable actions on controversial issues.  You can believe that he was a racist or not, he was definitely an asshole and I'm always happy when conservatives act on their values.  Too often politicians, on both sides of the aisle, put political expediency before those values.  I think they got it right this time, though admittedly I know almost nothing about Feenstra that I didn't learn either through podcasts or reading about him on the internet.  

 

******(from a Newsweek short piece)

According to his website: "Randy is currently a leading conservative voice in the State Senate with a record of results defending Christian values, innocent life, the 2nd Amendment and Iowa taxpayers."

During his tenure, he has supported major tax cuts, with his website describing him as a "Taxpayer Champion." He has said he would support Trump-proposed tax cuts should he make it to Congress.

Feenstra is pro-life and his website says he is a "is a true Christian conservative and has been a leading voice defending life, including fighting to defund Planned Parenthood, sponsoring a bill that defined life at conception and is a strong supporter of amending the Iowa Constitution to not grant the right to an abortion."

If he were to make it to Congress, he says he would fight to defund planned parenthood and to pass legislation restricting abortions.

*****

 

If Steve King had been born in my state I'd at least have to take a pro-choice stance into consideration if I were an everyday Iowa voter.

 

I wonder if Randy's campaign slogan was something like:

 

Your New Steve King for the 21st Century: All the anti-abortion/pro-gun-toting/faux Christian-suppression outrage with only 25% of the racist, tone-deaf, embarrassing remarks!

VOTE RANDY! 

 

(paid for by the committee that realized their lock solid GOP seat was on the line)

[Starkiller]

1 hour ago, MadMax said:

A mystery wrapped in an enigma is our El Guapo.  One day, he's sane and willing to have sensible discussion, merely a cool guy on the other side with differing political opinions.  Then the next day we get the bitter, acidic, jr. cult member.  Alcoholic, maybe?

Dr Jekyll and Mr Trump?

[Little Earl]

8 hours ago, Starkiller said:

It all but guarantees a Republican will keep the seat, but I’m glad that asshole is gone regardless 

 

Too bad the Democrats just kept on electing Robert KKK Byrd till his death.

[Justafan]

1 hour ago, chef said:

 

******(from a Newsweek short piece)

According to his website: "Randy is currently a leading conservative voice in the State Senate with a record of results defending Christian values, innocent life, the 2nd Amendment and Iowa taxpayers."

During his tenure, he has supported major tax cuts, with his website describing him as a "Taxpayer Champion." He has said he would support Trump-proposed tax cuts should he make it to Congress.

Feenstra is pro-life and his website says he is a "is a true Christian conservative and has been a leading voice defending life, including fighting to defund Planned Parenthood, sponsoring a bill that defined life at conception and is a strong supporter of amending the Iowa Constitution to not grant the right to an abortion."

If he were to make it to Congress, he says he would fight to defund planned parenthood and to pass legislation restricting abortions.

*****

 

If Steve King had been born in my state I'd at least have to take a pro-choice stance into consideration if I were an everyday Iowa voter.

 

I wonder if Randy's campaign slogan was something like:

 

Your New Steve King for the 21st Century: All the anti-abortion/pro-gun-toting/faux Christian-suppression outrage with only 25% of the racist, tone-deaf, embarrassing remarks!

VOTE RANDY! 

 

(paid for by the committee that realized their lock solid GOP seat was on the line)

Honestly, abortion isn't an issue that I care deeply about that I base my vote around that.  I understand that there are legitimate values on both sides of that argument so I'm not willing to condemn a candidate because they have values that lead them to defend what they believe are innocent children from what they see as murder.  I also wouldn't withhold my vote from a candidate who values a woman's right to make what is clearly a very personal choice in often the most complicated and unbalanced situations.

 

2nd Amendment I support so he's got my vote if we're only going off that.  I'm in favor of sensible gun legislation but would never support taking away the independent person's right to defend himself/herself and their family.  We can talk details all day long because the devil is there and I'm sure there are things I would agree with and disagree with with almost any candidate.

 

I also don't have a problem for someone running on Christian values as long as they aren't proselytizing through their platform or oppressing other viewpoints by demanding unequal rights for Christians.  

 

Bottom line to me is that racism, in any form, is disgusting and ugly and should be condemned.  A man who has principles and stands up for those principles based on values I would not ever put in the same category and I think he deserves better than to be automatically lumped in to a whitewashed group simply because he happens to be Republican and espouse Christian values as his platform.  I would say that there is a good chance that he's simply a good representation of the district that elected him.  

[pat]

I'd prefer for voters to have a real choice so @Justafan can go back to being a conservative Republican and constructive policy conversations can be had.

 

The GOP right now has absolutely no governing policy other than cutting taxes for the rich and the violent rejection of the Other.

[Little Earl]

7 minutes ago, patsplat said:

I'd prefer for voters to have a real choice so @Justafan can go back to being a conservative Republican and constructive policy conversations can be had.

 

The GOP right now has absolutely no governing policy other than cutting taxes for the rich and the violent rejection of the Other.

 

And what does the Democrats offer other than free everything, and abortion on demand?

[chef]

4 minutes ago, Justafan said:

Honestly, abortion isn't an issue that I care deeply about that I base my vote around that.  I understand that there are legitimate values on both sides of that argument so I'm not willing to condemn a candidate because they have values that lead them to defend what they believe are innocent children from what they see as murder.  I also wouldn't withhold my vote from a candidate who values a woman's right to make what is clearly a very personal choice in often the most complicated and unbalanced situations.

 

2nd Amendment I support so he's got my vote if we're only going off that.  I'm in favor of sensible gun legislation but would never support taking away the independent person's right to defend himself/herself and their family.  We can talk details all day long because the devil is there and I'm sure there are things I would agree with and disagree with with almost any candidate.

 

I also don't have a problem for someone running on Christian values as long as they aren't proselytizing through their platform or oppressing other viewpoints by demanding unequal rights for Christians.  

 

Bottom line to me is that racism, in any form, is disgusting and ugly and should be condemned.  A man who has principles and stands up for those principles based on values I would not ever put in the same category and I think he deserves better than to be automatically lumped in to a whitewashed group simply because he happens to be Republican and espouse Christian values as his platform.  I would say that there is a good chance that he's simply a good representation of the district that elected him.  

 

 

Problem is for me is that that triad (guns/God/abortion) so often does represent a group of other issues often just below the surface that frequently include racism.  Also magical thinking in general which I have a huge problem with as it relates to anyone in a public policy making position.

 

Not fair I know and sounds like I am stereotyping, though in my head I am not.  As I have way too many scientist friends far more brilliant than I could have ever been in my research days that are devout in their holy beliefs, hunters that not only are the best examples of gun safety (with whom I have ZERO worries of gun violence) but also often tremendous stewards of the environments, and those against abortion who without saying are simply good-hearted, kind, loving people who are pained in their soul by the very idea - which I very much understand.  (I wish it didn't exist because it didn't need to exist - like locks on doors.  Both unfortunate solutions to unfortunate problems, one infinitely more personal, painful, and one that can potentially be a no win no matter what... why I am more pro sex ed/birth control/good decision making than ever PRO abortion.)

 

The core issue for me is what used to be called a dog whistle of values signalling "good old days how it used to be" which so often represented women in the kitchen (and bedroom), blacks "knowing their place," Mexicans quietly working those off the book maid/migrant worker jobs we knew forever had existed but never wanted admit they were here and contributing, everyone not our local fav Christian denomination shutting the hell up and letting us all bow our heads and pray to beat the evil other football team before kick off, gays staying in an iron maiden of a closet.

 

My version of liberalism has nothing to do with progressivism.  It to me is nothing more than Live and Let Live.  If someone isn't bothering you, don't bother them.  Go home and do want you want and let others do the same, having respect enough in society to recognize we don't all have to say/think/belief/eat/drink/vote/screw the same way.

 

I don't think either side is all right or wrong, and there are definitely plenty of liars, crooks, pricks, opportunists, and overall POS to go around.  This Randy guy might be the most sweet, sincere, caring, non-judgmental dude in the world.  Might be a tremendous rep.  But when your entire core focus to voters as listed on your own site is that grouping, rather than perhaps a plan to improve the educational system, justice reform, maybe be wonky and talk about tax system efficiency... nope - just keep your guns and wave a bible..... well I have a feeling it's another Steve King-light.  Even if he's sharp enough not to say the things out loud that King did.  I'll give King this much: I feel more than so many in his shoes, he was honest about his beliefs.  Most just keep that crap away from the hot mic if they're lucky.  

 

 

[Justafan]

59 minutes ago, patsplat said:

I'd prefer for voters to have a real choice so @Justafan can go back to being a conservative Republican and constructive policy conversations can be had.

 

The GOP right now has absolutely no governing policy other than cutting taxes for the rich and the violent rejection of the Other.

I too wish that the conservatives would put a better candidate on the ticket, just as I wished the Democrats had done so when given a golden opportunity this primary.  Let's just say there has been plenty of disappointment to go around.

[Justafan]

45 minutes ago, chef said:

 

 

Problem is for me is that that triad (guns/God/abortion) so often does represent a group of other issues often just below the surface that frequently include racism.  Also magical thinking in general which I have a huge problem with as it relates to anyone in a public policy making position.

 

Not fair I know and sounds like I am stereotyping, though in my head I am not.  As I have way too many scientist friends far more brilliant than I could have ever been in my research days that are devout in their holy beliefs, hunters that not only are the best examples of gun safety (with whom I have ZERO worries of gun violence) but also often tremendous stewards of the environments, and those against abortion who without saying are simply good-hearted, kind, loving people who are pained in their soul by the very idea - which I very much understand.  (I wish it didn't exist because it didn't need to exist - like locks on doors.  Both unfortunate solutions to unfortunate problems, one infinitely more personal, painful, and one that can potentially be a no win no matter what... why I am more pro sex ed/birth control/good decision making than ever PRO abortion.)

 

The core issue for me is what used to be called a dog whistle of values signalling "good old days how it used to be" which so often represented women in the kitchen (and bedroom), blacks "knowing their place," Mexicans quietly working those off the book maid/migrant worker jobs we knew forever had existed but never wanted admit they were here and contributing, everyone not our local fav Christian denomination shutting the hell up and letting us all bow our heads and pray to beat the evil other football team before kick off, gays staying in an iron maiden of a closet.

 

My version of liberalism has nothing to do with progressivism.  It to me is nothing more than Live and Let Live.  If someone isn't bothering you, don't bother them.  Go home and do want you want and let others do the same, having respect enough in society to recognize we don't all have to say/think/belief/eat/drink/vote/screw the same way.

 

I don't think either side is all right or wrong, and there are definitely plenty of liars, crooks, pricks, opportunists, and overall POS to go around.  This Randy guy might be the most sweet, sincere, caring, non-judgmental dude in the world.  Might be a tremendous rep.  But when your entire core focus to voters as listed on your own site is that grouping, rather than perhaps a plan to improve the educational system, justice reform, maybe be wonky and talk about tax system efficiency... nope - just keep your guns and wave a bible..... well I have a feeling it's another Steve King-light.  Even if he's sharp enough not to say the things out loud that King did.  I'll give King this much: I feel more than so many in his shoes, he was honest about his beliefs.  Most just keep that crap away from the hot mic if they're lucky.  

 

 

This is why I love talking with you Chef.  I always walk away from the conversation feeling I'm better for having had it.  

 

This just emphasizes truly how much the devil is in the details.  

 

I will say that Shapiro, for whatever faults he may have, is an educated man with sincere values who happens to be pro-life, pro-religion (jewish, not christian), and pro gun rights.  I don't believe for a second that he is dog whistling for "better times" and he spoke out against King several times and has been willing to criticize other conservative leaders, including Trump.  Obviously, he's still a politician (political pundit anyways) and isn't going to rail too much but his endorsement over King speaks volumes to me.

 

I don't know if this new guy is King light but I know he is almost certainly better.  I hope that he's a sincere person who will represent his district with integrity because at the end of the day that's all you can really ask for.  

[pat]

53 minutes ago, Little Earl said:

 

And what does the Democrats offer other than free everything, and abortion on demand?

First off, over the last few years the GOP policies of free tax cuts for the wealthy and "please die for the economy" leave Republicans in no position to claim the moral high ground.

 

And second of all, what is your problem with healthcare, infrastructure, a booming economy?  Quit being such a sucker and vote in your self-interest, or else capitalism will fail.

[Little Earl]

1 minute ago, patsplat said:

First off, over the last few years the GOP policies of free tax cuts for the wealthy and "please die for the economy" leave Republicans in no position to claim the moral high ground.

 

And second of all, what is your problem with healthcare, infrastructure, a booming economy?  Quit being such a sucker and vote in your self-interest, or else capitalism will fail.

 

We had a booming economy until the covid virus hit.  Your an idiot if you blame Trump on that.   And providing everything that our socialist leaders are promosing would destroy our economy in no time.

[pat]

Just now, Little Earl said:

 

We had a booming economy until the covid virus hit.  You're an idiot if you blame Trump on that.   And providing everything that our socialist leaders are promising would destroy our economy in no time.

Come on man, he defunded the CDC saying he could scale up if needed, then ignored the CDC when he needed to listen.  This is the Trump economy -- 20-30% unemployment at the first real crisis.  You need to demand more from your party.

[MadMax]

3 hours ago, patsplat said:

  You need to demand more from your party.

 

No he doesn't.  

[chef]

6 hours ago, Justafan said:

This is why I love talking with you Chef.  I always walk away from the conversation feeling I'm better for having had it.  

 

This just emphasizes truly how much the devil is in the details.  

 

I will say that Shapiro, for whatever faults he may have, is an educated man with sincere values who happens to be pro-life, pro-religion (jewish, not christian), and pro gun rights.  I don't believe for a second that he is dog whistling for "better times" and he spoke out against King several times and has been willing to criticize other conservative leaders, including Trump.  Obviously, he's still a politician (political pundit anyways) and isn't going to rail too much but his endorsement over King speaks volumes to me.

 

I don't know if this new guy is King light but I know he is almost certainly better.  I hope that he's a sincere person who will represent his district with integrity because at the end of the day that's all you can really ask for.  

 

You as well.

 

Shapiro is an interesting one for me.  Not really my cup of tea in that I've seen a bit too much one-sided hypocrisy as his core goals whether self-described or not of "owning libtards" comes through too transparently.  And though he's certainly no dummy, being a fast talker with some well-researched albeit biased talking points who seems to like to pick on low hanging fruit (often overtly PC folks who prefer to "feel" they are right and be done with it rather than work towards it - and frankly those types bug me to death as much or more) does not equal a thoughtful intellectual polemicists a la Hitchens whose jock strap he couldn't carry with a hemi-powered Dodge.

 

(I've always liked or at the very least admired Hitchens even when he has taken turns pretty far away from own sentiments.  If for nothing else being a well-processed mind that seems independent of cultivating a particular fan base for said admiration.  More about challenging thought for its own sake rather than political nor financial advancement.)

 

I have watched a fair amount of him though.  Somewhat fall under similar online blanket these days as a Jordan Peterson, where either by happenstance or else intention they ended up being followed by large groups that included some alt-right types, though certainly not all, and definitely not all wrong.  Peterson I find far more interesting in that when honed in on specific psych behavioral issues (closer to my background) he is coming from a well-informed academic background.  Along the way as fame rose, and somewhat amplified but some rather odd tendencies to put some universal socio-psychological behavioral theory into a neat little Xmas box wrapped with old school Judeo-Christian bows... well he goes a bit off the ranch.   He's a far more interesting study for me though in that he's either worshiped or else crucified by diametrically-opposed groups, neither of whom seem to really give a full honest listen to him.  I do like him more as a geeky Kermit prof than later smug punching bag guest who cashed in on a random event (though do not begrudge him that).

 

 

Basically I think these folks are useful no matter your political slant.  They sad part is that they are rubber stamped as Right or Wrong these days like so much else with little to no discussion beyond finding out if "your" group approves of them or not.   I'm not afraid of hearing from people with whom I might not entirely agree.  And it seems we've gotten way closer to a point where that's where we want to be: in our Safe Space of Fox News or a designate NonThreat zone on a college campus. We develop muscles in our body through strenuous exertion, through challenging them to do things that hurt, things they tell you they don't want to do.  Shame we seem to have forgotten that is how we best develop our minds as well.