Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:10 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Kitchen View Post
This little thing draws you to hate her?
Why not? She showed she's a bully. I thought Dems hated bullies or is that only Pub bullies?
  #102  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:13 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Why not? She showed she's a bully. I thought Dems hated bullies or is that only Pub bullies?
I don't think "bullying" applies to aggressively questioning billionaires. "Bullying" implies a power differential, and Zuckerberg is much, much more powerful than AOC.
  #103  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:15 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post

I don't think Plain had/has a college degree. AOC does.

And AOC is smart. Palin in just not.
Sarak Palin has a degree in communications.
From what I've seen of AOC, she does not seem particularly bright. At least many of her positions are not well thought out.
  #104  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:20 PM
Airbeck is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Chicago - South Side
Posts: 3,244
"what I've seen" = find better news sources. Ones that aren't deliberately trying to mold your opinions.
__________________
"Sometimes I think that the surest sign of intelligent life in the Universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." - Calvin and Hobbes
  #105  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:23 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post

Clearly AOC's statement that "unemployment is low because..." is not a display of "stupidity" about "how the unemployment rate is calculated" but is more of a "rhetorical excess", as your own citation says.
It was not "rhetorical excess". It was a factual statement A is caused by B and C and factually B and C has nothing to do with A. It's like saying Moon phases are caused by the shadow of the flat Earth and that the moon creates its own light. That's not rhetorical excess - it plain wrong and stupid.
  #106  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:27 PM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I don't think "bullying" applies to aggressively questioning billionaires.
I don't think "questioning" means cutting off the answer then substituting your own as if the person said that.
  #107  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:32 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I don't think "questioning" means cutting off the answer then substituting your own as if the person said that.
Fine, showboating, or ranting, or whatever. Still not bullying.
  #108  
Old 02-25-2020, 12:57 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,385
Why would opening a PAC to support and encourage like-minded candidates be "abnormal"? She's one of the most well-known politicians in the country right now. Why should she not try to leverage that power?

Is this just another way of saying AOC needs to sit down and be quiet?
__________________
Always swimming upstream of the herd.
https://upstreamoftheherd.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Ca3799; 02-25-2020 at 12:58 PM.
  #109  
Old 02-25-2020, 02:26 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
Why would opening a PAC to support and encourage like-minded candidates be "abnormal"? She's one of the most well-known politicians in the country right now. Why should she not try to leverage that power?

Is this just another way of saying AOC needs to sit down and be quiet?
You're right. Thinking about it, that's kinda how Ted Cruz rolled out of the gate. Only, he was a first term Senator trying to control national party direction and primary bad Republicans, rather than a Congressperson.
  #110  
Old 02-25-2020, 04:03 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
I don't think "questioning" means cutting off the answer then substituting your own as if the person said that.
...for context here is the entire 5 minutes between AOC and Zuckerberg.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G272R50v6ww

Here is what Carole Cadwalladr, the journalist who has been leading the charge against Cambridge Analytica had to say about the opening question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carole Cadwalladr
Be still my beating heart..
@aoc
asks Zuckerberg the question. I & others (notably
@jason_kint
) have been asking for a loooong time. When exactly did he first learn about Cambridge Analytica? Tell me, does this sound like a convincing answer to you?
https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/s...95903368351745

More context:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason Kint
So Mark Zuckerberg either lied under oath today -or- at minimum is unfit to run Facebook. Read the evidence in SEC claim here. He testified he wasn’t aware of issues until March 2018 and doesn’t know when his COO or board was aware.
https://twitter.com/jason_kint/statu...12145789636608

So AOC's opening salvo was a question that hadn't been put to Zuckerberg before and his answer was either a lie or demonstrated colossal incompetence. This isn't a bad thing. This is precisely the sort of thing one would expect your elected representatives to do.

As for the rest: I'm not entirely sure what it is you are complaining about. I've just listened again. "You don't know if I will be able to do that" is an entirely fair summation of Zuckerberg's answer, which was "I don't know the answer off the top of my head." Is that what you object too? They only have five minutes to ask questions. It wouldn't make any sense to allow Zuckerberg to waffle when he has already stated he can't answer the question.
  #111  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:50 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
It was not "rhetorical excess". It was a factual statement A is caused by B and C and factually B and C has nothing to do with A. It's like saying Moon phases are caused by the shadow of the flat Earth and that the moon creates its own light. That's not rhetorical excess - it plain wrong and stupid.
Of course it was "rhetorical excess". She absolutely was not displaying "ignorance about how the unemployment rate is calculated". The "unemployment rate" and how it is calculated was not the topic of the conversation and is not the issue she was addressing.

She said "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."

That's not a display of "ignorance about how the unemployment rate is calculated".

She was addressing the difficulties some people (and yes, she was wrong for using the term "everyone"- that's the "rhetorical excess") encounter in making ends meet.

I agree with her: People shouldn't have to work two jobs and 60-80 hours a week to feed their families.
__________________
Always swimming upstream of the herd.
https://upstreamoftheherd.blogspot.com/
  #112  
Old 02-25-2020, 06:53 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
Of course it was "rhetorical excess". She absolutely was not displaying "ignorance about how the unemployment rate is calculated". The "unemployment rate" and how it is calculated was not the topic of the conversation and is not the issue she was addressing.

She said "Unemployment is low because everyone has two jobs. Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week and can barely feed their family."

That's not a display of "ignorance about how the unemployment rate is calculated".

She was addressing the difficulties some people (and yes, she was wrong for using the term "everyone"- that's the "rhetorical excess") encounter in making ends meet.

I agree with her: People shouldn't have to work two jobs and 60-80 hours a week to feed their families.
The problem, as I recall, is that she was incorrect about that too. The number of people working multiple jobs is at a low point historically speaking.
  #113  
Old 02-25-2020, 07:04 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,385
Quote:
Originally Posted by D'Anconia View Post
How much intellectual curiosity does it take to be a bartender in the Bronx?
LOL- which is your primary issue with her? Her "intellectual curiosity", her "bartending" (she waited tables, too!), or being from the Bronx?
__________________
Always swimming upstream of the herd.
https://upstreamoftheherd.blogspot.com/
  #114  
Old 02-25-2020, 08:36 PM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
LOL- which is your primary issue with her? Her "intellectual curiosity", her "bartending" (she waited tables, too!), or being from the Bronx?
I'm curious about that, too. Looking on businessinsider.com, a few presidents had less-than-spectacular previous jobs. Truman, of course, was famously a haberdasher. Lincoln was a general store clerk, Benjamin Harrison was a court crier, LBJ was a shoe shine boy, Nixon plucked chickens.

I wonder if he has a problem with Lincoln's "intellectual curiosity."
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #115  
Old 02-26-2020, 07:24 AM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
LOL- which is your primary issue with her? Her "intellectual curiosity", her "bartending" (she waited tables, too!), or being from the Bronx?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
I'm curious about that, too.
Ditto. Was my intellectual curiosity any less when I was working near-minimum-wage jobs in my early 20s just to get by, than it was ~15 years later when I was a PhD mathematician?

Hell no - same me, same intellectual curiosity, just more focused with respect to goals. I bet the same could be said about AOC. She seems pretty focused these days.

And I bet there are a lot of people with plenty of intellectual curiosity who are stuck in crap jobs because life hasn't given them many options. So the notion that bartending is evidence of a lack of intellectual curiosity strikes me as class prejudice.
  #116  
Old 02-26-2020, 08:22 AM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ca3799 View Post
LOL- which is your primary issue with her? Her "intellectual curiosity", her "bartending" (she waited tables, too!), or being from the Bronx?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
I'm curious about that, too. Looking on businessinsider.com, a few presidents had less-than-spectacular previous jobs. Truman, of course, was famously a haberdasher. Lincoln was a general store clerk, Benjamin Harrison was a court crier, LBJ was a shoe shine boy, Nixon plucked chickens.

I wonder if he has a problem with Lincoln's "intellectual curiosity."
Well guys, don'tcha know, the intellectually superior go straight for the CEO jobs. No need to climb the lower rungs like you peasants.

/sarcasm
__________________
"What kind of a man desecrates a defenseless textbook?"
  #117  
Old 02-26-2020, 12:03 PM
Ca3799 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Tejas
Posts: 4,385
It's always disappointing to hear, see, or read comments that denigrate working people for the work that they do, as if the work you do to pay your bills defines your worth, your value, or your character.

I'm quite sure that AOC's work is one of the many reasons people like her. She's relatable.

It's likely one of the reasons I like her too.

I waited tables and tended bar too until I got my degree and began to work in my field of study in 1992.

Unlike AOC, I went to school at a time when college costs were much less expensive so I was able to pay for my education while I was in school with the fabulous $2.09 an hour (plus tips) that I made serving food and drinks. I hear the minimum wage for food service in my state now has gone up. Almost 30 years later, food service now pays a whopping $2.13 an hour in my state. Seriously- a 5 cent increase in 30 years.
My Associates Degree cost me about $6,500.

AOC paid off her school loans after she graduated and while working as a waitress and bartender. She also made $2.13 (plus tips). I don't know how much her BA cost but I remember when she Tweeted that she had just made a payment on her school loan and the the debt was now under $20,000. That was 8 years after she graduated.

She also won her first political victory over the well-entrenched 10 term Democrat, Congressman Joe Crowley, while working as a waitress and bartender.
Crowley congratulated her afterward.

Trump Tweeted "at" Crowley about his loss and gloating that he had been beaten. Trump somehow managed to refrain from pointing out that Crowley had been beaten 'by a girl' or 'by a waitress'.
Trump said "Perhaps he (Crowley) should have been nicer, and more respectful, to his President!”

Why should Crowley have sucked up to Trump? Was Trump going to throw some support Crowley's way?
Of course not.

Trump got AOC instead, and it drove him nuts.
She seems to drive other folks nuts too.
Would they 'like her better' if she behaved the way they want her to?
Of course not.

To me, that just makes the whole AOC thing that much better!
__________________
Always swimming upstream of the herd.
https://upstreamoftheherd.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Ca3799; 02-26-2020 at 12:05 PM.
  #118  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:05 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
You're not missing anything. Democrats should be very pleased that such a talented young Democrat is getting a lot of enthusiasm and attention. I guess some folks just find energetic, enthusiastic young people who think for themselves threatening, but it doesn't make any logical sense.
Some people don't like that she is rocking the boat.

Others think that the Democrats don't really need their own version of the tea p-arty movement to "purify" the party.
  #119  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:06 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Moderates are terrified, and terror sometimes hides itself as contempt.
You're not going to win any elections without those terrified moderates.

Same thing goes for boomers.
  #120  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:13 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Exactly. Was Obama this good when he was 29? Maybe, but he hadn't gotten this far. I can't wait to see how good AOC is once she's got 5, 10, and 15 years of experience under her belt. The party is absolutely nuts if it pits itself against the most talented young congress-person among its ranks in who-knows how long.
Right. Just like the Republicans embraced the tea partiers and Trump because they got a bunch of folks excited. Does this make the Democrats a better party or just more sensational and stupider?
  #121  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:19 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Right. Just like the Republicans embraced the tea partiers and Trump because they got a bunch of folks excited. Does this make the Democrats a better party or just more sensational and stupider?
Huh? Are you saying the Tea Party folks were as talented as Obama? If not, then what are you saying? Maybe you disagree about AOC, but if she's as talented as I think she is than the party is lucky to have her, and she'll be a major player for decades.
  #122  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:21 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
There's no conflict here except for those that want to manufacture one. So far, AOC and her allies haven't pushed a single blue seat red, or done anything else that could harm the party. If they take action that results in loss of House seats for the Democrats than I'll certainly criticize her as well, but nothing like that has happened yet. So far, the only Democrats she is targeting are shitty Dems in safely blue seats. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
  #123  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:28 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,758
It does not appear that AOC's endorsements and support have been terribly effective so far.
Julie Salazar is the only one who won the general election, and she ran unopposed. None of the others won their primaries, or even came close.

If she's trying to push the party further to the left, it ain't working.

Now she has endorsed Bernie Sanders. That is not automatically the kiss of death, but if I were Bernie, I wouldn't be picking out furniture for the White House just yet.

Regards,
Shodan
  #124  
Old 02-27-2020, 09:55 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintly Loser View Post
She won a primary against a ten-year incumbent who was chair of the House Democratic Caucus, considered to be the probable successor to Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and boss of the Queens County Democratic organization.

That was no small accomplishment.

And yes, her district is overwhelmingly blue (much like, say, Nancy Pelosi's district), as is just about every district in New York City. So what?

I know her district quite well, having grown up there, and spent half my adult life in the district. The people there aren't idiots, and voters turned out for her rather than the boss who'd held the seat for a decade.
I grew up her district and lived there when I first got married, but that was decades ago so my view may be dated but IIRC the area has a large immigrant population and low voter turnout.

She got 17K votes in a primary with a 13% voter turnout against an overconfident incumbent that barely noticed someone was running against him until it was too late.

You sure "voters turned out for her" Or did a small minority of voters determine who the Democratic candidate would be?

Quote:
She is persuasive. She's smart and driven and charismatic, and she's not going away. And, like it or not, she, and others like her, are the future of the party.
Who has she persuaded that wasn't already inclined to agree with her? Just like the tea party was the future of the Republican party and look where it got them.

Quote:
The old guard better embrace that, or they're going to be left behind.
Should the Republican party have embraced the tea party more than it did?

The Justice Democrats endorsed 79 candidates in 2018. 6 of them won.
  #125  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:01 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think the point is that the country will have far, far bigger fish to fry than the political careers of a few individuals if Trump wins. If Trump wins, we're screwed. Doesn't matter how and whom he beats.
It will be a repudiation of the far left.
  #126  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:04 AM
Saint Cad is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: N of Denver & S of Sanity
Posts: 13,949
Any thought that AOC may be better as the Chair of the DNC than a Representative?
  #127  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:07 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,825
There are some tactical similarities between the tea party movement and Justice Democrats but they aren't the same. You're saying everyone should logically feel the same way about both. That's ridiculous.
  #128  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:13 AM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think it's probably good in some cases (i.e. getting rid of Dan Lipinski, a crappy Democrat in a solid blue district) and not so good in others (various red-to-blue flippers from '18 who ran as moderates in moderate-to-conservative districts). I'd have to see specifically which districts she's targeting -- hopefully she'll go after the ones like Lipinski's.
That is the Rush Limbaugh/Tea Party playbook in reverse. Their plan was to run the most conservative Republican that can win in a given election. Do we want to follow suit? Do we really want to see what sort of Donald Trump the left will produce?
  #129  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:27 AM
Ravenman is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
Any thought that AOC may be better as the Chair of the DNC than a Representative?
It would be better for Republicans. Is that what you mean?

Once again, Pelosi is Speaker because moderate Dems took districts away from Republicans, not because further left Dems beat more centrist Dems in Dem districts. If the DNC starts endorsing Dems based on how progressive they are, as opposed to who can win in their districts, then Dems will lose.
  #130  
Old 02-27-2020, 10:30 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
That is the Rush Limbaugh/Tea Party playbook in reverse. Their plan was to run the most conservative Republican that can win in a given election. Do we want to follow suit?
Yes! I want the most progressive Rep and Senator that can win the election, at least until the party is considerably more progressive than it is now. I want the party to be closer to my view while still winning. I assume you feel the same way -- "your view" is just in a different place than mine.

Quote:
Do we really want to see what sort of Donald Trump the left will produce?
There is no comparison. Trump's electoral success wasn't about right/left -- it was about culture and bigotry. There's no equivalent on the left right now.
  #131  
Old 02-27-2020, 11:19 AM
Warm blood is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saint Cad View Post
My hate for her grew when she grilled Mark Zuckerberg when he was testifying. She was rude - cutting him off and not letting him answer then mischaracterizing the little he was allowed to say. Yes I know every politician uses testimony time to grandstand and make speeches and be a jerk to someone you disagree with but my god she was over-the-top even for Congress.
Mark tried to equivocate his way out of every question. All AOC did was hold him accountable.

If she had allowed him to get away with his non-answers, chances are you would have a problem with that tool
  #132  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:08 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There's no conflict here except for those that want to manufacture one. So far, AOC and her allies haven't pushed a single blue seat red, or done anything else that could harm the party. If they take action that results in loss of House seats for the Democrats than I'll certainly criticize her as well, but nothing like that has happened yet. So far, the only Democrats she is targeting are shitty Dems in safely blue seats. That's a good thing, not a bad thing.
So how was Joe Crowley a shitty Democrat?

And in what way is trading moderate democrats in safe blue seats any different than targetting moderate republicans in safe red seats?
  #133  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:12 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
There are some tactical similarities between the tea party movement and Justice Democrats but they aren't the same. You're saying everyone should logically feel the same way about both. That's ridiculous.
There is more than a passing similarity between the Justice Democrats and the tea party. They are both trying to radicalize their parties and make their parties as far left or right as their constituencies will tolerate.
  #134  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:17 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Who has she persuaded that wasn't already inclined to agree with her? Just like the tea party was the future of the Republican party and look where it got them.
The White House, Congress, and two Supreme Court picks?

Yeah, let's not let that happen for the dems.
  #135  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:17 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Yes! I want the most progressive Rep and Senator that can win the election, at least until the party is considerably more progressive than it is now. I want the party to be closer to my view while still winning. I assume you feel the same way -- "your view" is just in a different place than mine.
So then you see the analogy between the justice democrats and the tea party? That is exactly what Rush Limbaugh and the tea party did to the Republicans.

Quote:
There is no comparison. Trump's electoral success wasn't about right/left -- it was about culture and bigotry. There's no equivalent on the left right now.
It would not have been possible without the tea party insurgency. At the very extremes, the far left is not much better than the far right.
  #136  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:18 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So how was Joe Crowley a shitty Democrat?
There was no net loss. Maybe you don't like AOC, but I do (a lot more than Crowley, certainly), so I see it as a net gain. She ran against him and won. There's absolutely nothing wrong or harmful with young, talented progressives running for office in blue districts, even in primaries against other Democrats.

Quote:
And in what way is trading moderate democrats in safe blue seats any different than targetting moderate republicans in safe red seats?
Who cares whether it's different or not? More progressive Democrats in blue seats is good, at least from a progressive perspective. And Democrats are Democrats -- different from Republicans.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.
  #137  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:19 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
The White House, Congress, and two Supreme Court picks?

Yeah, let's not let that happen for the dems.
She hasn't persuaded any of those things. WTF are you even talking about?

Are you saying that we will take control of government if we follow her lead?
  #138  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:22 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
So then you see the analogy between the justice democrats and the tea party? That is exactly what Rush Limbaugh and the tea party did to the Republicans.
No, they went nuts to the hateful right. I don't want to do that -- I want to go the not-hateful, not nuts progressive left. Left is different than right; progressive is different than nutty and hateful.

Quote:
It would not have been possible without the tea party insurgency. At the very extremes, the far left is not much better than the far right.
AOC isn't "far left" to this point. Pretty much no one in the party is. The "far left" you're talking about are the commies, way, way to the left of Bernie and AOC. No one is advocating for them.
  #139  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:25 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
She hasn't persuaded any of those things. WTF are you even talking about?

Are you saying that we will take control of government if we follow her lead?
He's saying that the Republican strategy you're decrying was enormously successful.
  #140  
Old 02-27-2020, 05:58 PM
elucidator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 60,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
She hasn't persuaded any of those things. WTF are you even talking about?

Are you saying that we will take control of government if we follow her lead?
Rather she follow ours.
  #141  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:04 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is offline
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,948
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
She hasn't persuaded any of those things. WTF are you even talking about?

Are you saying that we will take control of government if we follow her lead?
You said, "Just like the tea party was the future of the Republican party and look where it got them."

What the Tea Party got the Republican party was The White House, Congress, and two Supreme Court picks.

I think it would be good for the Democratic party to have those things. I guess you disagree?
  #142  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:37 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
No, they went nuts to the hateful right. I don't want to do that -- I want to go the not-hateful, not nuts progressive left. Left is different than right; progressive is different than nutty and hateful.
In what way is the hateful right worse than:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8981331.html

The extreme left is not that much better than the extreme right.

Quote:
AOC isn't "far left" to this point. Pretty much no one in the party is. The "far left" you're talking about are the commies, way, way to the left of Bernie and AOC. No one is advocating for them.
Noone is advocating for the Ku Klux Klan and yet there they are, back on the scene like they never left.
  #143  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:39 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
He's saying that the Republican strategy you're decrying was enormously successful.
Do you think that moderate Republicans think that Trump is a successful end result? They may vote for him this fall but this is not the future they hoped for.
  #144  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:40 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by elucidator View Post
Rather she follow ours.
Not even close. She is trying to push the party in a particular direction. A direction that is subscribed to by the majority of the party. In fact that is the entire problem, that she isn't trying to represent the Democrats, she is trying to radicalize us.
  #145  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:43 PM
Damuri Ajashi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 21,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
You said, "Just like the tea party was the future of the Republican party and look where it got them."

What the Tea Party got the Republican party was The White House, Congress, and two Supreme Court picks.

I think it would be good for the Democratic party to have those things. I guess you disagree?
And they now have Donald Trump. What would you have the Democrats inflict on the country?
  #146  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:46 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
In what way is the hateful right worse than:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8981331.html

The extreme left is not that much better than the extreme right.
That has nothing to do with AOC or Bernie. The extreme left in America is virtually powerless, unlike the extreme right.

Quote:
Noone is advocating for the Ku Klux Klan and yet there they are, back on the scene like they never left.
That's because they never left.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
And they now have Donald Trump. What would you have the Democrats inflict on the country?
The Democrats wouldn't, because we're much, much better. The two sides are not the same.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 02-27-2020 at 07:47 PM.
  #147  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:48 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 37,448
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Not even close. She is trying to push the party in a particular direction. A direction that is subscribed to by the majority of the party. In fact that is the entire problem, that she isn't trying to represent the Democrats, she is trying to radicalize us.
"More progressive" isn't "radical". This is just nuts. We have a big tent party -- very progressive folks are welcome, as are moderates. And all of them are welcome to try and influence the party in their preferred direction.
  #148  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:49 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 6,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
Do you think that moderate Republicans think that Trump is a successful end result? They may vote for him this fall but this is not the future they hoped for.
...if they vote for him this fall then I would say that yes, the moderate Republican does think Trump is a successful end result. That would be an entirely reasonable conclusion to reach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
In what way is the hateful right worse than:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8981331.html
The "hateful right" just established an office to denaturalize immigrants. The hateful right are in power and are using that power to completely upend everything that America pretends to be. A single "journalist" injured in an isolated incident in a city a year ago is incomparable to a regime that is separating families at the borders, locking people up in concentration camps, that has reduced refugee acceptance to a trickle.
  #149  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:51 PM
drad dog is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 6,909
"I hate income inequality, climate crisis, and race hatred. I am the hateful Left"
  #150  
Old 02-27-2020, 07:55 PM
RTFirefly is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,897
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damuri Ajashi View Post
It will be a repudiation of the far left.
And at that point, who among the Dems would care? The prospect of another four years of Trump - this time without any guardrails whatsoever - isn't going to leave much energy for recriminations.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017