Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 03-09-2019, 05:26 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Not that big of a deal. I can't figure out why people are going nuts over what appears clearly to me to be a relatively reasonable and innocuous criticism of the endless war and mistreatment of migrants, except that folks seem to be incredibly on edge for every single syllable of what AOC, Omar, and a few others say.

And since she clarified later that she wasn't intending to attack Obama, then it seems to me the matter is closed.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-09-2019 at 05:27 PM.
  #52  
Old 03-09-2019, 05:56 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And since she clarified later that she wasn't intending to attack Obama, then it seems to me the matter is closed.
Well, it's not a big deal but she undeniably criticized Obama in a "part of the problem, not the solution" way and that his campaign slogan was an illusion. To deny that is to deny what words mean.


But the real funny thing for me is the OP here SlackerInc. In a bunch of threads he's railed against purity ponies but here he is vowing to help defeat some Congresswoman that's not even his district because she doesn't love Obama enough. Lol.
  #53  
Old 03-09-2019, 06:23 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well, it's not a big deal but she undeniably criticized Obama in a "part of the problem, not the solution" way and that his campaign slogan was an illusion. To deny that is to deny what words mean.
Or maybe we just disagree.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #54  
Old 03-09-2019, 06:27 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,234
No. You're undeniably wrong. Like I said, words have meaning.
  #55  
Old 03-09-2019, 06:41 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,638
I think she's criticizing Obama--in exactly the way that a leftist criticizes Obama. It's really dumb to object to people criticizing Obama based on policy, which is what she did, especially if you're unwilling to engage with her on those specific policies with which she disagrees.

Oh wait, lemme guess--your unwillingness to address policy issues is what makes your political commentary superior, right?
  #56  
Old 03-09-2019, 06:46 PM
Rick Kitchen's Avatar
Rick Kitchen is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Citrus Heights, CA, USA
Posts: 16,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by ITR champion View Post
I have no expertise in that particular district and cannot say whether a successful primary challenge is feasible or not. But I would bet that Nancy Pelosi and many other pillars of the moderate Democratic wing are going to be spending quite a bit of time trying to find any way that Omar can be removed from office. Tlaib and AOC as well, probably.
Only if they want a complete intra-Party revolt on their hands.
  #57  
Old 03-09-2019, 06:47 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,234
@LHoD: That wasn't addressed to me, was it?

Last edited by CarnalK; 03-09-2019 at 06:48 PM.
  #58  
Old 03-09-2019, 07:18 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
@LHoD: That wasn't addressed to me, was it?
No.
  #59  
Old 03-09-2019, 08:11 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
No. You're undeniably wrong. Like I said, words have meaning.
The meaning of those words is telling me something different than what it's telling you. It's okay. Disagreement isn't the end of the world. It really is possible to see things differently sometimes.
  #60  
Old 03-10-2019, 12:51 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,806
...says Andy, after repeatedly insisting upthread that any other interpretation is idiotic.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
But the real funny thing for me is the OP here SlackerInc. In a bunch of threads he's railed against purity ponies but here he is vowing to help defeat some Congresswoman that's not even his district because she doesn't love Obama enough. Lol.

The "purity ponies" (I like that) I have railed against are trying to insist Democrats take a position that is out of the comfort zone of the middle of the electorate. Sometimes they insist otherwise (usually based on cherrypicking polls); other times they shrug and help me fill my Leftist Bingo card by throwing out "Overton Window" like it's the magic incantation that protects them from any consequences. What we're supposed to do about all the bad shit Republicans do during the years we are slowly moving that window and they're racking up win after win, I'm not quite sure.

I don't actually think there are no principles we should declare sacrosanct. I don't think you can be a Democrat in 2018 and argue for a constitutional amendment to once again ban gay marriage. Or that we need to abolish the minimum wage, repeal the Lily Ledbetter Act, etc.

So my issue with the "purity ponies" is the nature of the issues they want to "purify" the party on, not some general principle that you can't have "purity" on anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
And since she clarified later that she wasn't intending to attack Obama, then it seems to me the matter is closed.

This is your standard? If a politician says something offensive, they can get off scot free by simply releasing a damage control PR statement that they didn't intend to offend anyone? Weak.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc

Last edited by SlackerInc; 03-10-2019 at 12:51 AM.
  #61  
Old 03-10-2019, 03:32 AM
Jragon's Avatar
Jragon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Miskatonic University
Posts: 10,546
Andy, you're... very wrong. She's not condemning the system, she's condemning Obama. I wouldn't argue she's condemning Obama to the exclusion of anything else, but she was condemning Obama. It's an incredibly common leftist critique of him. Especially people who lived in the Middle Eastern area during his presidency (which Omar was not, but I know people that did and they absolutely talk about the same thing with great passion).

The criticism isn't really meant to "smear Obama's legacy" or anything like that, dude isn't running again, who cares? It's to point out that we can't just elect a "centrist" Democratic politician who put kind words and rhetoric on things like drone strikes and inhumane operations against immigrants just because said candidate is less of an obvious asshole than Trump, or weaves a narrative about hope we want to hear.

This doesn't mean Obama did everything wrong, he absolutely did some things I'm thankful for, but he did do some things that were awful from a humanitarian perspective. To be honest, I don't envy his position. I don't know what choices I'd make if I were in an office where military leaders were constantly winding me up about threats abroad, I have no idea how I'd handle people counseling me about this or that threat about illegal immigration. I like to think I'd stop or minimize drone strikes, I like to think I'd disband ICE, but who the fuck knows really?

Omar backpedaled, and I really think she shouldn't have, it's obvious she was criticizing Obama and she should own that. But she brought up valid issues I think shouldn't be dropped. That doesn't mean we have to grab Obama and put his head on a pike on stage at the next DNC, but it does mean we have to be very vigilant about candidates preaching a hopeful, uplifting narrative, when they could be more than willing to ramp up inhumane immigration enforcement and bombing runs.

Last edited by Jragon; 03-10-2019 at 03:34 AM.
  #62  
Old 03-10-2019, 03:37 AM
elucidator is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Further
Posts: 59,778
The statement was poorly written, the best evidence for that being that it is entirely possible to interpret it in utterly different ways. Written rather clumsily, isn't it? I might take the "polished/pretty face" line as being a direct observation of appearance, or a commonplace metaphor for facile and shallow.

What is the author trying to say? Clearly "Hell, yes" or certainly, "fuck no!"?
  #63  
Old 03-10-2019, 06:21 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
This is your standard? If a politician says something offensive, they can get off scot free by simply releasing a damage control PR statement that they didn't intend to offend anyone? Weak.
Even if your interpretation is entirely accurate, an attack on Obama isn't (or shouldn't be) "offensive". Insisting that black people are inherently inferior in intelligence is offensive, if you want an example. Fixing that would take much, much more than a "PR control" statement. Criticizing Obama would be no big deal at all.

She wasn't criticizing Obama, beyond a general criticism of the endless war and mistreatment of migrants (neither of which were ended under his watch), but even if she was, that doesn't require an apology unless it's based on bullshit like birtherism or something like that. Obama is not a sacred cow. It's okay for Democrats to talk about his legacy, and even be critical of certain aspects of it.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #64  
Old 03-10-2019, 06:34 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
Andy, you're... very wrong. She's not condemning the system, she's condemning Obama. I wouldn't argue she's condemning Obama to the exclusion of anything else, but she was condemning Obama. It's an incredibly common leftist critique of him. Especially people who lived in the Middle Eastern area during his presidency (which Omar was not, but I know people that did and they absolutely talk about the same thing with great passion).

The criticism isn't really meant to "smear Obama's legacy" or anything like that, dude isn't running again, who cares? It's to point out that we can't just elect a "centrist" Democratic politician who put kind words and rhetoric on things like drone strikes and inhumane operations against immigrants just because said candidate is less of an obvious asshole than Trump, or weaves a narrative about hope we want to hear.

This doesn't mean Obama did everything wrong, he absolutely did some things I'm thankful for, but he did do some things that were awful from a humanitarian perspective. To be honest, I don't envy his position. I don't know what choices I'd make if I were in an office where military leaders were constantly winding me up about threats abroad, I have no idea how I'd handle people counseling me about this or that threat about illegal immigration. I like to think I'd stop or minimize drone strikes, I like to think I'd disband ICE, but who the fuck knows really?

Omar backpedaled, and I really think she shouldn't have, it's obvious she was criticizing Obama and she should own that. But she brought up valid issues I think shouldn't be dropped. That doesn't mean we have to grab Obama and put his head on a pike on stage at the next DNC, but it does mean we have to be very vigilant about candidates preaching a hopeful, uplifting narrative, when they could be more than willing to ramp up inhumane immigration enforcement and bombing runs.
Alright, maybe it was a mild criticism of Obama, in that he continued the endless war policies and mistreatment of migrants to some extent, which doesn't conflict with the other positive things she's said about him. I've been critical of him on many issues, and I still think he was a good president, in general.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #65  
Old 03-10-2019, 07:23 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I think she's criticizing Obama--in exactly the way that a leftist criticizes Obama. It's really dumb to object to people criticizing Obama based on policy, which is what she did, especially if you're unwilling to engage with her on those specific policies with which she disagrees.
This is a good point. Perhaps Omar and AOC can leave the Democratic Party, and Sanders can join. It would be like a wobbly washing machine being fixed to be on the level.
  #66  
Old 03-10-2019, 09:13 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,079
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
What did she say that was wrong?
Like it or not, in politics, the tone, nature, and context of the message matters. Ilhan Omar has more responsibilities in what she says than just making sure it's factually defensible. Saying something that is factually true but which is to the benefit of Republican traitors is not a smart movie.
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #67  
Old 03-10-2019, 09:18 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
This is a good point. Perhaps Omar and AOC can leave the Democratic Party, and Sanders can join. It would be like a wobbly washing machine being fixed to be on the level.
That's a real good idea for a way that progressives could ensure that the Democratic party stays skewed toward the right, and that progressives remain out of power. On behalf of the left, thanks for the suggestion!
  #68  
Old 03-10-2019, 09:43 AM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Out of curiosity OP, how far does your commitment to see Omar defeated go?

If you are supporting someone else in a primary against her, that's great, that's what the party does, tries to see what the best ideas for the party to put forward are.

If she wins the primary, though, will you be supporting her republican opponent?
  #69  
Old 03-10-2019, 10:42 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,806
Very unlikely. It would have to be a moderate Republican who disavowed Trump (not just murmuring that his statements are “troubling”) for me to even consider it.
  #70  
Old 03-10-2019, 12:15 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
That's a real good idea for a way that progressives could ensure that the Democratic party stays skewed toward the right, and that progressives remain out of power. On behalf of the left, thanks for the suggestion!
If by "right" you mean liberal, and if by "progressives" you mean anti-capitalist, we're on the same page.
  #71  
Old 03-10-2019, 12:53 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I think she's criticizing Obama--in exactly the way that a leftist criticizes Obama. ...
Exactly so. Many of "The Left" (as if there is one such thing) were unhappy with Obama because he had campaigned that he would govern as a moderate trying to unite and find workable pragmatic compromises and then he actually did try to do it. Both the Right and the Left had been sure he was lying and would actually be a hard line progressive!

Not so sure it is realistic to expect those who believe that to pretend they believe otherwise.

OTOH at this particular point in history all elected as Ds need to be laser focused on the importance getting a D in the presidency number one, and trying to get control of congress two. This is not a time for a Tea Party of the Left and not a time for hitting on the hot button issues of your tent mates, whether by intent (which is what I see AOC doing) or without (Ms. Omar I think). Once you have the limelight use it well.
  #72  
Old 03-10-2019, 01:03 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 14,025
Exactly. Take a look at the hard left UK Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn. The Conservatives have been a disaster but they still lead in the polls because Corbyn cares more about purity and enabling the hard left anti-semites than he does about Brexit. That’s why there was a party split, most people don’t wake up in the morning more concerned with policy towards Israel and Venezuela than day to day life.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42
  #73  
Old 03-10-2019, 01:40 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
This is not a time for a Tea Party of the Left and not a time for hitting on the hot button issues of your tent mates, whether by intent (which is what I see AOC doing) or without (Ms. Omar I think).
It's called the Kombucha Party, thank you very much.
  #74  
Old 03-10-2019, 01:43 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 10,634
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
It's called the Kombucha Party, thank you very much.
That can't be right, Kombucha goes with everything.
  #75  
Old 03-10-2019, 02:10 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
That can't be right, Kombucha goes with everything.
So says 9% of the population, in either context (culinary or political).
  #76  
Old 03-10-2019, 02:24 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
What did she say that was wrong?

She's claiming Obama engaged in the same cruel practices republicans do. Which is true. Drone strikes, kids in cages, not to mention the prosecution of whistleblowers and the use of massive state surveillance.
...

Then Obama would go out and try to act charming and hope nobody noticed these policies. That seems to be her point and it is spot on.

So what is the problem?
Because rather than supporting her party, she is helping the GOP by indulging in 'whataboutism"- which is a crappy tactic and a logical fallacy. Tu Quoque Fallacy.

It may be somewhat true but it's water under the bride and pointless to bring up, so why engage in such logical fallacies and help the GOP in it's battle to win American for the racists?

She doesnt know when to shut up. She needs to go, she is just making the Democratic party look bad and losing support nationwide. This may leave the Senate in GOP hands, give trump the White house for another 4 years and let the GOp get back control of the house.
  #77  
Old 03-10-2019, 02:29 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
So any criticism of Obama is off the table?

What about criticism of Bill Clinton for his triangulation or his allegations of sexual impropriety?
Those are generally called 'whataboutism" a Tu Quoque Fallacy, because when brought up today they are 99% used to deflect debate away from bad things that are being done NOW! "Hey Mr Trump would you stop putting kids in cages?" "Well, Obama did something similar, so then of course we can't ask Trump to stop his racist and evil policy."

So, in a history book- fine. In a debate as a Tu Quoque Fallacy- bad.
  #78  
Old 03-10-2019, 02:32 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
If by "right" you mean liberal, and if by "progressives" you mean anti-capitalist, we're on the same page.
I don't much give a shit what namecalling you want to engage in. Your advice is that those people you call anti-capitalist should take steps to ensure we remain out of power. Your helpful advice is noted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Exactly so. Many of "The Left" (as if there is one such thing) were unhappy with Obama because he had campaigned that he would govern as a moderate trying to unite and find workable pragmatic compromises and then he actually did try to do it. Both the Right and the Left had been sure he was lying and would actually be a hard line progressive!
This is a silly analysis. Plenty of people on the left held the dual positions that Obama was far too right-wing for their tastes, and still likely to be the best president they'd ever seen.

People who can hold two thoughts in their head at once can say, "I voted for Obama, and I'm glad I did, and he should not have spied on US citizens or detained so many immigrants or ordered so many drone strikes."

Quote:
OTOH at this particular point in history all elected as Ds need to be laser focused on the importance getting a D in the presidency number one, and trying to get control of congress two. This is not a time for a Tea Party of the Left and not a time for hitting on the hot button issues of your tent mates, whether by intent (which is what I see AOC doing) or without (Ms. Omar I think). Once you have the limelight use it well.
"Once you have the limelight, use it well"? AOC and Omar have the limelight now, and they're using it to highlight issues important to them. Omar might not be having much success, but AOC is rocking the shit out of her moment in the limelight.

Is your objection that they're not using their limelight to highlight the issues that you would highlight, if somehow an old white moderate dude like you got the same limelight they're getting now?

As for "Tea Party of the Left," why on earth not? Look what the Tea Party of the Right managed to accomplish in a single decade.
  #79  
Old 03-10-2019, 02:34 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Here is her statement in the original source (the Politico interview):



[ellipsis is in original article]
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...c-party-225696
...

I do question Omar's clear choice to practice Whataboutism here. She is saying 'Trump is bad, but other Presidents were bad, too.' How does that help?
Right. ďWe canít be only upset with Trump. ... His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was. And thatís not what we should be looking for anymore. We donít want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.Ē

This is exactly how the GOP defects criticisms of what Trump is doing, by "whataboutism". And here's the point- yeah bad things were done in the past, but how does that excuse you from doing those bad things right now, in the present day?

So, she is toeing the party line- unfortunately it is the Republican party, not the Democratic party.
  #80  
Old 03-10-2019, 04:03 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Your advice is that those people you call anti-capitalist should take steps to ensure we remain out of power. Your helpful advice is noted.
The advice they are offering - and which you are falling for - is just terrible.

For some reason, there’s quite a few liberals who look at AOC, Omar, and Tlaib etc and are encouraged that if Dems run die-hard progressives, we will win nationwide elections.

It’s bullshit.

Each one of them won in districts that went to a Clinton by like 55, 60 points. These hard-line partisans are fine candidates for their districts, but let’s get this straight: it’s the moderate Dems who took seats in swing districts who actually won the House.

Just try running Omar, AOC, or their ideological compatriots in these districts and see how that turns out.

https://www.axios.com/2018-midterms-...caac86aa5.html

ETA: and lets just remember that Obama won and Sanders/Stein/Nader/etc didn’t. If you want to remain out of power, I suggest Dems nominate candidates you see as ideologically pure.

Last edited by Ravenman; 03-10-2019 at 04:04 PM.
  #81  
Old 03-10-2019, 04:05 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
I like the big tent Democratic party, including AOC, Omar, and moderate Democrats in districts that match. I don't see any conflict between admiring much of what the young progressives are saying as well as supporting moderate Democrats in moderate districts. We'll need them all to win in future elections.
  #82  
Old 03-10-2019, 04:42 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,579
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Right. ďWe canít be only upset with Trump. ... His policies are bad, but many of the people who came before him also had really bad policies. They just were more polished than he was. And thatís not what we should be looking for anymore. We donít want anybody to get away with murder because they are polished. We want to recognize the actual policies that are behind the pretty face and the smile.Ē

This is exactly how the GOP defects criticisms of what Trump is doing, by "whataboutism". And here's the point- yeah bad things were done in the past, but how does that excuse you from doing those bad things right now, in the present day?

So, she is toeing the party line- unfortunately it is the Republican party, not the Democratic party.
Yes. Omar is so consistently doing things that harm Democrats and help Republicans, that I can't help wondering if there's something going on here behind the scenes.

She's also helping Putin's project of dividing the West and creating division and chaos that would let him advance his territorial objectives.

And all of this may be complete coincidence, of course.

Omar is almost certainly an anti-Semite* and may simply be intent on gaining a wider audience for her views, which a "whatabout Obama" defense of Trump certainly has succeeded in doing. It could all be personal ambition. Or it could be that she's being manipulated by someone wanting to advance right-wing goals.

In any case, if she continues along this path, she should be primaried by the Democrats, without a doubt. (And the Minnesota Democratic higher-ups should revisit their vetting procedures.)




*I do NOT classify criticisms of Israel's policies as anti-Semitic---not at all and not in the least degree. Anyone should be free to criticize such policies without being accused of being anti-Semitic.

However, I do classify the repetition of old tropes and smears--"about the Benjamins," dual loyalty, etc.---as being likely hallmarks of anti-Semitic beliefs. Omar has repeatedly voiced such smears.
  #83  
Old 03-10-2019, 04:46 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
... "Once you have the limelight, use it well"? AOC and Omar have the limelight now, and they're using it to highlight issues important to them. Omar might not be having much success, but AOC is rocking the shit out of her moment in the limelight.

Is your objection that they're not using their limelight to highlight the issues that you would highlight, if somehow an old white moderate dude like you got the same limelight they're getting now?

As for "Tea Party of the Left," why on earth not? Look what the Tea Party of the Right managed to accomplish in a single decade.
What counts as rocking the shit depends on what one wants to accomplish I guess. Getting celebrity status does not count as rocking shit to me. It don't count as any shit to me. The issue I care about is most is pulling this country back from the rule by a far Right minority with real harms being done every day that have worldwide impact. I want the GOP out of control. Other differences of opinion are moot if that is not accomplished.

Is the most important thing to do with your limelight to highlight your thought that Trump is doing bad things but hey look at what Obama did that I didn't like, he just did it with a pretty face?

The single best way to undermine that goal of pulling back from Trump and the far Right dominating governance is to fracture those who are wanting to accomplish that. And who needs Russian troll farms when you got elected Reps whose rhetoric is aimed as much at those with that same goal as those whose goal is to re-elect Trump and keep the Senate Red or Redder.

What did the Tea Party accomplish that you like? The government shut downs? Or that you perceive its failures as having laid the groundwork for a party that has no room or tolerance for moderation and compromise within it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
So, she is toeing the party line- unfortunately it is the Republican party, not the Democratic party.
Or Putin's party-line really ...
  #84  
Old 03-10-2019, 05:06 PM
Wesley Clark is online now
2018 Midterm Prediction Winner
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,697
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Those are generally called 'whataboutism" a Tu Quoque Fallacy, because when brought up today they are 99% used to deflect debate away from bad things that are being done NOW! "Hey Mr Trump would you stop putting kids in cages?" "Well, Obama did something similar, so then of course we can't ask Trump to stop his racist and evil policy."

So, in a history book- fine. In a debate as a Tu Quoque Fallacy- bad.
When Trump and the GOP do that to write off their own crimes (Bill Clinton has sexual impropriety, Obama locked a few kids in cages, etc) that is the fallacy yes. Even though the examples they use aren't the same (Obama rarely separated kids and only did it when they suspected trafficking, Trump does it as the default policy to terrorize immigrants for example).

What Omar is arguing is that the public only have the choice between a far right and a center right party. Thats not the same thing. She is lamenting the lack of options on a national scale when it comes to politics.

Granted, it may drive away high school educated whites to see a brown skinned muslim woman with a head scarf saying these things. I'm not denying that. But it also seems like no matter how racist the GOP get, they aren't losing support. So I don't know if you can claim that the democrats have to tread lightly, the GOP don't tread lightly and they always get 60-65 million votes in presidential years.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #85  
Old 03-10-2019, 05:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
....
...

Or Putin's party-line really ...
Same-o, same-o.
  #86  
Old 03-10-2019, 05:22 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,806
It’s astonishing to me how many lefties take exactly the wrong lesson from the rise of the Tea Party.

The GOP has lost the popular vote in six of the past seven presidential elections. But they are doing so well, we should copy their extremism?
  #87  
Old 03-10-2019, 08:24 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,563
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
*I do NOT classify criticisms of Israel's policies as anti-Semitic---not at all and not in the least degree. Anyone should be free to criticize such policies without being accused of being anti-Semitic.

However, I do classify the repetition of old tropes and smears--"about the Benjamins," dual loyalty, etc.---as being likely hallmarks of anti-Semitic beliefs. Omar has repeatedly voiced such smears.
It's the 'repeatedly' part that's the real problem. She's been in office two months and already has multiple retractions and public apologies on her record. She can be passionate, that's fine. But repeatedly saying stupid shit that requires apologies and spends party leadership energy is the sort of thing that will get her primaried next time...if only to ease the burden on leadership.

Every time some other congressman or presidential candidate is asked "What about Omar's statement X" she gets one step closer to being placed on the committee to clean the catbox.
  #88  
Old 03-10-2019, 08:36 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jragon View Post
Andy, you're... very wrong. She's not condemning the system, she's condemning Obama. I wouldn't argue she's condemning Obama to the exclusion of anything else, but she was condemning Obama.
Then she wasn't "condemning Obama." That phrase, by itself, means that she was specifically singling him out. That's why you felt the need to add the disclaimer after it. If that implication was not inherently there, you wouldn't feel the need to say it.

Her point, if you read the entire transcript, was saying that simply kicking Trump out of power doesn't fix the problems, because past presidents also did wrong things, albeit with more polish.

Sure, Obama is included in that. But so are both Bushes, Clinton, etc. Making it all about Obama is what the OP is doing as a reason to go after her, rather than pay attention to the point.

That seems to be a huge problem these days. People don't listen for the point of what people say, but for sound bites. I hate this. It happens with politicians, and it happens with people just talking online. I've had it done to me I don't know how many times, where something I say sound ridiculous without the rest of the context, with no attempt to try and understand the meaning.

If people argued that she "implicitly criticized Obama among past presidents," I would have no problem with that assertion. But claiming she "condemned Obama"? No. That's a specific narrative that is false. It may literally be true, but people don't speak on a literal level.

It was not the point of what she said to specifically criticize Barack Obama.
  #89  
Old 03-10-2019, 08:48 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,074
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Because rather than supporting her party, she is helping the GOP by indulging in 'whataboutism"- which is a crappy tactic and a logical fallacy. Tu Quoque Fallacy.
No. These aren't the same thing. The tu quoque fallacy is specifically "you are wrong because your side does it, too." Whataboutism is distraction: "why aren't you concerned about this other bad thing?"

And neither apply to what she said. Her argument is simply that focusing on Trump himself rather than the policies behind him is a bad idea. Multiple people on this board have said this, and most of us agree. While getting Trump out of power is a good first step, it doesn't fix the underlying problem.

And, FYI, I am literally going by the statements posted in this thread quoting what she said.

And I'm also someone who criticized her for her (at best) antisemitic adjacent comments. This is not about favoritism. I'm also someone who has said we need to work together, liberals and progressives. It's the Progressives right now saying we need to stick together.

Heck, that is why I am on iiandyiiii's side. For all the talk of the progressives creating divisions, it definitely seems to be you guys. You're the one claiming a progressive is actually a closet Republican, despite their political positions being incompatible.

And the OP is the one pushing for primary challenge, talking about kicking people out.

That's division. You guys are the ones buying into the Right's attacks on the Left to try and divide us.

Last edited by BigT; 03-10-2019 at 08:48 PM.
  #90  
Old 03-10-2019, 09:44 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
ETA: and lets just remember that Obama won and Sanders/Stein/Nader/etc didnít. If you want to remain out of power, I suggest Dems nominate candidates you see as ideologically pure.
It's not surprising that you left Hillary Clinton out of this list, given how completely it undercuts your argument that moderate candidates are who wins nationally. It is surprising that you thought I wouldn't notice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I like the big tent Democratic party, including AOC, Omar, and moderate Democrats in districts that match. I don't see any conflict between admiring much of what the young progressives are saying as well as supporting moderate Democrats in moderate districts. We'll need them all to win in future elections.
Absolutely. Omar is the right candidate for her district. Manchin is right senator for his state. You'll find very few posts from me talking shit about conservative Democrats, and none crowing about how I'm gonna work for their defeat, because I care too much about progressive victory to engage in that sort of nonsense.

That doesn't mean we can't criticize positions, though, and have a robust internal debate. That's absolutely what we should be doing until the primary season ends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
What counts as rocking the shit depends on what one wants to accomplish I guess. Getting celebrity status does not count as rocking shit to me. It don't count as any shit to me. The issue I care about is most is pulling this country back from the rule by a far Right minority with real harms being done every day that have worldwide impact. I want the GOP out of control. Other differences of opinion are moot if that is not accomplished.
I want progressive causes enacted. For all my life I've listened to candidates saying that the way to do that is to be moderate and very slow and not to rock the boat. God, it's refreshing to hear someone talking about another path to victory.

As for the lesson we should be learning from the Tea Party, it's this: moderation isn't the key to victory. Trump didn't get elected by reaching across the aisle; he decided he didn't need to do that. He won by taking adamant positions (incredibly awful positions, mind you, but adamant ones) and by hammering them home and by making the (bullshit) case that they were best for the country.

Progressives are now seeing that this is a path to victory. It scares the shit out of moderates and conservative Democrats. I'm okay with that.

Omar specifically? I'm not gonna die on that hill. But the general smug "Nyah Nyah I'm gonna work to defeat a Democrat" nonsense, I'm not down with that.
  #91  
Old 03-10-2019, 09:57 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
It's not surprising that you left Hillary Clinton out of this list, given how completely it undercuts your argument that moderate candidates are who wins nationally. It is surprising that you thought I wouldn't notice.
Candidates who are under FBI criminal investigations donít tend to win nationally. It is surprising that you thought I wouldnít notice.
  #92  
Old 03-10-2019, 10:11 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,638
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Candidates who are under FBI criminal investigations donít tend to win nationally. It is surprising that you thought I wouldnít notice.
We can debate all night the reasons why Clinton lost. But that's a pretty lousy objection, given that the candidate who won in 2016 was under FBI investigation.
  #93  
Old 03-11-2019, 08:29 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 25,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
But that's a pretty lousy objection, given that the candidate who won in 2016 was under FBI investigation.
Not sure if anyone knew that at the time, so that's a really lousy objection.

Last edited by Ravenman; 03-11-2019 at 08:30 AM.
  #94  
Old 03-11-2019, 08:48 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,806
Trump is the most consistently unpopular president in the history of polling, and lost the popular vote by three million, but let's copy his template. Brilliant strategy.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #95  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:04 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,563
More important than that is learning from the conservative movement. Anyone else here remember Reagan's 11th commandment?

"Though shalt not speak ill of another republican"

Yes, it seems silly. But it's an inherently useful electoral tool. It says that party disagreements remain internal. Making them external gives voters a reason to not vote for your party and that's...well..not a good thing.

Omar's broken that rule when she could easily have avoided doing so yet still made her point. Rail against a military-industrial complex that wants war to continue. Complain about lobbyists. All of those are fine. Naming other democrats? It's harmful and it means you're not a team player. If that's the case, why the hell should the team support you in the future?
  #96  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:22 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,806
Leftists I know talk openly about using the Democratic Party "as a vehicle" (one friend used this exact terminology on Facebook just a few minutes ago) because of its resources, being on the ballot in 50 states, etc. But they get incensed if the party shows any spine and actually pushes back against being so used.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #97  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:25 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,801
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post

... That doesn't mean we can't criticize positions, though, and have a robust internal debate. That's absolutely what we should be doing until the primary season ends....

... Progressives are now seeing that this is a path to victory. It scares the shit out of moderates and conservative Democrats. I'm okay with that.

Omar specifically? I'm not gonna die on that hill. But the general smug "Nyah Nyah I'm gonna work to defeat a Democrat" nonsense, I'm not down with that.
In reverse order -

One can believe that someone is being an idiot who is causing harm without the working to see defeated part. She can win in her district and her district wants to nominate her? Fine. If they choose to nominate someone else after one term also fine. Better is that stop being an idiot.

Really claiming that progressives or "The Left" has a single voice and mind is silly stuff. Entertainingly enough 538 ran an on-point bit this morning broadly identifying six Democratic wings ... four of them "progressive". What you are talking about is what they label the "super progressives" who feel that those with other thoughts are not true progressives.

That small bloc knows feels they can gain more power by tearing down the rest of the party to make more room for them. And while there is room for their ideas and for the debate there should not be room for that destructive behavior in the service of their ideas.

The Tea Part set up Trump to be sure and Trump has won an election that has put a minority POV in power. He's also left the part very unappealing to more. What "scares the shit out of" me is that some small in number but loud Ds will make this party so unappealing with self-destructive behaviors that people just stay home rather than vote for any one.
  #98  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:28 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Omar specifically? I'm not gonna die on that hill. But the general smug "Nyah Nyah I'm gonna work to defeat a Democrat" nonsense, I'm not down with that.
One of the core lessons being taken from the Tea Party and a declared plan for the Justice Democrats is to primary out incumbent Dems. Are they just being less smug about it?
  #99  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:31 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
One of the core lessons being taken from the Tea Party and a declared plan for the Justice Democrats is to primary out incumbent Dems. Are they just being less smug about it?
What does that mean? Do they mean they plan to support progressive candidates in every district? Do they mean target and oppose EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE? Something in between?
  #100  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:39 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What does that mean? Do they mean they plan to support progressive candidates in every district? Do they mean target and oppose EVERY SINGLE DEMOCRAT IN OFFICE? Something in between?
Uh, wtf? LHoD is annoyed that a Democrat would announce they're going to work to defeat another Democrat. The Justice Dems, including AOC, have announced that themselves. No, not every Democrat.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...ocrats-1000529
Quote:
Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Saturday threw her weight behind a new national campaign to mount primaries against incumbent Democrats deemed to be ideologically and demographically out of step with their districts.

The incoming star congresswoman from New York again put the Democratic establishment on notice that she and activist groups on the left arenít content with a Democratic-controlled House: They are determined to move the party to the left.
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 08:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, 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 © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017