Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:48 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
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
That seems like a pretty reasonable stance to me. I also want Democrats in office who are "ideologically and demographically" aligned with their districts. Further, AFAICT, they haven't announced any opposition to any Democrats in office as of the present.

EDIT: If you only meant to contrast this to LHoD's post, then fair enough.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-11-2019 at 09:48 AM.
  #102  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:50 AM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,557
Well, there's subtley there. If AOC wants to primary people who are out of step with their districts that leaves her a lot of wiggle room. She can be pretty left because her district is so. But let's look at Doug Jones in Alabama. Should he be primaried by a progressive? Her statement says probably not. Ditto my own new congressman down here, Joe Cunningham. In SC-01 he's what we can elect and we'll be working to get him re-elected. But a hardcore progressive? There'd be no point.
  #103  
Old 03-11-2019, 10:01 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That seems like a pretty reasonable stance to me. I also want Democrats in office who are "ideologically and demographically" aligned with their districts. Further, AFAICT, they haven't announced any opposition to any Democrats in office as of the present.

EDIT: If you only meant to contrast this to LHoD's post, then fair enough.
That's why I quoted his post.

But speaking of which, I have a feeling Omar is indeed vulnerable in the next primary. My gut tells me Minneapolis and the Somali immigrant community weren't really looking to elect a lightning rod.
  #104  
Old 03-11-2019, 10:09 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's why I quoted his post.



But speaking of which, I have a feeling Omar is indeed vulnerable in the next primary. My gut tells me Minneapolis and the Somali immigrant community weren't really looking to elect a lightning rod.
We'll see. But I think much of this is way blown out of proportion, and very similar in general to the advocacy of many progressive Daily Kos style Democrats for years, likely because many bigots and bigot enablers on the right see her as a good target due to race and religion.
__________________
My new novel Spindown
  #105  
Old 03-11-2019, 10:21 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,895
In the words of Marco Ramius, a little revolution now and then is a healthy thing. One of the biggest complaints from moderate/centrist/less passionate voters is that the two parties are both nearly identical, if not in ideology, then in actual policy, and that they are nearly calcified with career politicians. If the Young Turks want to bring in fresh blood, that's not necessarily a bad thing.

As for Omar...meh. Speaking Before Thinking is practically becoming the national pastime in politics these days. The GOP have more or less embraced it. Why should I get my tits in a flutter because this one wears a hajib?
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #106  
Old 03-11-2019, 10:21 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
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?

They don't have much to be smug about right now. AOC is famous for her primary upset, but this did not work in most places they tried it. Bernie established a PAC to get progressives he endorsed nominated, but:

(1) In most cases, in swing districts targeted by the DNC as vulnerable to being flipped from red to blue, the DNC beat back Bernie's group and got their mainstream candidates nominated instead;

(2) In the cases where his PAC did succeed, those progressive nominees mostly failed to beat their Republican opponents in the general election.

So it was a big effort and a massive failure. But they are undeterred.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
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.

I love this article, thanks! I am having a great time on Facebook, tagging friends who I see as in various wings and getting their feedback. (I was unable to identify anyone in the "moderate" or "conservative" wings.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #107  
Old 03-11-2019, 10:47 AM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That seems like a pretty reasonable stance to me. I also want Democrats in office who are "ideologically and demographically" aligned with their districts. Further, AFAICT, they haven't announced any opposition to any Democrats in office as of the present.
The Justice Democrats has announced plans to primary Henry Cuellar in 2020.

Quote:
The group will train its focus on Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-TX), who represents a safe Democratic district in southern Texas.
. . .
The group cited the fact that Cuellar voted with Trump 69 percent of the time and voted with Republicans to support a ban on the use of federal funds for abortion-related services, among other things. Additionally, Cuellar attended a fundraiser last year for his Republican colleague Rep. John Carter, angering his Democratic opponent MJ Hegar who came very close to defeating him.
Left-Wing Group Justice Democrats Picks Its First 2020 Primary Target: Rep. Henry Cuellar in The Daily Beast
  #108  
Old 03-11-2019, 10:51 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 33,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
The Justice Democrats has announced plans to primary Henry Cuellar in 2020.


Left-Wing Group Justice Democrats Picks Its First 2020 Primary Target: Rep. Henry Cuellar in The Daily Beast
Thanks. That sounds good to me -- if that report on Cuellar is accurate, I hope a progressive runs in that district.
  #109  
Old 03-11-2019, 10:54 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
... One of the biggest complaints from moderate/centrist/less passionate voters is that the two parties are both nearly identical, if not in ideology, then in actual policy, and that they are nearly calcified with career politicians. ...
Really? Moderate voters see these two parties as nearly identical?

Really?

No. No they do not.

And they are far from it.

Now in actual practice the nature of two divergent belief systems fighting for power, both deciding on how much to balance revving up their more extreme elements and appealing to the greater number that are not so engaged and not so extreme is split governance that slows down dramatic changes in either direction. Because while the typical voter doesn't have average views the statistical average voter is in the middle and the extremes counter each other to some degrees. Whether that is a bug or a feature depends on which way the pendulum is swinging relative to where you want it to be. Right now I am happy that we have enough calcification that Trump's disruptive agenda is a bit slowed down and that maybe we can pull it back some. Right now yea calcification!!
  #110  
Old 03-11-2019, 11:12 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Thanks. That sounds good to me -- if that report on Cuellar is accurate, I hope a progressive runs in that district.

Will it shock you if I agree?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #111  
Old 03-11-2019, 11:29 AM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
So here's what I don't get ... well one of the many things but hey -

Deep Blue district and current representation out of touch. Why haven't others more "in touch" with the district run before?

I've no love for a D who votes with Trump nearly as often as a reliable R does but not so sure that Leftists from not round thar are the best at assessing what is and is not "out of touch" for any specific district.

It's a heavy Hispanic district. An R who is pro-life and for much of the religious right agenda but bucks Trump on the wall and most immigration issues might beat a Progressive. I could see them finding a religiously conservative Hispanic R to run ...

Not saying that a primary challenge is a bad idea, just not assuming that safe Blue assessment is so sure a thing.
  #112  
Old 03-11-2019, 12:14 PM
Heffalump and Roo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,192
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
Deep Blue district and current representation out of touch. Why haven't others more "in touch" with the district run before?

I've no love for a D who votes with Trump nearly as often as a reliable R does but not so sure that Leftists from not round thar are the best at assessing what is and is not "out of touch" for any specific district.
Probably lack of manpower and exposure. It takes either lots of money or lots of manpower to run a successful campaign. Progressives don't take corporate PAC money, so they don't have a lot of corporate money to work with. Other candidates (not progressives) who have a lot of corporate PAC money are the ones likely voting with the corporations, in tune with Trump.

The Justice Democrats provide the organization to get volunteers mobilized and some exposure on internet media. For instance, when one Justice Democrat loses their race, the volunteers for that campaign often help someone in another race.

The candidate still has to come from that area. They're recruited for their public service in their community. They would know the specific needs of the community.
  #113  
Old 03-11-2019, 12:20 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
The Justice Democrats has announced plans to primary Henry Cuellar in 2020.


Left-Wing Group Justice Democrats Picks Its First 2020 Primary Target: Rep. Henry Cuellar in The Daily Beast
Wouldn't it be better to spend all this time, energy and money to unseat a GOP congressman?
  #114  
Old 03-11-2019, 12:31 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Wouldn't it be better to spend all this time, energy and money to unseat a GOP congressman?
Depends on the district. No use throwing money at a hopeless cause.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #115  
Old 03-11-2019, 12:43 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heffalump and Roo View Post
Probably lack of manpower and exposure. It takes either lots of money or lots of manpower to run a successful campaign. Progressives don't take corporate PAC money, so they don't have a lot of corporate money to work with. Other candidates (not progressives) who have a lot of corporate PAC money are the ones likely voting with the corporations, in tune with Trump ...
And could be. Maybe is.

But is a rural predominantly Hispanic district really more accurately represented by a hard Progressive? Are those planks more in touch with their thoughts than a religious conservative who is against Trump on most immigration votes? (Current representation.)

Maybe but I wouldn’t assume so just because they’ve voted heavy D in the past.

Even with lots of organizational support and outside money it may a heavy lift.

What sort of breaks with progressive planks would you be willing to tolerate if you were donating?
  #116  
Old 03-11-2019, 12:44 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
Depends on the district. No use throwing money at a hopeless cause.
Sure, but there are many districts which are not hopeless.
  #117  
Old 03-11-2019, 01:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Frank Luntz, GOP pollster/messaging guru extraordinaire, appeared on PBS Newshour and—even though he was not asked about it— made a point of sticking up for “these Democratic women’s” rights to say whatever they like. That speaks volumes.
  #118  
Old 03-11-2019, 01:57 PM
Tamerlane is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, California
Posts: 13,569
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post

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.
Not as much as many people seem to think IMHO. Indeed it almost certainly cost the Republicans a few seats( whether there was a net gain, I'm not sure ).

But more generally I wonder if conservatives and liberals as large groups respond identically to similar tactics. I suspect conservatives as a group are a little more likely to huddle up under ideological pressure and liberals are a bit more likely to splinter. No data to back that up - just a suspicion.

Last edited by Tamerlane; 03-11-2019 at 01:58 PM.
  #119  
Old 03-11-2019, 02:04 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
And Democrats are more ideologically diverse than Republicans are.
  #120  
Old 03-11-2019, 02:19 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,160
Posted in the GD thread:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii
L...
In a WSJ column today by Elliot Kaufman, it's noted that Omar was interviewed on a podcast by the left-wing Intercept website on Feb. 28, leading to this exchange:

"Was it a badly worded tweet (on Feb. 11) that you were apologizing for, or was it for being anti-Semitic, wittingly or unwittingly?"

Omar: "Absolutely not. I apologized for the way that my words made people feel."

So much for an "unequivocal apology".
"

This angers me. When I heard she had made a unequivocal apology I said that was good enuf, she just misspoke. But this is first class weaseling, so I agree, she needs to be primaried out.
  #121  
Old 03-11-2019, 03:35 PM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 1,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sure, but there are many districts which are not hopeless.
Did I say there were not?
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #122  
Old 03-11-2019, 03:58 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Frank Luntz, GOP pollster/messaging guru extraordinaire, appeared on PBS Newshour and—even though he was not asked about it— made a point of sticking up for “these Democratic women’s” rights to say whatever they like. That speaks volumes.
I'm a little less willing than you are to dance to Frank Luntz's tune.
  #123  
Old 03-11-2019, 05:16 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonathan Chance View Post
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.
Yes. A cost/benefit analysis will be done. No doubt the Dem leaders want to encourage youthful enthusiasm, and certainly don't want to seem to be in the position of criticizing a member of a minority group. But at some point the costs of standing by while offensive remarks continue to be made, do outweigh the benefits.

Already the right has made extensive use of this. Why help them further?



Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
...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. ... That's division. You guys are the ones buying into the Right's attacks on the Left to try and divide us.
  • Person A makes remarks that attack Group X's patriotism and basic decency.
  • Persons B, C, and D object to those remarks.

...so it's persons B, C, and D who are "creating divisions"....?


That seems to be the argument you're making, here.
  #124  
Old 03-11-2019, 05:36 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I'm a little less willing than you are to dance to Frank Luntz's tune.

What are you claiming here, that when Frank Luntz says these congresswomen should be allowed to say anything they want, he is actually using some kind of reverse psychology, because he thinks it's bad for his side if they say when they want and he really wants us to defy him and muzzle them? That's quite a reach. How is it better for Luntz if they don't say controversial things?
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #125  
Old 03-11-2019, 05:50 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
What are you claiming here, that when Frank Luntz says these congresswomen should be allowed to say anything they want, he is actually using some kind of reverse psychology, because he thinks it's bad for his side if they say when they want and he really wants us to defy him and muzzle them? That's quite a reach. How is it better for Luntz if they don't say controversial things?
Luntz is many terrible things, and among his traits is that he’s a master of psychological warfare. The best response to an asshole like him is to ignore him, not to take anything he says as relevant in any way. When you give his words weight, you allow him to use you.

Don’t dance to his tune. He’s better at his game than you are.
  #126  
Old 03-11-2019, 06:10 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Posted in the GD thread:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii
L...
In a WSJ column today by Elliot Kaufman, it's noted that Omar was interviewed on a podcast by the left-wing Intercept website on Feb. 28, leading to this exchange:

"Was it a badly worded tweet (on Feb. 11) that you were apologizing for, or was it for being anti-Semitic, wittingly or unwittingly?"

Omar: "Absolutely not. I apologized for the way that my words made people feel."

So much for an "unequivocal apology".
"

This angers me. When I heard she had made a unequivocal apology I said that was good enuf, she just misspoke. But this is first class weaseling, so I agree, she needs to be primaried out.

If she hadn't said the crap about Obama, I would defend her on this. I take this to mean "I actually had no idea my tweets could be seen as referencing anti-Semitic tropes, but I'm sorry they were inadvertently hurtful to people."
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #127  
Old 03-11-2019, 06:15 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 6,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Luntz is many terrible things, and among his traits is that he’s a master of psychological warfare. The best response to an asshole like him is to ignore him, not to take anything he says as relevant in any way. When you give his words weight, you allow him to use you.

Don’t dance to his tune. He’s better at his game than you are.
Was Slacker giving Luntz's words weight, though? I thought he was saying 'this right-winger thinks the outspokenness of Omar (etc.) is working to the advantage of the right.'

Either Luntz was being sincere in hoping Omar et al would go on speaking out, or Luntz was being insincere (and actually hopes Omar et all will go silent).

I'm not seeing the "dance to his tune" element in this. We're just speculating over whether a particular pundit was being sincere or disingenuous. "Dance to his tune" would be more like saying "we can't do X because Luntz says Y"---it would be more along the lines of changing our own conduct because of something Luntz said.

Seems that way to me, anyway.
  #128  
Old 03-11-2019, 06:40 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
"Dance to his tune" would be more like saying "we can't do X because Luntz says Y"---it would be more along the lines of changing our own conduct because of something Luntz said.

Seems that way to me, anyway.
Slackerinc said Luntz's statement "speaks volumes " so he clearly has come to some conclusion as to what it meant.
  #129  
Old 03-11-2019, 06:40 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Right--I mean, technically it's LHOD who is more dancing to his tune. Unless it's reverse psychology, which I find to be a dubious claim.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #130  
Old 03-11-2019, 06:56 PM
Banquet Bear's Avatar
Banquet Bear is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 5,094
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Although I do not live in her district, I am a member in good standing of the DFL (what the state Democratic Party is called here in Minnesota), and I have contacted my congressman, state senator, and state rep (all DFLers) as well as DFL Governor Tim Walz and Senator Tina Smith to ask that she be censured or preferably expelled from the party.
...you are on record as having expressed this opinion about Muslim immigration to America:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I certainly do not! I have said many times that I welcome immigrants from Latin America. I have perhaps not said, but will say now FTR, that I also welcome immigrants from virtually any other part of the world, as long as they are not Muslim.
Bolding mine.

Is your decision to "work to defeat Ilhan Omar in her next election" in part coloured by the fact that you would have preferred that she was not allowed into the country at all?
  #131  
Old 03-11-2019, 07:03 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Right--I mean, technically it's LHOD who is more dancing to his tune. Unless it's reverse psychology, which I find to be a dubious claim.
I once heard Luntz explain why the term "Orwellian", when applied to political commentary and propaganda, meant the commentary was incisive and honest. I don't find it at all dubious that he's engaging in some convoluted fuckery.

Because you know what would help his cause? Moderates deliberately undermining young progressive Democrats in a fashion that will alienate new Democratic voters.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-11-2019 at 07:04 PM.
  #132  
Old 03-11-2019, 07:10 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
Was Slacker giving Luntz's words weight, though? I thought he was saying 'this right-winger thinks the outspokenness of Omar (etc.) is working to the advantage of the right.'

Either Luntz was being sincere in hoping Omar et al would go on speaking out, or Luntz was being insincere (and actually hopes Omar et all will go silent).
What Luntz likely wants is "Let's you and her fight." He needs moderates to do their damnedest to quiet new voices.

Omar is criticizing the old guard, sure--but she's doing it on policy. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize her back on policy. When old guard moderates and old guard conservatives tell young progressives to shut up, that they're not real Democrats, that the old guard is going to work to deny them power, you know Luntz loves that shit.
  #133  
Old 03-11-2019, 07:15 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Luntz's specialty is messaging derived from focus groups of swing voters. He wants to rhetorically sand the edges off conservative ideology and make it less threatening to suburban moderates, while making Democrats seem scary. Therefore, I have no doubt that he is sincere in wanting Omar to let 'er rip, although he's quite insincere in the justification he offers.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #134  
Old 03-11-2019, 07:20 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Luntz's specialty is messaging derived from focus groups of swing voters. He wants to rhetorically sand the edges off conservative ideology and make it less threatening to suburban moderates, while making Democrats seem scary. Therefore, I have no doubt that he is sincere in wanting Omar to let 'er rip, although he's quite insincere in the justification he offers.
Again, he's an incredibly dishonest Macchiavellian motherfucker. He gets his power from getting your attention. If you hear him talking and decide to start more intraparty warfare, you think that's gonna make him sadface?

What I see is you jigging along while insisting you're not jigging. It doesn't look to me like you'll be persuaded, but I hope other folks know better than to pay Luntz any mind.
  #135  
Old 03-11-2019, 07:23 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Omar is criticizing the old guard, sure--but she's doing it on policy. It's perfectly legitimate to criticize her back on policy.

Progressives are the ultimate glass house-residing stone throwers. They constantly spit out hyperbolic tirades against "corrupt" "corporatist" "warmonger" Democrats like Hillary Clinton, but if we criticize their beloved Bernie (or whomever), suddenly it's "Why would you say such negative things about someone who is inspiring so many people? Don't you realize you're alienating the young voters and progressives you need to win?"
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #136  
Old 03-11-2019, 07:27 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Progressives are the ultimate glass house-residing stone throwers. They constantly spit out hyperbolic tirades against "corrupt" "corporatist" "warmonger" Democrats like Hillary Clinton, but if we criticize their beloved Bernie (or whomever), suddenly it's "Why would you say such negative things about someone who is inspiring so many people? Don't you realize you're alienating the young voters and progressives you need to win?"
Are you aware that criticizing someone on policy is different from criticizing someone for lack of team loyalty? Like, does the fact that I keep describing that difference ever register with you?
  #137  
Old 03-11-2019, 07:29 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
I'm including critiques on policy. They can't take it, even though it's far milder than the ad hominem calumnies you are characterizing as "policy".
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #138  
Old 03-11-2019, 07:46 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I'm including critiques on policy. They can't take it, even though it's far milder than the ad hominem calumnies you are characterizing as "policy".
Okay, dude.
  #139  
Old 03-11-2019, 08:16 PM
Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Try2B Comprehensive View Post
I still think her comments are being blown out of proportion, but wasn't Obama fairly directly involved in drone strikes? Like, staying up late personally overseeing them involved?

The system may have a lot baked into it, but the drones weren't running on auto AFAIK.
Really? You think?
  #140  
Old 03-11-2019, 08:26 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
If she hadn't said the crap about Obama, I would defend her on this. I take this to mean "I actually had no idea my tweets could be seen as referencing anti-Semitic tropes, but I'm sorry they were inadvertently hurtful to people."
Sigh.

It’s an apology failure. It’s an “I’m sorry that you were offended but what I said was not offensive.” She is stating very clearly that she feels the problem was not what she said, it was absolutely not a badly worded tweets or even unwittingly anti Semitic, and she is sorry that some people felt it was. The problem is their offense; I was not offensive.

I know better than to apologize to my wife by saying that I’m sorry she feels that way. Any spouse knows that is no apology, it is clinging to a belief of I’ve no fault here.
__________________
Oy.
  #141  
Old 03-11-2019, 08:32 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Okay, here's a policy point:

When people like Omar complain about drone strikes, I think of the thought experiment Sam Harris posed years ago. Imagine there existed a "perfect weapon". It would be something like the anime DeathNote: you specify which people you want to die and the manner of death, and it will magically happen. Now think: what would Obama do with such a weapon? What would the targets of those drone strikes do with such a weapon?

SPOILER:
Obama would kill just the terrorists, giving them a quick painless death and sparing the women, children, and other innocents around him; the targets of the drone strikes would, in the main, spin the dial to "all Americans", "all Westerners", or maybe even "all non-Muslims", and probably choose something really painful as well
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #142  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:06 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 17,221
And what would Slackerinc do with the weapon? Probably kill all the Muslim immigrants in the USA but he's a Democrat so he'd choose the "painless" option.
  #143  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:16 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,599
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Okay, here's a policy point:

When people like Omar complain about drone strikes, I think of the thought experiment Sam Harris posed years ago. Imagine there existed a "perfect weapon". It would be something like the anime DeathNote: you specify which people you want to die and the manner of death, and it will magically happen. Now think: what would Obama do with such a weapon? What would the targets of those drone strikes do with such a weapon?

SPOILER:
Obama would kill just the terrorists, giving them a quick painless death and sparing the women, children, and other innocents around him; the targets of the drone strikes would, in the main, spin the dial to "all Americans", "all Westerners", or maybe even "all non-Muslims", and probably choose something really painful as well
So the shit what? I EXPECT our president to be better than a terrorist. I mean, come on.

That's not a policy point, that's a super ridiculous non sequitur that succeeds at the nearly impossible, i.e., exaggerating the evil of terrorists.

And for the record, I'm not especially upset over drone strikes, emphasis on "especially". The US has conducted violent warfare against other nations for many decades, and I don't think drone strikes are much of an escalation. If anything they may be a de-escalation. I still think our violent overseas adventures are terrible, but I think the focus on drone strikes is misplaced. That doesn't mean Ima pledge to defeat anyone who disagrees with me though, ferchrissakes.

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 03-11-2019 at 09:17 PM.
  #144  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:23 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,237
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.
Right on. Of course there are serious disagreements among Democrats. That's what happens in a country with 300 million opinions and only two parties.
  #145  
Old 03-11-2019, 09:32 PM
Grrr!'s Avatar
Grrr! is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 16,092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banquet Bear View Post
...you are on record as having expressed this opinion about Muslim immigration to America:

Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc
I certainly do not! I have said many times that I welcome immigrants from Latin America. I have perhaps not said, but will say now FTR, that I also welcome immigrants from virtually any other part of the world, as long as they are not Muslim.


Bolding mine.

Is your decision to "work to defeat Ilhan Omar in her next election" in part coloured by the fact that you would have preferred that she was not allowed into the country at all?
Yep, that tells me all I need to know about the OP.
  #146  
Old 03-11-2019, 10:00 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 21,785
Well the magical weapon bit and that post does put the title of the op in a bit of an ominous light: “... if she’s still around”?
  #147  
Old 03-11-2019, 10:05 PM
Jonathan Chance is offline
Domo Arigato Mister Moderato
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: On the run with Kilroy
Posts: 22,557

The Moderator Speaks


Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
And what would Slackerinc do with the weapon? Probably kill all the Muslim immigrants in the USA but he's a Democrat so he'd choose the "painless" option.
Out of bounds. The discussion here is about specific issues.

Any more personal attacks will earn warnings.
  #148  
Old 03-12-2019, 07:02 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
The US has conducted violent warfare against other nations for many decades, and I don't think drone strikes are much of an escalation. If anything they may be a de-escalation.

A very sensible stance.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #149  
Old 03-12-2019, 07:51 AM
JRDelirious is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Displaced
Posts: 15,764
Isn't it something that after all the various stumbles from the Congresswoman, it is "going after Obama" that is the deal-breaker. OTOH I can absolutely see that from the political-electoral perspective, from the DNC viewpoint they can ill afford to piss off a whole bunch of mainstream African-American voters by having young firebrands seem to say the past leadership was part of the problem not the solution. OTOH isn't that one of the things you expect of young firebrands in a movement?

But really... Obama can't win. From one side he's an alien Muslim socialist atheist overturning traditional values and imposing his extreme policies, from the other side he's a conventional compromising nice face on the same old power politics who couldn't get real change done. One side is on him for being a subversive of all America is about, the other is on him for failing to bring about the revolution.
  #150  
Old 03-12-2019, 09:45 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,780
Well said!

I find it disconcerting that it still seems to be the Jewish stuff that is the main focus of controversy, when this is newer and IMO more damning. It would certainly be less awkward to take a stand against her on this, because the optics of going after her on the other point risks seeming like Jews vs. African Americans, something that has a long and tendentious history (Google Jesse Jackson's "Hymietown" comment and any number of Louis Farrakhan's statements if you're not familiar with said history). In this case, it's in defense of a beloved black leader, so that awkwardness doesn't come into play.
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: https://twitter.com/slackerinc
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 04:40 AM.

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