Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #201  
Old 01-22-2020, 11:42 PM
str8cashhomie is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 187
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
What is wrong with your reading abilities Jophiel and Saintly Loser? It may be an annoying talking point in whatever corner you hang out but it was in response to post about "historical wrongness" and specifically "nothing as bad since the Confederates". But the Dems were exactly who extended the Confederacy's legacy so it's exactly on point despite your weariness.
The context for "historically bad" was that the current Republican party is bad in comparison to most of US history, not that the bad history of the Republican party has any special importance now.
  #202  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:17 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
What is wrong with your reading abilities Jophiel and Saintly Loser?
Not a thing. Which is how I know that trying to respond to 'worst X since Y' by trying to drop awesome truth bombs about Y isn't a convincing argument
  #203  
Old 01-23-2020, 08:46 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Not a thing. Which is how I know that trying to respond to 'worst X since Y' by trying to drop awesome truth bombs about Y isn't a convincing argument
That's not what happened but you keep trying with the reading!
  #204  
Old 01-23-2020, 08:56 AM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanredneck View Post
BTW, say what you want about the Bush's but after they were out of office they quietly went back to civilian life.
When you've always got more members of the Bush clan who are up and coming politically, they can do that.

Prescott Bush was in the U.S. Senate until 1963, when Bush the Elder started his political career. Bush the Elder was President until 1993. Dubya first ran for Congress in 1978; Jeb was Florida Secretary of Commerce in 1987. Jeb's political career ended with his primary loss to Mango Mussolini in 2016. George P. Bush, Jeb's son, won office as Texas Land Commissioner in 2014, an office he still holds, with an eye on higher office, no doubt.

So basically, the Bush clan has continuously been prominent in the American political scene throughout the entire post-WWII era.

Last edited by RTFirefly; 01-23-2020 at 08:56 AM.
  #205  
Old 01-23-2020, 09:09 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 20,353
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
When you've always got more members of the Bush clan who are up and coming politically, they can do that.

Prescott Bush was in the U.S. Senate until 1963, when Bush the Elder started his political career. Bush the Elder was President until 1993. Dubya first ran for Congress in 1978; Jeb was Florida Secretary of Commerce in 1987. Jeb's political career ended with his primary loss to Mango Mussolini in 2016. George P. Bush, Jeb's son, won office as Texas Land Commissioner in 2014, an office he still holds, with an eye on higher office, no doubt.

So basically, the Bush clan has continuously been prominent in the American political scene throughout the entire post-WWII era.
Chelsea may not ever decide to run for public office; At least I've never heard any mention of her intentions to do so. That in no way obligates the Clintons in continuing to publicly involve themselves in US politics. It's who they are and they have a right to do so. And it's fair to criticize them in context of their long political history when they say and do stupid shit.

That said, if they want to avoid controversy, they could do worse than to take a page from the Bushes' more hands off approach.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #206  
Old 01-23-2020, 09:42 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's not what happened but you keep trying with the reading!
Thanks, you too
  #207  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:19 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
Thanks, you too
Let me help you out
A: the GOP is a historical bad, no organization as evil since the Confederacy!
B: uhh, the Dems worked with the KKK and violently supressed the black vote for decades after the Confederacy.
You: Why are you talking ancient history? Republicans are bad, mmmkay?

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-23-2020 at 10:20 AM.
  #208  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:26 AM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Let me help you out
A: the GOP is a historical bad, no organization as evil since the Confederacy!
B: uhh, the Dems worked with the KKK and violently supressed the black vote for decades after the Confederacy.
You: Why are you talking ancient history? Republicans are bad, mmmkay?
Once again, "Thanks, you too "

I don't agree with you, don't think you actually understood, don't care if you want to stay in a tizzy over it and don't intend to keep tending to your tizzy throughout the day.
  #209  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:27 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Ok
  #210  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:29 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Let me help you out
A: the GOP is a historical bad, no organization as evil since the Confederacy!
B: uhh, the Dems worked with the KKK and violently supressed the black vote for decades after the Confederacy.
You: Why are you talking ancient history? Republicans are bad, mmmkay?
If this is about my post, then yes, I think the modern incarnation of the GOP is as bad and as harmful to the country as the Democratic party during Jim Crow (i.e. only exceeded in evil by the Confederacy). You are free to disagree, of course -- we're talking about really, really awful stuff, and I'm not going to quibble with someone who feels that the modern GOP is really, really bad but not quite as bad as the Jim Crow supporters.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-23-2020 at 10:29 AM.
  #211  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:35 AM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
Democrats didn't win in 2018 because republicans voted democrat, they won because younger voters bothered to turn out.

https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-conte...ations2018.png

People under the age of 53 cast 27 million more votes in 2018 than they did in 2014, while people over the age of 54 only cast 4 million more votes in 2018 vs 2014.

If democrats want to win they have to keep voter turnout high. Moderate republicans have a role in the party, but a party devoted to moderate republican principles will result in lower voter turnout. Lots of those young people may stay home if the democratic party is nothing more than a DLC, third way party. Support for Bernie is much higher among voters under 40 than it is for older voters.
I'm not sure why you're quoting me with this, I never said the youth vote wasn't important to the Democrats in 2018. What I said was this:

Quote:
many of which helped you guys take the House in 2018 will never vote for a terrible candidate like Bernie Sanders
I used the word "helped", you however seem to ascribe to a simplistic view of the 2018 elections where the Democrats won based on exactly one factor, I'm guessing because it helps counteract an argument I made you didn't like (that people like me who simply don't like far leftist politics were a meaningful contributor to the Democrats taking the House.) Considering all the centrist Democrats in rust belt states, in Texas suburbs, the type of Democrats supporters of Bernie Sanders have been bashing as corporate shills for decades, won a lot of these seats suggests to me that while the youth vote probably was instrumental in a number of districts, it's very unlikely the far lefties who like Bernie Sanders were the reason guys like Conor Lamb got elected in 2018 in a deep red district.

Geography gets to vote in our political system, and the areas of the country where the demographics are weighted more to the young and to the racially diverse are areas that are already blue strongholds. Running up the score in those districts might help your numbers in things like Pew surveys but don't linearly convert to more congressional seats.

Now it's a different topic entirely--but long term areas that are less "gray" and less white, there's quite a few areas like that in the South where the extreme conservatism of the middle aged and older white voters has kept those regions "red", but where any smart Republican would be very worried for the future. Just based on what we see now and the fact that old people die off over time Republicans should be very worried about states like Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina in the coming years. But aside from the Texas suburbs where Democrats had a few pickups, most of these areas the predominant voter population is still weighted enough to the older and much more conservative whites that the GOP held on to most of those house seats.
  #212  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:48 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
If this is about my post, then yes, I think the modern incarnation of the GOP is as bad and as harmful to the country as the Democratic party during Jim Crow (i.e. only exceeded in evil by the Confederacy). You are free to disagree, of course -- we're talking about really, really awful stuff, and I'm not going to quibble with someone who feels that the modern GOP is really, really bad but not quite as bad as the Jim Crow supporters.
People can quibble about that, but I wasn't. I was quibbling Jophiel acting like you didn't bring the subject of historical wrongness up and acting like it was some out of the blue defense of the GOP from Dark Sponge. Well, not even quibbling - just pointing out an obvious fact that she somehow disagrees with.

Last edited by CarnalK; 01-23-2020 at 10:50 AM.
  #213  
Old 01-23-2020, 10:52 AM
ISiddiqui is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Decatur, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
That said, if they want to avoid controversy, they could do worse than to take a page from the Bushes' more hands off approach.
Eh, the Bushes were Presidents and there is an expectation for Presidents to quietly retire. Those who lose the race for the Presidency don't have that expectation, nor do they do it. Romney, before he ran for Senate in Utah, was vocal about his opinions. Same with Gore. Bob Dole was pretty active in the Jeb! Bush 2016 primary campaign. Etc.
  #214  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:13 AM
Kearsen1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Austin
Posts: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
When you've always got more members of the Bush clan who are up and coming politically, they can do that.

Prescott Bush was in the U.S. Senate until 1963, when Bush the Elder started his political career. Bush the Elder was President until 1993. Dubya first ran for Congress in 1978; Jeb was Florida Secretary of Commerce in 1987. Jeb's political career ended with his primary loss to Mango Mussolini in 2016. George P. Bush, Jeb's son, won office as Texas Land Commissioner in 2014, an office he still holds, with an eye on higher office, no doubt.

So basically, the Bush clan has continuously been prominent in the American political scene throughout the entire post-WWII era.
And that had fuck all to do with what he said?
  #215  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:32 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
That would have been a real zinger a hundred years ago. Since then, the Party of Lincoln has become the Party of the Southern Strategy and the Party of "Very Fine People" when referring to neo-Nazis and Confederate flag wavers.
Can we stop with this falsehood that Trump said that neo-Nazis were "fine people"? It has been debunked over and over again. He specifically said that his "fine people on both sides" comment was not directed at Nazis.

Quote:
Trump: "Excuse me, excuse me. They didnít put themselves -- and you had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides. You had people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."
Then less than 10 seconds later:

Quote:
Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the [George Washington] statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, itís fine. Youíre changing history. Youíre changing culture. And you had people -- and Iím not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
Bolding mine. So how does anyone get that he was talking about very fine nazis?
  #216  
Old 01-23-2020, 11:52 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Can we stop with this falsehood that Trump said that neo-Nazis were "fine people"? It has been debunked over and over again. He specifically said that his "fine people on both sides" comment was not directed at Nazis.

Then less than 10 seconds later:

Bolding mine. So how does anyone get that he was talking about very fine nazis?
Because there were no others aside from white supremacists and neo-Nazis on that side. Anyone that marches along in a group that is dominated by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and neo-Nazi/white-supremacist chanting, imagery, and symbolism, is a neo-Nazi or white supremacist.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-23-2020 at 11:53 AM.
  #217  
Old 01-23-2020, 12:00 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,774
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Bolding mine. So how does anyone get that he was talking about very fine nazis?
'Cause we all saw photos of the rally and its participants and a "But not those guys *wink*wink*" doesn't amount to much?
  #218  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:19 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Last week a group of Bernie and Warren trolls interrupted a Pete rally because of ‘climate change activism’

Now Bernie will be chartering a private jet to campaign during the impeachment trial.

I’m sure the climate change activists will be up in arms over this, right?

https://t.co/XOeCNh72jx?amp=1
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #219  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:21 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Last week a group of Bernie and Warren trolls interrupted a Pete rally because of Ďclimate change activismí

Now Bernie will be chartering a private jet to campaign during the impeachment trial.

Iím sure the climate change activists will be up in arms over this, right?

https://t.co/XOeCNh72jx?amp=1
This sounds like the incredibly dumb "Al Gore is a hypocrite for flying" takes from the GOP in the early '00s.
  #220  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:23 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Last week a group of Bernie and Warren trolls interrupted a Pete rally because of Ďclimate change activismí

Now Bernie will be chartering a private jet to campaign during the impeachment trial.

Iím sure the climate change activists will be up in arms over this, right?

https://t.co/XOeCNh72jx?amp=1
Really? Did you copy that from the Republicans?
  #221  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:31 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: 42,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
Last week a group of Bernie and Warren trolls interrupted a Pete rally because of Ďclimate change activismí

Now Bernie will be chartering a private jet to campaign during the impeachment trial.

Iím sure the climate change activists will be up in arms over this, right?

https://t.co/XOeCNh72jx?amp=1
This is real dumb. The article--and a handful of other rightwing hit-pieces along the same lines--are based on a line from a late-night show, immediately following which he talked about possibly "planepooling" with Klobuchar and Warren.

Modern campaigning involves keeping a grueling schedule of going from event to event. It's not possible to keep a modern campaign schedule using commercial airflight, much less eschewing air travel entirely.

The complaint boils down to, Ha ha, Sanders refuses to torpedo his campaign in order to hold to our misunderstanding of his principles! It's ridiculous.

In looking for more information, I ran across this article from last year. My main takeaway is, Christ Almighty, there's some bad blood between Clinton and Sanders staffers, on both sides. Neither side comes out looking good.

In the current spat between Clinton and Sanders, Sanders is winning the only way he can: he's refusing to play. As such, he comes out clearly the better person.
  #222  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:41 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
This is real dumb. The article--and a handful of other rightwing hit-pieces along the same lines--are based on a line from a late-night show, immediately following which he talked about possibly "planepooling" with Klobuchar and Warren.

Modern campaigning involves keeping a grueling schedule of going from event to event. It's not possible to keep a modern campaign schedule using commercial airflight, much less eschewing air travel entirely.

The complaint boils down to, Ha ha, Sanders refuses to torpedo his campaign in order to hold to our misunderstanding of his principles! It's ridiculous.

In looking for more information, I ran across this article from last year. My main takeaway is, Christ Almighty, there's some bad blood between Clinton and Sanders staffers, on both sides. Neither side comes out looking good.

In the current spat between Clinton and Sanders, Sanders is winning the only way he can: he's refusing to play. As such, he comes out clearly the better person.
A few months ago, Bernie and Warren twitter warriors were slinging shit at Pete for using chartered jets even though they very well know that getting to and from South Bend is a bitch. So, Iím glad payback is a bitch.

And, no, I havenít forgotten the 2016 Sanders chartered jet to Rome so he could ambush the pope.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #223  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:43 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
...

And, no, I havenít forgotten the 2016 Sanders chartered jet to Rome so he could ambush the pope.
What does this even mean? Please clarify or provide a link.
  #224  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:43 PM
Jophiel's Avatar
Jophiel is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Chicago suburbia
Posts: 19,774
I don't much care for Sanders but Trump is throwing away environmental protections left and right and Sanders, despite his use of a plane, probably isn't going to be doing the same thing. Or leaving environmental treaties or telling audiences that the endangered wildlife can go fuck itself when it's in the way of his precious wall.
  #225  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:45 PM
Snowboarder Bo's Avatar
Snowboarder Bo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 28,252
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
A few months ago, Bernie and Warren twitter warriors were slinging shit at Pete for using chartered jets even though they very well know that getting to and from South Bend is a bitch. So, Iím glad payback is a bitch.

And, no, I havenít forgotten the 2016 Sanders chartered jet to Rome so he could ambush the pope.
What's awesome about you, dalej42, is the way you take certain things so very personally.
  #226  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:52 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by What Exit? View Post
What does this even mean? Please clarify or provide a link.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/m.huf...ry/9721400/amp

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sa...vate-jet-menu/
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #227  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:54 PM
Wesley Clark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 23,121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
I'm not sure why you're quoting me with this, I never said the youth vote wasn't important to the Democrats in 2018. What I said was this:



I used the word "helped", you however seem to ascribe to a simplistic view of the 2018 elections where the Democrats won based on exactly one factor, I'm guessing because it helps counteract an argument I made you didn't like (that people like me who simply don't like far leftist politics were a meaningful contributor to the Democrats taking the House.) Considering all the centrist Democrats in rust belt states, in Texas suburbs, the type of Democrats supporters of Bernie Sanders have been bashing as corporate shills for decades, won a lot of these seats suggests to me that while the youth vote probably was instrumental in a number of districts, it's very unlikely the far lefties who like Bernie Sanders were the reason guys like Conor Lamb got elected in 2018 in a deep red district.

Geography gets to vote in our political system, and the areas of the country where the demographics are weighted more to the young and to the racially diverse are areas that are already blue strongholds. Running up the score in those districts might help your numbers in things like Pew surveys but don't linearly convert to more congressional seats.

Now it's a different topic entirely--but long term areas that are less "gray" and less white, there's quite a few areas like that in the South where the extreme conservatism of the middle aged and older white voters has kept those regions "red", but where any smart Republican would be very worried for the future. Just based on what we see now and the fact that old people die off over time Republicans should be very worried about states like Texas, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina in the coming years. But aside from the Texas suburbs where Democrats had a few pickups, most of these areas the predominant voter population is still weighted enough to the older and much more conservative whites that the GOP held on to most of those house seats.
My point is that as democrats we've heard for years that we have to appeal to moderate republicans because maybe if we water down our beliefs enough, they maybe will vote for a democrat once in a blue moon.

My point is that there is an entire generation of new voters willing to vote for democrats who act like democrats. Moderate republicans may play a role in the democratic party, but the real reason the democrats won is because young people showed up to vote.

There was some political realignment in 2016. Republicans who score low on bigotry and authoritarianism switched and became democrats, while democrats who score high on bigotry and authoritarianism became republicans. But each group was about 10% of their respective parties, and I think they mostly cancelled each other out.

Watering down democratic agendas to appeal to moderate republicans (in geographic areas where the cook ranking is fairly leftist, or on the national level) carry its own risks. It could make blacks, labor unions and liberals stay home and not vote, not volunteer or not donate money. It isn't a risk free political strategy. A third way democratic party unwilling to take on the oligarchy, unwilling to stand up for minorities and unwilling to address economic inequality that still wants high levels of turnout, volunteerism and donations from democratic base donors is going to run into issues.
__________________
Sometimes I doubt your commitment to sparkle motion
  #228  
Old 01-23-2020, 01:56 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,940
You provided a link to Snopes saying the story is mostly false, are you even trying?
  #229  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:02 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Hint: It would have been more convincing if you'd linked directly to the right-wing site (motto:"The News the Liberal Media WILL NOT Report!", rather than to the Snopes page debunking the claims made there. I mean, not much more convincing, but...
  #230  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:05 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
Also, in order for "payback" to be "a bitch", you would have to provide a cite that anyone other than you and a few other Twitter trolls know or care about this.
  #231  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:16 PM
Martin Hyde is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 14,274
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Clark View Post
My point is that as democrats we've heard for years that we have to appeal to moderate republicans because maybe if we water down our beliefs enough, they maybe will vote for a democrat once in a blue moon.
I'm not a Democrat so I'm not usually in the business of advising Democrats on how to get votes--as I've usually wished to see them lose elections. So I can't speak to this. I would suggest that you win in politics at least Federally by fielding a coalition that can win the Senate and Electoral College. I'm not convinced a far leftist idealogue will be able to build such a coalition due to the geographic realities of the sort of people who support that sort of thing.

I would also say that you should appeal to a majority of Democrats for sure, I don't think you should worry about appealing to Republicans--you can win without us. But Bernie and the far leftists advocate policies that are unpopular with significant portions of Democrats, not just Republicans. I feel like you're almost saying the only "real" Democrat is a far leftist, and somehow the millions and millions of Democratic voters that aren't far left but are centrists or moderate left, aren't real Democrats. I'd argue in a two party system it's much more likely that in fact, most Democrats are moderate left / centrist. In a different system maybe they'd be in the CDU and you guys would be Social Dems, but we don't have a system with that level of party granularity.

Quote:
My point is that there is an entire generation of new voters willing to vote for democrats who act like democrats. Moderate republicans may play a role in the democratic party, but the real reason the democrats won is because young people showed up to vote.
So you're defining "act like Democrats" to mean act like Bernie Sanders (not a Democrat), or Ocasio-Cortez? Someone at the far end of the political spectrum.

Quote:
There was some political realignment in 2016. Republicans who score low on bigotry and authoritarianism switched and became democrats, while democrats who score high on bigotry and authoritarianism became republicans. But each group was about 10% of their respective parties, and I think they mostly cancelled each other out.
I'm skeptical very many of us "switched" to being Democrats, we voted for Hillary as a countervote to Trump, we did not ideological align with leftism.

Quote:
Watering down democratic agendas to appeal to moderate republicans (in geographic areas where the cook ranking is fairly leftist, or on the national level) carry its own risks. It could make blacks, labor unions and liberals stay home and not vote, not volunteer or not donate money. It isn't a risk free political strategy. A third way democratic party unwilling to take on the oligarchy, unwilling to stand up for minorities and unwilling to address economic inequality that still wants high levels of turnout, volunteerism and donations from democratic base donors is going to run into issues.
I'd agree, but you seem to conflate "moderate Republican" and "moderate Democrats", one of those I agree you can do without, but I don't think you win national elections in America appealing to roughly 1/3rd of the Democratic voting base with policies outright disliked by the remaining 2/3rd (those numbers are just conversational, I have no idea what % of Dems are "progressive", but I know it's not a majority.)
  #232  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:27 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,940
Bush/Cheney is what switched me to the Democratic side. Nothing since has persuaded me the Republicans are anything close to the party I first joined. Trump is less evil than Cheney but far more embarrassing to the country and insane.
  #233  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:44 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Can we stop with this falsehood that Trump said that neo-Nazis were "fine people"?
Trump lying and saying that he didn't say something that we all heard him say is not exactly the rock solid proof of his innocence that you think it is, counselor.
  #234  
Old 01-23-2020, 02:57 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
A few months ago, Bernie and Warren twitter warriors were slinging shit at Pete for using chartered jets even though they very well know that getting to and from South Bend is a bitch. So, I’m glad payback is a bitch.
Well, if people on Twitter said stuff, what else is there to say, amirite?

Last edited by RTFirefly; 01-23-2020 at 02:58 PM.
  #235  
Old 01-23-2020, 03:26 PM
dalej42 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicago
Posts: 15,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well, if people on Twitter said stuff, what else is there to say, amirite?
I do think Twitter is very powerful. The Warren campaign made a huge blunder by thinking the wine cave crap being spewed by Bernie and Warren stans mattered and bumbled December and the debate on it.
__________________
Twitter:@Stardales IG:@Dalej42 He/Him/His
  #236  
Old 01-23-2020, 03:36 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: 42,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Hyde View Post
I'm not a Democrat so I'm not usually in the business of advising Democrats on how to get votes--as I've usually wished to see them lose elections. So I can't speak to this. I would suggest that you win in politics at least Federally by fielding a coalition that can win the Senate and Electoral College. I'm not convinced a far leftist idealogue will be able to build such a coalition due to the geographic realities of the sort of people who support that sort of thing.
I get that concern. As a Warren/Sanders supporter (order changes day by day), that freaking terrifies me. And someone who supports Biden because they think he's more electable? Totally a reasonable position.

At the same time, I worry that that's the sort of thinking Republicans had in 2016 about Trump, during the primary; and I worry that's the same sort of thinking that Democrats had about Sanders in 2016, during the primary. Democrats chose the electable candidate. Republicans chose the immoderate blunt-talking populist candidate, the clearly unsafe, unelectable candidate.

And Republicans won with theirs, and Democrats lost with theirs.

Real Clear Politics shows that Sanders beats trump by an average of 3.5 points. Biden's got a 4.6 spread. Warren's got a 1.0 spread. Those are all pretty close to one another, especially the Sanders and Biden.

I hear from a lot of midroad Trump supporters a complete disgust with politicians in general, a belief that they're all liars in it for themselves. I think that there are some establishment Democrats who feel the same way about Sanders, but there are also some voters who see Sanders as more honest than Biden, or even Warren (as someone who likes Warren a touch more than Sanders, I'd agree Sanders is more honest than Warren).

The polling is complicated and fraught. Anyone who's claiming certainty about how a Sanders/Trump matchup would go, especially compared to how a Biden/Trump matchup went, didn't learn the fundamental lesson of humility that 2016 tried to teach.
  #237  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:40 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 16,444
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Because there were no others aside from white supremacists and neo-Nazis on that side. Anyone that marches along in a group that is dominated by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and neo-Nazi/white-supremacist chanting, imagery, and symbolism, is a neo-Nazi or white supremacist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jophiel View Post
'Cause we all saw photos of the rally and its participants and a "But not those guys *wink*wink*" doesn't amount to much?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance Turbo View Post
Trump lying and saying that he didn't say something that we all heard him say is not exactly the rock solid proof of his innocence that you think it is, counselor.
So when he says fine people on both sides, and then clearly says that he was only talking about the people wanting to keep confederate statues, and then expressly disclaims that he is talking about neo-nazis, then that clearly means he was talking about neo-nazis?

I linked his actual words. Maybe you think he was lying and really did want to praise neo-nazis. Fine. But what he did not do was praise neo-nazis and he specifically disclaimed that he was referring to neo-nazis.

The Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong with you guys, and what is does is make people disbelieve everything else you say about him when you are willing to take a statement where he condemns neo-nazis and turn it into a statement that he supports neo-nazis.

If Trump said, "There are fine people on both sides of the abortion debate, but not those who bomb abortion clinics, they should be condemned" some of you would write headlines saying "Trump says abortion clinic bombers are 'fine people'" Where is the reality in any of this?
  #238  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So when he says fine people on both sides, and then clearly says that he was only talking about the people wanting to keep confederate statues, and then expressly disclaims that he is talking about neo-nazis, then that clearly means he was talking about neo-nazis?



I linked his actual words. Maybe you think he was lying and really did want to praise neo-nazis. Fine. But what he did not do was praise neo-nazis and he specifically disclaimed that he was referring to neo-nazis.



The Trump Derangement Syndrome is strong with you guys, and what is does is make people disbelieve everything else you say about him when you are willing to take a statement where he condemns neo-nazis and turn it into a statement that he supports neo-nazis.



If Trump said, "There are fine people on both sides of the abortion debate, but not those who bomb abortion clinics, they should be condemned" some of you would write headlines saying "Trump says abortion clinic bombers are 'fine people'" Where is the reality in any of this?
The reality is that Trump praised white supremacists, then lied and said he wasn't praising white supremacists. It's quite simple. He lies blatantly and openly and brazenly, and tons of Americans buy it because they can't conceive of someone lying so brazenly and so openly.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-23-2020 at 04:45 PM.
  #239  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:46 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
"Those guys over there are wonderful people" (points at a group of Nazis)

"I don't mean the Nazis, but those guys over there are great people".

Just straight lies out in the open for all to see.
__________________
My new novel Spindown

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-23-2020 at 04:51 PM.
  #240  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:53 PM
Lance Turbo is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Asheville, NC
Posts: 4,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
"Those guys over there are wonderful people" (points at a group of Nazis)

"I don't mean the Nazis, but those guys over there are great people".

Just straight lies out in the open for all to see.
Nailed it.
  #241  
Old 01-23-2020, 04:59 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,902
See, here's the crucial lie, bolded. The demonstration in question was in fact organized and attended entirely by white supremacists.

Quote:
Trump: "Okay, good. Are we going to take down the [George Washington] statue? Because he was a major slave owner. Now, are we going to take down his statue?

"So you know what, it’s fine. You’re changing history. You’re changing culture. And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.

"Now, in the other group also, you had some fine people. But you also had troublemakers, and you see them come with the black outfits and with the helmets, and with the baseball bats. You had a lot of bad people in the other group."
So, if you wanted to be charitable, you could say that Trump was just misinformed. But he should have had his facts straight before making a statement on national TV. And he should have retracted his statement when the truth was pointed out to him, which to my knowledge he never has.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 01-23-2020 at 05:01 PM.
  #242  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:12 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 40,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Well, if people on Twitter said stuff, what else is there to say, amirite?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dalej42 View Post
I do think Twitter is very powerful. The Warren campaign made a huge blunder by thinking the wine cave crap being spewed by Bernie and Warren stans mattered and bumbled December and the debate on it.
Well then, if what "Bernie and Warren stans" said on Twitter is somehow representative of their campaigns, it's lucky for Buttigieg that you're not on Twitter.

Or maybe you are. If so, too bad for Pete.
  #243  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:22 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
If Twitter had much power how is Biden still ahead? Twitter, or at least the blue-check accounts, hate him.

I actually believe one of the key reasons for Biden's steadiness is he is the candidate who panders least to the extremely online, edgy crowd. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't use Twitter and a smaller sub-section of those who do, use it for political engagement. To use an opposite example, Andrew Yang and the Yang Gang are huge on Twitter but in the polls he hovers around 2-3% and getting just 5% is considered a great result.

Then there's also the election across the pond in December whereby Twitter would have led you to believe Corbyn was nailed on to become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He ended up leading his party to their worst defeat in nearly ninety years.
  #244  
Old 01-23-2020, 06:27 PM
What Exit?'s Avatar
What Exit? is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Central NJ (near Bree)
Posts: 29,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
If Twitter had much power how is Biden still ahead? Twitter, or at least the blue-check accounts, hate him.

I actually believe one of the key reasons for Biden's steadiness is he is the candidate who panders least to the extremely online, edgy crowd. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't use Twitter and a smaller sub-section of those who do, use it for political engagement. To use an opposite example, Andrew Yang and the Yang Gang are huge on Twitter but in the polls he hovers around 2-3% and getting just 5% is considered a great result.

Then there's also the election across the pond in December whereby Twitter would have led you to believe Corbyn was nailed on to become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He ended up leading his party to their worst defeat in nearly ninety years.
Sanders has 50% of the Democrats under 30. Biden has a larger percentage of Dems over 60. He is also polling the best with African Americans. I don't remember numbers for the 30-60 group. None of this should be hard to find. But Twitter is largely irrelevant.
  #245  
Old 01-23-2020, 07:38 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 12,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Anyone who's claiming certainty about how a Sanders/Trump matchup would go, especially compared to how a Biden/Trump matchup went, didn't learn the fundamental lesson of humility that 2016 tried to teach.
Fair enough, but let's revisit this again if Bernie makes it to the general and people actually start to envision the possibility of radical overhaul of the health system.
  #246  
Old 01-23-2020, 08:40 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,483
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Because there were no others aside from white supremacists and neo-Nazis on that side. Anyone that marches along in a group that is dominated by neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and neo-Nazi/white-supremacist chanting, imagery, and symbolism, is a neo-Nazi or white supremacist.
And of course you apply that same logic to people on the left who march alongside Marxists and anti-semites like Louis Farrakhan, right?

Or do you give your side a pass? Because those Marxists are representing an evil just as horrific as Naziism.

The fact is, every political march, unless it's the March for Moderation, is going to pick up a certain percentage of kooks and assholes. The left has its share of radical anarchists, revolutionary Marxists, anti-semites and other deplorables.

But reasonable people do not use guilt by association.
  #247  
Old 01-23-2020, 08:55 PM
Saintly Loser is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So when he says fine people on both sides, and then clearly says that he was only talking about the people wanting to keep confederate statues, and then expressly disclaims that he is talking about neo-nazis, then that clearly means he was talking about neo-nazis?
The Unite the Right rally was organized by an avowed white supremacist and neo-Nazi. Anyone who responded to his call for a protest, even if their only objective was the preservation of statues of Confederate leaders (which is a whole other topic), is not a "fine person." Anyone who will stand beside such as David Duke, Richard Spencer, Gavin McInnes and the rest of that crowd is not a "fine person."
  #248  
Old 01-23-2020, 08:59 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: 42,265
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
And of course you apply that same logic to people on the left who march alongside Marxists and anti-semites like Louis Farrakhan, right?

Or do you give your side a pass? Because those Marxists are representing an evil just as horrific as Naziism.

The fact is, every political march, unless it's the March for Moderation, is going to pick up a certain percentage of kooks and assholes. The left has its share of radical anarchists, revolutionary Marxists, anti-semites and other deplorables.

But reasonable people do not use guilt by association.
It's cool seeing how far to the right of even a lot of conservative commentators our resident conservatives are. Lots of conservative commentators were able to bring themselves to condemn Trump for these comments. But not ours!

Keen.

You're genuinely trying to "both-sides" this, as though having the Maoist Brigade show up at a teacher rally is the same thing as having white supremacists show up at a rally organized by a self-proclaimed "white advocate".

That's despicable. Your inability to condemn this white supremacist rally? Revolting.
  #249  
Old 01-23-2020, 09:01 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,872
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
And of course you apply that same logic to people on the left who march alongside Marxists and anti-semites like Louis Farrakhan, right?
Absolutely. Anyone who marches in a group totally dominated by Marxist chants and imagery, or anti-Semitic chants and imagery (like the march in question), can be characterized a Marxist or an anti-Semite.

Quote:
The fact is, every political march, unless it's the March for Moderation, is going to pick up a certain percentage of kooks and assholes. The left has its share of radical anarchists, revolutionary Marxists, anti-semites and other deplorables.
Of course. But this wasn't "a certain percentage", this was a march utterly dominated by white supremacist and neo-Nazi imagery and chanting. It was very clearly a white supremacist march -- they were chanting "Jews will not replace us" en masse!

Quote:
But reasonable people do not use guilt by association.
Right. I'm not. I'm using "guilt by guilt". Members of the KKK aren't guilty "by association" -- they're guilty of being white supremacists because they chose to join a white supremacist organization. No one would march in a crowd totally dominated by Nazi chants and Nazi imagery unless they were absolutely fine with being a Nazi.

It really is okay to criticize white supremacists and Nazis. It's not SJW-ism or some other such nonsense. These were white supremacists going to a white supremacist march. It wasn't about culture, or heritage -- it was a white supremacist march, organized by white supremacists, attended by white supremacists, in which white supremacists committed deadly violence. Good people don't do that stuff.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-23-2020 at 09:06 PM.
  #250  
Old 01-23-2020, 09:07 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 19,344
Sam, if you were at an event and hundreds of participants started chanting "jews will not replace us!" what would be your next step?
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 10:41 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