1: It isn't half the country. Less than 20% of the US population voted for Trump. Granted, there are certainly some people divorced from reality who didn't vote, but there are also likely some people who voted for Trump despite being technically sane.
and you have at least another 20% that are convinced that the democrats are exactly as bad a the republicans, and another 10% that fall for the golden mean fallacy and think that the middle position must be the right one.
3: Instead, we need to get enough of the reality based community to vote, and do so consistently, that we can limit and eventually undo the damage caused by efforts to 'fix' problems that do not exist while treating many which DO exist as 'fake'.
So.. rally for science?
Personally, I'm still for allowing 'majority delusional' regions of the country to live full time under fiction based economic policies. I have some hope that this could actually cure them... and if not then it would at least cause them to die out at a faster rate than they can inflict on the country as a whole.
That hurts individuals in those parts of the country, and the rest of us as we get the race to the bottom.
Something to compete with RW dominance on talk radio?
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster."
Seriously, though...talk radio is a morass of irrationality, fear, and rage. Data, logic, and nuance will never be able to compete in the ratings.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The 'all democrats are not perfect in all ways at all times... therefore they are just as bad as republicans' arguments have gone well past silly at this point.That's not and never have been the point. The real danger of the Democratic Party is that it gathers up progressive energy and simply stifles it. It goes around recruiting progressive votes with the "It's either us or the Republican" mantra. And then once elected, it closes the door to those very same voters, AS DID Barrack Obama in his first two years in office. It took major pressure to get Obama moving on progressive matters and to force Clinton to do some needed about faces on TPP and Keystone.
Yes it is the point. In fact, it's the central thesis on 80% of left leaning posters in this thread. Obama is a republican because he did this one thing. Clinton is a republican because of that one thing. Etc, etc, etc. It's a constant and repeated refrain throughout this thread and liberally leaning discussions.
You do it constantly. If someone isn't perfect, all you talk about is the things that make them not perfect. If that isn't your thesis, then you should reconsider how you communicate, because this is precisely what I've gleaned from how you talk about Democrats. In fact, this is pretty much all I've learned from you, that politicians who aren't perfect and don't 100% agree with you are bad.
If you're trying to get something else across, you've largely failed.
Actually, we're technically a mixed economy, but that's beside the point. I never suggested that both parties weren't, in large part, capitalist. I was suggesting that Comrade was being disingenuous (or perhaps simply misinformed) in his apparent claim that being a capitalist necessarily means supporting school privatization. It hasn't, and doesn't.It's pretty fair. Democrats are (and have been pretty much since the term came into use) a capitalist party. FDR was a capitalist. Bernie Sanders is a capitalist.
They vary amongst themselves and differ greatly from Republicans on how much much control government should have over that capitalism and how much government should do to help those damaged by it.We're a capitalist country. Both parties agree on that. Neither are very pure about it, though they are very different in both their rhetoric and their actual practices.
I'd kind of lost that school privatization was the topic, since it wasn't mentioned in the last few posts in the chain. I'm not sure the Comrade was still focused on it either.
Did you happen to follow his link? If not, that would probably explain the disconnect.
In any event, I still reject what I see as the argument being put forth: That the Democrats lost because they weren't sufficiently liberal.
Especially when half the other arguments are they lost for being too liberal (identify politics, politically correct).
Something to compete with RW dominance on talk radio?
"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster."
Seriously, though...talk radio is a morass of irrationality, fear, and rage. Data, logic, and nuance will never be able to compete in the ratings.
If I may be so bold.
Using Nietzsche's quote while cutting off a significant part of it actually obfuscates the deeper, and far more problematic part of it.
"And if you gaze for long into a Abyss, the abyss gazes into you"
it isn't just a warning to temper own's methods is combating something. It warns that by the simply act of combating something, you will be exposed to that something, and it will be exposed to you. In other words the effect will rub off on both parties, thus making them learn from each other.
Something to compete with RW dominance on talk radio?"He who fights with monsters should be careful lest he thereby become a monster."
Seriously, though...talk radio is a morass of irrationality, fear, and rage. Data, logic, and nuance will never be able to compete in the ratings.
Is that an inherent feature of radio? Or is it possible to reach some of the population through the medium?
It took a long time and a lot of investment to build that nasty morass. Maybe there needs to be a willingness to invest the time and money to build a counter - even it doesn't pay off for years.
Some people are working on it. Crooked Media (actual name) has some interesting takes, mostly young-ish guys who have worked for democratic establishment. They're not going to necessarily push the party to the left, but are looking to help shift the media narrative more to the left.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously guys... TALK RADIO is your problem??? What are the other issues you have? Defect horse buggy whips? No reliable way to get colour in movies? LPs not giving good enough sound quality because the player crank is not properly aligned?
Get over yourselves. Let the dinosaurs use talk radio. Show them what modern, low-cost media can do. Perhaps you need to consider what your message is, not just the medium it's sent through?
Investing in talk radio as a counter? Sheesh...
Seriously guys... TALK RADIO is your problem??? What are the other issues you have? Defect horse buggy whips? No reliable way to get colour in movies? LPs not giving good enough sound quality because the player crank is not properly aligned?
Get over yourselves. Let the dinosaurs use talk radio. Show them what modern, low-cost media can do. Perhaps you need to consider what your message is, not just the medium it's sent through?
Investing in talk radio as a counter? Sheesh...
While I agree that AM radio is a dying medium, I would throw crazy-ass Alex Jones in there as being in the "talk radio" group, and he's got a relatively large (and extremely rabid) following, which shouldn't be ignored.
You do it constantly. If someone isn't perfect, all you talk about is the things that make them not perfect. If that isn't your thesis, then you should reconsider how you communicate, because this is precisely what I've gleaned from how you talk about Democrats. In fact, this is pretty much all I've learned from you, that politicians who aren't perfect and don't 100% agree with you are bad.If you're trying to get something else across, you've largely failed.
Chuck Schumer: The Worst Possible Democratic Leader at the Worst Possible Time
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” - Chuck Schumer.The Democratic Party took a fairly open shift into being the party of suburban Republicans, and lost the Presidency, the congress, senate, and supreme court. And you look at that, and think the problem is- voters are asking for 100% purity? Do you see how that could baffle someone who thinks the Democrats should not be the party of suburban republicans? Especially if being the party of suburban republicans is causing them to fail so bad we end up with Trump?
You do it constantly. If someone isn't perfect, all you talk about is the things that make them not perfect. If that isn't your thesis, then you should reconsider how you communicate, because this is precisely what I've gleaned from how you talk about Democrats. In fact, this is pretty much all I've learned from you, that politicians who aren't perfect and don't 100% agree with you are bad.If you're trying to get something else across, you've largely failed.
Chuck Schumer: The Worst Possible Democratic Leader at the Worst Possible Time
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” - Chuck Schumer.The Democratic Party took a fairly open shift into being the party of suburban Republicans, and lost the Presidency, the congress, senate, and supreme court. And you look at that, and think the problem is- voters are asking for 100% purity? Do you see how that could baffle someone who thinks the Democrats should not be the party of suburban republicans? Especially if being the party of suburban republicans is causing them to fail so bad we end up with Trump?
Embrace your progressive wing, work for progressive policies (beyond identity based policies) and stop abandoning "red states" or join the whigs, because being as much of a regional party as the democrats have become has led to 2 things throughout the history of the U.S. Extinction of the party, and civil war.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Guys, every party needs to think long and hard about how to remain RELEVANT. The key to doing this is to bring up things that people find relevant. There is always, always the temptation to focus on the internal circle-wankery about how pure the ideology should be in this and that way - but this is NOT what gives you followers. People start to follow you when they believe that you want things that will impact their lives positively, and that you will have the ability to push this through.
On the right, the circle-wank is about how different concepts of ownership and freedoms relate to one another, how tiny government should be, why reverting to the golden standard is a good concept etc etc etc. On the left, it is what words nobody should be allowed to use, how the details of intolerant ideas relate to one another, and so on. These are important to the closest followers, but it turns away or leaves cold the rest. So do that, but don't build your policy (except indirectly) on it.
Also, reverting policy to an earlier age is a non-starter. Communism is dead and will not return. See, just as it was an answer to a specific situation back when, it is also a concept the political world knows well and has answers for. With all due respect to various Anklebiters and such.
Find a message that people want. Give them the hope that their schools will be better, that their youths will not be unemployed, that work will not just be a race to the bottom, that they will be allowed to be who they want to be, that the endless wars will stop, that they don't need to feel ashamed or afraid of their government. Make them see that police forces that mistreat people can be reined in. And so on. They will vote for you.
I'd also like to add that the independent/left wing of our political world has very little strategic reason to cooperate with the democrats as they are without major concessions and positions of authority being granted. At the least if things get terrible enough under the current admin and the democrats remain impotent to do anything about it, THEIR support (Green, communist, socialist parties) has a chance to grow.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, and by the way, the method of removing fortunes from the population is inheritance tax. It worked in the US, and it worked in Europe. THAT was what happened to l'ancien regime.
Understand that compared to the historical situation with nobles and kings and so on, today IS an egalitarian paradise. Sure, the billionaires have tons of money and influence... but it is STILL far from what a duke or a king had back in the day. And you know what? That system fell.
Democratic Leadership Debate - CNN (Full Debate) DNC Chair Debate
I'm waiting for the booze to kick in before I can stomach watching this.
Anyone watch it? Any thoughts?
EDIT: Ugh. I didn't realize that little thumbnail of Tucker Carlson would stay on the screen. Anyone have a link without his face on it?
The democrats are literally the party of the people, in that the more people there are in an area, the more likely they are to be democrats. Republicans are just the opposite. The fewer people live around, the more likely you are to be republican. The problem is they...Embrace your progressive wing, work for progressive policies (beyond identity based policies) and stop abandoning "red states" or join the whigs, because being as much of a regional party as the democrats have become has led to 2 things throughout the history of the U.S. Extinction of the party, and civil war.
You do it constantly. If someone isn't perfect, all you talk about is the things that make them not perfect. If that isn't your thesis, then you should reconsider how you communicate, because this is precisely what I've gleaned from how you talk about Democrats. In fact, this is pretty much all I've learned from you, that politicians who aren't perfect and don't 100% agree with you are bad.If you're trying to get something else across, you've largely failed.
Chuck Schumer: The Worst Possible Democratic Leader at the Worst Possible Time
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” - Chuck Schumer.The Democratic Party took a fairly open shift into being the party of suburban Republicans, and lost the Presidency, the congress, senate, and supreme court. And you look at that, and think the problem is- voters are asking for 100% purity? Do you see how that could baffle someone who thinks the Democrats should not be the party of suburban republicans? Especially if being the party of suburban republicans is causing them to fail so bad we end up with Trump?
No the problem is they forgot how the country works and has since its inception.
Lincoln didn't win a majority of the popular vote his first term, the democratic party split their vote or else they would have creamed him. He only managed 55% his second term, when the entire population of the south wasn't included in voting. Presidents who won whenthe majority of the voting population didn't vote for them aren't really as uncommon as people act like.
What did clinton have like 37%?
Yup, gerrymandering plays a role, which is a thing you cant fix until you win, which you cant do without being willing to actually try to play the electoral college game.
Presidential elections draw out more voters, and when you abandon or neglect states during that election, you hamstring members of your party trying to win smaller seats in that area.
Trump will be the 4th president to win the Electoral College after getting fewer votes than his opponent
The biggest issue with the electoral college is that they capped the representatives back in 1929. Without that act places like new york and california would have waaaaaaaaaaay more electoral votes and reps, more in line with population.
It isn't that terrible of a system despite what that thinkpiece says. We just sort of, f~~%ed it up back in the late 20's when we were busily f!#*ing everything up.
Edit: in fairness most of those population/electoral references they use hinge on the 2 party thing we have going on now. Wins electorally with a minority of the popular vote happened a lot in the 1800's when we had a ton of active third parties that actually won some states.
No the problem is they forgot how the country works and has since its inception.
Lincoln didn't win a majority of the popular vote his first term, the democratic party split their vote or else they would have creamed him. He only managed 55% his second term, when the entire population of the south wasn't included in voting. Presidents who won when the majority of the voting population didn't vote for them aren't really as uncommon as people act like.
What did clinton have like 37%?
I'm unsure what the point here is.
Bill Clinton won in 92 with ~43%, if it matters.Winning with a plurality but not an outright majority of the popular vote due to a 3rd party winning a small percentage, isn't exactly common, but winning the electoral college without winning a plurality is rare. 5 times in history, 3 in the 1800s and 2 out of 3 Republican victories in the 21st. (Oddly, 4 out of 5 were Republican candidates (the other being John Quincy-Adams, a Democratic Republican.) A Democrat has never done so. Doesn't really mean anything since 19th century parties bear little resemblance to the modern ones.)
The point is that railing about a bunch of votes extra in states you've already won lacks any kind of pragmatic attitude on the subject. It isn't going to change til dems win, and that isn't going to happen until they figure out how to make people outside of the west coast and northeast vote for them.
we've had 60 elections, of which 10 had wonky electoral/popular vote issues based either on third parties or population disparities in the states post locking representatives at 435.
So around 15% of the elections.
pretty damn rare indeed
Seriously guys... TALK RADIO is your problem??? What are the other issues you have? Defect horse buggy whips? No reliable way to get colour in movies? LPs not giving good enough sound quality because the player crank is not properly aligned?
Get over yourselves. Let the dinosaurs use talk radio. Show them what modern, low-cost media can do. Perhaps you need to consider what your message is, not just the medium it's sent through?
Investing in talk radio as a counter? Sheesh...
You don't live in America. More specifically, you don't live in rural America. Talk radio has a huge presence and huge influence. That might be fading with technology changes, but only slowly, it's still a huge platform.
And it's one almost entirely abandoned to the right.
Whats the age range on people who heavily listen to Talk Radio? My understanding is that the majority of listeners are still are quite a bit older, and probably not "ripe" targets for conversion.
I'm not convinced that it's been abandoned by the the left so much as left-leaning audiences just don't gravitate to talk radio, and tune into NPR or get their media via online sources. There have always been a few left wing radio folks (Rachel Maddow got her start on radio), they just don't see to get the ratings those on the right do.
It's a chicken and egg situation. Is talk radio strongly conservative because progressive folks have ignored selling there message on it, or are conservative folks just more likely to spend time listening to talk radio to begin with.
...I'm just going to throw this out there, but I don't think very many people watch Talk Radio.
Jokes aside, being (or not being) able to see people when they're talking does have an impact on things. I wonder how some of the stuff talk radio says would go over if the speakers could be seen going on about it?
(...Probably a lot like Info Wars, I suppose.)
...I'm just going to throw this out there, but I don't think very many people watch Talk Radio.
Jokes aside, being (or not being) able to see people when they're talking does have an impact on things. I wonder how some of the stuff talk radio says would go over if the speakers could be seen going on about it?
(...Probably a lot like Info Wars, I suppose.)
Yeah I caught that on edit
I don't think seeing has an impact, so much as the fact that you can have the radio playing in the background while doing other things and just sort of absorb information without maybe critically thinking about it. If you have to also watch something, that reduces how much content you can actually exclude, since you can't do it while driving or while at work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do it constantly. If someone isn't perfect, all you talk about is the things that make them not perfect. If that isn't your thesis, then you should reconsider how you communicate, because this is precisely what I've gleaned from how you talk about Democrats. In fact, this is pretty much all I've learned from you, that politicians who aren't perfect and don't 100% agree with you are bad.If you're trying to get something else across, you've largely failed.
Chuck Schumer: The Worst Possible Democratic Leader at the Worst Possible Time
“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” - Chuck Schumer.The Democratic Party took a fairly open shift into being the party of suburban Republicans, and lost the Presidency, the congress, senate, and supreme court. And you look at that, and think the problem is- voters are asking for 100% purity? Do you see how that could baffle someone who thinks the Democrats should not be the party of suburban republicans? Especially if being the party of suburban republicans is causing them to fail so bad we end up with Trump?
Just curious... do you think that because I don't think Democrats are all bad, that means that I like all of them?
My congressional representatives are Ellison, Klobuchar and Franken.
Aren't you from NY? Schumer's your fault. Not mine.
If we are really concerned about smaller populations having too much sway, shouldn't we get rid of the Senate before worrying about the Electoral College? I mean South Dakota has exactly as much power in the Senate as California. If we are truly wanting proportional representative government, the Senate should be done away with.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the government works well with a mix, proportional and unproportional. The problem is that because we haven't added House seats in a long time it throws off the aspect that is supposed to be proportional.
If we are really concerned about smaller populations having too much sway, shouldn't we get rid of the Senate before worrying about the Electoral College? I mean South Dakota has exactly as much power in the Senate as California. If we are truly wanting proportional representative government, the Senate should be done away with.
Get the GOP to follow your lead since now is the best chance to ram an Amendment through. Good luck with getting the proposal any traction given the structure of the Senate and how the constitutional amendment process works.
It is less likely to happen than getting the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact to see completion before the 2020 election.
The entire purpose of the Senate is to ensure all member States have equal say in the upper house of the federal legislature. Truly proportional representation without adjusting vast swaths of the rest of the current legislative structure would result in most of the country's member states losing out in ways not quickly calculable.
Fortunately, the Permanent Apportionment Act is a law, not an amendment and can thus be dealt with should the House decide to do so. A lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court in 2010 attempted to address the undersized House of Representatives. TL;DR: SCOTUS dismissed the case as a Congressional matter.
I have doubts that relying on a single-body legislature would be a net-gain in effectiveness for the United States.
If we are really concerned about smaller populations having too much sway, shouldn't we get rid of the Senate before worrying about the Electoral College? I mean South Dakota has exactly as much power in the Senate as California. If we are truly wanting proportional representative government, the Senate should be done away with.
a) We can't have a functional government agree to pay the money they've already spent. Making massive changes to the constitution is right out
b)They're supposed to have a larger say... about how south dakota is run. But not what civil rights people have in south dakota. As long as they're sticking to that, it's fine.
c) it's nice to have a unit of geography they can't gerrymander.
The president is the only nationally elected office. He's the only one representing the big picture. In theory the sentators are there deciding things in their states interests, not the countries. (it's realy in their doners interests but thats another problem..)
The President/Vice-President is not a single election but 51 simultaneous elections. Thus the desire for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact in some circles. The pair are supposedly not representing the entire country. They are charged with executing the laws passed by Congress while representing the interests of the union of states, territories, et al to the rest of the world.
That Congress has steadily surrendered power to the Executive Branch is a bed of its own making. It is up to Congress, perhaps in cooperation with the Judiciary, to reclaim that which has been so eagerly surrendered. A bitter fight to be sure, yet a necessary one.
Which goes to show you what lengths people are willing to go to to get into the news. As an atheist, I avoid all mummery and quackery, not just the Abrahammic variety.And...More Witches
What's that? You want more articles in my series investigating the resurgence of witches to better understand my semi-girlfriend? Well, okay, but I had to dig back to 2015:
Season of the witch: why young women are flocking to the ancient craft
As an atheist who also avoids all mummery and quackery, I am tempted to mock, but a) see long posts about La Principessa's anger above; and b) it seems a little weird to criticize a rather harmless, even if silly, activity like reading Tarot cards when I am such an enthusiastic participant in a rather harmless, even if silly, activity like pretending to be a goblin paladin.
And...back to Free Speech! But, no fears, no "Bad Man":
And...back to Free Speech! But, no fears, no "Bad Man":
Wow, they managed to ignore the 1st and 4th Amendments in one go. Morons.
Once again, I'm ashamed to live in Arizona.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The 'all democrats are not perfect in all ways at all times... therefore they are just as bad as republicans' arguments have gone well past silly at this point.That's not and never have been the point. The real danger of the Democratic Party is that it gathers up progressive energy and simply stifles it. It goes around recruiting progressive votes with the "It's either us or the Republican" mantra. And then once elected, it closes the door to those very same voters, AS DID Barrack Obama in his first two years in office. It took major pressure to get Obama moving on progressive matters and to force Clinton to do some needed about faces on TPP and Keystone.Yes it is the point. In fact, it's the central thesis on 80% of left leaning posters in this thread. Obama is a republican because he did this one thing. Clinton is a republican because of that one thing. Etc, etc, etc. It's a constant and repeated refrain throughout this thread and liberally leaning discussions.
You do it constantly. If someone isn't perfect, all you talk about is the things that make them not perfect. If that isn't your thesis, then you should reconsider how you communicate, because this is precisely what I've gleaned from how you talk about Democrats. In fact, this is pretty much all I've learned from you, that politicians who aren't perfect and don't 100% agree with you are bad.
If you're trying to get something else across, you've largely failed.
It wasn't just one thing. Obama gave progressives pretty much the cold shoulder on all matters during his first two years in office. He backed the Keystone Pipeline, he stacked regulatory agencies with people from the companies they were supposed to regualte, He took the marriage is one man/one woman stance, and he failed to be aggressive on closing Gitmo, it's not just one thing but a whole raft of issues.
Tomorrow is the Anti-President's Day Black History Month event that I organized in honor of Ona Judge, runaway slave of George Washington's that ended up in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Yesterday, the woman who runs Black Lives Matter NH (and wife of one of my ex-players) discovered (although I had already told her in advance) that the featured speaker was from the still-running Occupy Seacoast group, mostly liberal and progressive Democrats with whom BLM NH doesn't get along because the former had issued a "words we suggest you don't use on your Women's March signs" and one of them was "intersectionality," which they defined as "You-have-to-agree-with-me-on-everything feminism." There were some other microaggressions, I guess is the term, I don't know much about them, really.
Anyway, our reaction to working with people whose politics we disagree with is "fight it out;" hers is "take my ball and go home." She was upset that we "had provided them with a platform" (who does she think they are? The Bad Man?) and withdrew BLM NH's endorsement from the event. The BLM speaker, however, said he still wanted to speak so we just billed him as a member of the New Hampshire Socialist Coalition.
Anyway, I am just reporting how smugly pleased I am that the identitarian politics-peeps are withdrawing because of the liberal Democrats.
Tomorrow is the Anti-President's Day Black History Month event that I organized in honor of Ona Judge, runaway slave of George Washington's that ended up in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Yesterday, the woman who runs Black Lives Matter NH (and wife of one of my ex-players) discovered (although I had already told her in advance) that the featured speaker was from the still-running Occupy Seacoast group, mostly liberal and progressive Democrats with whom BLM NH doesn't get along because the former had issued a "words we suggest you don't use on your Women's March signs" and one of them was "intersectionality," which they defined as "You-have-to-agree-with-me-on-everything feminism."
That's it! BLM Don't take crap from The Man!... or in this case The Woman!??
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's it! BLM Don't take crap from The Man!... or in this case The Woman!??Tomorrow is the Anti-President's Day Black History Month event that I organized in honor of Ona Judge, runaway slave of George Washington's that ended up in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Yesterday, the woman who runs Black Lives Matter NH (and wife of one of my ex-players) discovered (although I had already told her in advance) that the featured speaker was from the still-running Occupy Seacoast group, mostly liberal and progressive Democrats with whom BLM NH doesn't get along because the former had issued a "words we suggest you don't use on your Women's March signs" and one of them was "intersectionality," which they defined as "You-have-to-agree-with-me-on-everything feminism."
Actually I think in this case it's a strong, independent woman who don't need no strong, independent women. I'm not sure which group is supposed to be outraged here. The rule book is unclear.
|
Democratic Leadership Debate - CNN (Full Debate) DNC Chair Debate
I'm waiting for the booze to kick in before I can stomach watching this.
Anyone watch it? Any thoughts?EDIT: Ugh. I didn't realize that little thumbnail of Tucker Carlson would stay on the screen. Anyone have a link without his face on it?
I'm biased but I like Ellison for the job. I find Perez's inability to answer questions troubling.
Also, anyone else notice Tucker Carlson has resting confused face?
I have to admit I was pretty disappointed by the debate as a whole. It seems everyone was bending over backwards to say the same vague stuff, but there was very little substance to tell the candidates apart.
I thought that Sam Ronan was the only one who took a stand on the issue of past problems, and that Perez was dodging questions like bullets in the Matrix. Ellison seemed OK, but I got the impression he was not nearly the break from the status quo I thought he might be.
I don't know, I felt like I learned very little new information from the debate. I would like to see some better questions put to the candidates, and hear something specific.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn't just one thing. Obama gave progressives pretty much the cold shoulder on all matters during his first two years in office. He backed the Keystone Pipeline, he stacked regulatory agencies with people from the companies they were supposed to regualte, He took the marriage is one man/one woman stance, and he failed to be aggressive on closing Gitmo, it's not just one thing but a whole raft of issues.The 'all democrats are not perfect in all ways at all times... therefore they are just as bad as republicans' arguments have gone well past silly at this point.That's not and never have been the point. The real danger of the Democratic Party is that it gathers up progressive energy and simply stifles it. It goes around recruiting progressive votes with the "It's either us or the Republican" mantra. And then once elected, it closes the door to those very same voters, AS DID Barrack Obama in his first two years in office. It took major pressure to get Obama moving on progressive matters and to force Clinton to do some needed about faces on TPP and Keystone.Yes it is the point. In fact, it's the central thesis on 80% of left leaning posters in this thread. Obama is a republican because he did this one thing. Clinton is a republican because of that one thing. Etc, etc, etc. It's a constant and repeated refrain throughout this thread and liberally leaning discussions.
You do it constantly. If someone isn't perfect, all you talk about is the things that make them not perfect. If that isn't your thesis, then you should reconsider how you communicate, because this is precisely what I've gleaned from how you talk about Democrats. In fact, this is pretty much all I've learned from you, that politicians who aren't perfect and don't 100% agree with you are bad.
If you're trying to get something else across, you've largely failed.
You're literally doing the thing I talked about in the post you replied to.