It appears the future of the democratic party is the establishment holding back the progressive wing of the party in hopes that Trump stumbles so spectacularly that voters return to the old fold. Not sure its much of a future.
Or that the establishments best chance of winning is holding the center while trump mobilizes the center and the progressives. Part of the lack of progressive involvement was "meh, he'll never win" something that shouldn't be a factor this time around.
Russia poisoned leaders they didn't agree with.
Maybe. Maybe Bush knocked down the towers. Maybe Bin Laden is still living in Tora Bora. Maybe Comet Pizza is a pedophile sex ring. Maybe Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. Since there is equal amounts of proof for all these different scenarios, I wouldn't take meaningful action based on any of them.
(Note: I'm not saying Russia didn't poison some people, I just don't think it is anything more then a theory.)The US sent cardboard tents and sleeping mats to encourage protestors.
Do you honestly believe that we had no other influence beyond that?
EDIT: Oh, one thing we DO have proof of is Obama, and then Trump killing US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. His son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (a 16-year-old American citizen), was killed in a U.S. drone strike two weeks later.[18] On January 29, 2017, Al-Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter, Nawar Al-Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. commando attack in Yemen which was ordered by Donald Trump.
So we have proof of 3 US citizens (including two children) being killed, and a bunch of innuendo about Russia.
What was it you said? "Both are therefore equally guilty of interfering in the situation....".
Becoming a regional party is how parties die.Well, depends on the size of the region. :)
As we've seen, the west coast + northeast isn't enough.
In all honesty, I find the "metaphor" of the stolen car keys confusing.It really doesn't matter, if the keys were stolen or not, at least not to any onlookers to the whole process. As their opinions on the possible key theft is formed by their respective perceptions of the perpetrator/victim during said process.
Now it is correct that after the dust have settled, and all the facts have been collected, that the perceptions people had of who was what in process was incorrect. Then excuses and reparation might be given to aggrieved parties, in hopes of mending any bad blood.
Unfortunately there will be some, for whom, the initial perception of the incident will linger and so will the ill feelings. Most attempts to placate these people will be met with anger, mistrust and hurt feelings.Then, if the "offended" party is going to be mad and not like you regardless of what you do, what's the point in kowtowing?
The fact that people feel maligned is true, but those feelings are based on falsehoods. Should the dialogue proceed forward as if those falsehoods are true? Or should we try to get closer to the truth?
You deftly point out one the great problems of feeling in that they are not anchored in anything rational or logical. They belong in the realm of the immediate and visceral.
So in my opinion it really doesn't matter if they were based in anything true or false, as the people felt them either way.But as time passes so to does the impact of those feelings, some might be ready today to get back to working with the democrats. Other might take more time or even require some "kowtowing" as you so derisively put it. Unfortunately a few might have been burned for good and mostly likely won't come back to the democrats again.
And the truth? If we are lucky, we might get to know in a decade or two as historians dig through all the data and materials. But most likely we'll be left with an educated guess as to how much was pre-planed, tampered with, spun, or lied about in the campaign.
With that done, I think that the thread should get back to discussing the future rather than the past.
Maybe. Maybe Bush knocked down the towers. Maybe Bin Laden is still living in Tora Bora. Maybe Comet Pizza is a pedophile sex ring. Maybe Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. Since there is equal amounts of proof for all these different scenarios, I wouldn't take meaningful action based on any of them.
(Note: I'm not saying Russia didn't poison some people, I just don't think it is anything more then a theory.)
I am not going to stand for the constant backhanded insults of having rational, well evidenced facts that rationally connect what happened, to the perpetrators goals with disproven conspiracy theories that have no rational ties between the action and the result.
Epistemic nihilism is not cool. it is not hip, it is not intellectually honest. Nor is treating everything as an absolute black and white with no room for gradations. 9 11 claims that you need to melt steel to make a tower fall are demonstrably false with the expertise of "metal aint' as strong when its really hot" . The purity of the dioxin tracing back to 1 of three countries (the us great britain and russia), russias motivation for getting rid of him, the tested presence of dioxin, the guys face looking like he stage dove onto a porcupine, the timing of the poisoning coinciding with a meeting with his pro russian defense minister, make "russia did it" a pretty good conclusion. Not meeting your rocket powered goalposts for a rational level of evidence does not make something an inane conspiracy theory.
Do you honestly believe that we had no other influence beyond that?
Diplomatic assurances that we'd back the new government? A membership form to nato with the information already filled out?
Yes, we futz in other peoples elections. Russia futzes in other peoples elections. We do not do so to the DEGREE that russia does, and that is a very important difference.
None are absolutely proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but if you're putting those on the same level you're really out in conspiracy theory land.
I'm not talking about beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'm talking about having anything more then a conspiracy theory*. If you have anything more then a conspiracy theory, I'm all ears. Until then, you are talking about saber rattling a nuclear superpower over a conspiracy theory.
You know our countries history with starting wars. From "Remember The Maine", to "Smoking Gun in the Form of a Mushroom Cloud" our country has a little problem with this kind of thing. I honestly thought that it would take more then a few election cycles for people to fall for this stuff all over again.
*Note: I think people have conspired to do shady s&$% since the dawn of time, so I don't use the term in a dismissive way, but there is a big difference between a theory based on a little circumstantial evidence, and a case build on evidence and facts.
Epistemic nihilism is not cool.
I guess i'll be going to same place as all the other uncool people went. And the propper term Epistemological nihilism by the way.
*walks slowly towards the setting sun - a single tear rolling down his cheek - while sad music plays in the background*
"I am not going to stand for the constant backhanded insults of having rational, well evidenced facts that rationally connect what happened, to the perpetrators goals with disproven conspiracy theories that have no rational ties between the action and the result."
Sorry BNW. I was not attempting to insult you in any way, merely trying to illustrate that motive and means are not enough to base international action on. I honestly did not expect that to be a controversial idea.
It appears the future of the democratic party is the establishment holding back the progressive wing of the party in hopes that Trump stumbles so spectacularly that voters return to the old fold. Not sure its much of a future.
It worked in 2004.
Sorry BNW. I was not attempting to insult you in any way, merely trying to illustrate that motive and means are not enough to base international action on. I honestly did not expect that to be a controversial idea.
motive, means and a fair bit of evidence that is not absolute 100% proof . That last part is really important because you never get absolute 100% proof.
The burden of proof varies greatly depending on how much someone likes or dislikes the accused.
It genuinely does vary based on the rationale for someone taking that action. "i'm going to conspire to fake global warming so i can freeze my cahones off while taking penguin temperatures the hard way" doesn't make nearly as much sense as "Yeah, we don't like that politician. Kill him" and rightly has a different degree of evidence required.
Russia poisoned leaders they didn't agree with.Maybe. Maybe Bush knocked down the towers. Maybe Bin Laden is still living in Tora Bora. Maybe Comet Pizza is a pedophile sex ring. Maybe Sandy Hook was a false flag operation. Since there is equal amounts of proof for all these different scenarios, I wouldn't take meaningful action based on any of them.
(Note: I'm not saying Russia didn't poison some people, I just don't think it is anything more then a theory.)
Scotland Yard has enough evidence on the Litvinenko poisoning that they applied for extradition of Andrey Lugovoy, an FSO officer. He's a member of the Duma now, so he's immune to prosecution in Russia, making him ineligible for extradition.
|
It appears the future of the democratic party is the establishment holding back the progressive wing of the party in hopes that Trump stumbles so spectacularly that voters return to the old fold. Not sure its much of a future.It worked in 2004.
Great, cant wait for another 8 years of republican policy......
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm saying that the Russian ipads use murder and intimidation to silence dissentJesus, I had no idea the App Store had such ruthless apps available over there.
Their version of Clippy wears a tracksuit and carries a Tokarev.
"It looks like you're trying to eliminate a reporter, should I email the FSB for you?"
I'm saying that the Russian ipads use murder and intimidation to silence dissent, and and in the US the judicial branch is a limit on executive power. The fact that we're having a conversation about the future of the Democratic party instead of repeating the party line while the party in power murders the opposition shows the difference between Russain and US ipads.Well, I'd say that the US judiciary response to Trump's travel ban shows that we don't actually have dictators here yetSo you're saying the Russians have been more successful? Sure, that's true... but don't count team Trump out just yet. They've got big dreams.
BTW - Guess who may get to fill more court seats in a single term than any previous president?
Again... it shows that the Russians have been more successful. The playbook is the same.
Or do you really believe we aren't seeing "intimidation" here in the US?
The independent US judiciary and lack of blatant (though unproven) assassination of political opponents are likely tied together... and again, Trump is in a position to severely reshape the judiciary.
"The Russians" is far too broad a category to mean anything. I'm one of "the Americans," and I've been posting on these boards for the length of the 2016 election cycle, so I'll assume you're familiar with my opinion of Trump.
Actually, I'll explain them, just for fun: I believe Trump's political education consisted of watching 24, House of Cards and The West Wing and deciding that he was just as good in a crisis as Palmer, as ruthless as Underwood and as smart as Bartlett without ever considering what the actual responsibilities of the office entail.
I find Putin much, much scarier, because of his familiarity with the workings of the Russian government. I'd say you're right that "the Russians" have been more successful, but I think that gives too much credit to Trump for knowing what the hell he even wants to accomplish during his tenure in office. I don't think Trump is remotely capable of operating at the same level as Putin. I feel like I'm living through le Carre's Karla Trilogy, but we somehow elected Haydon to the presidency.
I don't know where all that leaves the future of the Democratic party. Make Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, The Honorable Schoolboy and Smiley's People required reading so people know enough to elect Smiley instead, I guess.
Not disagreeing with you, just adding some more to it.
Putin can be irrational and impulsive as well, but now that we're seeing a whole new level of irrational and impulsive, he seems much more cold and calculating. Some analysis I've seen suggest Putin was surprised that his long shot of supporting Trump worked, but is already bracing for disappointment that Trump won't be capable of delivering. Putin has had a lot of failures during his tenure, but we paid less attention to him 10+ years ago. He's made some really risky moves lately that have paid off well for him, so he's wrapped in a glow of success.
I'm not sure Putin expects Trump to deliver anything, exactly. It's just that having Trump in office removes any consistency from US foreign policy, and Putin prefers things that way.
A few months ago, on a now locked 2016 election thread, I offered a hypothetical about Trump insulting the President of the Federated States of Micronesia and ruining US diplomatic reputations for the length of his term in office, but I got that one all wrong; it was Australia!
If progressives want more influence in the party, than the job will be to primary out people who they don't think are ideologically pure enough. It's what the Tea Party did to the Republicans, and there is absolutely no reason to think it wouldn't work with the Democratic Party. In politics, people who are successful at what they are doing (and those currently in office can be considered so) are not likely to radically shift there views without being forced to.
But there's nothing you would accept as evidence. Because anything would have to be sourced in intelligence agencies that you give no credence to.
And then you compare them to blatant conspiracy theory*, like Pizzagate or false flag Sandy Hook.
*Note: people conspire to do stuff on a regular basis. Conspiracy theories have little to do with this fact.
I would accept a lot of evidence, I just know better then to believe people who have lost their credibility, due to years of blatant lying.
Take the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as an example. There was a lot of evidence, and the intelligence agency's made all kinds of pronouncements. Colin Powell got up there and gave the whole presentation, and the Brits and many other countries bought in.Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea
But it was a bunch of obvious b$@!&!*#. The aluminum tubes, the yellow cake uranium, the credible sources. All b*&&&#**.
Thousands of Americans we killed, tens of thousands wounded. An unknown number of Iraqis (between 100,000 -1,000,000) were killed or wounded, and the country remains a nightmare to this day.
This happened because people failed to look critically at evidence. People like Hillary, Biden and Schumer (among many others) f#+!ed up bad, and we are going to be paying the price for generations because of it.
I would think that there would be lessons learned about trust and evidence from this cataclysmic mistake, but apparently not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean don't get me wrong...I would prefer a more progressive party, but I think folks who are part of Team Bernie perhaps overestimate their importance. It's a really difficult balancing act between keeping the progressives happy, which includes a good chunk of the youth vote but which also can be the hardest to predict turnout wise, versus keeping the older perhaps more reliable voters happy.
I would accept a lot of evidence, I just know better then to believe people who have lost their credibility, due to years of blatant lying.
Take the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as an example. There was a lot of evidence, and the intelligence agency's made all kinds of pronouncements. Colin Powell got up there and gave the whole presentation, and the Brits and many other countries bought in.But it was a bunch of obvious b%@&@*~+. The aluminum tubes, the yellow cake uranium, the credible sources. All b@&+~*!&.
Thousands of Americans we killed, tens of thousands wounded. An unknown number of Iraqis (between 100,000 -1,000,000) were killed or wounded, and the country remains a nightmare to this day.
This happened because people failed to look critically at evidence. People like Hillary, Biden and Schumer (among many others) f#@@ed up bad, and we are going to be paying the price for generations because of it.
I would think that there...
Ya know, I have been reading your last few posts on this issue, and had this hunch that you were most likely not presenting a reliable interpretation of the the whole Intelligence community and start of the Iraq War, based on my own reading of the situation.
Thankfully a very quick read of the Washington Post seems to show my hunch is right
Was the pre-war intelligence on Iraq wrong?
Long Story Short: Although the Intelligence was wrong, there was actually quite a bit of debate and uncertainty about different aspects of it, which were often included in reports but ignored. GW Bush had already decided to finish what his dad started in the Gulf War. I suspect nothing in those reports could have swayed him from this course of action post 9-11.
The fact that the intelligence community is actually going against the current President and the GOP should if anything make a stronger case.
If progressives want more influence in the party, than the job will be to primary out people who they don't think are ideologically pure enough. It's what the Tea Party did to the Republicans, and there is absolutely no reason to think it wouldn't work with the Democratic Party. In politics, people who are successful at what they are doing (and those currently in office can be considered so) are not likely to radically shift there views without being forced to.I think you'll find that the tea party wasn't a ground swelling populist movement that they pretend it was, rather it was a purge of moderate republicans funded by the Koch brothers (amongst others) in an attempt to bring congress to a screeching halt. These so called "independents" were able to primary establishment republicans because they were well funded.
The Koch brothers also went out of there way to support anyone but Trump, during that presidential primary. Hell...IIRC Hillary had far more campaign money than Trump and still lost.
Money is important but its not the only thing that matters, especially at the state and more local level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well we are living in a post-fact world, where feelings are more important than evidence and logic...
well we are living in a post-fact world, where feelings are more important than evidence and logic...
Don't really think this is anything new. Feelings have through out history led logic and evidence (or the time-appropriate historical equivalent) around by the nose, as we are tribal animals after all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just as an aside, I think the term "purity" for caring about economically-progressive policies is misleading. In fact, the people pushing for those policies want LESS "purity," in the sense that they want more than one issue to be tackled -- economy as well as civil rights. In that sense, they're actually pushing for 50% less purity.
I know it's not intended as any kind of Orwellian double-speak, but that's how it strikes me.
|
Guy, if you think the Koch brothers are conservative you are mistaken they are libertarian. They fund political candidates that they think will advance their business entrusts mainly oil and petrochemical.
They also fund many civic givings such as they rebuilt the mutli million courtyard at the Kennedy center and the oldest of the Koch brothers that does not give to political causes built a hospital in his home town.
Obama actually helped the Koch brothers makes millions of dollars by blocking the Keystone XL pipe line. Tar sands oil from Alberta was brought by rail to a Koch brothers owned refinery in the midwest and made the Koch brothers billions of dollars in profit over the 8 years of Obama's presidency. BTW this also Benefited Warren whose trains delivered the tar sands oil to the Koch brothers refinery.
If you are worried about the Koch Brothers you should be terrified about George Soros who would Gladly destroy the US because it does not fit his crackpot ideas of how the world should work. He has already attacked several sovereign countries that he did not like such as England, Indonesia and Hungary to name a few.
As for the Democratic party unless they spin off their Progressive members into another party they will condemn themselves into a permanent minority status. As their Progresive members hate anything to do with national security like the Military and intelligence services. The Military needs to be rebuilt. All three legs of the Trias need to be up graded into the 21st century. The Ohio class submarines are aging out by this I mean that their reactors are nearing their end of life. Our land based minute man 3's warheads are nearing the end of their life from radioactive deacy. The progressive members of Congress along with that loon John Kerry blocked the MX missile when Regan was President that would have fixed this but they wanted a Nuclear freeze because it sounded kool.
The only half sane idea the Progressives have is what they call universal health care. The US needs a Health Care system that is financed by taxes that covers all aspects of your Health care and is equally paid by a tax on the employer and employee. Do away with medicaid and have all poor covered under the new health care system
Medicare would pick up long term care 100% that is provided by SNF's
to offeset some costs the Government would become the malpractice insurer and punitive damages would be eliminated. The USG would pay Lifetime wages for someone who was disabled by a doctors error.
Sorry for the long post I will try to break it up next time.
Well, "purity" isn't intended to mean "cares about economically-progressive politics", but "will abandon the Democratic party if they're not sufficiently economically progressive, screwing us all over by putting the Republicans back in charge".Just as an aside, I think the term "purity" for caring about economically-progressive policies is misleading. In fact, the people pushing for those policies want LESS "purity," in the sense that they want more than one issue to be tackled -- economy as well as civil rights. In that sense, they're actually pushing for 50% less purity.
I know it's not intended as any kind of Orwellian double-speak, but that's how it strikes me.
It is equally fair to say the party abandoned them and screwed us all by putting the republicans in charge.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Soros is only scary if you read Breibart and dream of returning the U.S. back to 1950.
Oh if you are worried about the nuclear triad you should be biting your nails Trump doesn't even know what the nuclear triad is.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Soros is only scary if you read Breibart and dream of returning the U.S. back to 1950.
Oh if you are worried about the nuclear triad you should be biting your nails Trump doesn't even know what the nuclear triad is.
If it's not a japanese samurai gangster with a glowing radioactive katana domt tell me, because it woild make the world less awesome
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you are worried about the Koch Brothers you should be terrified about George Soros who would Gladly destroy the US because it does not fit his crackpot ideas of how the world should work. He has already attacked several sovereign countries that he did not like such as England, Indonesia and Hungary to name a few.
So the bowling green massacre was just a prelude to the attack of the 50 foot Soros ? Was he swatting planes from on top of the bulding , or did he do something else that qualified as an attack?
But it was a bunch of obvious b&*~!+#*. The aluminum tubes, the yellow cake uranium, the credible sources. All b~$*&@!!.
Okay, so EVERYTHING the government says from now on is b*#!@*~$?
That's at least as bad as believing everything that the government says. It's not a tenable starting position.
I'll just say this, I'm a bit skeptical about the term "Suburban Republicans." It feels like the new "Soccer Mom," and I've gotta say, the first time I heard that one, I realized that the children of Democrats play peewee soccer right next to the children of Republicans. On the same team, even.
It's a term that has some merit. New York State for instance is considered a solid blue. But if you remove the City from it, the suburbs have a strong red tendency. Generally the farther up the money scale you go, the redder the politics get.
I'm not saying any of that, but losing somewhat slower is still losing ground.Yeah but i mean their legislature has been vigorously screwing that up for years now, so does this go anywhere near pre-brownback levels or is it a slow bleed compromise where the midpoint of compromise slowly slides one direction.You are correct, the highest ranking member of YOUR party is saying that they should give up on blue collar dem votes in favor of suburban republicans. Also, I never gave them credit for being actual Republicans, just acting like a half-assed version.Suburban Republicans in the Kansas House just voted to expand Medicaid, increase taxes to fund education, and restore tenure for teachers.It's that legislature taking a step back from screwing things up. Of course it's not fixing everything. It's a Republican dominated legislature.
It's minority Democrats working with some Republicans to roll back some of the damage.Yes, it's a compromise. It's a compromise much to the left of where things have been in Kansas, but is it sufficiently pure enough? Depends on your standards, I suppose.
They could have refused to cooperate with Republicans, put forward their own idealistic bill and gotten nowhere with it. Would that have been better?
Get used to it. The Democrats have reduced themselves to fighting off rearguard actions. You're a minority party in a country whose political system is based on winner take all. You're going to be spending the next generation not advancing, but cutting your losses.
|
Get used to it. The Democrats have reduced themselves to fighting off rearguard actions. You're a minority party in a country whose political system is based on winner take all. You're going to be spending the next generation not advancing, but cutting your losses.
Democrats currently have a minority of elected offices under their control. However, given that they are supported by more voters and more citizens in general, calling them a 'minority party' is just plain wrong.
If you are worried about the Koch Brothers you should be terrified about George Soros who would Gladly destroy the US because it does not fit his crackpot ideas of how the world should work. He has already attacked several sovereign countries that he did not like such as England, Indonesia and Hungary to name a few.So the bowling green massacre was just a prelude to the attack of the 50 foot Soros ? Was he swatting planes from on top of the bulding , or did he do something else that qualified as an attack?
I think his argument is some thing along the lines of - Soros was into currency speculation and intense currency speculation may force a country into devaluing their currency. The countries* in question had their currencies speculated against and were forced to devalue, thus Soros forced their hand and "attacked" them.
But really I like your version much better, I would love to see 50ft people duking it out, while on top of skyscrapers.
* Don't really get the Indonesia or Hungary reference but in case of England I think it is Soros contribution to the Black Wednesday september 16, 1992 pund sterling devaluation.
More and more I find myself missing the 'sanity and competence' of the GWB administration.
I may need to avoid news for four years. Or take up drinking. The stupid is just too pervasive and overpowering.
Much of the reason for the relative "sanity" of the GWB years was that the Democrats were not the party that was as far out in the wilderness as they are now. They had control of the House of Representatives and were an effective counter. Now they are a minority in both houses, and Trump is about to appoint his tie breaker to the Supreme Court. Unlike GWB, Trump has a unified party in control of Congress and he'll likely be rubberstamping a lot of bills they're going to be passing his way.