Future of the Democratic Party


Off-Topic Discussions

401 to 450 of 4,260 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Captain Battletoad wrote:


Well if your vote was all that was needed, then yeah, the Dems wouldn't need to change.

What is anyone, that isn't a corporation, voting republican for that isn't a complete lie or at the very least come with seven asterixes? (asteri?)

Davis X. Machina, as spotted on Reddit:

“The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of who will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn’t even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it.”

President Lyndon B. Johnson once said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."

Liberty's Edge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

Most whites voted for a racist.

Most men voted for a misogynist.
Most Christians voted for a religious bigot.
Are you trying again to get the thread locked?

No... are you suggesting that any of those statements were controversial? 'cuz I can cite prominent Republicans backing up each of them.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

How do you select for something without having people to do the selecting? How do you have a group identity without having someone watching the door? (or in this case at least making it a little harder to get in the door)

Or to put it another way, what system would the democratic party use to stop say, Trump from running as a democrat?

I'm not actually against superdelegates. But the thing is, that should be the limit. If you have superdelegates, you shouldn't be pulling strings to feed one candidate debate questions in advance, or to put up video clips of out-of-context remarks about Fidel Castro in the flipping Florida debate*. I fully support superdelegates as long as everyone remains aware that they'll only surface to block serious derailings (like Trumps). When the DNC goes beyond that, it is ceasing to represent the actual party, and that is extremely dangerous.

*Disclaimer: It's been a while since I saw that debate, so it might not have been Castro.

Quote:
I would have been ecstatic to have president sanders. I think it's overblown to say that he WOULD have won, and not proven that he would have had a better chance (we'll never know i suppose), but I don't think it should surprise anyone that the democratic party pushed the democratic candidate and not the socialist that hopped into the party the week before the election.

Yeah, I agree with all of this, but I think the jaded "Well, who's really surprised?" attitude is part of the problem. The problem is, Bernie supporters (including many independents) weren't surprised. They assumed the party would screw their candidate over, and it did. Saying, "Well, yeah, that's what parties do" doesn't win them over.

Oh, and while I've heard thejeff (who I will always have great respect for) make some remarks about how independents "aren't the party base" and therefore don't deserve a voice in primaries, primaries aren't just about getting the old hands riled up. They're about drawing in new voices, getting new people invested in the party. When massive numbers of independents are suddenly eager to get involved in your party's primary, that's something to take very seriously.

To put it in sharper terms, it's not just about the "cool voters' club" that's been voting since the 60s and is properly "loyal". It's about recruitment. Now, more than ever, as political parties struggle to connect with the majority of Americans, that's very, very important.

Quote:
You're mistaking my acceptance of political reality as an enorsement of it. It's not: it simply is what it is. Its like walking into a sausage factory and going "oh my god there's blood and guts everywhere!" well. Yes. Sausage factory.

Sure, but if you agree that it isn't how it should be, do you agree that it should change? Because that's what I'm talking about. You seem to regard it as an inescapable necessity.

Quote:
it seems to me that Clinton might have accomplished this by reinforcing the common appearance of Democrats as being out-of-touch wealthy bureaucrats who rely more on push-and-pull within their party than populist approval.
Quote:
People didn't remember how bad bush was 8 years later and they certainly won't remember how bland clinton was 4 years later.

Haha. Probably not. Watch as her approval ratings climb post-Trump and she runs again in 2020. ;D


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:


I'm with Bill Maher on this one*

That argument boils down to:

Democrats asked people to stop being racists, therefore "rural America" voted for Republicans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Political correctness has gone too far! *Flails like sock puppet*


Also, went to a town hall with Ron Wyden, Oregon's Not-Merkley senator. A thousand people turned up, and the vast majority of them were progressives. A couple next to us who'd been attending for years said they'd never seen anything like it. We're doing this, guys.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Political correctness has gone too far! *Flails like sock puppet*

They excoriated Steve for his youthful crush on Carrie. So, yeah they've gone too ###### far! And they've reaped what they've sown.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

Most whites voted for a racist.

Most men voted for a misogynist.
Most Christians voted for a religious bigot.
Are you trying again to get the thread locked?
No... are you suggesting that any of those statements were controversial? 'cuz I can cite prominent Republicans backing up each of them.

They way you word it is the problem. But then you didn't think your post should've been scrubbed from the parent-thread to this one prior to it being locked, so whatevs...

Trump is a narcissist. He is not committed to racism per say. <cough>Dr. Ben Carson</cough>

Former President Clinton was a misogynist WHILE PRESIDENT! (misogynist in action, if not usually in speaking - what? a politicians who made it a habit to lie? Get out!).

If Christians are going to vote then yeah that will always be true.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

Most whites voted for a racist.

Most men voted for a misogynist.
Most Christians voted for a religious bigot.
Are you trying again to get the thread locked?
No... are you suggesting that any of those statements were controversial? 'cuz I can cite prominent Republicans backing up each of them.

They way you word it is the problem. But then you didn't think your post should've been scrubbed from the parent-thread to this one prior to it being locked, so whatevs...

Trump is a narcissist. He is not committed to racism per say. <cough>Dr. Ben Carson</cough>

Former President Clinton was a misogynist WHILE PRESIDENT! (misogynist in action, if not usually in speaking - what? a politicians who made it a habit to lie? Get out!).

If Christians are going to vote then yeah that will always be true.

Adultery is not misogyny. Please show us the links where Clinton publicly humiliated female polticians, and journalists the way our new President has during his candidacy.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Oh, and while I've heard thejeff (who I will always have great respect for) make some remarks about how independents "aren't the party base" and therefore don't deserve a voice in primaries, primaries aren't just about getting the old hands riled up. They're about drawing in new voices, getting new people invested in the party. When massive numbers of independents are suddenly eager to get involved in your party's primary, that's something to take very seriously.

To be clear, I don't have any problem with independents having a voice in the primaries. I was mostly objecting to the parallel claims that the Democrats should have listened to the base and shouldn't have had closed primaries. Those don't go together. The base is reliable Democratic voters, not Independents supporting a particular candidate. Like it or not, the party listened to the Democratic base. That base backed Clinton. They didn't listen to a groundswell movement from outside that base and maybe they should have.

Primaries can play a role in both firing up the base and getting new people invested, but their primary role is picking a candidate for the party. It seems reasonable not to pass that role entirely to people not already invested in the party. There are definitely reasons to want to reach out and involve non-party members with the primaries. I actually mostly like the current setup with a mixture of closed and open primaries. Some, like NY's, are too closed. In other cases, complaining because you're not willing to join even temporarily in order to vote seems extreme to me.

Only thing I don't like are caucuses. Those are ridiculously exclusive.


thejeff wrote:
Only thing I don't like are caucuses. Those are ridiculously exclusive.

There is something to be said for old-school Athenian democracy in action. Neighbors meet with neighbors to discuss the politics essential to their community, listen to one another, and then cast a decisive vote at the same time.

It doesn't always work that way, and it can make inclusiveness challenging. But, it would be sad to see it completely removed from our system.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:

Most whites voted for a racist.

Most men voted for a misogynist.
Most Christians voted for a religious bigot.
Are you trying again to get the thread locked?
No... are you suggesting that any of those statements were controversial? 'cuz I can cite prominent Republicans backing up each of them.

They way you word it is the problem. But then you didn't think your post should've been scrubbed from the parent-thread to this one prior to it being locked, so whatevs...

Trump is a narcissist. He is not committed to racism per say. <cough>Dr. Ben Carson</cough>

Former President Clinton was a misogynist WHILE PRESIDENT! (misogynist in action, if not usually in speaking - what? a politicians who made it a habit to lie? Get out!).

If Christians are going to vote then yeah that will always be true.

Adultery is not misogyny. Please show us the links where Clinton publicly humiliated female polticians, and journalists the way our new President has during his candidacy.

Oh lets see...

He swore publicly on camera that "that woman" was a liar. He and his team did their best to dig up dirt on "that woman" to discredit the accusation that he abused his position as pres to get sexual favors from her. Oh wait... "I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

Yeah, silly me...

Something up thread about me saying,

Quote:
That's what you get with a cult of personality - cognitive dissonance among the faithful.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Only thing I don't like are caucuses. Those are ridiculously exclusive.

There is something to be said for old-school Athenian democracy in action. Neighbors meet with neighbors to discuss the politics essential to their community, listen to one another, and then cast a decisive vote at the same time.

It doesn't always work that way, and it can make inclusiveness challenging. But, it would be sad to see it completely removed from our system.

I've got a sentimental attraction to the idea too, but the barrier to entry is too high. Caucuses involve a much smaller percentage of the populace than even primaries do and I can't believe the dropoff is without bias. Some segments of the population simply have much easier access to the free time to devote to them.

And then there are all the issues that come with the lack of the secret ballot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Political correctness has gone too far! *Flails like sock puppet*
They excoriated Steve for his youthful crush on Carrie. So, yeah they've gone too ###### far! And they've reaped what they've sown.

You're claiming that the reaction to a tweet on 28 Dec, 2016 affected the outcome of the election held on 8 Nov, 2016?

I'm going to need to see a LOT of proof of how that happened. Like exit polling that specifically says people were influenced by how Steve Martin was treated for that tweet.

If you want to retract this statement on cause and effect, I might care enough to pay attention to anything else you have to say, otherwise I'm going to be convinced that it's all b*@@*@%$. I won't bother reading anything else, because you're clearly just full of s#@+.


8 people marked this as a favorite.

Shocking but true...but I do know plenty of Christians that voted for Hillary and hate Trump, and others who didn't vote for Hillary but also hate and didn't vote for Trump. Let's not lump all religious people under one political label. Not Every Christian denomination makes a big deal about all the standard Republican Christian fundamentalist bullet points, and even of those who do, some members don't vote strictly on faith.

Also might be good to drop the heat a bit in this discussion...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

Shocking but true...but I do know plenty of Christians that voted for Hillary and hate Trump, and others who didn't vote for Hillary but also hate and didn't vote for Trump. Let's not lump all religious people under one political label. Not Every Christian denomination makes a big deal about all the standard Republican Christian fundamentalist bullet points, and even of those who do, some members don't vote strictly on faith.

Also might be good to drop the heat a bit in this discussion...

CBDunkerson's original claim that "Most Christians voted for a religious bigot" is still true. Even though there were many who did not.

Actually it probably really needs to be "Most Christians who voted", but that was sort of implied.

Quark's thing about religious people being bigoted has nothing to do hate or any standard Christian Right beliefs, but his own twisted definition of religious bigotry.


thejeff wrote:
Like it or not, the party listened to the Democratic base. That base backed Clinton.

Well, it did with the caveats previously mentioned (biased debates, bad media coverage, election fraud, etc). :P


thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Shocking but true...but I do know plenty of Christians that voted for Hillary and hate Trump, and others who didn't vote for Hillary but also hate and didn't vote for Trump. Let's not lump all religious people under one political label. Not Every Christian denomination makes a big deal about all the standard Republican Christian fundamentalist bullet points, and even of those who do, some members don't vote strictly on faith.

Also might be good to drop the heat a bit in this discussion...

CBDunkerson's original claim that "Most Christians voted for a religious bigot" is still true. Even though there were many who did not.

Actually it probably really needs to be "Most Christians who voted", but that was sort of implied.

Quark's thing about religious people being bigoted has nothing to do hate or any standard Christian Right beliefs, but his own twisted definition of religious bigotry.

As an outsider I just don't see the point of (hypothetically) claiming some religion for myself while at the same time saying, "but all other religions are pretty good too".

If one really believed that sentiment, one would profess an ala carte religion. And I suppose some do. Never met one but that would be another category to go along side agnostic as a way to expressly not be a religious bigot.

Otherwise, to profess an historic religion is to say that all other religions have got it flat out wrong, where it counts. That seems pretty bigoted to me. All feelings aside.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Like it or not, the party listened to the Democratic base. That base backed Clinton.
Well, it did with the caveats previously mentioned (biased debates, bad media coverage, election fraud, etc). :P

I'm still skeptical that, had those factors been in play, Bernie would have won. And Trump would have lost. But as TheJeff has said before, it's too late to litigate the last election...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Quark: Well, the formal definition of a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". Religious people may certainly believe other religions are incorrect, but that's not the same thing as refusing to tolerate their presence or accept that people have a right to those beliefs. There's a social aspect there, above and beyond the faith itself.


Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Shocking but true...but I do know plenty of Christians that voted for Hillary and hate Trump, and others who didn't vote for Hillary but also hate and didn't vote for Trump. Let's not lump all religious people under one political label. Not Every Christian denomination makes a big deal about all the standard Republican Christian fundamentalist bullet points, and even of those who do, some members don't vote strictly on faith.

Also might be good to drop the heat a bit in this discussion...

CBDunkerson's original claim that "Most Christians voted for a religious bigot" is still true. Even though there were many who did not.

Actually it probably really needs to be "Most Christians who voted", but that was sort of implied.

Quark's thing about religious people being bigoted has nothing to do hate or any standard Christian Right beliefs, but his own twisted definition of religious bigotry.

As an outsider I just don't see the point of (hypothetically) claiming some religion for myself while at the same time saying, "but all other religions are pretty good too".

If one really believed that sentiment, one would profess an ala carte religion. And I suppose some do. Never met one but that would be another category to go along side agnostic as a way to expressly not be a religious bigot.

Otherwise, to profess an historic religion is to say that all other religions have got it flat out wrong, where it counts. That seems pretty bigoted to me. All feelings aside.

Your making the mistake that all religion is evangelical in nature. Most lay followers subscribe to a religion but are not necessarily invested enough to seek out conversion. Or don't think you can convert other folks because they are not "special" or hold that a persons acts in life matter more than what dogma he adheres to.

Really going out and spreading the "the good word" is really only a Christian/Islam thing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:

Shocking but true...but I do know plenty of Christians that voted for Hillary and hate Trump, and others who didn't vote for Hillary but also hate and didn't vote for Trump. Let's not lump all religious people under one political label. Not Every Christian denomination makes a big deal about all the standard Republican Christian fundamentalist bullet points, and even of those who do, some members don't vote strictly on faith.

Also might be good to drop the heat a bit in this discussion...

CBDunkerson's original claim that "Most Christians voted for a religious bigot" is still true. Even though there were many who did not.

Actually it probably really needs to be "Most Christians who voted", but that was sort of implied.

Quark's thing about religious people being bigoted has nothing to do hate or any standard Christian Right beliefs, but his own twisted definition of religious bigotry.

As an outsider I just don't see the point of (hypothetically) claiming some religion for myself while at the same time saying, "but all other religions are pretty good too".

If one really believed that sentiment, one would profess an ala carte religion. And I suppose some do. Never met one but that would be another category to go along side agnostic as a way to expressly not be a religious bigot.

Otherwise, to profess an historic religion is to say that all other religions have got it flat out wrong, where it counts. That seems pretty bigoted to me. All feelings aside.

Your making the mistake that all religion is evangelical in nature. Most lay followers subscribe to a religion but are not necessarily invested enough to seek out conversion. Or don't think you can convert other folks because they are not "special" or hold that a persons acts in life matter more than what dogma he adheres to.

Really going out and spreading the "the good word" is really only a Christian/Islam thing.

No, I don't think that's the mistake he's making. I think he's just demonstrating that an agnostic can be bigoted too. :)


Rednal wrote:
@Quark: Well, the formal definition of a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". Religious people may certainly believe other religions are incorrect, but that's not the same thing as refusing to tolerate their presence or accept that people have a right to those beliefs. There's a social aspect there, above and beyond the faith itself.

You'll notice that being intolerant of another "creed, belief, or opinion" has nothing necessarily to do with "refusing to tolerate their presence or accept that people have a right to those beliefs".

It might be that people who are intolerant of other creeds etc. are also intolerant of the presence and rights of others but the connection isn't necessary.

If only it's my opinion that my (hypothetical) religion is right and you, for your (hypothetical) religion, are going to spend eternity in torment, then that still seems bigoted to me. However tolerant of I am of the "rights and presence" of other types of believers.

In fact (hypothetically) I might be rather glad for your looming punishment and think nothing of any an all social interaction with you assuming such things didn't specifically rub up against a religious prohibition. By your definition I'm not a bigot. Still such a (hypothetical) belief seems bigoted to me. All feelings aside.


thejeff wrote:
No, I don't think that's the mistake he's making. I think he's just demonstrating that an agnostic can be bigoted too. :)

I'm just glad we don't live here where you can be jailed for doing this.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quark Blast wrote:
Rednal wrote:
@Quark: Well, the formal definition of a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". Religious people may certainly believe other religions are incorrect, but that's not the same thing as refusing to tolerate their presence or accept that people have a right to those beliefs. There's a social aspect there, above and beyond the faith itself.

You'll notice that being intolerant of another "creed, belief, or opinion" has nothing necessarily to do with "refusing to tolerate their presence or accept that people have a right to those beliefs".

It might be that people who are intolerant of other creeds etc. are also intolerant of the presence and rights of others but the connection isn't necessary.

If only it's my opinion that my (hypothetical) religion is right and you, for your (hypothetical) religion, are going to spend eternity in torment, then that still seems bigoted to me. However tolerant of I am of the "rights and presence" of other types of believers.

In fact (hypothetically) I might be rather glad for your looming punishment and think nothing of any an all social interaction with you assuming such things didn't specifically rub up against a religious prohibition. By your definition I'm not a bigot. Still such a (hypothetical) belief seems bigoted to me. All feelings aside.

Using your reasoning...

I don't like swimming in the ocean. Too many predators, poisonous things, and just ways you can be pulled out to sea and drown. When I drive by people on the beach (especially with the booming gray seal population and increased Great Whites in my area), I immediately think of the opening scene in Jaws.

By your definition, I am apparently a bigot against swimmers

(e.g...you can think someone is wrong and is going to get in trouble, without hating that person or wishing for the worst)


MMCJawa wrote:
Quark Blast wrote:
Rednal wrote:
@Quark: Well, the formal definition of a bigot is "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion". Religious people may certainly believe other religions are incorrect, but that's not the same thing as refusing to tolerate their presence or accept that people have a right to those beliefs. There's a social aspect there, above and beyond the faith itself.

You'll notice that being intolerant of another "creed, belief, or opinion" has nothing necessarily to do with "refusing to tolerate their presence or accept that people have a right to those beliefs".

It might be that people who are intolerant of other creeds etc. are also intolerant of the presence and rights of others but the connection isn't necessary.

If only it's my opinion that my (hypothetical) religion is right and you, for your (hypothetical) religion, are going to spend eternity in torment, then that still seems bigoted to me. However tolerant of I am of the "rights and presence" of other types of believers.

In fact (hypothetically) I might be rather glad for your looming punishment and think nothing of any an all social interaction with you assuming such things didn't specifically rub up against a religious prohibition. By your definition I'm not a bigot. Still such a (hypothetical) belief seems bigoted to me. All feelings aside.

Using your reasoning...

I don't like swimming in the ocean. Too many predators, poisonous things, and just ways you can be pulled out to sea and drown. When I drive by people on the beach (especially with the booming gray seal population and increased Great Whites in my area), I immediately think of the opening scene in Jaws.

By your definition, I am apparently a bigot against swimmers

(e.g...you can think someone is wrong and is going to get in trouble, without hating that person or wishing for the worst)

Hypotheticals aside, bigotry requires intention. Trump is largely unintentional in his outbursts. I reason this because he is absolutely inconsistent in his tirades.

Remember:
It's all about the Trump parade. If you're not marching in the parade or cheering it on you're in for Tweet-lashing. He doesn't seem to care who you are otherwise.


MMCJawa wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Like it or not, the party listened to the Democratic base. That base backed Clinton.
Well, it did with the caveats previously mentioned (biased debates, bad media coverage, election fraud, etc). :P
I'm still skeptical that, had those factors been in play, Bernie would have won. And Trump would have lost. But as TheJeff has said before, it's too late to litigate the last election...

Yeah, and again, I never said Bernie would have won. He had weaknesses, too, and we aren't oracles.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Like it or not, the party listened to the Democratic base. That base backed Clinton.
Well, it did with the caveats previously mentioned (biased debates, bad media coverage, election fraud, etc). :P

Closed primaries despite the idea that primaries are supposed to pick the candidate most likely to win.


Ryan Freire wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Like it or not, the party listened to the Democratic base. That base backed Clinton.
Well, it did with the caveats previously mentioned (biased debates, bad media coverage, election fraud, etc). :P
Closed primaries despite the idea that primaries are supposed to pick the candidate most likely to win.

From that party.


Closed primaries are complicated, just like caucuses. They each have major pros and cons. I favor open primaries because they get newer people involved, but that can lead to outsiders "taking over". Caucuses suck because they're hard for certain people without access to transportation (or just free time) to attend, but they do drive a type of political activism that is necessary to foster. I lean against them—one person, one vote. But party primaries are complicated.


And then there's my state, which has ballot primaries but just kind of ignores the result. 8D

...

As the Kobold says, they can be complicated.


MMCJawa wrote:

Shocking but true...but I do know plenty of Christians that voted for Hillary and hate Trump, and others who didn't vote for Hillary but also hate and didn't vote for Trump. Let's not lump all religious people under one political label. Not Every Christian denomination makes a big deal about all the standard Republican Christian fundamentalist bullet points, and even of those who do, some members don't vote strictly on faith.

Also might be good to drop the heat a bit in this discussion...

this.

Please.


Quark Blast wrote:

BigDTBone, Irontruth, thejeff

This is just what Bill Maher was talking about - an absolute refusal to see things as they are in the political arena.

The Steve-Tweet clearly came after the election but the attitude that excoriated him for his completely innocent and healthy homage to the late Princess existed well before.

That attitude needs to go. Else next election will look a lot like this latest one.

People need to grow up and act on what matters. To #### with mere feelings. Mere feelings have gotten us into this mess.

And specifically to this,

BigDTBone wrote:
I am fairly certain that this statement reduces your position to "all people are religious bigots."
If you'll reread my prior post you will see I expressly said this,
Quote:
Me, I don't care. When you're dead you're dead. When dead people come back and start telling me I might need to rethink my position on religion. Well, I rethink it then.
Agnostics may be in the minority today but one day we will rule... assuming humanity doesn't nuke itself or something just as bad.

First you gotta say the Steve-Tweet had no impact on the election. Clear and simple.

Because if you can't agree on the basic concepts of cause-and-effect, there's really no point in talking about this.

Plus, your argument still boils down to:

Democrats weren't racist enough to win.


few general thoughts

I don't think there is much to gain by dwelling on the past. however you can still learn from it.

for me Usually the best answer falls to the middle 0 1 2 3 2 1 0 I think some of the problems are that the distribution of extreme views has moves so the middle doesn't appear in the middle anymore something like
0 1 2 2 0 2 3 if that makes sense.

balance in all things.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Vidmaster7 wrote:

few general thoughts

I don't think there is much to gain by dwelling on the past. however you can still learn from it.

for me Usually the best answer falls to the middle 0 1 2 3 2 1 0 I think some of the problems are that the distribution of extreme views has moves so the middle doesn't appear in the middle anymore something like
0 1 2 2 0 2 3 if that makes sense.

balance in all things.

The shift is intentional to force a dishonest compromise. There is a distribution of ideas like 001112222333449; and so we "meet in the middle" at 5.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Mix one part Racial Resentment with one part Good Ole Fashioned American Individualism(TM) and you get a large portion of the white population that always thinks that minorities are pushing for too much, too soon.

Much like that, the argument against the "rise of political correctness" is nothing new. (Huge generalization incoming) Behind every wrong side of American history you'll find detractors of it. Jump back a couple decades and read how universities back then were becoming too politically correct for right-wing politicians! Those damn leftist think tanks! My favorite thing to do when I hear someone complain about PC culture is ask them what they want to say that they feel they're not allowed to. 9/10 they clam up. The tenth time they say it and angry feminist harpies DONT descend from the sky to carry them away. Imagine that. It's almost like having to consider other people's feelings when interacting with them is more a mark of good character than any conspiracy pushed by the matriarchy/cultural Marxists/regressive leftists/feminazis/virtue signallers/whatever-buzzwords-those-alt-righters-are-calling-people they-don't-like-nowadays.

Now don't get me wrong. I certainly find it irritating when I see some random blogger use concepts like Cultural Appropriation like a crude club to attack anything they see without really understanding it's intricacies. Fortunately, everyone is discussing equality. Unfortunately, some of the zeal gets a bit misplaced. As someone who researches this stuff on the academic level, it's pretty rough to see the literature go through the online telephone game. However, this is honestly blown out of proportion by neo-reactionaries and their ilk. Occasionally drawing e-flak from a few misguided kids who didn't do their research is well worth bringing discussions on inequality into the spotlight. We need more substantive talks on these topics if we want to make lasting progress.


Scythia wrote:
Ryan Freire wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Like it or not, the party listened to the Democratic base. That base backed Clinton.
Well, it did with the caveats previously mentioned (biased debates, bad media coverage, election fraud, etc). :P
Closed primaries despite the idea that primaries are supposed to pick the candidate most likely to win.
From that party.

Which is an inherently suicidal choice given the increasing % of the country which joins some minor party or registers unaffiliated/independent. With the superdelegate system it seems even more paranoid


Vidmaster7 wrote:

few general thoughts

I don't think there is much to gain by dwelling on the past. however you can still learn from it.

Sadly the lesson is that american politics have no more depth than a high school election. Who people like and their popularity is at least as important as their ideas.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:

few general thoughts

I don't think there is much to gain by dwelling on the past. however you can still learn from it.

Sadly the lesson is that american politics have no more depth than a high school election. Who people like and their popularity is at least as important as their ideas.

It reminds me of a statistic that interviewing someone for a position is by far the least effective method of determining if they are right for the job. humans are bad at evaluating each other apparently.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, a small number of individuals on the left have gone off the rails of the crazy train. But that's the people the right puts into office. Those are NOT comparable situations.

401 to 450 of 4,260 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Future of the Democratic Party All Messageboards