State of the Union

[mistercwood 287]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

The sad thing is that the Ds apparently see that as a virtue that they want to emulate.  Billvon already said that there comes a point when the Ds have to stop keeping up appearances and being politically correct.  It just shows that they really weren't ever serious about their supposedly strong held "beliefs/principles."  Big surprise, eh?  It just seems to demonstrate the semblance of some type of moral facade surrounding secular humanity.

I don't think the D's see dirty politics as a virtue, I think they're just reevaluating strategy.

Staying principled within the political system in its current form just isn't doing anything. Seriously.

One party has a consistent track record of acquiring power and then using it to rig the rules in their favour - either changing laws to expand their power while in office or changing laws to cripple the D's incoming to replace them.

If your job is to represent your voters, but your opponent is constantly fighting dirty so that you can't get anything done even when you've won a campaign fair and square, how can you be effective in your job if you continue to just be the "good guy"?

Please don't get me wrong - I think it's pretty messed up that Pelosi is doing childish shit like the paper-ripping, but I absolutely cannot blame her. When one party has become outright lawless, staying true to your principles does nothing but guarantee your own extinction.

Again - this is the precedent that has been set. Every time those in power do shitty things and face no consequences, it opens the floodgates for anyone else to do the same.

 

[billvon 2,396]

On 2/8/2020 at 10:06 AM, turtlespeed said:

Oh - then we should ignore her - she has no public face.  

I don't think you will be able to do that.  You seem to define yourself by what you oppose; it's always easier to attack than support.  It would take a significant change in your approach to things online to let that go.  Which would be great - I hope you prove me wrong.

[kallend 1,623]

On 2/8/2020 at 12:06 PM, turtlespeed said:

Oh - then we should ignore her - she has no public face.  

 

Not even a mediocre strawman.

[brenthutch 383]

20 hours ago, billvon said:

Not at all.  The R's are evil and screw up all the time.  The D's screw up just as often - they are simply less evil (not angels) and they screw up in different ways.  An R will screw up and you'll see kids die in freezing cages.  

The very cages built by the Obama administration

https://www.aclu.org/blog/immigrants-rights/ice-and-border-patrol-abuses/border-patrol-was-monstrous-under-obama-imagine

Edited February 10, 2020 by brenthutch

[turtlespeed 212]

21 hours ago, billvon said:

Not at all.  The R's are evil and screw up all the time.  The D's screw up just as often - they are simply less evil (not angels) and they screw up in different ways.  An R will screw up and you'll see kids die in freezing cages.  A D will screw up and homeless people will get aid that makes them overly dependent on the government.  Same number of screwups - different outcomes.

Jeebbus - There isn't ANY bias in that statement, is there?<eyeroll>

[turtlespeed 212]

20 hours ago, mistercwood said:

One party has a consistent track record of acquiring power and then using it to rig the rules in their favour - either changing laws to expand their power while in office or changing laws to cripple the D's incoming to replace them.

- Bernie Sanders and the DNC

- Changed rules to allow Bloomberg

 

[mistercwood 287]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

- Bernie Sanders and the DNC

- Changed rules to allow Bloomberg

 

The DNC were idiots last time and they're being idiots again now. Not relevant to my point, I'm talking about elected legislators rather than the party machine.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

The DNC were idiots last time and they're being idiots again now. Not relevant to my point, I'm talking about elected legislators rather than the party machine.

I don't see the distinction.  I'm being serious, not flippant, (as I usually am)  because, as I see it, the one is made up of members of the other, and vice versa.  

[mistercwood 287]

4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I don't see the distinction.  I'm being serious, not flippant, (as I usually am)  because, as I see it, the one is made up of members of the other, and vice versa.  

I see your point. Honestly, I base it on the fact that I never hear/read anything about the DNC outside of the run-up to presidential elections, so I consider them ignorable for "working" political purposes.

[turtlespeed 212]

53 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

I see your point. Honestly, I base it on the fact that I never hear/read anything about the DNC outside of the run-up to presidential elections, so I consider them ignorable for "working" political purposes.

DNC is Big Brother.

[jakee 1,254]

11 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

- Bernie Sanders and the DNC

- Changed rules to allow Bloomberg

Ok sure. But put the DNC's internal shenanigans against how the Republicans have systematically worked to rig the results of actual elections. Giving Clinton some debate questions and letting Bloomberg on stage vs project redmap? It's not in the same ballpark, it's not even the same sport.

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

Ok sure. But put the DNC's internal shenanigans against how the Republicans have systematically worked to rig the results of actual elections. Giving Clinton some debate questions and letting Bloomberg on stage vs project redmap? It's not in the same ballpark

Ok, as long as that's not construed somehow to mean that Democrats are more principled and virtuous, because given some of the comments from the left over the last several days, it's apparent that their only problem with all that is not thinking of it first.

4 hours ago, jakee said:

It's not in the same ballpark, it's not even the same sport.

Checkers vs. Chess

Intellectual elite or intellectually elusive?

[jakee 1,254]

25 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Ok, as long as that's not construed somehow to mean that Democrats are more principled and virtuous, because given some of the comments from the left over the last several days, it's apparent that their only problem with all that is not thinking of it first.

But that simply doesn’t make sense. Things like Redmap, voter ID laws, even changing the rules to make incoming dem governors lame ducks - how many times do you need to say “the Dems would have done it if...” before you have to start thinking about why they haven’t been doing it?

 

While there will always be individual cases of corruption on both sides there is clearly a difference at institutional level. Liberal philosophy is about providing fairer and more equal society at all levels, right wing philosophy is about allowing individuals to win and the importance of winning. I genuinely see one worldview as being more compatible with seeking to rig the system than the other.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, jakee said:

But that simply doesn’t make sense. Things like Redmap, voter ID laws, even changing the rules to make incoming dem governors lame ducks - how many times do you need to say “the Dems would have done it if...” before you have to start thinking about why they haven’t been doing it?

 

While there will always be individual cases of corruption on both sides there is clearly a difference at institutional level. Liberal philosophy is about providing fairer and more equal society at all levels, right wing philosophy is about allowing individuals to win and the importance of winning. I genuinely see one worldview as being more compatible with seeking to rig the system than the other.

Close - but not entirely accurate.

"""Liberal philosophy is about providing fairer and more equal society at all levels, right wing philosophy is about allowing individuals to win and the importance of winning."""

Left wing philosophy is about instilling fairness by taking from some (whether they agree to it or not), and giving to others (who haven't necessarily worked for it), while conservative's philosophy is that, excepting special circumstances, nothing is free and should be earned. (You are correct,though, in the thought that winning is important.  That is a whole different discussion though)

I would further add that the liberal philosophy dictates that everyone would be a special circumstance, where conservative philosophy tends to covet hard work and perseverance.

 

[DJL 232]

18 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

- Changed rules to allow Bloomberg

You're refererring to the early campaign "rule" to allow candidates on the debate stage only if they'd received a certain quantity of individual donations.  That was a measure to keep the field from growing past what was already an enormous quantity of candidates debating.  That time has also passed and it wasn't a permanent party "rule" to begin with.

[RonD1120 58]

Video of the SOTU in America. Thank you President Trump and Joe M.

 

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

You're refererring to the early campaign "rule" to allow candidates on the debate stage only if they'd received a certain quantity of individual donations.  That was a measure to keep the field from growing past what was already an enormous quantity of candidates debating.  That time has also passed and it wasn't a permanent party "rule" to begin with.

AH - yeah - buying your way in is what the Democrats stand for.

https://www.insider.com/dnc-debate-qualification-rules-bloomberg-donation-2020-2

[DJL 232]

Just now, turtlespeed said:

AH - yeah - buying your way in is what the Democrats stand for.

https://www.insider.com/dnc-debate-qualification-rules-bloomberg-donation-2020-2

Yup.  Still don't care.  He's a legitimate candidate.

[turtlespeed 212]

3 minutes ago, DJL said:

Yup.  Still don't care.  He's a legitimate candidate.

Hypocrisy on one side is ok as long as it isn't hypocrisy on the other.  Gotcha.

[DJL 232]

14 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Hypocrisy on one side is ok as long as it isn't hypocrisy on the other.  Gotcha.

I'm not sure what the hypocrisy is.

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, DJL said:

I'm not sure what the hypocrisy is.

You don't speak typo?

I thought you were a man of the world.

[billvon 2,396]

4 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

Left wing philosophy is about instilling fairness by taking from some (whether they agree to it or not), and giving to others (who haven't necessarily worked for it), while conservative's philosophy is that, excepting special circumstances, nothing is free and should be earned. (You are correct,though, in the thought that winning is important.  That is a whole different discussion though)

I would further add that the liberal philosophy dictates that everyone would be a special circumstance, where conservative philosophy tends to covet hard work and perseverance.

Not even close.  But if that's what lets you sleep at night, then OK.

[turtlespeed 212]

42 minutes ago, billvon said:

Not even close.  But if that's what lets you sleep at night, then OK.

It actually is.

But you can tell yourself whatever as well.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

40 minutes ago, billvon said:

Not even close.  But if that's what lets you sleep at night, then OK.

Yeah that was an absolutely bizarre description. 

[kallend 1,623]

3 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

AH - yeah - buying your way in is what the Democrats stand for.

https://www.insider.com/dnc-debate-qualification-rules-bloomberg-donation-2020-2

Political parties are private entities.  Unless you join the party, your opinion of their rules is totally irrelevant as long as no laws are broken.

 

In other words, MYOB.