State of the Union

[billvon 2,400]

12 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

It actually is.

But you can tell yourself whatever as well.

No.  In reality, it is not.  In reality, American liberals support equality, civil liberties, social justice and a regulated market economy.  American conservatives support traditionalism, government support of Judeo-Christian values, individualism, free market economies and organized cultural defenses against perceived threats from outsiders.

[billvon 2,400]

14 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Yeah that was an absolutely bizarre description. 

But not uncommon.  You'll see left wingers do the same thing - "liberals support freedom, conservatives support crushing the poor, killing kids in cages and hating on gays."

[SkyDekker 1,122]

49 minutes ago, billvon said:

But not uncommon.  You'll see left wingers do the same thing - "liberals support freedom, conservatives support crushing the poor, killing kids in cages and hating on gays."

What liberals and/or democrats support and what defines liberals/conservatives are different things though.

[billvon 2,400]

15 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

What liberals and/or democrats support and what defines liberals/conservatives are different things though.

Well, of course.  When you talk about liberalism or conservativism you are talking about what defines those positions.  Actual liberals or conservatives are individuals, and will act out of their own personal beliefs and drives.  (And often will espouse positions not related to their stated alignment on that particular political axis.)

[turtlespeed 212]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

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.

 

 

As if you would.

[jakee 1,254]

10 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

You are correct,though, in the thought that winning is important.  That is a whole different discussion though

We're talking about atttudes towards electioneering. The philosophy of fairness vs winning is the whole discussion.

[kallend 1,623]

3 minutes ago, jakee said:

We're talking about atttudes towards electioneering. The philosophy of fairness vs winning is the whole discussion.

Discussion is over,  the US Senate decreed in essence that anything the President does in order to win is OK.  Anything.  ANYTHING.

[Coreece 190]

17 hours ago, jakee said:

18 hours 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?

See that's my point - given the comments over the last several days, it's clear that it's those on the left who are the ones questioning why they haven't been doing it.  Which is why I brought it up in the first place.

I'm referring to comments about how decorum and principles on the left are irrelevant, and how the Dems suddenly need to stop being politically correct and keeping up appearances.

Another poster summed it up quite nicely:

"Is it better to stick to your principles and lose, or to compromise and win?  The Republican Party have shown that they’re about winning at ANY cost and the Democrats will have to change to compete with that philosophy."

 

We just talked about this not too long ago, so I know you don't agree with those comments - so why are you going out of your way and pretending to ignore it?

 

17 hours ago, jakee said:

I genuinely see one worldview as being more compatible with seeking to rig the system than the other.

Which is why the comments about abandoning one's "principles" in some vain attempt at beating the Republicans at their own game is one of the most foolish things ever posted here - and you know that.

[jakee 1,254]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

See that's my point - given the comments over the last several days, it's clear that it's those on the left who are the ones questioning why they haven't been doing it.  Which is why I brought it up in the first place.

I'm referring to comments about how decorum and principles on the left are irrelevant, and how the Dems suddenly need to stop being politically correct and keeping up appearances.

Another poster summed it up quite nicely:

"Is it better to stick to your principles and lose, or to compromise and win?  The Republican Party have shown that they’re about winning at ANY cost and the Democrats will have to change to compete with that philosophy."

OK, so just to make sure I've gt this straight - you do think that the Democrats are more principled and virtuous than the Republicans, you're just worried that they might move away from that?

 

Quote

We just talked about this not too long ago, so I know you don't agree with those comments - so why are you going out of your way and pretending to ignore it?

I may have missed it but I genuinely haven't seen any of those comments in the context of redmap style election rigging or anything else of that nature. People saying it's ok for Pelosi to break decorum and play hardball in the House just isn't the same thing.

[Coreece 190]

6 hours ago, jakee said:

7 hours ago, Coreece said:

See that's my point - given the comments over the last several days, it's clear that it's those on the left who are the ones questioning why they haven't been doing it.  Which is why I brought it up in the first place.

I'm referring to comments about how decorum and principles on the left are irrelevant, and how the Dems suddenly need to stop being politically correct and keeping up appearances.

Another poster summed it up quite nicely:

"Is it better to stick to your principles and lose, or to compromise and win?  The Republican Party have shown that they’re about winning at ANY cost and the Democrats will have to change to compete with that philosophy."

OK, so just to make sure I've gt this straight - you do think that the Democrats are more principled and virtuous than the Republicans

When it comes to individuals or even groups of citizens, I think we're all relatively the same -  but the point here is how the democrats have merely been using their "principles" just for show to keep up appearances, which is why it's so easy for them to just suggest abandoning that strategy now that it's not working out for them anymore.

 

6 hours ago, jakee said:

I may have missed it but I genuinely haven't seen any of those comments in the context of redmap style election rigging or anything else of that nature. People saying it's ok for Pelosi to break decorum and play hardball in the House just isn't the same thing.

Post #126 is talking about how the Republicans fight dirty to rig the system and how the Dems can't get anything done even when they win fair and square, so therefore they can't continue to just be the "good guy."   So given that, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume it's in the realm or nature of that context.

I mean when yoink talks about compromising one's principles in order to win and how the Dems need to change in order to compete against the philosophy of winning at ANY cost, what do you think he's talking about, ripping up a stacks of paper?

[yoink 321]

I’m a bit confused as to your position here to be honest, but either way I’m not sure it’s fair to use my words to argue with Jakee.

In that argument I WAS actually talking specifically about the theatricality of ripping up stacks of paper. Trump has shown that childish theatrics get results, and it doesn’t surprise me that the Democrats have chosen to sink to that level - a little disappointing, but not surprising.

He’s ALSO shown that outright lying and corruption works too, but I hope the Democrats don’t throw those principles away.

 

As always there’s a graduation of possibilities. I believe that in order to be competitive in this particular election the Democrats need to fight fiercely and a bit childishly, but not necessarily ‘dirty’.

 

That’s why it was a question. What principles would you give up to win? 
That’s not the same as saying you have to give them ALL up.

Edited February 12, 2020 by yoink

[Coreece 190]

17 minutes ago, yoink said:

In that argument I WAS actually talking specifically about the theatricality of ripping up stacks of paper.

While you may not have been referring to questionable or unethical methods to gain an edge in the elections, it doesn't appear that you were talking about ripping stacks of paper either.  You were talking about voting for an old, rich white man.  Either way, I don't see how either could really be considered as compromising one's principles, so why even bring it up then?

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

I mean when yoink talks about compromising one's principles in order to win and how the Dems need to change in order to compete against the philosophy of winning at ANY cost, what do you think he's talking about, ripping up a stacks of paper?

Largely, yes.  Theatrics and bombast.  Going "low" in public speeches and statements.

[yoink 321]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

While you may not have been referring to questionable or unethical methods to gain an edge in the elections, it doesn't appear that you were talking about ripping stacks of paper either.  You were talking about voting for an old, rich white man.  Either way, I don't see how either could really be considered as compromising one's principles, so why even bring it up then?

Apologies. I thought I'd made that post in this thread where Turtle was complaining about Pelosi's behavior. Going back and reviewing I see that it was as part of the DNC allowing Bloomberg to run conversation.

 

 

 

 

[Coreece 190]

18 minutes ago, yoink said:

Apologies. I thought I'd made that post in this thread where Turtle was complaining about Pelosi's behavior. Going back and reviewing I see that it was as part of the DNC allowing Bloomberg to run conversation.

Alls good, no need for apologies.  I understand people are frustrated and probably just venting their angst.  We all tend to get a bit hyperbolic at times.  I'm probably making these comments to be a little bit more than what they are anyway.

 

[mistercwood 287]

Just to clarify some of my position as I believe it's also (possibly) been misinterpreted or misunderstood - I don't think the Democrats SHOULD be playing dirty or sinking to the GOP's level. I'm just saying that it's absolute hypocrisy for anyone to state one party has to be principled while the other one gets away with blatant corruption.

[jakee 1,254]

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

When it comes to individuals or even groups of citizens, I think we're all relatively the same -  but the point here is how the democrats have merely been using their "principles" just for show to keep up appearances, which is why it's so easy for them to just suggest abandoning that strategy now that it's not working out for them anymore.

...

I mean when yoink talks about compromising one's principles in order to win and how the Dems need to change in order to compete against the philosophy of winning at ANY cost, what do you think he's talking about, ripping up a stacks of paper?

Oh come on. Yoink isn't the Democrat party. I'd be quite surprised if he was a registered Democrat.

 

So the situation is you agree that the Democrat party has, with their actions in practice in the real world, been the more principled and virtous party. But you completely discount that and say the whole party is just as bad as the Republicans because one random guy on this web forum who probably (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't even a Democrat made a post that you disagree with. 

 

Does that sound about right to you?

[yoink 321]

19 minutes ago, jakee said:

Oh come on. Yoink isn't the Democrat party. I'd be quite surprised if he was a registered Democrat.

 

So the situation is you agree that the Democrat party has, with their actions in practice in the real world, been the more principled and virtous party. But you completely discount that and say the whole party is just as bad as the Republicans because one random guy on this web forum who probably (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't even a Democrat made a post that you disagree with. 

 

Does that sound about right to you?

I only registered to vote for the first time last election and am currently a registered Democrat, simply because I'd like them to put forward who I consider to be the strongest candidate against Trump.

Until the 2016 election I always thought the two parties were mostly even in terms of how unprincipled they are. Swings and roundabouts. I always knew Trump in office would be a shitshow, but I never guessed how quickly the Republican party would jump on the 'fuck absolutely everyone if it gives me, personally, power' bandwagon.

Once Trump is out of office my party affiliation might well change. As I've said before on this forum, in somethings I'm profoundly liberal, in others, very conservative.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

4 minutes ago, yoink said:

...but I never guessed how quickly the Republican party would jump on the 'fuck absolutely everyone if it gives me, personally, power' bandwagon...

The problem is that Trump is only a manifestation, a symptom of that bandwagon.

The R party went down that road a few years ago.

"Voter ID" laws, promoted as preventing voter fraud (which was really rare, and seems to be perpetuated recently by... Republicans) that really disenfranchises older and minority voters.

Gerrymandering (done by both sides, but the Rs really ran with it).

Vicious and false attacks against HRC. I don't like her and didn't vote for her The "Benghazi" and "E-mail" hearings had no merit, or substance, but did a good job of attacking her.

Flat out refusing to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. 

It's become abundantly clear that the Republican leadership has no interest in anything but retaining power.

[brenthutch 383]

38 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

The problem is that Trump is only a manifestation, a symptom of that bandwagon.

The R party went down that road a few years ago.

"Voter ID" laws, promoted as preventing voter fraud (which was really rare, and seems to be perpetuated recently by... Republicans) that really disenfranchises older and minority voters.

Gerrymandering (done by both sides, but the Rs really ran with it).

Vicious and false attacks against HRC. I don't like her and didn't vote for her The "Benghazi" and "E-mail" hearings had no merit, or substance, but did a good job of attacking her.

Flat out refusing to hold hearings for a Supreme Court nominee. 

It's become abundantly clear that the Republican leadership has no interest in anything but retaining power.

It's called realpolitik

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, jakee said:

Oh come on. Yoink isn't the Democrat party. I'd be quite surprised if he was a registered Democrat.

So the situation is you agree that the Democrat party has, with their actions in practice in the real world, been the more principled and virtous party. But you completely discount that and say the whole party is just as bad as the Republicans because one random guy on this web forum who probably (correct me if I'm wrong) isn't even a Democrat made a post that you disagree with. 

Does that sound about right to you?

No that doesn't sound about right to me, lol - wtf is wrong with you?   I mean are you due for vacation or something to get out and make a few jumps, because I hate it when you get like this with your unnecessary nitpicking and bullshit selective quoting that clearly ignores my criticism of the right, along with quotes from multiple posters other than just "one random guy on this web forum," aka Yoink.

The bottom line is that I just don't agree with compromising certain principles just to win - and I was trying to find out what compromises these guys were talking about.  Apparently they were just talking about bombast and going low in public - but what's so new and compromising about that?  Either they're just being disingenuous now that they've been called out, or they were simply talking out of their arse to begin with.

This whole idea of the dems fighting dirty is nothing new, it's just been re-introduced since the state of the union address and a recent tweet/news feed of a Bill Maher video.  But again, it's Bill Maher humor, so I'll give it a pass - though I do take seriously the idea of deep fakes being the future of sleazy political attack ads, not to mention the source of other disinformation, fraud, etc., which is why  I think it's important for people to familiarize themselves with crypto technology and blockchain time-stamping.  It's not just about cryptocurrency anymore.  But that's another discussion (BTW the crypto market in on a run right now)

Anyway, there was a book from 2018 that made it's rounds through various liberal media sites called "It's Time to Fight Dirty:"

"Fighting dirty though obstructionism and procedural warfare: establishing statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico; breaking California into several states; creating a larger House of Representatives; passing a new voting rights act; and expanding the Supreme Court."

But like I said, the republicans are just better at playing dirty.  They didn't need some joe schmoe to write a realpolitik playbook for them and then sell it to the opposition on Amazon for $9.99.

 

Is It Time for Democrats to Fight Dirty?

Hey Democrats, Fighting Fair Is for Suckers.

Why this political scientist thinks the Democrats have to fight dirty

Battle hymn of the Democrats: why it's time for liberals to fight dirty.

 

 

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, Coreece said:

No that doesn't sound about right to me, lol - wtf is wrong with you?   I mean are you due for vacation or something to get out and make a few jumps, because I hate it when you get like this with your unnecessary nitpicking and bullshit selective quoting that clearly ignores my criticism of the right, along with quotes from multiple posters other than just "one random guy on this web forum," aka Yoink.

Sorry, you calling out nitpicking - what is wrong with you? Your entire point is nitpicking. Again, you agree that in practice, for a long time, the way the Democrat party has actually acted is more principled and virtuous than the Republican party - but you give them no credit whatsoever for any of that because a few people who aren't part of the party structure say it might be time for them to be less principled. How does that strike you as being anything other than bullshit nitpicking? 

 

Quote

The bottom line is that I just don't agree with compromising certain principles just to win - and I was trying to find out what compromises these guys were talking about.  Apparently they were just talking about bombast and going low in public - but what's so new and compromising about that?  Either they're just being disingenuous now that they've been called out, or they were simply talking out of their arse to begin with.

OK, so you don't even have the principles these guys are reluctantly thinking of compromising, and you're criticising them for it? Again, bullshit nitpicking or what?

 

Quote

Anyway, there was a book from 2018 that made it's rounds through various liberal media sites called "It's Time to Fight Dirty:"

"Fighting dirty though obstructionism and procedural warfare: establishing statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico; breaking California into several states; creating a larger House of Representatives; passing a new voting rights act; and expanding the Supreme Court."

Statehood for PR is the opposite of dirty, that's simply what anyone who values democracy thinks should happen. Cali, again why not? If you're going to have the EC what's wrong with making it more closely represent the actual will of the people? Passing a new voting rights act, good if it stops the Rs trying to mess with people getting to the polls. The SC, cool, could stop select lucky Admins from either side having a such disproportionate effect on Judical decisions for decades to come.

 

If this is how the Dems would act when they're trying to be dirty I think you're just proving the point of how much nicer than the Reps they are

 

Quote

But like I said, the republicans are just better at playing dirty.  They didn't need some joe schmoe to write a realpolitik playbook for them and then sell it to the opposition on Amazon for $9.99.

Yes. Exactly the point. The Reps are better at playing dirty because they are looking for ways to play dirty. At the institutional level the Dems aren't, regardless of a few suggestions from some schmoe from outside the party structure. So again, if you're not nitpicking why are you even trying to have an argument with me about this?

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, jakee said:

in practice, for a long time, the way the Democrat party has actually acted is more principled and virtuous

Principles and virtue that are meaningless IF you just abandon them when they're needed the most.

 

4 hours ago, jakee said:

The Reps are better at playing dirty because they are looking for ways to play dirty. At the institutional level the Dems aren't

Maybe not yet, but apparently there are a hellava lot of people on the left that Identify as democrats trying to nudge the party in that direction.

 

4 hours ago, jakee said:

At the institutional level the Dems aren't, regardless of a few suggestions from some schmoe from outside the party structure.

Ya, a schmoe whose ideas about obstructionism and procedural warfare you've just applauded - the very things that have contributed to the current state of a divisive and dysfunctional government.

And I don't know why you keep talking about these people being outside the party structure.  These are people on the left that the party is listening too.  I mean you just went on comparing "right wing" philosophy to all the warm and fuzzies of virtue and fairness within liberal philosophy, but most democrats don't even identify as being liberal.

Edited February 13, 2020 by Coreece
minor details

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Principles and virtue that are meaningless IF you just abandon them when they're needed the most.

And they haven’t abandoned them. They haven’t done anything different. So claiming they’re just as bad as the Republicans at this point is stupid. Switching metaphors for a moment, you’re making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Ya, a schmoe whose ideas about obstructionism and procedural warfare you've just applauded - the very things that have contributed to the current state of a divisive and dysfunctional government.

Liar.

 

I applauded the ideas you listed which I think are the right thing to do. PR should be a state and I’ve posted that before. It’s the right thing to do. In fact, there is no defence for it not being a state that isn’t rooted in Republican dirty tricks. Same with California, it should have fairer representation - in the EC and especially the senate. It’s the right thing to do. And guess what, the schmoe suggested them because he thinks they are the right thing to do as well.

 

Maybe if you could be bothered to read more than just a title you would know that.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Principles and virtue that are meaningless IF you just abandon them when they're needed the most.

I think most of us can agree that one of those principles and virtues of the Republican party is their support for men and women in uniform.

We have since seen the Republican Party support a President who did not serve in the military and who has openly attacked members of the military. It is an incredibly clear example of the Republican Party abandoning one of their core principles and virtues.

Can you give an example from the Democratic party that you believe is just as clear?