|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On March 15 2018 03:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process. Also by not participating, they end up ceding power to the people they disagree with. The power of a minority viewpoint can be leveraged in a party primary. The tea party and NRA proven. Not participdoes nothing. Thankfully no one is advocating not participating here. We're talking about participating in a party that doesn't want corporate shills in it and doesn't let them stay when discovered. Democrats don't want to be in that party. Don't make it about political relevance. It's a moral choice and Democrats are making theirs. Unless the argument is that there isn't enough people to build a party of people that don't want to have corporate(/Russian for you Russiagaters) shills in it and don't accept them when found. I would disagree with that entirely. Are there not primaries where the resident voters choose the candidates?
Primaries indeed exist.
|
On March 15 2018 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 03:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 15 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process. Also by not participating, they end up ceding power to the people they disagree with. The power of a minority viewpoint can be leveraged in a party primary. The tea party and NRA proven. Not participdoes nothing. Thankfully no one is advocating not participating here. We're talking about participating in a party that doesn't want corporate shills in it and doesn't let them stay when discovered. Democrats don't want to be in that party. Don't make it about political relevance. It's a moral choice and Democrats are making theirs. Unless the argument is that there isn't enough people to build a party of people that don't want to have corporate(/Russian for you Russiagaters) shills in it and don't accept them when found. I would disagree with that entirely. Are there not primaries where the resident voters choose the candidates? Primaries indeed exist.
So, assuming that these are the candidates that the region selected, how does one kick them out?
|
On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side.
Sort of. The theory behind #resist is not principled opposition, but reflexive from elected officials. Their more left-wing (that brand of left-wing) supporters are the ones that stand behind the logical case to resist everything Trump says and does. At the elected level, it’s just weighing the political costs ... most Democrats today sticking their finger in the air to gauge which way the wind’s blowing. It’s the same motivation to why Congressional Republicans re-upped FISA 702 after making a big deal of its abuse to surveil American citizens.
And there will never be a sensible person delineating the difference between “fuck those Democrat incompetents” when it’s an easy scapegoaty get-out-of-jail free card in the argument, and “those Democrats were luminaries” when it’s an easy dodge to make that the reason for contrasts with Republicans or sainthood of Obama. The base case is to decry how the sausage is made or laud how the sausage is made depending on cognitive dissonance calculations.
|
On March 15 2018 03:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 15 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process. Also by not participating, they end up ceding power to the people they disagree with. The power of a minority viewpoint can be leveraged in a party primary. The tea party and NRA proven. Not participdoes nothing. Thankfully no one is advocating not participating here. We're talking about participating in a party that doesn't want corporate shills in it and doesn't let them stay when discovered. Democrats don't want to be in that party. Don't make it about political relevance. It's a moral choice and Democrats are making theirs. Unless the argument is that there isn't enough people to build a party of people that don't want to have corporate(/Russian for you Russiagaters) shills in it and don't accept them when found. I would disagree with that entirely. Are there not primaries where the resident voters choose the candidates? Primaries indeed exist. So, assuming that these are the candidates that the region selected, how does one kick them out?
I believe there is a precedent that says one has to rig the elections in order to kick people out that you don't want.
|
On March 15 2018 03:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 15 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process. Also by not participating, they end up ceding power to the people they disagree with. The power of a minority viewpoint can be leveraged in a party primary. The tea party and NRA proven. Not participdoes nothing. Thankfully no one is advocating not participating here. We're talking about participating in a party that doesn't want corporate shills in it and doesn't let them stay when discovered. Democrats don't want to be in that party. Don't make it about political relevance. It's a moral choice and Democrats are making theirs. Unless the argument is that there isn't enough people to build a party of people that don't want to have corporate(/Russian for you Russiagaters) shills in it and don't accept them when found. I would disagree with that entirely. Are there not primaries where the resident voters choose the candidates? Primaries indeed exist. So, assuming that these are the candidates that the region selected, how does one kick them out?
Primary candidates are generally chosen by a very small subset of the electorate of the region often under the pretenses laid out here recently and before that. Meaning to say, that many people aren't voting for the person selected by preference of policy they represent, but convinced they are the only way to avert a worse potential fate.
There are many other factors, like local establishment/big money players flooding campaigns and superPACs with resources for preferred candidates during the primary campaign and plenty more.
If your question is 'do candidates represent their constituents political agenda' I'd say 'no, but the ones that get reelected do a good job of convincing enough voters they did or that the alternative is worse'.
As to kicking them out, stop defending them and rally around someone who is willing to stand up to them.
EDIT: Let all the Democrats that claim they wouldn't party with corporate/Russian shills were it not to cast them into political obscurity, step away from them. and see how many people are left by their side and let them be known clearly as supporters of corporate/Russian shills.
|
On March 15 2018 03:47 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 03:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 15 2018 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 15 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process. Also by not participating, they end up ceding power to the people they disagree with. The power of a minority viewpoint can be leveraged in a party primary. The tea party and NRA proven. Not participdoes nothing. Thankfully no one is advocating not participating here. We're talking about participating in a party that doesn't want corporate shills in it and doesn't let them stay when discovered. Democrats don't want to be in that party. Don't make it about political relevance. It's a moral choice and Democrats are making theirs. Unless the argument is that there isn't enough people to build a party of people that don't want to have corporate(/Russian for you Russiagaters) shills in it and don't accept them when found. I would disagree with that entirely. Are there not primaries where the resident voters choose the candidates? Primaries indeed exist. So, assuming that these are the candidates that the region selected, how does one kick them out? I believe there is a precedent that says one has to rig the elections in order to kick people out that you don't want.
The Republican primaries prove that is not required. A number of House members were voted out during Obama’s term for not being conservative enough.
|
|
|
On March 15 2018 03:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 03:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 15 2018 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:36 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 15 2018 03:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 15 2018 03:12 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2018 03:00 Gorsameth wrote:On March 15 2018 02:57 GreenHorizons wrote:
Broad and dynamic as you guys wish to portray it, I wouldn't share a party with people I thought were corporate shills, supporting people I think they know are Russian shills, and so on.
Democrats will. But my point isn't to rag on Democrats for the sake of it, it was to highlight why I thought the argument between p6 and danglars didn't make sense on it's face, from either side. As has been repeatedly mentioned many times. One of the flaws of a 2 party system. Change the system and you can start to get more distinct and singular party positions. Right now you can chose to not share a party with those people. It just means you have to accept that your are completely irrelevant in any political process. Also by not participating, they end up ceding power to the people they disagree with. The power of a minority viewpoint can be leveraged in a party primary. The tea party and NRA proven. Not participdoes nothing. Thankfully no one is advocating not participating here. We're talking about participating in a party that doesn't want corporate shills in it and doesn't let them stay when discovered. Democrats don't want to be in that party. Don't make it about political relevance. It's a moral choice and Democrats are making theirs. Unless the argument is that there isn't enough people to build a party of people that don't want to have corporate(/Russian for you Russiagaters) shills in it and don't accept them when found. I would disagree with that entirely. Are there not primaries where the resident voters choose the candidates? Primaries indeed exist. So, assuming that these are the candidates that the region selected, how does one kick them out? Primary candidates are generally chosen by a very small subset of the electorate of the region often under the pretenses laid out here recently and before that. Meaning to say, that many people aren't voting for the person selected by preference of policy they represent, but convinced they are the only way to avert a worse potential fate. There are many other factors, like local establishment/big money players flooding campaigns and superPACs with resources for preferred candidates during the primary campaign and plenty more. If your question is 'do candidates represent their constituents political agenda' I'd say 'no, but the ones that get reelected do a good job of convincing enough voters they did or that the alternative is worse'. As to kicking them out, stop defending them and rally around someone who is willing to stand up to them.
There's a lot of vagueness here that I can't tell what actually involves a political process.
Let's say this is a hardcore conservative voting region. We've got a lot of regions up here that are die-hard party line voting, and because our parties actually control candidates, and because individual candidates don't mean much compared to the party, there's a tacit acceptance that some regions simply will not be competitive votes and candidates will not be elected. But candidates are still present from all major parties, and they will still campaign on the party message.
How would the same be applied for the US system? Would parties control their candidate selection process more tightly, and accept that some seats will not be won?
|
All the people like "Anything has to be better than the establishment!!" were suddenly like "woooops"
|
Lamb just won in a district that went for Trump by 20 points. Trump took Paul Ryan’s district by 8 points and Ryan is not polling well. November could be a wonderful time when we are finally free of Ryan.
|
Didn't Ryans challenger get jailed?
|
tbf, it's a bit of a meaningless victory for the dems. but it would have been a meaningless win for the reps had they won. but at the end of the day the reps spent 10m to fail to hold a seat trump by 20 which won't even exist in 6 months.
|
On March 15 2018 04:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
tbf, it's a bit of a meaningless victory for the dems. but it would have been a meaningless win for the reps had they won. but at the end of the day the reps spent 10m to fail to hold a seat trump by 20 which won't even exist in 6 months.
But cheering for your side or against the other side about a seat in a district that doesn’t exist is very 2018. Get with the times.
|
On March 15 2018 04:27 a_flayer wrote:
Didn't Ryans challenger get jailed?
For protesting with other Democrats the district about the lack of action on DACA. Unclear how that is going to play, but the guy is the most union dude I have ever seen. He is a stark contrast to the frat boy that is Paul Ryan.
|
On March 15 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 04:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
tbf, it's a bit of a meaningless victory for the dems. but it would have been a meaningless win for the reps had they won. but at the end of the day the reps spent 10m to fail to hold a seat trump by 20 which won't even exist in 6 months. But cheering for your side or against the other side about a seat in a district that doesn’t exist is very 2018. Get with the times.
it’s obviously just for the optics. the headline of blue wave or republicans being able to win an election is great for either side, and thats not unique to any election. but i understand why you would pretend otherwise. after all, they didn’t spend 10mm for nothing, right? well maybe after the results it was for nothing, but hindsight. there are consequences here outside governing PA18. I look forward to more republican retirees announcing shortly.
|
How did Lamb get away with being called a pro-life candidate despite supporting Roe v Wade and not supporting a ban on 20 week+ abortions. He personally opposes it but policy wise his stance hardly seems any different than any mainstream Democrat.
Well done on the messaging I guess?
|
On March 15 2018 04:44 Tachion wrote:
How did Lamb get away with being called a pro-life candidate despite supporting Roe v Wade and not supporting a ban on 20 week+ abortions. He personally opposes it but policy wise his stance hardly seems any different than any mainstream Democrat.
Well done on the messaging I guess?
Why were reporters and adjuncts so easily snookered? His claim to fame is anti-gun control, but I also saw the fake news headlines about this pro-life pro-gun rights candidate.
I think the flip side of your question is the more interesting one.
|
On March 15 2018 04:43 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2018 04:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
tbf, it's a bit of a meaningless victory for the dems. but it would have been a meaningless win for the reps had they won. but at the end of the day the reps spent 10m to fail to hold a seat trump by 20 which won't even exist in 6 months. But cheering for your side or against the other side about a seat in a district that doesn’t exist is very 2018. Get with the times. it’s obviously just for the optics. the headline of blue wave or republicans being able to win an election is great for either side, and thats not unique to any election. but i understand why you would pretend otherwise. after all, they didn’t spend 10mm for nothing, right? well maybe after the results it was for nothing, but hindsight. there are consequences here outside governing PA18. I look forward to more republican retirees announcing shortly.
Pretending to misunderstand the point is indeed very understandable for you.
|
On March 15 2018 04:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 04:43 brian wrote:On March 15 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2018 04:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
tbf, it's a bit of a meaningless victory for the dems. but it would have been a meaningless win for the reps had they won. but at the end of the day the reps spent 10m to fail to hold a seat trump by 20 which won't even exist in 6 months. But cheering for your side or against the other side about a seat in a district that doesn’t exist is very 2018. Get with the times. it’s obviously just for the optics. the headline of blue wave or republicans being able to win an election is great for either side, and thats not unique to any election. but i understand why you would pretend otherwise. after all, they didn’t spend 10mm for nothing, right? well maybe after the results it was for nothing, but hindsight. there are consequences here outside governing PA18. I look forward to more republican retirees announcing shortly. Pretending to misunderstand the point is indeed very understandable for you.
i would’ve replied directly to ticklish to debate its meaning (or lack thereof) but thought you’d be more inclined to go deeper.
guess not.
|
On March 15 2018 04:53 brian wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2018 04:51 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2018 04:43 brian wrote:On March 15 2018 04:39 Danglars wrote:On March 15 2018 04:28 ticklishmusic wrote:
tbf, it's a bit of a meaningless victory for the dems. but it would have been a meaningless win for the reps had they won. but at the end of the day the reps spent 10m to fail to hold a seat trump by 20 which won't even exist in 6 months. But cheering for your side or against the other side about a seat in a district that doesn’t exist is very 2018. Get with the times. it’s obviously just for the optics. the headline of blue wave or republicans being able to win an election is great for either side, and thats not unique to any election. but i understand why you would pretend otherwise. after all, they didn’t spend 10mm for nothing, right? well maybe after the results it was for nothing, but hindsight. there are consequences here outside governing PA18. I look forward to more republican retirees announcing shortly. Pretending to misunderstand the point is indeed very understandable for you. i would’ve replied directly to ticklish to debate its meaning (or lack thereof) but thought you’d be more inclined to go deeper. guess not.
Nah it’s too small a point to matter. I’m not going to say “it’s very 2018 and this is the 2018 zeitgeist and this is why optics weren’t such a large part of the national conversation in the past and this is the small story that could’ve been written” with a guy that says “I understand why you would pretend otherwise.” That’s the technique of shitposters, not people desirous of digging deeper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
