|
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 June 08 2016 10:57 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:35 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:30 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:26 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:09 zlefin wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import. No, I don't on hand. Just an observation as an interested citizen. We know the nation as a whole is becoming more polarized however. But part of my evidence would be someone with "socialist" in the name of their political philosophy wouldn't even be where he is right now. The dems hated Obama being called a socialist. On June 08 2016 10:18 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care. as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left. nah, this lady was pretty bad. But this is the difference, you see what is happening in the Democrat party as an issue of "optics," not, you know, people. Trump won moderate Republicans at just about every stage. I don't see a meaningful exodus happening. the DLC is extremely reasonable for moderate republicans to accept, except on a few issues. moderate doesn't really cover it as a label. i have in mind the suburban, socially liberal voters that vote based on tax rates, stability, self interest etc. the romney republicans If those are their issues they might vote for Clinton this time (prob not, given all the data) but they aren't going to vote for future versions of the Democrat party. Especially since I foresee the GOP becoming more socially liberal. Indeed, there are number of those in Congress already. On June 08 2016 10:33 zlefin wrote:
re: introvert
center-left democrats would dislike the socialist label.
Bernie isn't really a democrat, half democrat at most; and he's kinda crazy (and of course has a history of actual socialism beliefs)
Some of the reason for shift is also probably the large number of social democrat parties in Europe which have views that many on the left are quite partial to; it dilutes and changes the meaning of the socialist term somewhat. And that's part of the reason "Romney Republicans" aren't going to shift the democrat party. oneofthem thinks they will because he thinks the Sanders thing is just a temporary fling. uh no, it depends on democrats handling the left appropriately. i've said the opposite of what you claim here. and by handle i don't mean suppression. just try to address the key issues with the political costs and gains in mind. this sanders situation is basically a failure of communication and education. extremely damaging for sure but correctable and also highlights the importance of communicating policy constraints to both the base and also new voters. the latter is perhaps more receptive.
You are saying what I say you are saying, but you are wording it differently. You don't think the party will really have to worry about this in the future if they play their cards right. You think you can convince all those people to come along, all they need is some information. Certainly it's possible, but it's not likely.
|
On June 08 2016 11:03 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:59 Mohdoo wrote:
Recent polls show only 25% of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton. This coming in the midst of Sanders imploring people to donate because he will * DEFINITELY * win. That's pretty amazing. 25% is rather high and would be very troublesome if it is persistent.
Well I suppose my point is that it won't be persistent, especially when you look at how many Clinton supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama. And given the extreme volatility of this election, coupled with the social media component, I think it'll be more than fine.
|
On June 08 2016 10:59 kwizach wrote:
oBlade, did you somehow not read or understand my numerous posts in which I start by saying that Trump thinks the judge is biased against him (your point 1.) and then present his reasoning? What exactly is supposed to be your disagreement with my posts?
Oh, are you agreeing with me that the first premise of his argument is that the judge is biased?
On June 08 2016 11:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:54 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 10:32 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 10:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:26 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. lol @ you clinging to the claim Trump's reasoning depends on the judge's group involvement. Why are you averse to admit that's not the case? I don't get what is so hard about stepping inside someone's shoes to try to see it from their perspective before you condemn them one of the worst labels you can be attributed with in western society That wasn't responsive to what I said. You Trump apologists are so averse to admitting that his stated reasoning does not depend on the involvement by the judge in various groups. It is just, 1. He's "a Mexican" 2. Trump's building a wall 3. Therefore, he's biased The other side (including me) says it's more like this: 1) I'm getting a shitton of bad rulings in this case, the judge is being unfair, it seems like he's biased 2) He's the son of immigrants, Mexican descent 3) My policies aren't pro-Mexico 4) So he's probably biased against me due to his background and my politics. Do you at least get what the disagreement is? Because I see kwizach doing a proof by repetition and I'm not sure everyone does. It doesn't make a difference if he's coming to the "Mexican bias" logic before or after the rulings that have gone against him. If the judge was white, I'm sure Trump would have plenty of other excuses why he's losing the case. But the judge isn't, and Trump is saying he's losing because the judge is Mexican.
It's an extraordinarily different to file a lawsuit, get the paperwork back, see the judge's first name is "Juan" and go on national TV boasting how there's no way that guy could be impartial and do his job than it is to explain why he's biased after the fact. When you look at the way all-white juries sentence black defendants compared to mixed juries, it's not racist to posit people's racial background as a factor to explain something you've already observed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 08 2016 11:08 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 11:03 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:59 Mohdoo wrote:
Recent polls show only 25% of Sanders supporters won't vote for Clinton. This coming in the midst of Sanders imploring people to donate because he will * DEFINITELY * win. That's pretty amazing. 25% is rather high and would be very troublesome if it is persistent. Well I suppose my point is that it won't be persistent, especially when you look at how many Clinton supporters said they wouldn't vote for Obama. And given the extreme volatility of this election, coupled with the social media component, I think it'll be more than fine.
two problems. hillary vs obama wasn't over an ideological divide. sandernistas do consider obama-clinton to be corporate trojans etc. it's a distinct ideological movement on the left.
fortunately this group is fairly small yet, and the new converts can be swayed by obama. it's a serious future problem though.
the other problem is that a lot of sanders supporters are basically trump friendly in broad ideology. populist and distrustful of elites. this is the rural vote that will be going for trump in the general, regardless of what obama etc says. this group though probably never was going to vote for democrats.
this election is still dangerous if trump can manage to not stab himself for a while.
|
If a party could declare moral bankruptcy, today’s Republican Party would be in Chapter 11.
This party needs to just shut itself down and start over — now. Seriously, someone please start a New Republican Party!
America needs a healthy two-party system. America needs a healthy center-right party to ensure that the Democrats remain a healthy center-left party. America needs a center-right party ready to offer market-based solutions to issues like climate change. America needs a center-right party that will support common-sense gun laws. America needs a center-right party that will support common-sense fiscal policy. America needs a center-right party to support both free trade and aid to workers impacted by it. America needs a center-right party that appreciates how much more complicated foreign policy is today, when you have to manage weak and collapsing nations, not just muscle strong ones.
But this Republican Party is none of those things. Today’s G.O.P. is to governing what Trump University is to education — an ethically challenged enterprise that enriches and perpetuates itself by shedding all pretense of standing for real principles, or a truly relevant value proposition, and instead plays on the ignorance and fears of the public.
Source
|
People always talking about common sense as if it's actually common or simple; such a fallacy. so-called "common sense" is in fact extremely complicated and dependent on vast amounts of information and learning.
|
On June 08 2016 11:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:59 kwizach wrote:
oBlade, did you somehow not read or understand my numerous posts in which I start by saying that Trump thinks the judge is biased against him (your point 1.) and then present his reasoning? What exactly is supposed to be your disagreement with my posts? Oh, are you agreeing with me that the first premise of his argument is that the judge is biased?
Trump is claiming that the judge is biased, and I presented the reasoning he put forward to explain why (because he's "Mexican", and because Trump is "building a wall"). I'm still not sure what is supposed to be your disagreement with my posts that you responded to.
|
On June 08 2016 11:04 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:54 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 10:32 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 10:29 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:26 Doodsmack wrote:On June 08 2016 10:06 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 10:03 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On June 08 2016 09:38 kwizach wrote:On June 08 2016 09:21 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
[quote]
You have not represented facts. You have represented your interpretation of what you believe to be his positions and beliefs and views and character. They are all very absurd and difficult sells to make. You should honestly be ashamed for high-school-level gossip slander at this point. You are outright lying at this point. All I did was report what Trump said. I didn't present you with my interpretation of his reasoning, I presented you with his own explanation of the reason why the judge was biased. Let's prove it to you factually, by looking at his interview with Jake Tapper: + Show Spoiler +If you want a smoking gun quote you cannot possibly escape, go to 4:59 in the video, and listen to the following exchange (which comes after Trump complaining he's being treated unfairly): 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Not my interpretation. Trump's words. You're wrong, end of story. Trump's reasoning is exactly as I presented it: 1. The judge is "Mexican" 2. Trump supports building a wall at the border with Mexico 3. Therefore, the judge is biased against him I watched the entire video. This reporter is such a shill how are you so oblivious to what he's playing at? He's trying so hard to play the politically correct bullshit card on Trump here. Yes those are his words. Those are the rational explanation I explained before and I hadn't even watched the video. He believes the judge has unfairly treated this case. The judge happens to be part of pro-mexican organizations and Mexico stands to inversely benefit from the success of Trump's candidacy. Therefore, it follows that this judge stands to benefit should Trump's candidacy go poorly. Therefore, the judge is not impartial. The judge has a stake in the case. He argued that is why he is treating him unfairly in the case. Thank you for linking the video now I know you're all throwing a fit over nothing. Sorry, you can't get out of this one. 4:59 - Jake Tapper: "But I don't care if you criticize him. That's fine. You can criticize every decision. What I'm saying is -- if you invoke his race as a reason why he can't do his job." 5:07 - Trump: " I think that's why he's doing it." 5:08 - Jake Tapper: "But... is that..." 5:09 - Trump: "I think that's why he's doing it." Trump's explanation is that the judge's "race", the fact that he is "Mexican", is why (Trump thinks) he is bias against him. End of story. You're ignoring the relevance of what it means. Before that quote even he stated how the judge is a part of pro-mexican groups. The judge has a stake in the outcome of the case. The judge even has a stake in the case remaining open. This is because of the judge's identity and values. It's not fucking racist to point out a fact jesus christ PC has gone too far. lol @ you clinging to the claim Trump's reasoning depends on the judge's group involvement. Why are you averse to admit that's not the case? I don't get what is so hard about stepping inside someone's shoes to try to see it from their perspective before you condemn them one of the worst labels you can be attributed with in western society That wasn't responsive to what I said. You Trump apologists are so averse to admitting that his stated reasoning does not depend on the involvement by the judge in various groups. It is just, 1. He's "a Mexican" 2. Trump's building a wall 3. Therefore, he's biased The other side (including me) says it's more like this: 1) I'm getting a shitton of bad rulings in this case, the judge is being unfair, it seems like he's biased 2) He's the son of immigrants, Mexican descent 3) My policies aren't pro-Mexico 4) So he's probably biased against me due to his background and my politics. Do you at least get what the disagreement is? Because I see kwizach doing a proof by repetition and I'm not sure everyone does. It doesn't make a difference if he's coming to the "Mexican bias" logic before or after the rulings that have gone against him. If the judge was white, I'm sure Trump would have plenty of other excuses why he's losing the case. But the judge isn't, and Trump is saying he's losing because the judge is Mexican.
He's not even Losing the case. The case hasnt even gone to court yet. Thats the best part.
Heck the judge basically did him a favor by letting it go to trial after the election. He had no reason to do that.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 08 2016 11:08 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 10:57 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:35 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:30 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:26 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:09 zlefin wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import. No, I don't on hand. Just an observation as an interested citizen. We know the nation as a whole is becoming more polarized however. But part of my evidence would be someone with "socialist" in the name of their political philosophy wouldn't even be where he is right now. The dems hated Obama being called a socialist. On June 08 2016 10:18 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care. as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left. nah, this lady was pretty bad. But this is the difference, you see what is happening in the Democrat party as an issue of "optics," not, you know, people. Trump won moderate Republicans at just about every stage. I don't see a meaningful exodus happening. the DLC is extremely reasonable for moderate republicans to accept, except on a few issues. moderate doesn't really cover it as a label. i have in mind the suburban, socially liberal voters that vote based on tax rates, stability, self interest etc. the romney republicans If those are their issues they might vote for Clinton this time (prob not, given all the data) but they aren't going to vote for future versions of the Democrat party. Especially since I foresee the GOP becoming more socially liberal. Indeed, there are number of those in Congress already. On June 08 2016 10:33 zlefin wrote:
re: introvert
center-left democrats would dislike the socialist label.
Bernie isn't really a democrat, half democrat at most; and he's kinda crazy (and of course has a history of actual socialism beliefs)
Some of the reason for shift is also probably the large number of social democrat parties in Europe which have views that many on the left are quite partial to; it dilutes and changes the meaning of the socialist term somewhat. And that's part of the reason "Romney Republicans" aren't going to shift the democrat party. oneofthem thinks they will because he thinks the Sanders thing is just a temporary fling. uh no, it depends on democrats handling the left appropriately. i've said the opposite of what you claim here. and by handle i don't mean suppression. just try to address the key issues with the political costs and gains in mind. this sanders situation is basically a failure of communication and education. extremely damaging for sure but correctable and also highlights the importance of communicating policy constraints to both the base and also new voters. the latter is perhaps more receptive. You are saying what I say you are saying, but you are wording it differently. You don't think the party will really have to worry about this in the future if they play their cards right. You think you can convince all those people to come along, all they need is some information. Certainly it's possible, but it's not likely.
yea i said it's unlikely, but you said i think it'd be easy. read your own post
|
|
|
On June 08 2016 11:25 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 11:15 oBlade wrote:On June 08 2016 10:59 kwizach wrote:
oBlade, did you somehow not read or understand my numerous posts in which I start by saying that Trump thinks the judge is biased against him (your point 1.) and then present his reasoning? What exactly is supposed to be your disagreement with my posts? Oh, are you agreeing with me that the first premise of his argument is that the judge is biased? Trump is claiming that the judge is biased, and I presented the reasoning he put forward to explain why (because he's "Mexican", and because Trump is "building a wall"). I'm still not sure what is supposed to be your disagreement with my posts that you responded to.
You don't understand that what you think is his conclusion I think is his first premise?
|
On June 08 2016 11:28 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 11:08 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:57 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:35 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:30 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:26 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:09 zlefin wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import. No, I don't on hand. Just an observation as an interested citizen. We know the nation as a whole is becoming more polarized however. But part of my evidence would be someone with "socialist" in the name of their political philosophy wouldn't even be where he is right now. The dems hated Obama being called a socialist. On June 08 2016 10:18 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 09:35 Introvert wrote:
Ha! The trump endorsed incumbent RINO in NC-2 lost and is fighting for 2nd place. Nice.
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats. gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care. as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left. nah, this lady was pretty bad. But this is the difference, you see what is happening in the Democrat party as an issue of "optics," not, you know, people. Trump won moderate Republicans at just about every stage. I don't see a meaningful exodus happening. the DLC is extremely reasonable for moderate republicans to accept, except on a few issues. moderate doesn't really cover it as a label. i have in mind the suburban, socially liberal voters that vote based on tax rates, stability, self interest etc. the romney republicans If those are their issues they might vote for Clinton this time (prob not, given all the data) but they aren't going to vote for future versions of the Democrat party. Especially since I foresee the GOP becoming more socially liberal. Indeed, there are number of those in Congress already. On June 08 2016 10:33 zlefin wrote:
re: introvert
center-left democrats would dislike the socialist label.
Bernie isn't really a democrat, half democrat at most; and he's kinda crazy (and of course has a history of actual socialism beliefs)
Some of the reason for shift is also probably the large number of social democrat parties in Europe which have views that many on the left are quite partial to; it dilutes and changes the meaning of the socialist term somewhat. And that's part of the reason "Romney Republicans" aren't going to shift the democrat party. oneofthem thinks they will because he thinks the Sanders thing is just a temporary fling. uh no, it depends on democrats handling the left appropriately. i've said the opposite of what you claim here. and by handle i don't mean suppression. just try to address the key issues with the political costs and gains in mind. this sanders situation is basically a failure of communication and education. extremely damaging for sure but correctable and also highlights the importance of communicating policy constraints to both the base and also new voters. the latter is perhaps more receptive. You are saying what I say you are saying, but you are wording it differently. You don't think the party will really have to worry about this in the future if they play their cards right. You think you can convince all those people to come along, all they need is some information. Certainly it's possible, but it's not likely. yea i said it's unlikely, but you said i think it'd be easy. read your own post
I don't see that anywhere, although reading again I see how you could imply it.
Regardless, I don't think it will be successful, in the end. The Democrat party is only going to accelerate its leftward push.
|
I like when the divisive ones are promoting unity and founding principles. 10/10.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 08 2016 11:37 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 11:28 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 11:08 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:57 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:35 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:30 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:26 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:09 zlefin wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats.
gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import. No, I don't on hand. Just an observation as an interested citizen. We know the nation as a whole is becoming more polarized however. But part of my evidence would be someone with "socialist" in the name of their political philosophy wouldn't even be where he is right now. The dems hated Obama being called a socialist. On June 08 2016 10:18 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 09:59 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
this sort of attitude should clearly establish the destruction of the gop as the foremost objective for democrats.
gop primaries have extremely outsized power, because mild suburban republicans vote for candidates more rightwing than they are, but are not influential at the primary stage. this captive vote can be dislodged by rekting the gop brand with trump and crucially welcoming these people into the democrat umbrella. Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them. Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers." The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care. as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left. nah, this lady was pretty bad. But this is the difference, you see what is happening in the Democrat party as an issue of "optics," not, you know, people. Trump won moderate Republicans at just about every stage. I don't see a meaningful exodus happening. the DLC is extremely reasonable for moderate republicans to accept, except on a few issues. moderate doesn't really cover it as a label. i have in mind the suburban, socially liberal voters that vote based on tax rates, stability, self interest etc. the romney republicans If those are their issues they might vote for Clinton this time (prob not, given all the data) but they aren't going to vote for future versions of the Democrat party. Especially since I foresee the GOP becoming more socially liberal. Indeed, there are number of those in Congress already. On June 08 2016 10:33 zlefin wrote:
re: introvert
center-left democrats would dislike the socialist label.
Bernie isn't really a democrat, half democrat at most; and he's kinda crazy (and of course has a history of actual socialism beliefs)
Some of the reason for shift is also probably the large number of social democrat parties in Europe which have views that many on the left are quite partial to; it dilutes and changes the meaning of the socialist term somewhat. And that's part of the reason "Romney Republicans" aren't going to shift the democrat party. oneofthem thinks they will because he thinks the Sanders thing is just a temporary fling. uh no, it depends on democrats handling the left appropriately. i've said the opposite of what you claim here. and by handle i don't mean suppression. just try to address the key issues with the political costs and gains in mind. this sanders situation is basically a failure of communication and education. extremely damaging for sure but correctable and also highlights the importance of communicating policy constraints to both the base and also new voters. the latter is perhaps more receptive. You are saying what I say you are saying, but you are wording it differently. You don't think the party will really have to worry about this in the future if they play their cards right. You think you can convince all those people to come along, all they need is some information. Certainly it's possible, but it's not likely. yea i said it's unlikely, but you said i think it'd be easy. read your own post I don't see that anywhere, although reading again I see how you could imply it. Regardless, I don't think it will be successful, in the end. The Democrat party is only going to accelerate its leftward push.
i said it's nearly impossible to reconfigure the democratic party
|
God I love these. This doesn't apply to you fine people in the thread I'm sure.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
One ruled on a case and the ruling was garbage. The other is accused of bias based on his race. Your image is poorly thought out and dumb.
|
Yeah, I love strawman arguments too.
No one is saying that Trump's judge *must* automatically be free from bias no matter what. However, Trump's claim that the judge *must* be biased *because he's Mexican* (and by Mexican we really know it's American but whatever) is where the problem is. Where the very racist problem is.
|
On June 08 2016 11:40 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 11:37 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 11:28 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 11:08 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:57 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:35 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:30 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:26 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:09 zlefin wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them.
Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers."
The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import. No, I don't on hand. Just an observation as an interested citizen. We know the nation as a whole is becoming more polarized however. But part of my evidence would be someone with "socialist" in the name of their political philosophy wouldn't even be where he is right now. The dems hated Obama being called a socialist. On June 08 2016 10:18 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:04 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
Feel no sympathy for this woman, she was a total fraud. The people are right to reject for no other reason than the fact that she lied to them.
Also, there are lots of moderate GOP reps in Congress. There are only around 40ish that are "crazy right wingers."
The democrat party keeps moving left, how many moderates do you think you can pull into that party? Sanders was always going to lose, but his success should be a caution light. most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care. as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left. nah, this lady was pretty bad. But this is the difference, you see what is happening in the Democrat party as an issue of "optics," not, you know, people. Trump won moderate Republicans at just about every stage. I don't see a meaningful exodus happening. the DLC is extremely reasonable for moderate republicans to accept, except on a few issues. moderate doesn't really cover it as a label. i have in mind the suburban, socially liberal voters that vote based on tax rates, stability, self interest etc. the romney republicans If those are their issues they might vote for Clinton this time (prob not, given all the data) but they aren't going to vote for future versions of the Democrat party. Especially since I foresee the GOP becoming more socially liberal. Indeed, there are number of those in Congress already. On June 08 2016 10:33 zlefin wrote:
re: introvert
center-left democrats would dislike the socialist label.
Bernie isn't really a democrat, half democrat at most; and he's kinda crazy (and of course has a history of actual socialism beliefs)
Some of the reason for shift is also probably the large number of social democrat parties in Europe which have views that many on the left are quite partial to; it dilutes and changes the meaning of the socialist term somewhat. And that's part of the reason "Romney Republicans" aren't going to shift the democrat party. oneofthem thinks they will because he thinks the Sanders thing is just a temporary fling. uh no, it depends on democrats handling the left appropriately. i've said the opposite of what you claim here. and by handle i don't mean suppression. just try to address the key issues with the political costs and gains in mind. this sanders situation is basically a failure of communication and education. extremely damaging for sure but correctable and also highlights the importance of communicating policy constraints to both the base and also new voters. the latter is perhaps more receptive. You are saying what I say you are saying, but you are wording it differently. You don't think the party will really have to worry about this in the future if they play their cards right. You think you can convince all those people to come along, all they need is some information. Certainly it's possible, but it's not likely. yea i said it's unlikely, but you said i think it'd be easy. read your own post I don't see that anywhere, although reading again I see how you could imply it. Regardless, I don't think it will be successful, in the end. The Democrat party is only going to accelerate its leftward push. i said it's nearly impossible to reconfigure the democratic party
And I took that to mean that you think the party is more or less ok. I was under the impression you were more or less satisfied with it.
So I took that to mean the party can effectively keep it's moderate (in your mind) status.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 08 2016 11:47 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 08 2016 11:40 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 11:37 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 11:28 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 11:08 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:57 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:35 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:30 oneofthem wrote:On June 08 2016 10:26 Introvert wrote:On June 08 2016 10:09 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
last I checked, the republicans have been moving right more than the democrats have been moving left. do you have sources for your claim? if so I'd like to assess them. if they're not handy, that's fine, no great import. No, I don't on hand. Just an observation as an interested citizen. We know the nation as a whole is becoming more polarized however. But part of my evidence would be someone with "socialist" in the name of their political philosophy wouldn't even be where he is right now. The dems hated Obama being called a socialist. On June 08 2016 10:18 oneofthem wrote:
[quote]
most politicians are bounded rationality-esque frauds. don't really care.
as far as reconfiguring the democrats coalition. it's nearly impossible, but there is some possible world in which it becomes a viable path. depends on how crazy trump gets, how the moderate right behaves, and how effective democrats can contain the bad optics on the left. nah, this lady was pretty bad. But this is the difference, you see what is happening in the Democrat party as an issue of "optics," not, you know, people. Trump won moderate Republicans at just about every stage. I don't see a meaningful exodus happening. the DLC is extremely reasonable for moderate republicans to accept, except on a few issues. moderate doesn't really cover it as a label. i have in mind the suburban, socially liberal voters that vote based on tax rates, stability, self interest etc. the romney republicans If those are their issues they might vote for Clinton this time (prob not, given all the data) but they aren't going to vote for future versions of the Democrat party. Especially since I foresee the GOP becoming more socially liberal. Indeed, there are number of those in Congress already. On June 08 2016 10:33 zlefin wrote:
re: introvert
center-left democrats would dislike the socialist label.
Bernie isn't really a democrat, half democrat at most; and he's kinda crazy (and of course has a history of actual socialism beliefs)
Some of the reason for shift is also probably the large number of social democrat parties in Europe which have views that many on the left are quite partial to; it dilutes and changes the meaning of the socialist term somewhat. And that's part of the reason "Romney Republicans" aren't going to shift the democrat party. oneofthem thinks they will because he thinks the Sanders thing is just a temporary fling. uh no, it depends on democrats handling the left appropriately. i've said the opposite of what you claim here. and by handle i don't mean suppression. just try to address the key issues with the political costs and gains in mind. this sanders situation is basically a failure of communication and education. extremely damaging for sure but correctable and also highlights the importance of communicating policy constraints to both the base and also new voters. the latter is perhaps more receptive. You are saying what I say you are saying, but you are wording it differently. You don't think the party will really have to worry about this in the future if they play their cards right. You think you can convince all those people to come along, all they need is some information. Certainly it's possible, but it's not likely. yea i said it's unlikely, but you said i think it'd be easy. read your own post I don't see that anywhere, although reading again I see how you could imply it. Regardless, I don't think it will be successful, in the end. The Democrat party is only going to accelerate its leftward push. i said it's nearly impossible to reconfigure the democratic party And I took that to mean that you think the party is more or less ok. I was under the impression you were more or less satisfied with it. So I took that to mean the party can effectively keep it's moderate (in your mind) status.
it's going to be rather hard to change the discourse, but i don't think it's impossible and it's extremely bad to admit defeat on the pest control issue. i've been calling off with their heads with respect to the left (in jest) for a while.
establishment shills like slate is already working on it with propaganda like these:
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/2016/06/how_feeding_america_a_network_of_food_banks_learned_to_love_the_free_market.html
|
On June 08 2016 11:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yeah, I love strawman arguments too.
No one is saying that Trump's judge *must* automatically be free from bias no matter what. However, Trump's claim that the judge *must* be biased *because he's Mexican* (and by Mexican we really know it's American but whatever) is where the problem is. Where the very racist problem is.
The other problem is "I've publicly insulted wide swaths of people and the judge happens to be part of one group" is a piss poor legal argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.sli.mg/y40Iyp.png)
