|
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 May 30 2017 10:05 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 08:45 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 08:23 Wulfey_LA wrote:On May 30 2017 08:14 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2017 08:03 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2017 07:57 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2017 07:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2017 07:25 Plansix wrote:On May 30 2017 05:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 30 2017 05:14 Zambrah wrote:
"I think white voters should take a lesson from decent human beings" I mean come on, this is precisely the kind of generalizations that people here don't like.
You're literally saying white voters aren't decent human beings. As a whole group. Can you at least pretend to try to use mildly nuanced language? I'm not excluding white people from being decent human beings, but I can assure you if the overwhelming majority of* white Americans* stopped supporting white supremacy, systemic and institutional racism and the politicians who perpetuate it, it would stop. And not supporting them is something decent human beings do, but decent human beings also do bad things like vote to support those things. I get how people can interpret things the way they do but it sails right past people how just the "I think black people should take a lesson from the christian right and vote more" concept is offensive, particularly coming from someone who knows better like P6. Personally I spend a lot of time trying to explain racism to white people I know, which I don't have to do. I do it because I'm committed to dealing with racism in my country and it is the area where I can do the most good. So maybe take it down a notch. But, you are right, my comment was a bit out of line, but the turn out rates for the entire left have been terrible for nearly 20 years. We can blame the DNC all day, but that still doesn't win elections. My overall opinion on voting is that left should spend less time waiting for the ideal candidate that perfectly represents all their views to show up and just fucking vote for people on the ticket and own their ass. This includes every demographic on the left. Wishing White Americans would stop voting for a party caters to racist isn't going to make it stop. I tried to give you some credit (though I know some of my revolutionary friends would say "stop praising that white boy for doing what any decent person should do" ) But I appreciate the effort, and I appreciate you recognizing why that turn of phrase was problematic even if you didn't mean it in the way it came off (like you were dismissing the role white Christians play/ed in preventing black people from voting for one). Without specificity to race, everyone, particularly people at the lower end of the economic ladder, need to increase their civic engagement and there's wisdom in not looking to oppressive power structures to lead them through it. Then you have to cease the power structure for yourself. The hostile take over of the DNC is way easier if you got the numbers to back it up. And can prove those numbers exist by winning elections with them. Want someone like Booker to give up taking money from drug companies, get him elected by a large margin and then tell him to stop or you will find someone to replace him. It is a lot easier to pressure someone if they know you can hurt them. And don't listen to your revolutionary friends on the subject of talking to white people. People vote for self interest and then decency, in that order. The problems of racism can't be the focus of political discussions if they are forced to compete with economic problems. If was Trump vs Booker I'd vote for neither and if Democrats think convincing us that voting for Booker is how we make him listen they got another thing coming. GH, this is why you will always lose and the GOP will always win. If you don't vote, no one gives a shit about you. Especially if you jump ship if your candidate loses the primary. The far right does the exact opposite and look at them. If GH were a real progressive he would vote for the candidate that would provide the most progress. Faced with a choice between a Republican that would actively move against all of his alleged policy positions and a Democrat that would advance some of them, he chooses to protest. He puts the purity of his vote over the consequences to others from his vote. I am saving this post of his as the prime example of Bernie/Stein/Nader fake leftism. People defending the system of the country where liberalism is the left talking to us about what fake leftism is. Carefully read over the Trump administration's plans to dismantle the Obama era civil rights programs in the DOJ. America is a two party system. Republicans held their noses for Trump and now they get to start rolling back civil rights protections in federal contracting. 'Lefties' or 'Berniecrats' who won't vote Democrat because the Democrats aren't pure enough for them enable exactly what the Republicans are doing. The USA is a two party system and BernieOrBust and the Jill Stein crew voted for Sessions doing just what he is doing now. Show nested quote +The Trump administration is planning to disband the Labor Department division that has policed discrimination among federal contractors for four decades, according to the White House’s newly proposed budget, part of wider efforts to rein in government programs that promote civil rights. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administration-plans-to-minimize-civil-rights-efforts-in-agencies/2017/05/29/922fc1b2-39a7-11e7-a058-ddbb23c75d82_story.html?utm_term=.0bb39f14a1b7
Democrats enable what Trump and Republicans are doing.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On May 30 2017 10:00 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 09:50 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 07:54 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 06:52 Wulfey_LA wrote:On May 30 2017 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 06:43 Wulfey_LA wrote:
When the country passed a healthcare bill that expanded medicaid (hello poors) dramatically, there was a political revolution in this country that tossed the Democrats from across the nation. If you live in reality, then you understand that greater suburbia and rural areas of the USA are not on board with more helping of poors (who tend to be darker). And now the majority of the country is in favor of medicare for all according to the polls, republican representatives are shutting down their town halls because they don't want to address their republican base who agrees with it and who really dislike Obamacare being only repealed and not replaced, and Bernie Sanders is using the surf of Medicare for All to cruise over a wave of popularity all the way to number 1 in the US. So of course, time for small steps and patience. This is probably the single worst example that you could have chosen to illustrate the value of patience and gradualism (1) We have a much more important opinion poll on Nov 8, 2016. No amount of polls count against votes. (2) "Single payer" on its own polls great, but show me the polls that actually cite a plan that includes the taxes to pay for it. EDIT: (3) Trump+Republicans ran on repealing ACA for years. They keep winning. Why do you think the populace just clamors for single payer when they keep voting for less GOV in health insurance? Trump ran on repeal and replace, not repeal and repeal. Now he's not doing the replacing well and as a result Trumpcare is massively unpopular. I understand that you can single out a Trump vote and say "woop conservatism" but when you have an explanation that is coherent with the polls and the actions today (again, town halls), namely that they thought Trump would make it better than it is and are now disappointed that he doesn't, it's fairly nonsensical for you to ignore that possibility and just go "I guess they just don't want a good insurance system". the republicans mostly just ran on repeal. repeal and replace was always blatant BS anyways; as they had no actual alternative to replace it with, and everyone knew it, or should have known it. Blatant BS as opposed to what? Almost everything Trump said was blatant BS, he still got elected, seems weird to suddenly assume that people were aware that he was lying on this specific instance (especially given how they react today) which is why I also said should have known it. that some people chose to believe a proven con-man who was offering obvious bs, when everyone warned them what it was, and provided rigorous proof of that, is to a considerable extent on them. ignorance of the law is not an excuse as they say; neither should ignorance count for much in defence here either, when it was proven so thoroughly. they voted for ignorance and non-solutions, so they got ignorance and non-solutions. Okay but I wasn't trying to excuse it, was I? I was just saying that it seems foolish to assume they're trying to only repeal healthcare and not replace it when all of the signs point to the opposite being true. then your comment was simply irrelevant to what he was saying, which was more venting than anything else. also, a LOT of republicans ran on straight repeal for a long while, so some of that should bleed throug hto trump, especially given that what he says means nothing, so the general republican position would matter more. all the actual signs point to them being idiots who voted against their own self interest and against sound government and actual solutions.
Them being idiots doesn't invalidate what I said though, does it?
I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US. And my answer is that his example of that is really, really poor, because Obamacare into single payer (of some sort) is the go-to example of something that you'd better advance really fast on.
Wulfey: I see that you think your last post is an answer to what I said, given that you quoted me, but I can't figure out why you think that.
|
Yeah, Booker had a real problem with looking like he is 100% owned by anyone who donates to him. He might be right that it is premature based on the evidence, but it's a bad look.
|
On May 30 2017 10:09 Plansix wrote:
Yeah, Booker had a real problem with looking like he is 100% owned by anyone who donates to him. He might be right that it is premature based on the evidence, but it's a bad look.
That's what's funny, is the Democrats are tripping over themselves trying to balance the Russia hysteria with donor relations and this kind of throws it in their face.
|
On May 30 2017 10:08 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 10:00 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 09:50 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 07:54 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 06:52 Wulfey_LA wrote:On May 30 2017 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 06:43 Wulfey_LA wrote:
When the country passed a healthcare bill that expanded medicaid (hello poors) dramatically, there was a political revolution in this country that tossed the Democrats from across the nation. If you live in reality, then you understand that greater suburbia and rural areas of the USA are not on board with more helping of poors (who tend to be darker). And now the majority of the country is in favor of medicare for all according to the polls, republican representatives are shutting down their town halls because they don't want to address their republican base who agrees with it and who really dislike Obamacare being only repealed and not replaced, and Bernie Sanders is using the surf of Medicare for All to cruise over a wave of popularity all the way to number 1 in the US. So of course, time for small steps and patience. This is probably the single worst example that you could have chosen to illustrate the value of patience and gradualism (1) We have a much more important opinion poll on Nov 8, 2016. No amount of polls count against votes. (2) "Single payer" on its own polls great, but show me the polls that actually cite a plan that includes the taxes to pay for it. EDIT: (3) Trump+Republicans ran on repealing ACA for years. They keep winning. Why do you think the populace just clamors for single payer when they keep voting for less GOV in health insurance? Trump ran on repeal and replace, not repeal and repeal. Now he's not doing the replacing well and as a result Trumpcare is massively unpopular. I understand that you can single out a Trump vote and say "woop conservatism" but when you have an explanation that is coherent with the polls and the actions today (again, town halls), namely that they thought Trump would make it better than it is and are now disappointed that he doesn't, it's fairly nonsensical for you to ignore that possibility and just go "I guess they just don't want a good insurance system". the republicans mostly just ran on repeal. repeal and replace was always blatant BS anyways; as they had no actual alternative to replace it with, and everyone knew it, or should have known it. Blatant BS as opposed to what? Almost everything Trump said was blatant BS, he still got elected, seems weird to suddenly assume that people were aware that he was lying on this specific instance (especially given how they react today) which is why I also said should have known it. that some people chose to believe a proven con-man who was offering obvious bs, when everyone warned them what it was, and provided rigorous proof of that, is to a considerable extent on them. ignorance of the law is not an excuse as they say; neither should ignorance count for much in defence here either, when it was proven so thoroughly. they voted for ignorance and non-solutions, so they got ignorance and non-solutions. Okay but I wasn't trying to excuse it, was I? I was just saying that it seems foolish to assume they're trying to only repeal healthcare and not replace it when all of the signs point to the opposite being true. then your comment was simply irrelevant to what he was saying, which was more venting than anything else. also, a LOT of republicans ran on straight repeal for a long while, so some of that should bleed throug hto trump, especially given that what he says means nothing, so the general republican position would matter more. all the actual signs point to them being idiots who voted against their own self interest and against sound government and actual solutions. Them being idiots doesn't invalidate what I said though, does it? I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US. And my answer is that his example of that is really, really poor, because Obamacare into single payer (of some sort) is the go-to example of something that you'd better advance really fast on.
you're just completely not getting the point. and /or you're blithely ignoring it.
I'll say it again one more time to be clear: the original guy was VENTING; and the points are valid from a VENTING point of view.
you added NOTHIGN to the conversation, all you did was take an obvious venting statement and misinterpret it, when everyone knows what the reality is. this is just a useless aside. what you said was irrelevant and useless, everyone already knew it.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 30 2017 06:53 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
...
.... snip
That last bit is why the progressive left drives me insane with their rhetoric....
I'm generally on the same side, have reasonably fortunate circumstances affording me the luxury to waste time contemplating the plights of a country I don't even live in, and I still have to overcome a defensive reaction to many terms they use.
The message is hard enough to get through without that additional burden... but maybe I'm underestimating people in general, who knows.
|
On May 30 2017 09:26 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 09:11 Toadesstern wrote:follow up on merkel's stance on Trump the other day I guess: Nonetheless, Merkel's plans to meet Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang this week reflect Berlin's willingness to work with other countries if Washington proves problematic on climate and trade policy.
German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said the West had become weaker as Washington increasingly put U.S. interests first. He said Trump's administration, for example, was unlikely to do much to tackle the causes of the migrant crisis - climate change, wars and persecution.
He referred to the "loss of the U.S. as an important nation" and said that while it was important to maintain dialogue with Washington, Europe needed to become stronger and Germany needed to be more prepared to work with its EU peers.
Juergen Hardt, the German government's coordinator for transatlantic policies, said Trump's administration was irritating foreign allies.
"Never before has there been so much uncertainty about the political course, and so many contradictions in the president's statements, four months after the inauguration of a new U.S. president," Hardt told Reuters.
"That weakens America and irritates its partners," said Hardt, the foreign policy expert in parliament for Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats. source: www.reuters.com(posting this in here instead of the EU thread because of the "Obama made us look weak abroad" from a couple people) Maybe another apology tour is just what the doctor ordered.
When the rest of the world moves on to developing new energy source, we will be making the "please sell us your products and technology" tour. Or the "please give us a better trade deal" tour.
|
GH, you spent 10-20 pages rambling about how only you were racially sensitive enough to be unracist and all other whites were insufficiently unracist. You didn't show up to oppose Trump in 2016, and now the Republicans are dismantling civil rights protections in government. Every last thing you said about racism is invalidated by your own refusal to stand with Democrats and protect civil rights.
EDIT: to the substance of your whataboutism, Dems are wise to pump the brakes on the Russia thing. NYT, WaPo, WSJ, and Reuters are doing a great job getting info out there. Mueller is on the case and progressing. Dems can't prove collusion with unclassified evidence and should proceed with caution lest they allege more than they can back up. IBTimes is a laughably biased news org and the donations angle is always suspect.
|
On May 30 2017 10:12 Liquid`Jinro wrote:That last bit is why the progressive left drives me insane with their rhetoric....
Yeah Krugman's a bit snobbish. But he is a noble laureate in economics who's probably tired of people thinking they know more about economics than he does. I read him mainly because he makes good points. I do wish he'd mellow his rhetoric a bit. Again he's mostly looking at it from solely an economics and policy perspective.
|
On May 30 2017 10:12 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 10:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 10:00 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 09:50 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 07:54 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 06:52 Wulfey_LA wrote:On May 30 2017 06:47 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
And now the majority of the country is in favor of medicare for all according to the polls, republican representatives are shutting down their town halls because they don't want to address their republican base who agrees with it and who really dislike Obamacare being only repealed and not replaced, and Bernie Sanders is using the surf of Medicare for All to cruise over a wave of popularity all the way to number 1 in the US.
So of course, time for small steps and patience.
This is probably the single worst example that you could have chosen to illustrate the value of patience and gradualism (1) We have a much more important opinion poll on Nov 8, 2016. No amount of polls count against votes. (2) "Single payer" on its own polls great, but show me the polls that actually cite a plan that includes the taxes to pay for it. EDIT: (3) Trump+Republicans ran on repealing ACA for years. They keep winning. Why do you think the populace just clamors for single payer when they keep voting for less GOV in health insurance? Trump ran on repeal and replace, not repeal and repeal. Now he's not doing the replacing well and as a result Trumpcare is massively unpopular. I understand that you can single out a Trump vote and say "woop conservatism" but when you have an explanation that is coherent with the polls and the actions today (again, town halls), namely that they thought Trump would make it better than it is and are now disappointed that he doesn't, it's fairly nonsensical for you to ignore that possibility and just go "I guess they just don't want a good insurance system". the republicans mostly just ran on repeal. repeal and replace was always blatant BS anyways; as they had no actual alternative to replace it with, and everyone knew it, or should have known it. Blatant BS as opposed to what? Almost everything Trump said was blatant BS, he still got elected, seems weird to suddenly assume that people were aware that he was lying on this specific instance (especially given how they react today) which is why I also said should have known it. that some people chose to believe a proven con-man who was offering obvious bs, when everyone warned them what it was, and provided rigorous proof of that, is to a considerable extent on them. ignorance of the law is not an excuse as they say; neither should ignorance count for much in defence here either, when it was proven so thoroughly. they voted for ignorance and non-solutions, so they got ignorance and non-solutions. Okay but I wasn't trying to excuse it, was I? I was just saying that it seems foolish to assume they're trying to only repeal healthcare and not replace it when all of the signs point to the opposite being true. then your comment was simply irrelevant to what he was saying, which was more venting than anything else. also, a LOT of republicans ran on straight repeal for a long while, so some of that should bleed throug hto trump, especially given that what he says means nothing, so the general republican position would matter more. all the actual signs point to them being idiots who voted against their own self interest and against sound government and actual solutions. Them being idiots doesn't invalidate what I said though, does it? I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US. And my answer is that his example of that is really, really poor, because Obamacare into single payer (of some sort) is the go-to example of something that you'd better advance really fast on. you're just completely not getting the point. and /or you're blithely ignoring it. I'll say it again one more time to be clear: the original guy was VENTING; and the points are valid from a VENTING point of view.
...
I disagree with your interpretation that he was venting. Which is why I provided you with my explanation of what I think he was doing, rather than venting. It was there: "I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US."
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I wasn't. In any case, I didn't need you to condescendingly repeat your interpretation as if I didn't get basic english. Let me know if we're up to speed in our conversation.
|
On May 30 2017 10:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 10:12 Liquid`Jinro wrote:That last bit is why the progressive left drives me insane with their rhetoric.... Yeah Krugman's a bit snobbish. But he is a noble laureate in economics who's probably tired of people thinking they know more about economics than he does. I read him mainly because he makes good points. I do wish he'd mellow his rhetoric a bit.
i enjoy that "tired of your shit" attitude because i often feel the same way.
separately, you guys criticizing booker for taking pharma dollars do know that NJ is home to like 14 of the top 20 pharma companies, right? it's like criticizing hillary for taking wall street money (eh, a bunch did) or sanders for taking dairy dollars. i'd also like to take the opportunity to remind that these dollars are coming from employees of said industries which happen to employ a ton of people since they happen to be, y'know, the area's leading industry.
+ Show Spoiler [obligatory funding disclosure] +this message has been brought you by george soros and a 501(c)4 darkmoney organization
|
I do have to wonder, a while back I heard that the DNC donors were rather pissed that Hillary lost, and rather unamused by the reasons Hillary was giving (yes, Russia/Comey are a reason why she lost, but they weren't the only reasons nor the reason it was close in the first place). Did that ever get more resolved? It's hard to see them be donated to in the same amount in the future.
|
|
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 30 2017 10:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 10:12 Liquid`Jinro wrote:That last bit is why the progressive left drives me insane with their rhetoric.... Yeah Krugman's a bit snobbish. But he is a noble laureate in economics who's probably tired of people thinking they know more about economics than he does. I read him mainly because he makes good points. I do wish he'd mellow his rhetoric a bit. Again he's mostly looking at it from solely an economics and policy perspective.
Actually I didnt mind his words, I meant the bit he "quoted". It essentially tells us how effective talking down to people is...
Like "I dont feel respected' is actually a pretty valid thing to say. Expecting people to overcome this layer of hostility, consider your underlying points and see that, lo, they are good and vote accordingly is expecting an awful lot.
|
On May 30 2017 10:15 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 10:12 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 10:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 10:00 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 09:50 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 07:54 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 06:52 Wulfey_LA wrote:
[quote]
(1) We have a much more important opinion poll on Nov 8, 2016. No amount of polls count against votes.
(2) "Single payer" on its own polls great, but show me the polls that actually cite a plan that includes the taxes to pay for it.
EDIT:
(3) Trump+Republicans ran on repealing ACA for years. They keep winning. Why do you think the populace just clamors for single payer when they keep voting for less GOV in health insurance? Trump ran on repeal and replace, not repeal and repeal. Now he's not doing the replacing well and as a result Trumpcare is massively unpopular. I understand that you can single out a Trump vote and say "woop conservatism" but when you have an explanation that is coherent with the polls and the actions today (again, town halls), namely that they thought Trump would make it better than it is and are now disappointed that he doesn't, it's fairly nonsensical for you to ignore that possibility and just go "I guess they just don't want a good insurance system". the republicans mostly just ran on repeal. repeal and replace was always blatant BS anyways; as they had no actual alternative to replace it with, and everyone knew it, or should have known it. Blatant BS as opposed to what? Almost everything Trump said was blatant BS, he still got elected, seems weird to suddenly assume that people were aware that he was lying on this specific instance (especially given how they react today) which is why I also said should have known it. that some people chose to believe a proven con-man who was offering obvious bs, when everyone warned them what it was, and provided rigorous proof of that, is to a considerable extent on them. ignorance of the law is not an excuse as they say; neither should ignorance count for much in defence here either, when it was proven so thoroughly. they voted for ignorance and non-solutions, so they got ignorance and non-solutions. Okay but I wasn't trying to excuse it, was I? I was just saying that it seems foolish to assume they're trying to only repeal healthcare and not replace it when all of the signs point to the opposite being true. then your comment was simply irrelevant to what he was saying, which was more venting than anything else. also, a LOT of republicans ran on straight repeal for a long while, so some of that should bleed throug hto trump, especially given that what he says means nothing, so the general republican position would matter more. all the actual signs point to them being idiots who voted against their own self interest and against sound government and actual solutions. Them being idiots doesn't invalidate what I said though, does it? I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US. And my answer is that his example of that is really, really poor, because Obamacare into single payer (of some sort) is the go-to example of something that you'd better advance really fast on. you're just completely not getting the point. and /or you're blithely ignoring it. I'll say it again one more time to be clear: the original guy was VENTING; and the points are valid from a VENTING point of view. ... I disagree with your interpretation that he was venting. Which is why I provided you with my explanation of what I think he was doing, rather than venting. It was there: "I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US." Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I wasn't. In any case, I didn't need you to condescendingly repeat your interpretation as if I didn't get basic english. Let me know if we're up to speed in our conversation.
I was venting. he looked to be venting. everything we've both said is consistent with the principle "voters are idiots who vote on things they don't understand and literally vote against things they favor sometimes because they don't understand."
i'd say you did need it said that way. you've been raising low quality points repeatedly for some time now, both in this discussion chain and elsewhere. it's not been helpful. I do not expect you to understand or recognize this or agree with me; but I feel the need to call it out all the same.
|
On May 30 2017 10:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 10:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On May 30 2017 10:12 Liquid`Jinro wrote:That last bit is why the progressive left drives me insane with their rhetoric.... Yeah Krugman's a bit snobbish. But he is a noble laureate in economics who's probably tired of people thinking they know more about economics than he does. I read him mainly because he makes good points. I do wish he'd mellow his rhetoric a bit. Again he's mostly looking at it from solely an economics and policy perspective. Actually I didnt mind his words, I meant the bit he "quoted". It essentially tells us how effective talking down to people is...
well the quote was about voters in west virginia so he's not talking about the progressive left. He's referring to his frustration with urban and rural areas that go republican and tend to vote against their own interest. I guess you could apply it to the progressive left too in a sense.
but yeah talking down to people is never helpful. People want to feel valued in general
|
On May 30 2017 10:13 Wulfey_LA wrote:
GH, you spent 10-20 pages rambling about how only you were racially sensitive enough to be unracist and all other whites were insufficiently unracist. You didn't show up to oppose Trump in 2016, and now the Republicans are dismantling civil rights protections in government. Every last thing you said about racism is invalidated by your own refusal to stand with Democrats and protect civil rights.
With all due respect, you have no idea what you're talking about. None of that makes sense. I opposed the shit out of Trump, and encouraged people not to support a candidate under federal investigation and the only person less trusted/liked than Trump but Democrats stubborn refusal to see how dumb it was to run her isn't on me.
Nor is that Hillary Clinton, a white woman, couldn't get enough white women to vote for her.
Republicans were doing that before, and Democrats helped them do it. So I call BS on you're absurd assertion it's because people didn't stand with heartless degenerates like Rahm that civil rights are being eroded. Democrats let them erode while they were busy losing 1000+ seats and telling folks to vote for them or else they'll erode even faster. You can go home with that non-sense.
|
On May 30 2017 10:20 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 10:15 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 10:12 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 10:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 10:00 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 09:50 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 07:54 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 07:04 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
Trump ran on repeal and replace, not repeal and repeal. Now he's not doing the replacing well and as a result Trumpcare is massively unpopular. I understand that you can single out a Trump vote and say "woop conservatism" but when you have an explanation that is coherent with the polls and the actions today (again, town halls), namely that they thought Trump would make it better than it is and are now disappointed that he doesn't, it's fairly nonsensical for you to ignore that possibility and just go "I guess they just don't want a good insurance system". the republicans mostly just ran on repeal. repeal and replace was always blatant BS anyways; as they had no actual alternative to replace it with, and everyone knew it, or should have known it. Blatant BS as opposed to what? Almost everything Trump said was blatant BS, he still got elected, seems weird to suddenly assume that people were aware that he was lying on this specific instance (especially given how they react today) which is why I also said should have known it. that some people chose to believe a proven con-man who was offering obvious bs, when everyone warned them what it was, and provided rigorous proof of that, is to a considerable extent on them. ignorance of the law is not an excuse as they say; neither should ignorance count for much in defence here either, when it was proven so thoroughly. they voted for ignorance and non-solutions, so they got ignorance and non-solutions. Okay but I wasn't trying to excuse it, was I? I was just saying that it seems foolish to assume they're trying to only repeal healthcare and not replace it when all of the signs point to the opposite being true. then your comment was simply irrelevant to what he was saying, which was more venting than anything else. also, a LOT of republicans ran on straight repeal for a long while, so some of that should bleed throug hto trump, especially given that what he says means nothing, so the general republican position would matter more. all the actual signs point to them being idiots who voted against their own self interest and against sound government and actual solutions. Them being idiots doesn't invalidate what I said though, does it? I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US. And my answer is that his example of that is really, really poor, because Obamacare into single payer (of some sort) is the go-to example of something that you'd better advance really fast on. you're just completely not getting the point. and /or you're blithely ignoring it. I'll say it again one more time to be clear: the original guy was VENTING; and the points are valid from a VENTING point of view. ... I disagree with your interpretation that he was venting. Which is why I provided you with my explanation of what I think he was doing, rather than venting. It was there: "I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US." Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I wasn't. In any case, I didn't need you to condescendingly repeat your interpretation as if I didn't get basic english. Let me know if we're up to speed in our conversation. I was venting. he looked to be venting. everything we've both said is consistent with the principle "voters are idiots who vote on things they don't understand and literally vote against things they favor sometimes because they don't understand." i'd say you did need it said that way. you've been raising low quality points repeatedly for some time now, both in this discussion chain and elsewhere. it's not been helpful.
I apologize if my points didn't meet your standards. I feel quite the same about your contributions, I trust you'll do with that feedback what you expect me to do with yours.
Just because voters "are idiots", or more precisely, are easy to fool, doesn't mean that you can't draw conclusions about what they want, or that you can't figure out that certain conclusions about what they want are absurd. And it especially doesn't mean that discussions about what they are looking for are unhelpful.
|
Sweden33723 Posts
On May 30 2017 10:21 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 10:20 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On May 30 2017 10:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On May 30 2017 10:12 Liquid`Jinro wrote:That last bit is why the progressive left drives me insane with their rhetoric.... Yeah Krugman's a bit snobbish. But he is a noble laureate in economics who's probably tired of people thinking they know more about economics than he does. I read him mainly because he makes good points. I do wish he'd mellow his rhetoric a bit. Again he's mostly looking at it from solely an economics and policy perspective. Actually I didnt mind his words, I meant the bit he "quoted". It essentially tells us how effective talking down to people is... well the quote was about voters in west virginia so he's not talking about the progressive left. He's referring to his frustration with urban and rural areas that go republican and tend to vote against their own interest. I guess you could apply it to the progressive left too in a sense.
I made an edit to that post because i realized how unclear i was:
Like "I dont feel respected' is actually a pretty valid thing to say. Expecting people to overcome this layer of hostility, consider your underlying points and see that, lo, they are good and vote accordingly is expecting an awful lot.
|
On May 30 2017 10:24 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2017 10:20 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 10:15 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 10:12 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 10:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 10:00 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 09:57 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 09:50 zlefin wrote:On May 30 2017 08:08 Nebuchad wrote:On May 30 2017 07:54 zlefin wrote:
[quote]
the republicans mostly just ran on repeal. repeal and replace was always blatant BS anyways; as they had no actual alternative to replace it with, and everyone knew it, or should have known it.
Blatant BS as opposed to what? Almost everything Trump said was blatant BS, he still got elected, seems weird to suddenly assume that people were aware that he was lying on this specific instance (especially given how they react today) which is why I also said should have known it. that some people chose to believe a proven con-man who was offering obvious bs, when everyone warned them what it was, and provided rigorous proof of that, is to a considerable extent on them. ignorance of the law is not an excuse as they say; neither should ignorance count for much in defence here either, when it was proven so thoroughly. they voted for ignorance and non-solutions, so they got ignorance and non-solutions. Okay but I wasn't trying to excuse it, was I? I was just saying that it seems foolish to assume they're trying to only repeal healthcare and not replace it when all of the signs point to the opposite being true. then your comment was simply irrelevant to what he was saying, which was more venting than anything else. also, a LOT of republicans ran on straight repeal for a long while, so some of that should bleed throug hto trump, especially given that what he says means nothing, so the general republican position would matter more. all the actual signs point to them being idiots who voted against their own self interest and against sound government and actual solutions. Them being idiots doesn't invalidate what I said though, does it? I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US. And my answer is that his example of that is really, really poor, because Obamacare into single payer (of some sort) is the go-to example of something that you'd better advance really fast on. you're just completely not getting the point. and /or you're blithely ignoring it. I'll say it again one more time to be clear: the original guy was VENTING; and the points are valid from a VENTING point of view. ... I disagree with your interpretation that he was venting. Which is why I provided you with my explanation of what I think he was doing, rather than venting. It was there: "I'm pretty sure what he was saying is that when you do something drastic, there's a blowback, which is why you have to be patient with race relations in the US." Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I wasn't. In any case, I didn't need you to condescendingly repeat your interpretation as if I didn't get basic english. Let me know if we're up to speed in our conversation. I was venting. he looked to be venting. everything we've both said is consistent with the principle "voters are idiots who vote on things they don't understand and literally vote against things they favor sometimes because they don't understand." i'd say you did need it said that way. you've been raising low quality points repeatedly for some time now, both in this discussion chain and elsewhere. it's not been helpful. I apologize if my points didn't meet your standards. I feel quite the same about your contributions, I trust you'll do with that feedback what you expect me to do with yours. Just because voters "are idiots", or more precisely, are easy to fool, doesn't mean that you can't draw conclusions about what they want, or that you can't figure out that certain conclusions about what they want are absurd. And it especially doesn't mean that discussions about what they are looking for are unhelpful.
yes you do; dunning-kruger in action. and you're still missing the point that was clearly stated, so I' not going to bother with you if you're not going ot listen or understand or learn anything or provide anything actually useful. goodbye.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/ogden_images/www.theintelligencer.net/images/2017/02/16230508/Manchin-1100x789.jpg)
