|
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 November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:22 Nevuk wrote:
Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people. Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership? Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless.
Yeah. Now we are getting somewhere. This is the good stuff. +1 on this from me
|
On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people. Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership? Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless.
At least somebody here understands Democrats have an image problem.
Dems will still struggle to compromise on this issue because any change in policy talk will bring accusations that they're caving to Trump from the most vocal Democrats in the party.
|
On November 02 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:50 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people. Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership? Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless. Do you like losing? Because you do know that the Democrat’s base will core out the party if they reverse course on refugees or any of the other issues you are talking about? It would be a blood bath. Making some show of going to the right and reaching some middle ground with Trump’s Islamicphobic bullshit isn’t a winning plan. It is a game losing plan. I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!" Yeah, I'm not really sure this "Democrats should fuck over some brown people a little bit to pander to white people's unfounded fears about refugees" is going to be that secret weapon that wins them the house. Or that is is a deal breaker in congressional elections. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet, just a way to make some gains. Democrats winning some seats by easing up on refugee stuff is still an enormous net benefit to refugees. The dude they'd be replacing would be a lot worse.
And how do they do that when there are primaries and they can't control what the candidates in those primaries stand for? Should the DNC also looks for pro-life candidates to pander to the bible belt too? Just nakedly pander to Republicans voters that are not happy with Trump? They noticed when Clinton did it. Do you think they will notice this time around too?
|
“We have to come up with punishment that’s far quicker and far greater than the punishment these animals are getting right now. They’ll go through court for years. At the end, they’ll be – who knows what happens. We need quick justice, and we need strong justice. Much quicker and much stronger than we have right now, because what we have right now is a joke, and it’s a laughing stock. And no wonder so much of this stuff takes place.”
|
On November 02 2017 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:50 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people. Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership? Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless. Do you like losing? Because you do know that the Democrat’s base will core out the party if they reverse course on refugees or any of the other issues you are talking about? It would be a blood bath. Making some show of going to the right and reaching some middle ground with Trump’s Islamicphobic bullshit isn’t a winning plan. It is a game losing plan. I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!" Yeah, I'm not really sure this "Democrats should fuck over some brown people a little bit to pander to white people's unfounded fears about refugees" is going to be that secret weapon that wins them the house. Or that is is a deal breaker in congressional elections. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet, just a way to make some gains. Democrats winning some seats by easing up on refugee stuff is still an enormous net benefit to refugees. The dude they'd be replacing would be a lot worse. And how do they do that when there are primaries and they can't control what the candidates in those primaries stand for? Should the DNC also looks for pro-life candidates to pander to the bible belt too? Just nakedly pander to Republicans voters that are not happy with Trump? They noticed when Clinton did it. Do you think they will notice this time around too?
Always remember that 55% of white people think they are racially discriminated against. No amount of healthcare, clean energy, fair taxation, good governance, limited foreign intervention, and stronger labor laws pitches are going to affect a 55%er. Trump was/is an out and out monster and demonstrably lies about everything, but his white butthurt pitches really worked on the 55%ers. If the Dems want to be a national party then we have to let some regional candidates push white butthurt narratives (see Manchin). EDIT: or check out Senator John Tester. The guy pushes all kinds of white identity caricatures to keep his seat (endless pictures of him in 'farmer' clothes next to red wooden barns with no animals in them, he always has a gun, always showing those missing fingers he lost to a tractor). He is likely a better model than Manchin.
|
On November 02 2017 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:50 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:On November 02 2017 01:29 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Schumer's response kinda blows ass. If this guy really did come over on a visa system with diversity as an intended goal (rofl), we need to slam the brakes on that. It is obviously stupid. Schumer not even addressing the visa program makes me think it is just some shitty pat on the back sympathy crap. This is a battle democrats are super, super losing right now and it is really disappointing to see them cling on to "NOT ALL MUSLIMS" as if anyone cares about statistics. Sub-par humans make up most of the voters and sub-par humans don't care about statistics. Walk back your unpopular immigration program when it leads to a terrorist attack. Be smart. Listen to people. Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership? Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless. Do you like losing? Because you do know that the Democrat’s base will core out the party if they reverse course on refugees or any of the other issues you are talking about? It would be a blood bath. Making some show of going to the right and reaching some middle ground with Trump’s Islamicphobic bullshit isn’t a winning plan. It is a game losing plan. I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!" Yeah, I'm not really sure this "Democrats should fuck over some brown people a little bit to pander to white people's unfounded fears about refugees" is going to be that secret weapon that wins them the house. Or that is is a deal breaker in congressional elections. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet, just a way to make some gains. Democrats winning some seats by easing up on refugee stuff is still an enormous net benefit to refugees. The dude they'd be replacing would be a lot worse. I'd just like to point out this is why I don't buy the lesser of two evil crap. Here's mohdoo arguing that we need to engage in a race to the bottom but stay in second place. I'm curious how Kwark is processing this since he reflexively resisted mohdoo's position and then I'm presuming began noticing the parallels between mohdoo's argument and one's he's made previously?
You're getting way to caught up in ethics and living in the clouds. Your virtuous ways don't do anything. There are people currently occupying seats that want to completely eliminate refugee programs. My point is that as a whole, refugee immigration to the US as a whole would be higher if democrats budged a bit. We would help more people. Lives would be saved because of adopting a more centrist position.
Your views are entirely self-serving. You get to stand tall knowing you've got conviction, but it doesn't help anyone. Work to undo refugee programs is already in motion. It's not like things are sitting pretty and we just gotta weather the storm. If someone is actively stealing $20 from you, it totally makes sense to settle on $5 instead. If they've got a gun to your head, you're about to lose some money no matter what. These are people's lives, dude. Sticking strong to convictions is monumentally selfish. All it does is inflate your own self image without actually helping anyone.
I've said a million times these are not the beliefs I feel would be the best direction for the country. If I was suddenly dictator, these are not the laws I would advocate for. I would greatly increase our refugee program. The best thing we can do for refugees is to gain influence. So long as that seat over there has an R over it, those refugees are super fucked.
|
Mohdoo, you sound like the people who were all about “enhanced interrogation” post 9/11. Styling themselves as realists and not letting virtue holding them back from doing the right thing. But in the end they did more damage to the US and didn’t make us any safer. Maybe don't make policy proposals a hot minute after an attack. Because guess what: this guy isn't a refugee.
|
On November 02 2017 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:50 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:30 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Are you familiar with the concept of moral leadership? Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless. Do you like losing? Because you do know that the Democrat’s base will core out the party if they reverse course on refugees or any of the other issues you are talking about? It would be a blood bath. Making some show of going to the right and reaching some middle ground with Trump’s Islamicphobic bullshit isn’t a winning plan. It is a game losing plan. I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!" Yeah, I'm not really sure this "Democrats should fuck over some brown people a little bit to pander to white people's unfounded fears about refugees" is going to be that secret weapon that wins them the house. Or that is is a deal breaker in congressional elections. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet, just a way to make some gains. Democrats winning some seats by easing up on refugee stuff is still an enormous net benefit to refugees. The dude they'd be replacing would be a lot worse. I'd just like to point out this is why I don't buy the lesser of two evil crap. Here's mohdoo arguing that we need to engage in a race to the bottom but stay in second place. I'm curious how Kwark is processing this since he reflexively resisted mohdoo's position and then I'm presuming began noticing the parallels between mohdoo's argument and one's he's made previously? You're getting way to caught up in ethics and living in the clouds. Your virtuous ways don't do anything. There are people currently occupying seats that want to completely eliminate refugee programs. My point is that as a whole, refugee immigration to the US as a whole would be higher if democrats budged a bit. We would help more people. Lives would be saved because of adopting a more centrist position. Your views are entirely self-serving. You get to stand tall knowing you've got conviction, but it doesn't help anyone. Work to undo refugee programs is already in motion. It's not like things are sitting pretty and we just gotta weather the storm. If someone is actively stealing $20 from you, it totally makes sense to settle on $5 instead. If they've got a gun to your head, you're about to lose some money no matter what. These are people's lives, dude. Sticking strong to convictions is monumentally selfish. All it does is inflate your own self image without actually helping anyone. I've said a million times these are not the beliefs I feel would be the best direction for the country. If I was suddenly dictator, these are not the laws I would advocate for. I would greatly increase our refugee program. The best thing we can do for refugees is to gain influence. So long as that seat over there has an R over it, those refugees are super fucked.
The refugees are most certainly fucked when the party "on their side" thinks that being more xenophobic to appeal to idiots is the best they can do.
The only sensible thing for people not wanting both parties to be more racist and xenophobic is abandon them in totality.
|
On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!"
They wouldn't vote for the other guy, they would just stay home. Just like Democrats stayed home rather than voting for Clinton.
Plus there's the primary issue. You cave to Republicans and piss off the progressive Democrats, then get primaried by a more progressive Democrat, and now you have no say in anything your party does anymore.
I'm not even going to resort to the ethics argument, I just don't think your idea even works in a practical sense.
|
On November 02 2017 02:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:50 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:35 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
Yes, but it doesn't do a lot of good when you lose because of it. I don't sleep any better at night knowing that my candidate lost because they supported an ethical position. If they lose, a much less ethical position becomes reality. Democrats aren't winning any battles by screaming not all muslims every time something like this happens. Shafting immigrants but winning an election is an enormous net benefit to the disadvantaged for this country and the world. I suppose the core of my argument is that so long as democrats keep losing, their pat on the back perspective on refugees and immigrants is 100% meaningless. So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless. Do you like losing? Because you do know that the Democrat’s base will core out the party if they reverse course on refugees or any of the other issues you are talking about? It would be a blood bath. Making some show of going to the right and reaching some middle ground with Trump’s Islamicphobic bullshit isn’t a winning plan. It is a game losing plan. I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!" Yeah, I'm not really sure this "Democrats should fuck over some brown people a little bit to pander to white people's unfounded fears about refugees" is going to be that secret weapon that wins them the house. Or that is is a deal breaker in congressional elections. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet, just a way to make some gains. Democrats winning some seats by easing up on refugee stuff is still an enormous net benefit to refugees. The dude they'd be replacing would be a lot worse. I'd just like to point out this is why I don't buy the lesser of two evil crap. Here's mohdoo arguing that we need to engage in a race to the bottom but stay in second place. I'm curious how Kwark is processing this since he reflexively resisted mohdoo's position and then I'm presuming began noticing the parallels between mohdoo's argument and one's he's made previously? You're getting way to caught up in ethics and living in the clouds. Your virtuous ways don't do anything. There are people currently occupying seats that want to completely eliminate refugee programs. My point is that as a whole, refugee immigration to the US as a whole would be higher if democrats budged a bit. We would help more people. Lives would be saved because of adopting a more centrist position. Your views are entirely self-serving. You get to stand tall knowing you've got conviction, but it doesn't help anyone. Work to undo refugee programs is already in motion. It's not like things are sitting pretty and we just gotta weather the storm. If someone is actively stealing $20 from you, it totally makes sense to settle on $5 instead. If they've got a gun to your head, you're about to lose some money no matter what. These are people's lives, dude. Sticking strong to convictions is monumentally selfish. All it does is inflate your own self image without actually helping anyone. I've said a million times these are not the beliefs I feel would be the best direction for the country. If I was suddenly dictator, these are not the laws I would advocate for. I would greatly increase our refugee program. The best thing we can do for refugees is to gain influence. So long as that seat over there has an R over it, those refugees are super fucked. The refugees are most certainly fucked when the party "on their side" thinks that being more xenophobic to appeal to idiots is the best they can do. The only sensible thing for people not wanting both parties to be more racist and xenophobic is abandon them in totality.
But the plan of "vote for us, you don't have a choice" worked out so well last election.
|
On November 02 2017 02:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +“We have to come up with punishment that’s far quicker and far greater than the punishment these animals are getting right now. They’ll go through court for years. At the end, they’ll be – who knows what happens. We need quick justice, and we need strong justice. Much quicker and much stronger than we have right now, because what we have right now is a joke, and it’s a laughing stock. And no wonder so much of this stuff takes place.”
https://twitter.com/NBCNews/status/925766094161289216
It's nice when the President openly attacks the court system for not putting brown people in jail fast enough.
|
Refugees can't be equated with gun magazines.
IMO the best thing the Democratic population can do to sway votes is to spread to heavily Republican areas and begin integrating. Austin in Texas for example. If the rural South/Midwest lifestyle fosters a population that's resistant to liberal ideals, and you're liberal, then you should do your best to alter that prevailing lifestyle by mixing in your own.
Of course, that would be quite the sacrifice because you'll be surrounded by people you don't agree with (and, if you're not white, you'll deal with a host of other issues), but it would probably be the most effective way to change minds.
|
Yeah, liberals should just make themselves poorer, live in nowhereland abd be kind to the people that grew up there and never managed to get out.
Why not tell them to just shoot 2+ republicans before getting jailed?
Its about as sound a solution.
|
On November 02 2017 02:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 02:14 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 02 2017 02:03 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 02:00 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:54 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:50 Plansix wrote:On November 02 2017 01:42 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 01:38 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
So Democrats should pander to racists and xenophobia? Not pander the way Trump does, but at least being like "Ok, maybe the program this guy used should be lessened or removed" in the same way we expect republicans to support certain gun regulations after a mass shooting. Democrats have developed an image in hick-country as overly politically correct Muslim sympathizers. They need to ditch that image. If they keep getting spanked in the rust belt, it doesn't matter what position they have because they don't get elected. There is a lot of value in meeting people halfway. Especially when your position is really, really ineffective. This is how democracy works. We enact some stupid shit because it has popular support. Until you have won the minds of voters, you're gonna lose. Democrats being super firm in refugee stuff is a losing strategy. If it were up to me, I would greatly enhance our refugee strategy. But my strategy would lose every election ever. My beliefs are shitty when applied to the national population. My views are meaningless. Do you like losing? Because you do know that the Democrat’s base will core out the party if they reverse course on refugees or any of the other issues you are talking about? It would be a blood bath. Making some show of going to the right and reaching some middle ground with Trump’s Islamicphobic bullshit isn’t a winning plan. It is a game losing plan. I think we just disagree on the outcome of the scenario. In my eyes, Democrats conceding certain refugee programs would be a net positive. I don't think people will choose to vote for republicans because democrats ease their stance on refugees. I think it all depends on what areas you are talking about. As a national strategy, I certainly do think democrats would be aided in the rust belt by a more centrist position on refugees. I just can't imagine a world where someone says "Democrats support only half of existing refugee programs? Guess I'm voting Trump next year!" Yeah, I'm not really sure this "Democrats should fuck over some brown people a little bit to pander to white people's unfounded fears about refugees" is going to be that secret weapon that wins them the house. Or that is is a deal breaker in congressional elections. It doesn't need to be a silver bullet, just a way to make some gains. Democrats winning some seats by easing up on refugee stuff is still an enormous net benefit to refugees. The dude they'd be replacing would be a lot worse. I'd just like to point out this is why I don't buy the lesser of two evil crap. Here's mohdoo arguing that we need to engage in a race to the bottom but stay in second place. I'm curious how Kwark is processing this since he reflexively resisted mohdoo's position and then I'm presuming began noticing the parallels between mohdoo's argument and one's he's made previously? You're getting way to caught up in ethics and living in the clouds. Your virtuous ways don't do anything. There are people currently occupying seats that want to completely eliminate refugee programs. My point is that as a whole, refugee immigration to the US as a whole would be higher if democrats budged a bit. We would help more people. Lives would be saved because of adopting a more centrist position. Your views are entirely self-serving. You get to stand tall knowing you've got conviction, but it doesn't help anyone. Work to undo refugee programs is already in motion. It's not like things are sitting pretty and we just gotta weather the storm. If someone is actively stealing $20 from you, it totally makes sense to settle on $5 instead. If they've got a gun to your head, you're about to lose some money no matter what. These are people's lives, dude. Sticking strong to convictions is monumentally selfish. All it does is inflate your own self image without actually helping anyone. I've said a million times these are not the beliefs I feel would be the best direction for the country. If I was suddenly dictator, these are not the laws I would advocate for. I would greatly increase our refugee program. The best thing we can do for refugees is to gain influence. So long as that seat over there has an R over it, those refugees are super fucked. The refugees are most certainly fucked when the party "on their side" thinks that being more xenophobic to appeal to idiots is the best they can do. The only sensible thing for people not wanting both parties to be more racist and xenophobic is abandon them in totality. But the plan of "vote for us, you don't have a choice" worked out so well last election.
Feels like the worst written crossover episode of the Twilight Zone with Quantum Leap ever imagined.
It seems fitting coming right off of the whole Lee/Kelly compromise discussion, unsurprising Danglars joined back in at this part.
|
On November 02 2017 02:24 Velr wrote:
Yeah, liberals should just make themselves poorer, live in nowhereland abd be kind to the people that grew up there and never managed to get out.
Why not tell them to just shoot 2+ republicans before getting jailed?
Its about as sound a solution.
Having grown up in a poor, white town, I agree that the plan of "changing the culture" is bad. And pandering to the racism that exists in these communities is also a bad plan.
|
On November 02 2017 02:17 Plansix wrote:
Mohdoo, you sound like the people who were all about “enhanced interrogation” post 9/11. Styling themselves as realists and not letting virtue holding them back from doing the right thing. But in the end they did more damage to the US and didn’t make us any safer. Maybe don't make policy proposals a hot minute after an attack. Because guess what: this guy isn't a refugee.
I see your point, but I don't think they are actually comparable. In the 9/11 case, there is a conscious decision to harm more humans temporarily for the sake of reducing net human suffering. In the scenario I describe, using bullshit numbers, there is *already* 100 people suffering. The guy asking for zero suffering keeps losing. I am saying let's see if we can at least get people on board with 25 people suffering.
The distinction you guys aren't seeing is the fact that the zero suffering guy doesn't exist right now. He's never been elected. His seat currently belongs to the 100 suffering guy. Your morals and beliefs are 100% meaningless. You don't help anyone by feeling a certain way. If that 25 guy wins over the 100 guy, we just saved 75 lives no two ways about it. All of this is because the 0 suffering case ***** DOES NOT EXIST*****. You guys are fighting to protect something that isn't even real. It has no physical impact on this country or any of the suffering refugees.
|
On November 02 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:
The distinction you guys aren't seeing is the fact that the zero suffering guy doesn't exist right now. He's never been elected. His seat currently belongs to the 100 suffering guy. Your morals and beliefs are 100% meaningless. You don't help anyone by feeling a certain way. If that 25 guy wins over the 100 guy, we just saved 75 lives no two ways about it. All of this is because the 0 suffering case ***** DOES NOT EXIST*****. You guys are fighting to protect something that isn't even real. It has no physical impact on this country or any of the suffering refugees.
The 25 guy doesn't win Democratic primaries. He doesn't even get to the point where he's in general elections.
You're making it sound like selling Democrats on the 25 guy is easier than selling the rest of the country on the 0 guy when I don't even think that's necessarily true.
|
On November 02 2017 02:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 02:17 Plansix wrote:
Mohdoo, you sound like the people who were all about “enhanced interrogation” post 9/11. Styling themselves as realists and not letting virtue holding them back from doing the right thing. But in the end they did more damage to the US and didn’t make us any safer. Maybe don't make policy proposals a hot minute after an attack. Because guess what: this guy isn't a refugee. I see your point, but I don't think they are actually comparable. In the 9/11 case, there is a conscious decision to harm more humans temporarily for the sake of reducing net human suffering. In the scenario I describe, using bullshit numbers, there is *already* 100 people suffering. The guy asking for zero suffering keeps losing. I am saying let's see if we can at least get people on board with 25 people suffering. The distinction you guys aren't seeing is the fact that the zero suffering guy doesn't exist right now. He's never been elected. His seat currently belongs to the 100 suffering guy. Your morals and beliefs are 100% meaningless. You don't help anyone by feeling a certain way. If that 25 guy wins over the 100 guy, we just saved 75 lives no two ways about it. All of this is because the 0 suffering case ***** DOES NOT EXIST*****. You guys are fighting to protect something that isn't even real. It has no physical impact on this country or any of the suffering refugees.
What the fuck are you talking about? Are you saying Democrats should pander to xenophobia and then just not follow through once they get elected?
|
On November 02 2017 01:52 LegalLord wrote:About as useful a metric as trying to figure out how many Americans Alexander the Great killed. Well, except Ho Chi Minh I guess.
The Civil War killed more Americans than anyone else as we all know but this is a layman's naive way of translating that and ascribing personal responsibility, besides which Robert E. Lee probably wouldn't be that guy either, at any rate a killcount doesn't give you the order of human badness anyway.
|
you’re essentially arguing the trolley problem and claiming there’s no choice but to kill someone when the reality of the situation is there is a choice to not kill someone but most people don’t like it.
i get the proposition, and i for one also disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
