|
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. |
United States43533 Posts
On November 02 2017 04:28 ChristianS 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? I don't want to put words in Kwark's mouth, but my impression was thst his argument hinged on the FPTP forced binary. So if the only two candidates are 50% racist guy and 90% racist guy, sure, tske the 50% racist guy. But Mohdoo is saying even if you had the option to put up a 10% racist guy instead you shouldn't. It's related to Kwark's argument, but when you're not in a forced binary everything gets a lot more complicated.
FPTP creates a forced binary, as you say, where you should swallow your vomit and vote for the lesser of two evils. By doing so you create an incentive, you establish that your vote is for sale and that it will go to whoever is less evil going forward. Ideally both parties hear that message and become less evil in competition for your vote. By not voting out of ideological purity you essentially increase the power of the voters who actively vote for evil. You signal to both sides that you're boycotting the system and that your vote is not for sale. Therefore the parties will tailor their policies around people who are voting for evil shit.
Mohdoo is taking it a little further and suggesting that you should deliberately include a little bit of evil in your platform if it helps you break into the evil vote, and if you think you'll lose to the real evil guy if you don't. That's getting into the "yeah, I know this is wrong but greater good etc" territory and I think basically nothing positive comes from there.
|
On November 02 2017 04:28 ChristianS 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? I don't want to put words in Kwark's mouth, but my impression was thst his argument hinged on the FPTP forced binary. So if the only two candidates are 50% racist guy and 90% racist guy, sure, tske the 50% racist guy. But Mohdoo is saying even if you had the option to put up a 10% racist guy instead you shouldn't.It's related to Kwark's argument, but when you're not in a forced binary everything gets a lot more complicated.
My argument was based on what I see as a growing impression of the democratic party. We are being labeled as completely unyielding on issues regarding immigration and refugees in the same way republicans are on gun control. When democrats are basically opting out of the conversation by staying firm, people who are legitimately afraid of terrorism start thinking "Well at least Republicans are willing to do SOMETHING". As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex. Democratic leadership is so entrenched on the issue that it makes voters think you don't even care. That makes democrats appear out of touch. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are two clear examples of Joe Shmoe voters coming to think democrats are plain and simply out of touch. If Democrats could just say "You're right, there is a problem, but we need to be careful in how we deal with it" instead of "Wow, what's it like being a racist shitbag? Do you have any idea how many people WHITE terrorists have killed??", Joe Shmoe would at least feel listened to.
Things like "I am advocating for only accepting families with children" or eliminating diversity based programs are a way to remain compassionate while still telling Joe Shmoe "We hear you". I'm saying when 90% racist guy wins every time and the 10% racist guy has never stood a chance, refugees would benefit from the 50% guy at least allowing families in instead of closing the gate completely.
Edit: Also wanted to say thanks for people complimenting my ability to take criticism. I appreciate all of this discussion with you guys and I am happy to hear I feel worth chatting with. Cheers!
|
United States43533 Posts
Remember when Newt Gingrich explained to us that it's feels over reals and that we should be tailoring our policies around the issues Americans feel they are facing, regardless of the veracity of those feelings?
Remember how we were all disgusted by the Republican party's shift into lunacy and xenophobia? How we were amazed that they were publicly taking a stance of "let's say we're dealing with the problems Fox News dreamed up to keep idiots feeling afraid"?
That's what you're going with Mohdoo.
We don't need two parties doing that. It's bad enough that we have one. There needs to be at least one party of responsible government that doesn't just pander to media fearmongering.
|
On November 02 2017 04:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 04:28 ChristianS 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? I don't want to put words in Kwark's mouth, but my impression was thst his argument hinged on the FPTP forced binary. So if the only two candidates are 50% racist guy and 90% racist guy, sure, tske the 50% racist guy. But Mohdoo is saying even if you had the option to put up a 10% racist guy instead you shouldn't.It's related to Kwark's argument, but when you're not in a forced binary everything gets a lot more complicated. My argument was based on what I see as a growing impression of the democratic party. We are being labeled as completely unyielding on issues regarding immigration and refugees in the same way republicans are on gun control. When democrats are basically opting out of the conversation by staying firm, people who are legitimately afraid of terrorism start thinking "Well at least Republicans are willing to do SOMETHING". As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex. Democratic leadership is so entrenched on the issue that it makes voters think you don't even care. That makes democrats appear out of touch. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are two clear examples of Joe Shmoe voters coming to think democrats are plain and simply out of touch. If Democrats could just say "You're right, there is a problem, but we need to be careful in how we deal with it" instead of "Wow, what's it like being a racist shitbag? Do you have any idea how many people WHITE terrorists have killed??", Joe Shmoe would at least feel listened to. Things like "I am advocating for only accepting families with children" or eliminating diversity based programs are a way to remain compassionate while still telling Joe Shmoe "We hear you". I'm saying when 90% racist guy wins every time and the 10% racist guy has never stood a chance, refugees would benefit from the 50% guy at least allowing families in instead of closing the gate completely. Edit: Also wanted to say thanks for people complimenting my ability to take criticism. I appreciate all of this discussion with you guys and I am happy to hear I feel worth chatting with. Cheers!
The problem is more one of appearance than reality; so the solution should also be one focused more on appearance than reality: a better messaging system with the same underlying values might work. Not that i'm fond of narrative manipulation, but people are fools and it's apparently necessary.
also, most people aren't legitimately afraid of terrorism, their fear is very illegitimate and unsound. and their ignorance about how to actually fight it. but that's a whole other story.
|
This forum isn't as tilted to the left as Danglar suggests. It's more the case that any reasonable individual in the center abhors the Trump administration, and that Trump and Fox have steered conservatism into the anti-science and, more recently, anti-economics party. Educated individuals tend not to be cool with climate change denial, anti-free trade rhetoric, xenophobic anti-immigration stances, relativist foreign policy, anti-lgbt rights, southern civil war revisionism, and so on. Not because of different moral priorities but brcause they are stances that objectively make everyone worse off.
|
|
|
Given that they waited a bit to charge the hate crime out, I'd bet there are at least a few digital statements from the accused that mention race. Hard to say if it's legitimate without that info.
|
haven't heard about it before; skimming the article, I'd say charging hate is fine if you can come up with the evidence for it. the parts I skimmed were unclear on whether it was truly due to racial animus, or just general assholeness; or at least what proof there was for it being specifically racial.
|
On November 02 2017 05:03 farvacola wrote:
Given that they waited a bit to charge the hate crime out, I'd bet there are at least a few digital statements from the accused that mention race. Hard to say if it's legitimate without that info.
Right, thats what I was thinking. As far as I know the only concrete evidence that they could have on the accused would be the social media posts calling her roommate a "Jamaican barbie".
Not sure if thats gonna be enough as far as our legal system is concerned
|
On November 02 2017 04:58 KwarK wrote:
Remember when Newt Gingrich explained to us that it's feels over reals and that we should be tailoring our policies around the issues Americans feel they are facing, regardless of the veracity of those feelings?
Remember how we were all disgusted by the Republican party's shift into lunacy and xenophobia? How we were amazed that they were publicly taking a stance of "let's say we're dealing with the problems Fox News dreamed up to keep idiots feeling afraid"?
That's what you're going with Mohdoo.
We don't need two parties doing that. It's bad enough that we have one. There needs to be at least one party of responsible government that doesn't just pander to media fearmongering.
This is a big stretch and a total false equivalence. Trimming certain populations of potential refugees is not the same as trying to instigate racial tensions.
|
On November 02 2017 05:00 warding wrote:
This forum isn't as tilted to the left as Danglar suggests. It's more the case that any reasonable individual in the center abhors the Trump administration, and that Trump and Fox have steered conservatism into the anti-science and, more recently, anti-economics party. Educated individuals tend not to be cool with climate change denial, anti-free trade rhetoric, xenophobic anti-immigration stances, relativist foreign policy, anti-lgbt rights, southern civil war revisionism, and so on. Not because of different moral priorities but brcause they are stances that objectively make everyone worse off.
I've seen a lot of people casting themselves as the true center and the true right to try and label the entirety of the Republican party as extremists and the party of stupid people.
"I'm not a left-wing partisan, I'm an educated centrist and pro-science. Your policies objectively make everyone worse off."
It's certainly gag-inducing to see people go on like that. You want to define reality as left-biased to make yourself feel good. I say your side wants to racialize every political issue, engages in erasure and revision of history, has false perceptions on the basic situation on man and government, has anti-civilizational immigration stances, thinks whites get less rights, can't get its head out of its ass on the free speech underpinning the civil society, has idiotic utopian visions of foreign policy and global governance, exiles scientists based on their research and political opinions, is against popular sovereignty in principle and deed, and I could go on. Oh, and the big Democrat party donors that lecture us on how misogynistic and callous (The Left is moral, you are not) are literally molesting kids and sexually assaulting women. The surrounding liberal society covers it up. And we're the ones supposed to be morally reprehensible.
Furthermore, you can't lose an election fair and square and pick up and move on. That's one of the beginning squares for partisan idiocy. The left was taking the country to the dump as I saw it, with establishment Republicans helping them along, and the left sleeps until they overreach with Hillary and wake up to say, "Wait a second? The country doesn't love us for our beautiful utopian progress? Demographic destiny and mass immigration devalues the citizen and the conversation of race is simply berating white Republicans in the public square? What???" Congratulations on electing Trump and continuing to make him necessary.
I'll also throw you a bone. I don't agree with where Trump is taking the party on trade policy. That will have real damage
|
On November 02 2017 04:53 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 04:28 ChristianS 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? I don't want to put words in Kwark's mouth, but my impression was thst his argument hinged on the FPTP forced binary. So if the only two candidates are 50% racist guy and 90% racist guy, sure, tske the 50% racist guy. But Mohdoo is saying even if you had the option to put up a 10% racist guy instead you shouldn't.It's related to Kwark's argument, but when you're not in a forced binary everything gets a lot more complicated. My argument was based on what I see as a growing impression of the democratic party. We are being labeled as completely unyielding on issues regarding immigration and refugees in the same way republicans are on gun control. When democrats are basically opting out of the conversation by staying firm, people who are legitimately afraid of terrorism start thinking "Well at least Republicans are willing to do SOMETHING". As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex. Democratic leadership is so entrenched on the issue that it makes voters think you don't even care. That makes democrats appear out of touch. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are two clear examples of Joe Shmoe voters coming to think democrats are plain and simply out of touch. If Democrats could just say "You're right, there is a problem, but we need to be careful in how we deal with it" instead of "Wow, what's it like being a racist shitbag? Do you have any idea how many people WHITE terrorists have killed??", Joe Shmoe would at least feel listened to. Things like "I am advocating for only accepting families with children" or eliminating diversity based programs are a way to remain compassionate while still telling Joe Shmoe "We hear you". I'm saying when 90% racist guy wins every time and the 10% racist guy has never stood a chance, refugees would benefit from the 50% guy at least allowing families in instead of closing the gate completely. Edit: Also wanted to say thanks for people complimenting my ability to take criticism. I appreciate all of this discussion with you guys and I am happy to hear I feel worth chatting with. Cheers!
Democrats actually don't care and are out of touch. They obviously don't care who they throw 'bigot' at and why. That part's as much an party identity problem as a perception problem, but Democrats in the past did a better job of hiding their disdain of middle America and poor whites because they were courting their votes.
|
United States43533 Posts
On November 02 2017 05:13 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 04:58 KwarK wrote:
Remember when Newt Gingrich explained to us that it's feels over reals and that we should be tailoring our policies around the issues Americans feel they are facing, regardless of the veracity of those feelings?
Remember how we were all disgusted by the Republican party's shift into lunacy and xenophobia? How we were amazed that they were publicly taking a stance of "let's say we're dealing with the problems Fox News dreamed up to keep idiots feeling afraid"?
That's what you're going with Mohdoo.
We don't need two parties doing that. It's bad enough that we have one. There needs to be at least one party of responsible government that doesn't just pander to media fearmongering. This is a big stretch and a total false equivalence. Trimming certain populations of potential refugees is not the same as trying to instigate racial tensions.
I think you may have misunderstood my point.
What Newt Gingrich was saying is that policy shouldn't be tailored to the issues which the voting public are facing, it should be tailored to the issues which the voting public believe they are facing, regardless of the veracity of that belief. That instead of focusing on good governance the party should focus on theatre. The specific point he was making was that if Americans are made to feel like they are increasingly at risk of crime by the media they consume then the policies should be focused around that, regardless of whether crime is at an all time low. Even if the policies do nothing, or exacerbate the problem.
You appear to be arguing that the Democrats need to address the fear of Islamic terrorism, regardless of whether that fear is justified, and regardless of whether the proposed policies help. That it doesn't matter whether the public have been misled, the responsibility of politicians is to follow, not to lead.
|
United States43533 Posts
Danglars, again, the key to not being called a bigot is to stop acting like one. The sooner you get that through your head the sooner we can all move on.
|
On November 02 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 04:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 04:28 ChristianS 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? I don't want to put words in Kwark's mouth, but my impression was thst his argument hinged on the FPTP forced binary. So if the only two candidates are 50% racist guy and 90% racist guy, sure, tske the 50% racist guy. But Mohdoo is saying even if you had the option to put up a 10% racist guy instead you shouldn't.It's related to Kwark's argument, but when you're not in a forced binary everything gets a lot more complicated. My argument was based on what I see as a growing impression of the democratic party. We are being labeled as completely unyielding on issues regarding immigration and refugees in the same way republicans are on gun control. When democrats are basically opting out of the conversation by staying firm, people who are legitimately afraid of terrorism start thinking "Well at least Republicans are willing to do SOMETHING". As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex. Democratic leadership is so entrenched on the issue that it makes voters think you don't even care. That makes democrats appear out of touch. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are two clear examples of Joe Shmoe voters coming to think democrats are plain and simply out of touch. If Democrats could just say "You're right, there is a problem, but we need to be careful in how we deal with it" instead of "Wow, what's it like being a racist shitbag? Do you have any idea how many people WHITE terrorists have killed??", Joe Shmoe would at least feel listened to. Things like "I am advocating for only accepting families with children" or eliminating diversity based programs are a way to remain compassionate while still telling Joe Shmoe "We hear you". I'm saying when 90% racist guy wins every time and the 10% racist guy has never stood a chance, refugees would benefit from the 50% guy at least allowing families in instead of closing the gate completely. Edit: Also wanted to say thanks for people complimenting my ability to take criticism. I appreciate all of this discussion with you guys and I am happy to hear I feel worth chatting with. Cheers! Democrats actually don't care and are out of touch. They obviously don't care who they throw 'bigot' at and why. That part's as much an party identity problem as a perception problem, but Democrats in the past did a better job of hiding their disdain of middle America and poor whites because they were courting their votes.
You not understanding why democrats call people like you bigots/racists isn't showing a problem with democrats... Its showing a problem with your selfimage. Stop talking (and acting!) like a bigot/racist and people will stop calling you on it...
|
On November 02 2017 05:25 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 04:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 04:28 ChristianS 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:
[quote]
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? I don't want to put words in Kwark's mouth, but my impression was thst his argument hinged on the FPTP forced binary. So if the only two candidates are 50% racist guy and 90% racist guy, sure, tske the 50% racist guy. But Mohdoo is saying even if you had the option to put up a 10% racist guy instead you shouldn't.It's related to Kwark's argument, but when you're not in a forced binary everything gets a lot more complicated. My argument was based on what I see as a growing impression of the democratic party. We are being labeled as completely unyielding on issues regarding immigration and refugees in the same way republicans are on gun control. When democrats are basically opting out of the conversation by staying firm, people who are legitimately afraid of terrorism start thinking "Well at least Republicans are willing to do SOMETHING". As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex. Democratic leadership is so entrenched on the issue that it makes voters think you don't even care. That makes democrats appear out of touch. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are two clear examples of Joe Shmoe voters coming to think democrats are plain and simply out of touch. If Democrats could just say "You're right, there is a problem, but we need to be careful in how we deal with it" instead of "Wow, what's it like being a racist shitbag? Do you have any idea how many people WHITE terrorists have killed??", Joe Shmoe would at least feel listened to. Things like "I am advocating for only accepting families with children" or eliminating diversity based programs are a way to remain compassionate while still telling Joe Shmoe "We hear you". I'm saying when 90% racist guy wins every time and the 10% racist guy has never stood a chance, refugees would benefit from the 50% guy at least allowing families in instead of closing the gate completely. Edit: Also wanted to say thanks for people complimenting my ability to take criticism. I appreciate all of this discussion with you guys and I am happy to hear I feel worth chatting with. Cheers! Democrats actually don't care and are out of touch. They obviously don't care who they throw 'bigot' at and why. That part's as much an party identity problem as a perception problem, but Democrats in the past did a better job of hiding their disdain of middle America and poor whites because they were courting their votes. You not understanding why democrats call people like you bigots/racists isn't showing a problem with democrats... Its showing a problem with your selfimage. Stop talking (and acting!) like a bigot/racist and people will stop calling you on it...
Velr, what is meant by "As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex?" What could possibly be a bad result from this policy if true?
|
Uhm.. Because in the US you don't have a refugee problem.
Turkye has a refugee problem, Italy has a refugee problem, greece ha a refugee problem... You got right wing talking points and thats about it.
|
On November 02 2017 05:30 Velr wrote:
Uhm.. Because in the US you don't have a fucking refugee problem.
Turkye has a refugee problem, Italy has a refugee problem, greece ha a refugee problem... You got right wing talking points and thats about it.
If you can't understand the basic question posed, and possible responses to it, how do you expect to be taken seriously when you label people bigots? Try again if you wish, but I'm looking for a real response if you want to move on.
|
you asked:
"As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex?"
I answered with: You don't have refugees.
Where is the disconnect?
You are fighting stuff that is not influencing, let alone treatening you. You are fighting Foxnews scarecrows and think others are crazy for not seeing it.
Wake up.
|
On November 02 2017 05:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2017 05:25 Velr wrote:On November 02 2017 05:21 Danglars wrote:On November 02 2017 04:53 Mohdoo wrote:On November 02 2017 04:28 ChristianS 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:
[quote]
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? I don't want to put words in Kwark's mouth, but my impression was thst his argument hinged on the FPTP forced binary. So if the only two candidates are 50% racist guy and 90% racist guy, sure, tske the 50% racist guy. But Mohdoo is saying even if you had the option to put up a 10% racist guy instead you shouldn't.It's related to Kwark's argument, but when you're not in a forced binary everything gets a lot more complicated. My argument was based on what I see as a growing impression of the democratic party. We are being labeled as completely unyielding on issues regarding immigration and refugees in the same way republicans are on gun control. When democrats are basically opting out of the conversation by staying firm, people who are legitimately afraid of terrorism start thinking "Well at least Republicans are willing to do SOMETHING". As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex. Democratic leadership is so entrenched on the issue that it makes voters think you don't even care. That makes democrats appear out of touch. Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are two clear examples of Joe Shmoe voters coming to think democrats are plain and simply out of touch. If Democrats could just say "You're right, there is a problem, but we need to be careful in how we deal with it" instead of "Wow, what's it like being a racist shitbag? Do you have any idea how many people WHITE terrorists have killed??", Joe Shmoe would at least feel listened to. Things like "I am advocating for only accepting families with children" or eliminating diversity based programs are a way to remain compassionate while still telling Joe Shmoe "We hear you". I'm saying when 90% racist guy wins every time and the 10% racist guy has never stood a chance, refugees would benefit from the 50% guy at least allowing families in instead of closing the gate completely. Edit: Also wanted to say thanks for people complimenting my ability to take criticism. I appreciate all of this discussion with you guys and I am happy to hear I feel worth chatting with. Cheers! Democrats actually don't care and are out of touch. They obviously don't care who they throw 'bigot' at and why. That part's as much an party identity problem as a perception problem, but Democrats in the past did a better job of hiding their disdain of middle America and poor whites because they were courting their votes. You not understanding why democrats call people like you bigots/racists isn't showing a problem with democrats... Its showing a problem with your selfimage. Stop talking (and acting!) like a bigot/racist and people will stop calling you on it... Velr, what is meant by "As soon as refugees come up, you immediately see the word "bigot" thrown around as if by reflex?" What could possibly be a bad result from this policy if true?
That's because people are so reflexively bigoted in response to any mention of refugees. If you don't want to be called a bigot, don't be a bigot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
