On November 06 2018 08:02 GreenHorizons wrote: Just voted btw and boy did it suck. Vote for shitty tax raises where the Dems will bait and switch the spending or against, vote for shitty gun control laws or against, now pick between these two candidates who would throw you off a bridge to win their next election. Also fill in the bubbles next to these "elected" judges with no competition.
It's impressive to me as many people bother to vote as they do at this point.
I'm guessing you're not in the Sarah Smith district? She was one of my favourites from the whole group.
I wish, I wrote in the local socialists I could though. 1 Dem got my vote because I've actually had conversations with them and literally no one else in our area even wants the job.
I've fallen into a twilight zone where Clinton was a populist. I also nearly passed out laughing imagining a far right gender studies professor.
Oh her populist pitch felt fake, like so many things in her campaign. But cmon. Working families and mothers. Stronger together.
“our economy and our country are much better off because American families have basically done whatever it took to make it work. But I think it's fair to say as you look across the country, the deck is still stacked in favor of those already at the top. And there's something wrong with that.”
“There's something wrong when CEOs make 300 times more than the typical worker. There's something wrong when American workers keep getting more productive … but that productivity is not matched in their paychecks. There's something wrong when hedge fund managers pay lower tax rates than nurses or the truckers I saw on I-80 as I was driving here over the last two days.“
“I’m gonna fight for the economic futures of regular people”
“Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times. But the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top”
... ... was the 2015-16 election season really that long ago to forget both of their campaigns? Holy shit.
I suppose you were talking about her rhetoric not her policies so I just tuned most of it out, though "working families" is basically interchangeable with "voters" for most politicians of either party so it seems "populist" rhetoric would then encompass most of what all politicians say to try to sell shitty policy. I could probably pull quotes from practically any politician with similar implications.
If it was just asides to working families, it would be another thing. The fact of the matter was it was a central focus in 2015 campaign speeches and throughout the primary. Everybody forgets because she never could shake the corrupt DC power player label. Maybe she’d have enjoyed more success if she didn’t campaign as a populist.
On November 06 2018 08:27 xDaunt wrote: Another explanation for the lack of true conservative intellectuals is that the ground is well-tread at this point. The core elements of classical liberalism were all fleshed out hundreds of years ago, with some principles dating back to Aristotle. Even if you look at a modern classical liberal titan like Rawls, it's very clear that he's working well-within frameworks that have existed for at least a century before he was born. Pushing the boundaries of classical liberalism is fairly difficult. It's far easier for an intellectual to make a name for himself through study and development of ideas down one of the philosophical branches that chucks the traditional liberal framework, such as those founded by Marx or Nietzsche.
This explanation doesn’t address the role and operation of persuasion: its relationship to fame, its relationship to rhetoric and rigor, and its relationship to something like truth. It fails even to account for Rawls’s differential fame in relation to bis peers.
On November 06 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote: I think the Republicans will hold the house tomorrow, or get really really close.
Anyone else wanna throw predictions?
I think Republicans are going to do much better than the predictions that have Democrats swinging 26+ seats int the House. They are also going to gain seats in the Senate.
Democrats should be winning 40+ seats in the house but they will have huge wins at the gubernatorial level. The race I'm thinking will be the most interesting is Gillum and Nelson. There's a strong chance they split the state and that will be huge for 2020 strategies.
Florida will be a critical state yet again, and if Hillary and Nelson lose there, it makes a more progressive platform a necessary shift for the Democratic party (if they wanted to win) going into 2020.
On November 06 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote: I think the Republicans will hold the house tomorrow, or get really really close.
Anyone else wanna throw predictions?
I think Republicans are going to do much better than the predictions that have Democrats swinging 26+ seats int the House. They are also going to gain seats in the Senate.
Democrats should be winning 40+ seats in the house but they will have huge wins at the gubernatorial level. The race I'm thinking will be the most interesting is Gillum and Nelson. There's a strong chance they split the state and that will be huge for 2020 strategies.
Florida will be a critical state yet again, and if Hillary and Nelson lose there, it makes a more progressive platform a necessary shift for the Democratic party (if they wanted to win) going into 2020.
What do you mean by more progressive? What should their message hammer on? I ask because from the other aisle it seems they have no message, just an incohesive anti-Trump, pro "indentity politics" rethoric. They also completely lack an unifying leader, but that's not easy to fix.
On November 06 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote: I think the Republicans will hold the house tomorrow, or get really really close.
Anyone else wanna throw predictions?
I think Republicans are going to do much better than the predictions that have Democrats swinging 26+ seats int the House. They are also going to gain seats in the Senate.
Democrats should be winning 40+ seats in the house but they will have huge wins at the gubernatorial level. The race I'm thinking will be the most interesting is Gillum and Nelson. There's a strong chance they split the state and that will be huge for 2020 strategies.
Florida will be a critical state yet again, and if Hillary and Nelson lose there, it makes a more progressive platform a necessary shift for the Democratic party (if they wanted to win) going into 2020.
I think they're going to do better in the House than you think. Really doubt they take the senate though.
On November 06 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote: I think the Republicans will hold the house tomorrow, or get really really close.
Anyone else wanna throw predictions?
I think Republicans are going to do much better than the predictions that have Democrats swinging 26+ seats int the House. They are also going to gain seats in the Senate.
Democrats should be winning 40+ seats in the house but they will have huge wins at the gubernatorial level. The race I'm thinking will be the most interesting is Gillum and Nelson. There's a strong chance they split the state and that will be huge for 2020 strategies.
Florida will be a critical state yet again, and if Hillary and Nelson lose there, it makes a more progressive platform a necessary shift for the Democratic party (if they wanted to win) going into 2020.
What do you mean by more progressive? What should their message hammer on? I ask because from the other aisle it seems they have no message, just an incohesive anti-Trump, pro "indentity politics" rethoric. They also completely lack an unifying leader, but that's not easy to fix.
The big one they should have been on for the last two years (instead of the constant anti-Trump drama) is healthcare/Medicare-for-all. Along with that would be campaign finance reform, universal pre-k, living wages, affordable housing, stuff like that.
Democrats made a critical strategic error after losing in 2016. They chose to double down on protecting the donor class and "moderate Republicans" instead of taking the energized progressive wing to get the ~20%+ of the population, that leans left but doesn't vote, to participate.
Which is why I cringe every time I hear someone talk about turnout when they're comparing it to 2014, where turnout was even worse than when Democrats got blown out in 2010.
On November 06 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote: I think the Republicans will hold the house tomorrow, or get really really close.
Anyone else wanna throw predictions?
I think Republicans are going to do much better than the predictions that have Democrats swinging 26+ seats int the House. They are also going to gain seats in the Senate.
Democrats should be winning 40+ seats in the house but they will have huge wins at the gubernatorial level. The race I'm thinking will be the most interesting is Gillum and Nelson. There's a strong chance they split the state and that will be huge for 2020 strategies.
Florida will be a critical state yet again, and if Hillary and Nelson lose there, it makes a more progressive platform a necessary shift for the Democratic party (if they wanted to win) going into 2020.
What do you mean by more progressive? What should their message hammer on? I ask because from the other aisle it seems they have no message, just an incohesive anti-Trump, pro "indentity politics" rethoric. They also completely lack an unifying leader, but that's not easy to fix.
The big one they should have been on for the last two years (instead of the constant anti-Trump drama) is healthcare/Medicare-for-all. Along with that would be campaign finance reform, universal pre-k, living wages, affordable housing, stuff like that.
Democrats made a critical strategic error after losing in 2016. They chose to double down on protecting the donor class and "moderate Republicans" instead of taking the energized progressive wing to get the ~20%+ of the population, that leans left but doesn't vote, to participate.
Which is why I cringe every time I hear someone talk about turnout when they're comparing it to 2014, where turnout was even worse than when Democrats got blown out in 2010.
Yeah I agree that's a good strategy. So you mean progressive on the economic side, exactly the opposite on what they have been running lately.
On November 06 2018 08:27 xDaunt wrote: Another explanation for the lack of true conservative intellectuals is that the ground is well-tread at this point. The core elements of classical liberalism were all fleshed out hundreds of years ago, with some principles dating back to Aristotle. Even if you look at a modern classical liberal titan like Rawls, it's very clear that he's working well-within frameworks that have existed for at least a century before he was born. Pushing the boundaries of classical liberalism is fairly difficult. It's far easier for an intellectual to make a name for himself through study and development of ideas down one of the philosophical branches that chucks the traditional liberal framework, such as those founded by Marx or Nietzsche.
This explanation doesn’t address the role and operation of persuasion: its relationship to fame, its relationship to rhetoric and rigor, and its relationship to something like truth. It fails even to account for Rawls’s differential fame in relation to bis peers.
I'm not trying to present a unified theory of the fame of intellectuals. I'm merely pointing out that it is much harder to be famous when you're not pushing something new.
On November 06 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote: I think the Republicans will hold the house tomorrow, or get really really close.
Anyone else wanna throw predictions?
I think Republicans are going to do much better than the predictions that have Democrats swinging 26+ seats int the House. They are also going to gain seats in the Senate.
Democrats should be winning 40+ seats in the house but they will have huge wins at the gubernatorial level. The race I'm thinking will be the most interesting is Gillum and Nelson. There's a strong chance they split the state and that will be huge for 2020 strategies.
Florida will be a critical state yet again, and if Hillary and Nelson lose there, it makes a more progressive platform a necessary shift for the Democratic party (if they wanted to win) going into 2020.
What do you mean by more progressive? What should their message hammer on? I ask because from the other aisle it seems they have no message, just an incohesive anti-Trump, pro "indentity politics" rethoric. They also completely lack an unifying leader, but that's not easy to fix.
The big one they should have been on for the last two years (instead of the constant anti-Trump drama) is healthcare/Medicare-for-all. Along with that would be campaign finance reform, universal pre-k, living wages, affordable housing, stuff like that.
Democrats made a critical strategic error after losing in 2016. They chose to double down on protecting the donor class and "moderate Republicans" instead of taking the energized progressive wing to get the ~20%+ of the population, that leans left but doesn't vote, to participate.
Which is why I cringe every time I hear someone talk about turnout when they're comparing it to 2014, where turnout was even worse than when Democrats got blown out in 2010.
Yeah I agree that's a good strategy. So you mean progressive on the economic side, exactly the opposite on what they have been running lately.
Sorta. Personally I'd probably be supportive of some of the "identity politics" aspects you'd be less supportive of and think they could win with them as well (properly framed). But mine is more a prescription for how they (a party I see myself as distinct from) could have won huge in 2018-2020 rather than the specific policies I'd like to see voiced (even if not passed) at the federal level or the candidates I'd like to see treated competitively by media and the populace.
On November 06 2018 10:08 GoTuNk! wrote: I think the Republicans will hold the house tomorrow, or get really really close.
Anyone else wanna throw predictions?
I think Republicans are going to do much better than the predictions that have Democrats swinging 26+ seats int the House. They are also going to gain seats in the Senate.
Democrats should be winning 40+ seats in the house but they will have huge wins at the gubernatorial level. The race I'm thinking will be the most interesting is Gillum and Nelson. There's a strong chance they split the state and that will be huge for 2020 strategies.
Florida will be a critical state yet again, and if Hillary and Nelson lose there, it makes a more progressive platform a necessary shift for the Democratic party (if they wanted to win) going into 2020.
What do you mean by more progressive? What should their message hammer on? I ask because from the other aisle it seems they have no message, just an incohesive anti-Trump, pro "indentity politics" rethoric. They also completely lack an unifying leader, but that's not easy to fix.
The big one they should have been on for the last two years (instead of the constant anti-Trump drama) is healthcare/Medicare-for-all. Along with that would be campaign finance reform, universal pre-k, living wages, affordable housing, stuff like that.
Democrats made a critical strategic error after losing in 2016. They chose to double down on protecting the donor class and "moderate Republicans" instead of taking the energized progressive wing to get the ~20%+ of the population, that leans left but doesn't vote, to participate.
Which is why I cringe every time I hear someone talk about turnout when they're comparing it to 2014, where turnout was even worse than when Democrats got blown out in 2010.
Yeah I agree that's a good strategy. So you mean progressive on the economic side, exactly the opposite on what they have been running lately.
Sorta. Personally I'd probably be supportive of some of the "identity politics" aspects you'd be less supportive of and think they could win with them as well (properly framed). But mine is more a prescription for how they (a party I see myself as distinct from) could have won huge in 2018-2020 rather than the specific policies I'd like to see voiced (even if not passed) at the federal level or the candidates I'd like to see treated competitively by media and the populace.
Yeah I understand that, talking from a strategy point. Focusing on "healthcare for all" and "livable wages" seems a lot more relatable to the average american than the current difuse message.
On November 06 2018 08:27 xDaunt wrote: Another explanation for the lack of true conservative intellectuals is that the ground is well-tread at this point. The core elements of classical liberalism were all fleshed out hundreds of years ago, with some principles dating back to Aristotle. Even if you look at a modern classical liberal titan like Rawls, it's very clear that he's working well-within frameworks that have existed for at least a century before he was born. Pushing the boundaries of classical liberalism is fairly difficult. It's far easier for an intellectual to make a name for himself through study and development of ideas down one of the philosophical branches that chucks the traditional liberal framework, such as those founded by Marx or Nietzsche.
This explanation doesn’t address the role and operation of persuasion: its relationship to fame, its relationship to rhetoric and rigor, and its relationship to something like truth. It fails even to account for Rawls’s differential fame in relation to bis peers.
I'm not trying to present a unified theory of the fame of intellectuals. I'm merely pointing out that it is much harder to be famous when you're not pushing something new.
Sometimes the best new is a return to the old. But an iterative return, as all returns are. A return with difference.
I'd be interested in what you are even referring to when you refer to the "Enlightenment." I think you mean something like Locke and Adam Smith. But then you might as well say Locke and Adam Smith, rather than referring to a contested and heterogeneous field. There is a strong argument to be made that "Nietzsche and Marx," to use your appellations, were "Enlightenment" thinkers in the best sense.
On November 06 2018 08:27 xDaunt wrote: Another explanation for the lack of true conservative intellectuals is that the ground is well-tread at this point. The core elements of classical liberalism were all fleshed out hundreds of years ago, with some principles dating back to Aristotle. Even if you look at a modern classical liberal titan like Rawls, it's very clear that he's working well-within frameworks that have existed for at least a century before he was born. Pushing the boundaries of classical liberalism is fairly difficult. It's far easier for an intellectual to make a name for himself through study and development of ideas down one of the philosophical branches that chucks the traditional liberal framework, such as those founded by Marx or Nietzsche.
This explanation doesn’t address the role and operation of persuasion: its relationship to fame, its relationship to rhetoric and rigor, and its relationship to something like truth. It fails even to account for Rawls’s differential fame in relation to bis peers.
I'm not trying to present a unified theory of the fame of intellectuals. I'm merely pointing out that it is much harder to be famous when you're not pushing something new.
Sometimes the best new is a return to the old. But an iterative return, as all returns are. A return with difference.
I'd be interested in what you are even referring to when you refer to the "Enlightenment." I think you mean something like Locke and Adam Smith. But then you might as well say Locke and Adam Smith, rather than referring to a contested and heterogeneous field. There is a strong argument to be made that "Nietzsche and Marx," to use your appellations, were "Enlightenment" thinkers in the best sense.
Was ist Aufklärung?
I generally think of “The Enlightenment” as a period of philosophy predating Hegel. But yes, I obviously value Locke and Smith over most of their contemporaries.
Trump is about to start his final campaign rally. It is worth seeing one of these if you haven’t yet, if for no other reason than just to understand what’s going on with the Right.
On November 06 2018 12:03 xDaunt wrote: Trump is about to start his final campaign rally. It is worth seeing one of these if you haven’t yet, if for no other reason than just to understand what’s going on with the Right.
On November 06 2018 12:03 xDaunt wrote: Trump is about to start his final campaign rally. It is worth seeing one of these if you haven’t yet, if for no other reason than just to understand what’s going on with the Right.
Somehow i imagine you'll take something different away from that than anyone not on the right will. So why not fill us in.
I've watched bits of many of them. Say what you want about Trump, but boy he has charisma and is an outstanding entertainer.
The events are plastered with US Flags, everyone wearing "MAGA" hats, people sign the Anthem, sometimes pray, and regularly chant "U-S-A, U-S-A" at every rally. This coupled with the POTUS speeches, people are having a BLAST at every event, no wonder they are full. I think this kind of experience is building legions of hardcore GOP supporters not only for this election, but longterm.
The political message is quite simple: more jobs, security (specially border security) and lower taxes; the DEMS want to destroy our progress. Add some snippet general support for the armed forces, liberty, 2A, etc.
On November 06 2018 12:03 xDaunt wrote: Trump is about to start his final campaign rally. It is worth seeing one of these if you haven’t yet, if for no other reason than just to understand what’s going on with the Right.
They rally around a strong leader like many peoples did around their Nationalist/Facist leaders before them? When i see such events i feel fear... Well i would, if I wouldn't have to cringe non stop.
Btw: I also didn't feel good about Bernies rallies, but at least they weren't all about hate...
Bring on more professed ignorance of rallies, but imagination of how this one went. Go get your summaries from the people that do your thinking for you. They’ll package up just the takes that will confirm your presuppositions.
The amazing grace moment was good. The candidate mounting the stage and reminding people what McCaskill really believes was good. Good laugh line from Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
I watched 20 minutes of it... I highly doubt that watching more would have changed my mind, at least not in a positive way. Probably its a cultural thing, I could and will never take politicians seriously that act like they are at a WWE Event.
+ridiculous amounts of patriotism that make me wanna womit.
On November 07 2018 00:54 Velr wrote: I watched 20 minutes of it... I highly doubt that watching more would have changed my mind, at least not in a positive way. Probably its a cultural thing, I could and will never take politicians seriously that act like they are at a WWE Event.
+ridiculous amounts of patriotism that make me wanna womit.
Well, I believe Trump is in the WWE hall of fame, so that's not a huge surprise.
EPT
