|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States15743 Posts
On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy.
So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater.
And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc
|
|
|
United States15743 Posts
On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment.
But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in.
If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is.
|
|
|
United States15743 Posts
On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 09:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment. But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in. If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is. Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly. Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure.
If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
|
On July 12 2023 11:06 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment. But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in. If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is. Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly. Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure. If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals.
Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too.
I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
|
United States15743 Posts
On July 12 2023 11:26 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 11:06 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment. But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in. If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is. Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly. Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure. If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals. Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too. I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident.
Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
|
On July 11 2023 14:49 Mohdoo wrote:
He said "barfight" and "(except even more messed up now because they have gained some hormonal instability)". So he was describing both violence and the impact of HRT. I think he was referring to how HRT can alter behavior.
To clarify, I am talking about a girl at a kegger who's had too much, starts getting into people's space, typically shoving, often slapping, and also often throwing real punches. Girls fight (in my experience) much more often than guys, because they socially have learned that there is no consequences, because actually their fight always gets stopped. Indeed, often it is two girls in a full out fight with each other who had to be seperated. Should dudes just watch and call the cops, wait 12 minutes until one of them trips into a table and actually gets her head smashed in? I don't get the controversy.
On July 12 2023 01:22 Mohdoo wrote:
This might sound silly, but hear me out:
Regardless of what any of us say here, there are no points, no prizes, and no awards for whether we "win" or "lose" an argument here. So then why participate? To learn about how other people think, let their perspectives dance with ours, and see if there is something we didn't consider or something we can learn.
GH, farv, ChristianS, Kwark, and Sermokala are all people I can think of off the top of my head who have truly changed the way I view the world. All of you have had impacts on me throughout my time here, and I don't mean to say everyone else is insignificant, but I do want to point out those 5 as having made major impacts on how I view the world.
So when I read Clutz's message, it was easy to take the perspective you did, that he is saying trans women are shitty because you can't assault them as easily. But I really don't think he would bother saying that. Its not just the sort of thing he would spend his time doing. He has a very unique way of thinking and can sometimes appear non-human, but I think its just that he uses a lot less baseline assumptions when assessing morality than most people do.
So I tried to think of what he could actually mean, or what would be a perspective more worthy of being engaged with. I think him using the physical power of trans women as a point of interest indicates he was pointing out there are major differences in trans and cis women from a raw strength perspective, which we all agree on. It is the reason trans women in sports is a major topic.
The trans roid-rage I described is very real and its not worthwhile to pretend it isn't real. So if the goal in participating in this channel is to immerse ourselves in other people's world-views and perspectives, shouldn't we always give people the most generous read on what they are saying? Shouldn't we want the argument of someone we disagree with to be as strong as possible, so that we are more engaged, stimulated, and enlightened by it?
And just to be clear, its not that I feel like I am making up some better idea for Clutz. I think you guys are hugely misunderstanding his post. I don't blame you, since boy oh boy does he have a unique way of communicating, but I do think this is mostly a misunderstanding and he used a really problematic way to make a point lol
I agree with all of this.
On July 12 2023 02:02 Fleetfeet wrote:
It feels hard to work around the idea that Clutz isn't just being casually sexist and transphobic, though. Myself, I certainly was casually sexist as a kid and didn't realize it until someone delivered an earned ass-kicking, which I'm sure is a concept Clutz could appreciate.
I think generally people will agree that sexism and transphobia are issues that exist in NA at large, and part of the push towards something closer to egalitarian society is calling out casual sexism / homophobia / transphobia where it occurs. I don't think this is the wrong approach.
That said, I do see a nugget in what you're saying that leans towards "Yo, Clutz is just a normal fucking dude" and I think there is value in that. I don't think Clutz is evil or anything, he's just like a lot of dudes I've worked with or hung out with. If you're never presented with the idea of all women having value outside of their looks and society largely playing in to women being valuable for that, you won't naturally craft the idea that the perceived 'natural order' is constructed and incorrect. It takes people the listener might actually respect bringing up the idea in a respectable way for it to gain any traction.
In that regard, I regret dogpiling on to the ridicule, and I'll try to do better.
I am not transphobic in any way, other than the way that people who like to overuse the word to indicate anyone who is not onboard with the trans advocacy agenda. Which to be clear, I am almost 100% opposed to. I think their science is junk science. I think their methods and propaganda obviously are targeting and are harmful to children. I think even most adults would be better served by a less corrupt medical establishment that took the tac of countries like Japan and Finland where there is skepticism. I totally disagree with the bolded portion being my worldview. I am highly respectful of high achieving women, such as my wife, who is an attorney, better than me in the field, except in my own narrow specialty.
But, I do think that there is an inherent bias in the world towards what you styled as a "natural order." Biology is strong, and the chemicals that race through our brains affect us from womb to death, and I don't think we've gotten to anywhere approaching the levels of transhumanism where thinking about these things in the other way makes any sense. I do think that the discourse has been so biased in favor of the trans advocacy community that they and their allies don't really know how to convince someone other than by shouting (by in large). A tell for such a problem is whenever a group relies on "ism"s and "phobias" as a main part of their argumentation style.
|
Norway28815 Posts
Guys actually fight a lot more than girls do.
|
Lemme give you my perspective, then.
I know a lot of trans people on the internet. I'm friends with all of them, they're great people in their own right and it's easy for me when I'm not confronted with their actual physicality and the discomfort that might bring me to just accept them as who they are without having anything attached. In this way, I've experienced my own 'transphobia' and it's something I'm just not that experienced with. More and more, I take time out of my (actual, in-person) day to recognize people who don't seem to identify within 'normal' gender confines and make an effort to overcome my own implicit bias and greet / interact with them as I would any other normal person. I've spoken to plenty of people that have been marginalized for other reasons, and a typical chorus is that feeling of being 'invisible' except for in negative ways. It's something I can actively do in my regular day-to-day (I live in a big enough city to actually encounter gender non-binary etc) to help other humans feel human.
I think you are transphobic and sexist. I think 90% of people are, on some level, transphobic. Encountering an 'obviously trans' person really isn't that common, and like someone encountering an openly gay or openly german or anything 'odd' for the first time, there's bound to be some level of xenophobia or discomfort at the unknown. That's pretty natural. In my eyes, being casually sexist or german-ist is forgivable, as it's just borne of ignorance and inexperience. What isn't okay is when it is intentional. Sometimes that is people's way of 'keeping power' in a situation - introduce any man to the concept of sexism and the idea that genders are imbalanced in favour of men, and the initial reaction will basically always be to fight against that idea - accepting it requires accepting the loss of power on the path toward balance.
With that as context, I wouldn't put much weight on the word "Transphobic". It isn't or shouldn't be used as a condemnation, and typically shouldn't be taken as one. Even here, where you'd think we take ourselves as bastions of Trans rights, took like one page to get to "But what do women think tho" about the bathroom question, and afaik like 10+ pages for it to hit "Hey, should we ask trans people what they think?". We're all imperfect. The 'left' side of it is just trying to let as many people be themselves as possible, without having to put them into neat boxes we already understand.
To address the second paragraph - there is some level of natural bias, but there's also hundreds of years of societal bias. "Natural bias" has historically been used to justify all kinds of atrocities, I'd be careful swinging that one around.
(E - To follow on Drone - I've seen dozens of guys in fistfights and never seen a full-on catfight. I've never been in a fistfight but been goaded towards one plenty of times. Violence is definitely something I associate as a male trait and not something I've seen as often in women. I don't have data to back it up, but what Drone says fits my life experience so far.)
|
On July 12 2023 13:21 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Guys actually fight a lot more than girls do.
Don't take the bait. Dude just badmouths trans people and calls them ugly and tragic, and then insists that he's not transphobic and that his "arguments" aren't being rebutted in good faith, as if he presented legitimate positions.
On July 12 2023 12:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 11:26 ChristianS wrote:On July 12 2023 11:06 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment. But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in. If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is. Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly. Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure. If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals. Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too. I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident. Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
While I'm not sure how easy it would be to list all the pro-dem and pro-repub changes, I think that the most significant, longest lasting, and hardest-to-counter wins have been Trump's SCJ appointees. I think Republicans have probably achieved more, thanks to those.
|
If you believe women actually fight more than men, and testosterone makes you more aggressive, then the logical conclusion is that men on estrogen should be the least likely to fight of all. I thought the bathroom issue was a non-issue but the unruly drunk MTF trans women that are rampaging the cities takes the cake. I don’t disagree with a lot of your points cLutZ but you’re doing yourself a disservice here with this ridiculous take.
|
On July 12 2023 13:46 BlackJack wrote:
If you believe women actually fight more than men, and testosterone makes you more aggressive, then the logical conclusion is that men on estrogen should be the least likely to fight of all. I thought the bathroom issue was a non-issue but the unruly drunk MTF trans women that are rampaging the cities takes the cake. I don’t disagree with a lot of your points cLutZ but you’re doing yourself a disservice here with this ridiculous take.
Well said. What are your thoughts on cLutZ saying that Putin is a liberal, despite leading one of Russia's conservative parties?
|
On July 12 2023 12:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 11:26 ChristianS wrote:On July 12 2023 11:06 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment. But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in. If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is. Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly. Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure. If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals. Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too. I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident. Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have?
No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over.
I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
|
On July 12 2023 13:57 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 12:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 11:26 ChristianS wrote:On July 12 2023 11:06 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment. But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in. If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is. Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly. Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure. If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals. Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too. I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident. Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have? No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over. I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude.
Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.
Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
|
On July 12 2023 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 13:57 ChristianS wrote:On July 12 2023 12:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 11:26 ChristianS wrote:On July 12 2023 11:06 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment. But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in. If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is. Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly. Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure. If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals. Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too. I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident. Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have? No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over. I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude. Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for.
I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here.
No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
|
On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc
You know we're talking about the Republican party, right?
|
On July 12 2023 14:36 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 14:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 12 2023 13:57 ChristianS wrote:On July 12 2023 12:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 11:26 ChristianS wrote:On July 12 2023 11:06 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater.
And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment. But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in. If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is. Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly. Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure. If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals. Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too. I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident. Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have? No, but come on, justify what you’re saying. I’m not even convinced “Democrats have been more unified as a party in the last 8 years” is anywhere close to true. “Democrats in disarray” has become a meme, meanwhile the defining narrative of the Trump era was “surely *this* offense is will be what makes Republicans turn against him. No? Ah, well, nevertheless…” over and over and over. I don’t have a worked out theory of when it’s right to stand by your precise principles and when it’s right to set aside your differences to form a coalition, but all you’re offering right now is “infighting is good, actually,” with no supporting evidence whatsoever. I mean I don’t actually care about MTG and Boebert fighting, and I don’t think voters particularly do either, but “acting like angry tweens is effective politics” is a pretty hot take, dude. Beyond the usefulness of infighting vs falling in line I think the bottom line is that there are more effective strategies than Democrats are utilizing currently, one of those strategies (and perhaps most importantly,) is the one Republicans are using.Though I think this general perspective underplays how much things like keeping wages down and workers desperate, while contrary to much of Democrat rhetoric, is ultimately the outcome their donors are paying for. I’m not actually sure what the bolded is referring to. Capturing SCOTUS? It feels like I missed some context here. No particular disagreement on your second paragraph. + Show Spoiler +I’m generally skeptical that there’s an explicit buy-off happening (idk if you’d claim there is); but I certainly think systemic factors (yes, including wealthy donors) make it pretty much political suicide to try to institute major changes, even popular ones. And a major factor stabilizing that equilibrium is that workers are working too much and too worried about survival to have time and energy for political education and advocacy.
That'd be an example of an unmatched Republican win that Democrats don't even have an inkling of a strategy to match/surpass for decades, if ever (assuming Democrat ineptitude is genuine).
|
On July 12 2023 15:57 Mikau wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc You know we're talking about the Republican party, right?
Seeing as switching the lights off is one of their explicit strategies, you're right, they don't even have to worry about keeping the lights on!
I mean, I don't agree with Mohdoo in the slightest that it's a good strategy, even for Republicans. I just also don't think anybody who would vote for MTG or Boebert gives a flying fuck about them acting like angry tweens. If anything, MTG voters would be disappointed that she seems too sane there.
|
On July 12 2023 12:00 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2023 11:26 ChristianS wrote:On July 12 2023 11:06 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 10:04 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:49 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 09:13 JimmiC wrote:On July 12 2023 09:00 Mohdoo wrote:On July 12 2023 08:52 micronesia wrote:
Infighting five minutes before a deadline that will cause the economy to collapse?
I'd argue infighting is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. Everyone getting in line is sometimes healthy and sometimes unhealthy. I think your point was that the letter is sometimes unhealthy, not that the former is always healthy. So long as they slide in before the deadline, it is all the same and basically just theater. And no, I think widespread, consistent disagreement within a party is always a sign of a well-functioning political party, so long as it is achieving what it needs to do like keeping the lights on etc I doubt it’s positive when it spills into two of the most prominent members fighting publicly with one calling the other bitch. Behind closed doors with a united front would be healthy, not this, this was yet another embarrassment. But what is actually bad about that? What does that do? If they are doing what their voters want, and keeping the lights on, I don't see why the "embarrassment" component matters. I want leaders who are willing to be embarrassing while they fight for what they believe in. If Greene/Boebert were having a more ego-based fight, that's different. But I have no idea what their disagreement is. Strange take, they do not know what they believe , it changes weekly. Not to mention I want people in important positions to be able control their emotions not act like angry tweens. People like that can rarely make good decisions under extreme pressure. If I could choose between democrats behaving as they currently do, or angry tweens, I would not hesitate to choose angry tweens. I am seeing no evidence of republican dysfunction being a net negative to achieving their goals. Then I’m not sure you’re looking that hard? They’ve run a fair number of Christine O’Donnell-like candidates over the years that definitely cost them seats. Also, voted for a fair number of policies like the Obamacare-repeal-that-didn’t-even-repeal-Obamacare that cost them seats, too. I don’t quite get how you arrived at the conclusion that an organization full of infighting and backstabbing is equally effective at achieving its goals as a well-aligned and coordinated one. I’m not a “everybody fall in line and support the party no matter what” guy, but the advantages of getting on the same page seem pretty self-evident. Are you saying democrats have achieved more in the last 8 years than republicans have? Why 8 years?
When the Democrats got full control the pushed through the ACA.
When Republicans had full control they got through a tax cut.
Infighting has absolutely cost the Republicans a ton of what they wanted to achieve. Their inability to get things done during the first 2 years of Trump are widely documented.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
