|
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 |
On September 18 2018 02:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 02:44 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:15 JimmiC wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded). She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. More trying to point out how pointless this list of 65 was. Not only are they unwilling to stand behind their claims but than the other side can produce a list of their own. I hope she does testify. This is a lifetime appointment, he should be vetted in every way possible and above reproach. If he is not perfect, then I'm sure there are other conservative judges that are. The news: Think Progress writer calls a third of the 65 character witnesses, only gets in contact with 4, and none of them retract their statement. The fake news take: Wow, they’re unwilling to stand behind their claims! Get it? There is no excuse for mind-reading declines to comment. It’s pretty hard to find a better single case of fake news this month than that vignette (or pair). It’s part of the reason why Trump is not the self-contained problem, because we still have articles like that one and ready believers sucking them up. I think you are missing the whole 200 signatures on the other side. As I mentioned my point is not that the 65 people are turning. It is that they are meaningless. I'm sure there are billions of women that were not assaulted by the man, their signatures are meaningless. Just as the 200 that think he might have done it are. What matters are people who can prove something either way. Who can get the most character witnesses to sign a petition they are not willing to be questioned about is beyond useless.
You did just point to the biggest piece of fake news and make totally unsubstantiated claims based on it, for the reasons I just gave. You haven’t made the claim to be a legitimate mind reader yet, to assure yourself that character witnesses that don’t respond to a reporters inquiries mean they aren’t willing to be questioned, period. What matters is that the entire report shows nothing and proves nothing except that Think Progress does bad work, but readers don’t require it to produce good work for it to stay in business. It’s like they were hoping some would retract their support but took non-answers to basicallly mean the same thing, you know. I only hope the remainder of this saga is this transparent in their dishonesty in the pages of the left and center-left. It really starts to clarify the issue in question.
|
|
|
Lol, now that Roy Blunt is calling for delays over "serious allegations", I think we can say this is for sure getting very delayed. Based on how quickly the language has escalated, I am beginning to think Kavanaugh's testimony is a bluff and that they know he's fucked. They'll likely end up cancelling the whole thing "so that he isn't trated unfairly".
|
Thank god the democrats are finally fighting back at least a little bit.
|
On September 18 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 03:06 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 18 2018 02:44 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:15 JimmiC wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded). She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. More trying to point out how pointless this list of 65 was. Not only are they unwilling to stand behind their claims but than the other side can produce a list of their own. I hope she does testify. This is a lifetime appointment, he should be vetted in every way possible and above reproach. If he is not perfect, then I'm sure there are other conservative judges that are. The news: Think Progress writer calls a third of the 65 character witnesses, only gets in contact with 4, and none of them retract their statement. The fake news take: Wow, they’re unwilling to stand behind their claims! Get it? There is no excuse for mind-reading declines to comment. It’s pretty hard to find a better single case of fake news this month than that vignette (or pair). It’s part of the reason why Trump is not the self-contained problem, because we still have articles like that one and ready believers sucking them up. I think you are missing the whole 200 signatures on the other side. As I mentioned my point is not that the 65 people are turning. It is that they are meaningless. I'm sure there are billions of women that were not assaulted by the man, their signatures are meaningless. Just as the 200 that think he might have done it are. What matters are people who can prove something either way. Who can get the most character witnesses to sign a petition they are not willing to be questioned about is beyond useless. You did just point to the biggest piece of fake news and make totally unsubstantiated claims based on it, for the reasons I just gave. You haven’t made the claim to be a legitimate mind reader yet, to assure yourself that character witnesses that don’t respond to a reporters inquiries mean they aren’t willing to be questioned, period. What matters is that the entire report shows nothing and proves nothing except that Think Progress does bad work, but readers don’t require it to produce good work for it to stay in business. It’s like they were hoping some would retract their support but took non-answers to basicallly mean the same thing, you know. I only hope the remainder of this saga is this transparent in their dishonesty in the pages of the left and center-left. It really starts to clarify the issue in question. So you are going to just continue to ignore the 200 other sigs. I guess by your point the 65 are true and factual, but then so are the 200 and 200>65. So he is guilty. Or you could read the words in my post, know that I linked the article to show where I got the information from about the 200 and the the 65 and not think I was just puling the numbers from any where. WTF cares is 61 women say he didn't rape them? I'm not sure why you always focus on one detail and exclude everything else.
Let's say I'm a reporter for the Weekly Standard and manage to call a staggering 67 of the 200 signatories, and I get hold of 10, who decline to add further comment. Can I then say, as you said, that "they're unwilling to stand by their claims?"
|
|
|
Both those letters are bullshit and one step above a chain email. Real signatures obtained in person or bust.
|
On September 18 2018 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded). She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. As I said before, Anita Hill only came forward 2 days before the full vote before the Senate. Now that is last minute. Feinstein's decision respect the Professor Ford's wish for anonymity can be questioned, but her release of the information was promoted the press asking questions about it. There does not seem to be any evidence that her release of the documents was tactical. I also don't believe there is much merit to a last minute release anyways. I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. So when Republicans do it it's because the other side did something bad and obviously deserved it, but when the Democrats start to volley back it's them stooping to the R's level in an unacceptable way.
This isn't at all what I said. What I said was that the D's can't call themselves better then the R's when they act the same as the R's.
On September 18 2018 02:50 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded). She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. As I said before, Anita Hill only came forward 2 days before the full vote before the Senate. Now that is last minute. Feinstein's decision respect the Professor Ford's wish for anonymity can be questioned, but her release of the information was promoted the press asking questions about it. There does not seem to be any evidence that her release of the documents was tactical. I also don't believe there is much merit to a last minute release anyways. I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. Do you have a citation to support your claims that the timing on this was somehow villainous? Here are the words and wishes of Dr. Ford. Show nested quote +
As the story snowballed, Ford said, she heard people repeating inaccuracies about her and, with the visits from reporters, felt her privacy being chipped away. Her calculation changed.
“These are all the ills that I was trying to avoid,” she said, explaining her decision to come forward. “Now I feel like my civic responsibility is outweighing my anguish and terror about retaliation.”
Katz said she believes Feinstein honored Ford’s request to keep her allegation confidential, but “regrettably others did not.”
“Victims must have the right to decide whether to come forward, especially in a political environment that is as ruthless as this one,” Katz said. “She will now face vicious attacks by those who support this nominee.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/california-professor-writer-of-confidential-brett-kavanaugh-letter-speaks-out-about-her-allegation-of-sexual-assault/2018/09/16/46982194-b846-11e8-94eb-3bd52dfe917b_story.html?utm_term=.666938d005a7Katz said she believes Feinstein honored Ford’s request to keep her allegation confidential, but “regrettably others did not.” . Do you have anything that contradicts this statement?
I didn't say that the timing was villianious but if thats how you read english then okay. To contradict that statement I will use the part of the article you linked. She feels that her civic responsibility now matters at the end of a nomination process instead of at the part where the questions like this are suppose to come up. That generates implications (see how that word isn't villianous again) wereas if she said "the story about here was spiraling out of control and she decided to have feinstein act in order to take control of her story.
On September 18 2018 02:53 Ryzel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded). She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. As I said before, Anita Hill only came forward 2 days before the full vote before the Senate. Now that is last minute. Feinstein's decision respect the Professor Ford's wish for anonymity can be questioned, but her release of the information was promoted the press asking questions about it. There does not seem to be any evidence that her release of the documents was tactical. I also don't believe there is much merit to a last minute release anyways. I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. The reason they lose is because of a “culture of losing”? This seems absolutely ridiculous at first glance but if you were willing to elaborate further on this I would be happy to engage with you.
Democrats are terrible at winning. They took a supreme majority of the house with the electoral giant of obama after the republicans were shattered to the winds after bush and lost everything in two years. During the health care reform process they lost an election to a guy whos whole message revolved around him driving a truck in Massachusetts. Trump got elected do I really need to go on?
|
Scott Brown beating Martha Coakley was a slightly interesting man beating out someone with the personality of a fax machine that half of MA didn’t even like. I lived through that race and it sucked. Though to be fair to MA democrats, losing Ted Kennedy basically gutted the leadership and no one was prepared to replace him. So we got Scott Brown, who got dumpstered in next full election so badly he moved out of state.
|
On September 18 2018 03:44 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 03:22 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 03:13 JimmiC wrote:On September 18 2018 03:06 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:51 JimmiC wrote:On September 18 2018 02:44 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:15 JimmiC wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded). She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. More trying to point out how pointless this list of 65 was. Not only are they unwilling to stand behind their claims but than the other side can produce a list of their own. I hope she does testify. This is a lifetime appointment, he should be vetted in every way possible and above reproach. If he is not perfect, then I'm sure there are other conservative judges that are. The news: Think Progress writer calls a third of the 65 character witnesses, only gets in contact with 4, and none of them retract their statement. The fake news take: Wow, they’re unwilling to stand behind their claims! Get it? There is no excuse for mind-reading declines to comment. It’s pretty hard to find a better single case of fake news this month than that vignette (or pair). It’s part of the reason why Trump is not the self-contained problem, because we still have articles like that one and ready believers sucking them up. I think you are missing the whole 200 signatures on the other side. As I mentioned my point is not that the 65 people are turning. It is that they are meaningless. I'm sure there are billions of women that were not assaulted by the man, their signatures are meaningless. Just as the 200 that think he might have done it are. What matters are people who can prove something either way. Who can get the most character witnesses to sign a petition they are not willing to be questioned about is beyond useless. You did just point to the biggest piece of fake news and make totally unsubstantiated claims based on it, for the reasons I just gave. You haven’t made the claim to be a legitimate mind reader yet, to assure yourself that character witnesses that don’t respond to a reporters inquiries mean they aren’t willing to be questioned, period. What matters is that the entire report shows nothing and proves nothing except that Think Progress does bad work, but readers don’t require it to produce good work for it to stay in business. It’s like they were hoping some would retract their support but took non-answers to basicallly mean the same thing, you know. I only hope the remainder of this saga is this transparent in their dishonesty in the pages of the left and center-left. It really starts to clarify the issue in question. So you are going to just continue to ignore the 200 other sigs. I guess by your point the 65 are true and factual, but then so are the 200 and 200>65. So he is guilty. Or you could read the words in my post, know that I linked the article to show where I got the information from about the 200 and the the 65 and not think I was just puling the numbers from any where. WTF cares is 61 women say he didn't rape them? I'm not sure why you always focus on one detail and exclude everything else. Let's say I'm a reporter for the Weekly Standard and manage to call a staggering 67 of the 200 signatories, and I get hold of 10, who decline to add further comment. Can I then say, as you said, that "they're unwilling to stand by their claims?" I would say the same thing I said above, that they don't matter because none of those people were there. Who cares what side can get more character witness signatures. What is odd is that you seem intent on defending the 65 as truth when it is the much smaller number.
I was using that particular news story and your reaction to it as the subject matter. First, you said "[they were] unwilling to stand behind their claims," before you went for the mushy "my point is not that they're turning, but that they're meaningless." Now, I don't know if this is evidence you're walking back your initial claims, or simply that you've recognized it's indefensible regardless of your private beliefs. All I know if you've totally abandoned that claim and won't repeat it for a hypothetical Weekly Standard reporter doing the same thing.
"What is odd is that you seem intent on defending the 65 as truth" ... well, actually, what is odd is that you're making this claim after reading (or not reading) my specific arguments about the methodology and reasoning behind the report. A lot of these arguments never resolve if you sidestep mine and move to the ground you'd rather I asked about. I have very little to say about "200>65" bit. The only two things I ever talked about were (1) how do you defend equating refusal to comment to reporters as meaning they're unwilling to stand behind their claims and (2) would you say the same about a Weekly Standard reporter had he achieved similar results on the 200. I'm perfectly fine if you have no answer or never gave a second thought to what you said in the initial post. I do have a problem that you're twisting my words to mean I was making some alternative claim or implication.
If you have some answers or nonanswers for me, I'm perfectly fine commenting on whoever you heard talking about the level of meaning attributed to 65 and 200, or 200>65, or whatever "I guess by your point" you want as followup.
|
On September 18 2018 03:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded). She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. As I said before, Anita Hill only came forward 2 days before the full vote before the Senate. Now that is last minute. Feinstein's decision respect the Professor Ford's wish for anonymity can be questioned, but her release of the information was promoted the press asking questions about it. There does not seem to be any evidence that her release of the documents was tactical. I also don't believe there is much merit to a last minute release anyways. I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. So when Republicans do it it's because the other side did something bad and obviously deserved it, but when the Democrats start to volley back it's them stooping to the R's level in an unacceptable way. This isn't at all what I said. What I said was that the D's can't call themselves better then the R's when they act the same as the R's.
Politics is about winning, not about looking good, not about compromising. Republicans understand that and have for a while. Liberals... they're going to need some time to think about that.
We can tell that there's a flaw with your analysis here because you're clearly the person here who cares the most about democrats appearing like they're better than republicans when it comes to politics as opposed to policy, and yet you're still an independant who has some conservative sides - and if I look back to our conversations, you are still ready to defend republicans when I criticize them too hard for your taste. If democrats can't even get to you when using your strategy, they probably should pick another strategy.
|
On September 18 2018 03:55 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded). She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. As I said before, Anita Hill only came forward 2 days before the full vote before the Senate. Now that is last minute. Feinstein's decision respect the Professor Ford's wish for anonymity can be questioned, but her release of the information was promoted the press asking questions about it. There does not seem to be any evidence that her release of the documents was tactical. I also don't believe there is much merit to a last minute release anyways. I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. So when Republicans do it it's because the other side did something bad and obviously deserved it, but when the Democrats start to volley back it's them stooping to the R's level in an unacceptable way. This isn't at all what I said. What I said was that the D's can't call themselves better then the R's when they act the same as the R's.
Who cares whether they can call themselves better? That doesn't put you in office to enact policy. The R's have shown us entirely too many times that all they give a shit about is winning their seat, and it's been working. They've started playing the game by new rules, and the Democrats have been losing because they didn't adapt. They've been getting stomped on. At this point, I care way more about Democrats doing what they have to do to balance out what the Republicans have been doing, than whether they can go to sleep at night telling themselves they're really better than the R's.
So yes, you're making a point. No, I don't think it matters.
|
Republicans totally call themselves better and more principled, so I’m not sure what that means. Both parties think they are better than the other.
|
On September 18 2018 04:06 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 03:55 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded).
She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. As I said before, Anita Hill only came forward 2 days before the full vote before the Senate. Now that is last minute. Feinstein's decision respect the Professor Ford's wish for anonymity can be questioned, but her release of the information was promoted the press asking questions about it. There does not seem to be any evidence that her release of the documents was tactical. I also don't believe there is much merit to a last minute release anyways. I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. So when Republicans do it it's because the other side did something bad and obviously deserved it, but when the Democrats start to volley back it's them stooping to the R's level in an unacceptable way. This isn't at all what I said. What I said was that the D's can't call themselves better then the R's when they act the same as the R's. Politics is about winning, not about looking good, not about compromising. Republicans understand that and have for a while. Liberals... they're going to need some time to think about that. We can tell that there's a flaw with your analysis here because you're clearly the person here who cares the most about democrats appearing like they're better than republicans when it comes to politics as opposed to policy, and yet you're still an independant who has some conservative sides - and if I look back to our conversations, you are still ready to defend republicans when I criticize them too hard for your taste. If democrats can't even get to you when using your strategy, they probably should pick another strategy.
No I'm just sick of winning all the time as a conservative for no good reason. You can't refine your message and make better policy when the same old song and dance keeps working over and over again.
I can't talk much with racists and sexists much so I'm stuck with liberals and progressives for friends. I don't want to associate myself with the democrats because I see myself as a conservative but the republicans will never get better if the democrats keep rewarding themselves for being worse and worse.
I mean being a conservative in Minnesota is hard. You hate Wisconsin beacuse they're a bunch of unorganized drunk hics but they have a more conservative government then you do.
|
On September 18 2018 04:11 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 03:55 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:On September 18 2018 01:57 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
Only 0 are choosing to recant. The way they can spin not getting in touch with people or not getting a statement into an attack is legendary ... but then again it’s Think Progress. They couldn’t even get a Kavanaugh headline right and were flagged by Facebook as fake news (hilariously, Slate seconded).
She’ll get a hearing under oath at this point. Feinstein has currently been reported by Chairman Grassley’s office as being uncooperative in setting up follow up calls with Dr Ford. It’s entirely consistent with Feinsteins choice to withhold the accusations from the committee, which she’s known for weeks, until the last minute. As I said before, Anita Hill only came forward 2 days before the full vote before the Senate. Now that is last minute. Feinstein's decision respect the Professor Ford's wish for anonymity can be questioned, but her release of the information was promoted the press asking questions about it. There does not seem to be any evidence that her release of the documents was tactical. I also don't believe there is much merit to a last minute release anyways. I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. So when Republicans do it it's because the other side did something bad and obviously deserved it, but when the Democrats start to volley back it's them stooping to the R's level in an unacceptable way. This isn't at all what I said. What I said was that the D's can't call themselves better then the R's when they act the same as the R's. Who cares whether they can call themselves better? That doesn't put you in office to enact policy. The R's have shown us entirely too many times that all they give a shit about is winning their seat, and it's been working. They've started playing the game by new rules, and the Democrats have been losing because they didn't adapt. They've been getting stomped on. At this point, I care way more about Democrats doing what they have to do to balance out what the Republicans have been doing, than whether they can go to sleep at night telling themselves they're really better than the R's. So yes, you're making a point. No, I don't think it matters.
Ok if its not about being better then the other party my argument still stands beacuse its a dumb person who decides to play the same way their opponent has been playing and expect to be better then them at it. All that people like you are asking for is to codify what the republicans are doing as the new normal and have the democrats play by their rules. Its dumb beacuse the Republicans wrote those rules and understand them better.
|
On September 18 2018 04:20 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 04:06 Nebuchad wrote:On September 18 2018 03:55 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
As I said before, Anita Hill only came forward 2 days before the full vote before the Senate. Now that is last minute. Feinstein's decision respect the Professor Ford's wish for anonymity can be questioned, but her release of the information was promoted the press asking questions about it. There does not seem to be any evidence that her release of the documents was tactical. I also don't believe there is much merit to a last minute release anyways. I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. So when Republicans do it it's because the other side did something bad and obviously deserved it, but when the Democrats start to volley back it's them stooping to the R's level in an unacceptable way. This isn't at all what I said. What I said was that the D's can't call themselves better then the R's when they act the same as the R's. Politics is about winning, not about looking good, not about compromising. Republicans understand that and have for a while. Liberals... they're going to need some time to think about that. We can tell that there's a flaw with your analysis here because you're clearly the person here who cares the most about democrats appearing like they're better than republicans when it comes to politics as opposed to policy, and yet you're still an independant who has some conservative sides - and if I look back to our conversations, you are still ready to defend republicans when I criticize them too hard for your taste. If democrats can't even get to you when using your strategy, they probably should pick another strategy. No I'm just sick of winning all the time as a conservative for no good reason. You can't refine your message and make better policy when the same old song and dance keeps working over and over again. I can't talk much with racists and sexists much so I'm stuck with liberals and progressives for friends. I don't want to associate myself with the democrats because I see myself as a conservative but the republicans will never get better if the democrats keep rewarding themselves for being worse and worse. I mean being a conservative in Minnesota is hard. You hate Wisconsin beacuse they're a bunch of unorganized drunk hics but they have a more conservative government then you do.
I have more than a couple libertarian/conservative buddies in MA who feel your pain. They dislike the MA democrats, but also want nothing to do with the idiots trying to run as a Republican in this state. We have New Hampshire and Maine to the north, who everyone looks at as the shining example of what happens when you don’t collect any taxes for anything and elect garbage humans. And we have good old Charlie Baker, who one of the highest approval ratings of any governor in the country because doesn’t act like Washington conservatives.
|
On September 18 2018 04:22 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 04:11 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 03:55 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:On September 18 2018 02:04 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
As I said before, Anita Hill only came forward 2 days before the full vote before the Senate. Now that is last minute. Feinstein's decision respect the Professor Ford's wish for anonymity can be questioned, but her release of the information was promoted the press asking questions about it. There does not seem to be any evidence that her release of the documents was tactical. I also don't believe there is much merit to a last minute release anyways. I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. So when Republicans do it it's because the other side did something bad and obviously deserved it, but when the Democrats start to volley back it's them stooping to the R's level in an unacceptable way. This isn't at all what I said. What I said was that the D's can't call themselves better then the R's when they act the same as the R's. Who cares whether they can call themselves better? That doesn't put you in office to enact policy. The R's have shown us entirely too many times that all they give a shit about is winning their seat, and it's been working. They've started playing the game by new rules, and the Democrats have been losing because they didn't adapt. They've been getting stomped on. At this point, I care way more about Democrats doing what they have to do to balance out what the Republicans have been doing, than whether they can go to sleep at night telling themselves they're really better than the R's. So yes, you're making a point. No, I don't think it matters. Ok if its not about being better then the other party my argument still stands beacuse its a dumb person who decides to play the same way their opponent has been playing and expect to be better then them at it. All that people like you are asking for is to codify what the republicans are doing as the new normal and have the democrats play by their rules. Its dumb beacuse the Republicans wrote those rules and understand them better.
It's beyond codified into normal already. The Republicans have been doing it for too long. Their voters know the deal, and they keep turning out. The way Republicans are doing things isn't magically a problem because of the Democrats.
And no, they won't just start playing the game and be better than the Republicans at it. They're well practiced in the art of political warfare. But if the Democrats continue to do nothing differently, they're going to continue losing in spectacular fashion. Their virtue over the Republicans means nothing in that case. So yes, I want them to do something differently.
|
Besides it's not like if you start doing politics right, suddenly we can't tell the difference between the republicans and the democrats. Policies are still involved, and policies are what people should look at when it comes to choosing a party.
|
On September 18 2018 04:30 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 04:22 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 04:11 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 03:55 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:On September 18 2018 02:10 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I guess believe what you want about Feinstein. I find her decision to sit until last minute the very definition of planing to disrupt and delay. She’s a senior senator and knows the importance of sexual assault accusations, therefore is without excuse for concealing this from her committee partners ... while they had Kavanaugh in front of them in hearings asking him questions. Pick who you trust. These are weak rationalizations. What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection. Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. So when Republicans do it it's because the other side did something bad and obviously deserved it, but when the Democrats start to volley back it's them stooping to the R's level in an unacceptable way. This isn't at all what I said. What I said was that the D's can't call themselves better then the R's when they act the same as the R's. Who cares whether they can call themselves better? That doesn't put you in office to enact policy. The R's have shown us entirely too many times that all they give a shit about is winning their seat, and it's been working. They've started playing the game by new rules, and the Democrats have been losing because they didn't adapt. They've been getting stomped on. At this point, I care way more about Democrats doing what they have to do to balance out what the Republicans have been doing, than whether they can go to sleep at night telling themselves they're really better than the R's. So yes, you're making a point. No, I don't think it matters. Ok if its not about being better then the other party my argument still stands beacuse its a dumb person who decides to play the same way their opponent has been playing and expect to be better then them at it. All that people like you are asking for is to codify what the republicans are doing as the new normal and have the democrats play by their rules. Its dumb beacuse the Republicans wrote those rules and understand them better. It's beyond codified into normal already. The Republicans have been doing it for too long. Their voters know the deal, and they keep turning out. The way Republicans are doing things isn't magically a problem because of the Democrats. And no, they won't just start playing the game and be better than the Republicans at it. They're well practiced in the art of political warfare. But if the Democrats continue to do nothing differently, they're going to continue losing in spectacular fashion. Their virtue over the Republicans means nothing in that case. So yes, I want them to do something differently.
Doing something different doesn't mean blindly trying to do the same thing your opponent is doing. Obama was doing something different during his campaign that worked that wasn't what the republicans were doing before he abandoned it when he got into office. It was inspiring hope and bringing people together positively.
|
On September 18 2018 04:43 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2018 04:30 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 04:22 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 04:11 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 03:55 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:46 NewSunshine wrote:On September 18 2018 02:41 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:37 Ciaus_Dronu wrote:On September 18 2018 02:24 Sermokala wrote:On September 18 2018 02:13 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
What exactly is your point? That despite it having credibility, the timing was "disruptive"? Nice deflection.
Waiting on releasing the accusation until after questions were asked and almost to the very end of the process brings implications at the very least. In a world were everyone are good faith actors she would have brought it up during the hearing and when he was under oath. Now we're in a world were people just speculate and counter speculate about it. So again its comparative to what the republicans are doing but at the same time you can't say that you're better then the republicans when what you do is comparative to what the republicans are doing. There is literally no benefit to following rules your opponents consistently do not. The political process is cheapened anyway, why should that only come at the cost of those one party represents? Aside from the specifics here with Ford not wanting this out in the open, if Feinstein was playing tactics here, it's about time. From an outsiders perspective, the democrats are seriously mediocre party. But the republican party is like something out of a book of parody villains, every bit of their own medicine they taste might bring them a little closer to realising this isn't actually how they want the game to be played. Well no there is. You get to say at the end of the day that you're the better party in congress and that you are the most respectable politicians. Its called creating a difference between you and the other guy where you are better then them. Its the most basic political strategy. The democrats don't lose all the time because they refuse to do what republicans do. They lose beacuse they're filled with a culture of loseing. Republicans have been playing this game before the democrats decided to play it and thus have the advantage in it and will have the advantage as long as the democrats play it. You don't create advantages by following in the footsteps of your opponent. So when Republicans do it it's because the other side did something bad and obviously deserved it, but when the Democrats start to volley back it's them stooping to the R's level in an unacceptable way. This isn't at all what I said. What I said was that the D's can't call themselves better then the R's when they act the same as the R's. Who cares whether they can call themselves better? That doesn't put you in office to enact policy. The R's have shown us entirely too many times that all they give a shit about is winning their seat, and it's been working. They've started playing the game by new rules, and the Democrats have been losing because they didn't adapt. They've been getting stomped on. At this point, I care way more about Democrats doing what they have to do to balance out what the Republicans have been doing, than whether they can go to sleep at night telling themselves they're really better than the R's. So yes, you're making a point. No, I don't think it matters. Ok if its not about being better then the other party my argument still stands beacuse its a dumb person who decides to play the same way their opponent has been playing and expect to be better then them at it. All that people like you are asking for is to codify what the republicans are doing as the new normal and have the democrats play by their rules. Its dumb beacuse the Republicans wrote those rules and understand them better. It's beyond codified into normal already. The Republicans have been doing it for too long. Their voters know the deal, and they keep turning out. The way Republicans are doing things isn't magically a problem because of the Democrats. And no, they won't just start playing the game and be better than the Republicans at it. They're well practiced in the art of political warfare. But if the Democrats continue to do nothing differently, they're going to continue losing in spectacular fashion. Their virtue over the Republicans means nothing in that case. So yes, I want them to do something differently. Doing something different doesn't mean blindly trying to do the same thing your opponent is doing. Obama was doing something different during his campaign that worked that wasn't what the republicans were doing before he abandoned it when he got into office. It was inspiring hope and bringing people together positively.
As far as message, sure that's great. Hope is better than fear-mongering any day of the week in my book. Especially from a president who can form coherent thoughts. But in the day-to-day, Democrats can't just play nice with the Republicans. They abuse it unless they're kept in check, and nobody's been doing it. This is about the current state of affairs, wherein the Democrats have been little more than doormats for the Republicans. That's what needs to change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
