Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 182: Vesuvius of Mendacities

(+) Yeah! (+)

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

You honestly don't think this sentence is scary? Imagine if this was said about a race or religion. "Irredeemable" and "not America".... these are some strong words.

It wasn't said about those things though. In fact, had it been, it would have itself fallen into the category of "deplorable" it laid out. So, no, I don't think I need to indulge myself in such a paradoxical hypothetical.

The things she listed though? I'd say those are bad things.

I assume you're just as terrified of Republicans given all their talk about "Real America" as though all those living on the coasts or blue states are false or "less".

The blue states have plenty of resources to defend themselves, like most of the wealth in the country, almost all of the media, most of the universities, etc. It's true that their representatives in Congress are basically worthless because they are incompetent, but the rest of it - and our system of federalism in which states have a lot of power locally - protects them.

Am I afraid of what Republicans might do to minorities? Of course. And I'm not naive enough to think that I can't be affected just because I'm a US citizen. In the run of history, there's nothing particularly normal about the last 70 years. Stuff like the Korematsu decision is absolutely banal and can easily happen again. All the more reason why Hillary's statement was so bad.
---

"hillary's comment was scary and terrifying" is a reprehensibly dishonest argument to make in regards to the 2016 election campaigns
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

"hillary's comment was scary and terrifying" is a reprehensibly dishonest argument to make in regards to the 2016 election campaigns

She called 13% of Americans racist and/or homophobic, holy SHIT shes a monster!
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Imagine seriously debating red sox in 2018.

---

HashtagSEP posted...

You know what definitely doesn't help that perspective? When people who know better spread false information by saying dishonest things like "she called half the country deplorable"

The whole election was a big game of gotcha. Finding the one isolated quote that would get people upset, often reducing it to less of a sentence, and raging endlessly about it.

Like...if you talk to diehard Hillary supporters from the Dem primary, they'll often be really bitter about "Bernie called Hillary not qualified".

Yeah...so what actually happened was that first Hillary implied Bernie might not be qualified (which in and of itself is a little ridiculous he has what 40 years of experience). But she's smart and a lawyer, and did so without actually mentioning his name while making it obvious she was talking about him. And then Bernie, attempting to fire back, basically just gave his normal stump speech, but added in "not qualified if" to a bunch of his policy points. Here's the quote:

And she has been saying lately that she thinks that I am, quote unquote, not qualified to be president. Well let me, let me just say in response to Secretary Clinton: I don't believe that she is qualified if she is, if she is, through her super PAC, taking tens of millions of dollars in special interest funds. I don't think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.

I don't think you are qualified if you have voted for the disastrous war in Iraq. I don't think you are qualified if you've supported virtually every disastrous trade agreement, which has cost us millions of decent-paying jobs. I don't think you are qualified if you supported the Panama free trade agreement, something I very strongly opposed and which, as all of you know, has allowed corporations and wealthy people all over the world to avoid paying their taxes to their countries.

Which...in context this is clearly a disagreement over policy positions. Not over the amount of experience Hillary has.

Somehow this translated to lots of people on the internet suuuper mad thinking Sanders had called Clinton inexperienced.

On the whole I thin Hillary played a clever game of gotcha, where she baited him into using her language, and Sanders fell for the bait like a sucker. And this got spun into "Sanders said mean untrue things about Hillary". When the reality was "Hillary plays Sanders like a fiddle, baits him into using language that will make him look bad."

---

The whole deplorables thing feels pretty similar to me, where it somehow got boiled down to "she called us deplorables". (Again, focusing on a single word from the sentence and driving all the media spin around that word. Anyone remember how the actual phrase was "basket of deplorables"? Yeahh...somehow even the basket part got dropped; gotta condense those soundbites down to a single word.
---

red sox 777 posted...

She called half of Trump supporters deplorables. Trump received about half the votes. So she called about a quarter of the country deplorable.

she said she was "being grossly generalistic." the clear implication is "take this with a grain of salt, i'm not literally calling half of trump supporters deplorables."

man, where's lopen when you need him? whenever i "take something way too literally" he's always first in line to bash me into the ground.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

red sox 777 posted...

calling half the country deplorable

Oh so you're one of those

red sox 777 posted...

no shit he is

Peace___Frog posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Imagine seriously debating red sox in 2018.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Take the win if you have to! Better than the current GOP bootlickers. Im not denying youll be more popular!

You'd prefer ideological purity but no power to enact any reforms?

Id prefer actually supporting a party that has an ideology, yes.

I guess I respect that? But I still can't empathize.

Maybe that's the Machiavelli in me. Ends over everything.

So your ideology is winning? Why didnt you like Trump then?

No, I'm saying symbolic victories are meaningless. It's hard for me to see why a progressive like you would choose to ultimately move our country to the right instead of slowly inching left.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

man, where's lopen when you need him? whenever i "take something way too literally" he's always first in line to bash me into the ground.

Never have i ever thought that i needed a coward to chime into a conversation with evaluations that are informed by what he wants to be true
---

Because even slowly inching left made conservatives freak out to the point they brought in Trump to yank us back to the right.

I accept that if progressive policies cant be won democratically, then we need to stop letting moderates pull us to the right in a Sisyphean attempt to appeal to the masses.
---

There's a bit of a disconnect when people on one hand say "Stop being politically correct snowflakes!" and on the other hand say "Wahhh you called a bunch of people deplorable."
---

Dancedreamer posted...

There's a bit of a disconnect when people on one hand say "Stop being politically correct snowflakes!" and on the other hand say "Wahhh you called a bunch of people deplorable."

Republicans also use much worse language than deplorables to talk about illegal immigrants
---

So I checked out that "the left wing is unhinged" video.

The right wing reminds me of DW in that Arthur episode where DW smashes Arthur's plane and then Arthur barely touches her and she runs back in the house crying.

The right spends all their time trolling and voting out of pure spite and then when a few people on the left get pissed off and make jokes about political violence, the right runs back inside the house yelling "Mommy, the mean old left hit me!".
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Because even slowly inching left made conservatives freak out to the point they brought in Trump to yank us back to the right.

I accept that if progressive policies cant be won democratically, then we need to stop letting moderates pull us to the right in a Sisyphean attempt to appeal to the masses.

I dunno man, that's not what life's about. You can't always get exactly what you want, so sometimes you have to make concessions in order to prioritize the things you're most passionate about.
---

Dancedreamer posted...

There's a bit of a disconnect when people on one hand say "Stop being politically correct snowflakes!" and on the other hand say "Wahhh you called a bunch of people deplorable."

this can't be said enough. imagine literally voting for fucking donald j. trump just because you were so hurt by someone supposedly calling you "deplorable." people on the right act like the biggest snowflakes on the planet.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Take the win if you have to! Better than the current GOP bootlickers. Im not denying youll be more popular!

You'd prefer ideological purity but no power to enact any reforms?

Id prefer actually supporting a party that has an ideology, yes.

I guess I respect that? But I still can't empathize.

Maybe that's the Machiavelli in me. Ends over everything.

So your ideology is winning? Why didnt you like Trump then?

No, I'm saying symbolic victories are meaningless. It's hard for me to see why a progressive like you would choose to ultimately move our country to the right instead of slowly inching left.

Also look at it this way strategically:

The most important thing in this country right now is to end Trumpism. To put it down for good.

There are a lot of moderate Republicans who got their party hijacked by Trump, but they wont leave, because to them, Trump is still the lesser of two evils as compared to Bernie-style policies.

So, for the good of the world, and for our own good, I would love it if progressive Democrats broke off to ourselves, leaving the moderate Republicans more free to hook up with moderate Democrats to form a Moderate party. I think (modDems + modGOP) > (modDems + Progressives). I dont think Trumpism could beat a party that encompassed Kasich, Manchin, Romney, Kaine, Jeb!, Schumer, etc.

We progressives can still elect people locally in certain areas, and caucus with Moderate Party when appropriate. If thats what it takes to pull center-right people onto the overall anti-Trump bandwagon as part of a unified effort and not just an Ill write in John McCain wasted effort, its for the best.
---

We need a parliamentary system in this country to force compromise. If we had like six major parties:

A Nationalist party
A mainline Republican/Libertarian party (fiscally conservative, socially moderate/liberal)
A religious conservative party, possibly a populist religious conservative party (socially conservative, fiscally liberal)
A centrist party
A mainline Democratic/Liberal party
A Socialist/Green party

Then actual coalitions and factions would have to be formed and no one party would have control of the system.
---

Yes, totally agree
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I dunno man, that's not what life's about. You can't always get exactly what you want, so sometimes you have to make concessions in order to prioritize the things you're most passionate about.

We almost never get anything close to what we want though.

Even when we do, like gay marriage rights, you complained we didnt do it right.

Working with moderate Dems isnt getting us closer to UBI, to trans acceptance, to more open borders, to universal health care, etc.

So if were not getting closer to those things anyway, lets stop making concessions and proudly and loudly fight for what we TRULY want!
---

And reasonable people like Eddv think Ive gone off the deep end, which I probably have, so maybe this epiphany is temporary

Ocasio-Cortez just inspired me to not feel marginalized by openly fighting for socialism, and to demand we abolish ICE. No more walking on eggshells to appease Chuck Schumer
---

Jakyl25 posted...

And reasonable people like Eddv think Ive gone off the deep end, which I probably have, so maybe this epiphany is temporary

To be fair, and apologies if I'm wrong, I think Ed is actually pro-ICE, which may have been a factor in his response. I recall him getting annoyed a while back while ICE was being shit talked, but it's vague enough that I'm not certain.

Basically, I think you should go deeper. Like me!
---

Id consider myself a moderate Democrat (or a REAL conservative since Republicans are just alt-right regressives playing at populism), and while Im not going to bitch about progressive candidates getting nominated, I dont like this wave of yeah, progressives are winning primaries! sentiment like its the end goal of politics. Ive seen far too many articles that are like Democrats nominate first ever gay candidate for Texas mayor! which is fine, but until that nomination results in a win in the general election, I just dont think we should be celebrating. Maybe Im just cynical, but I keep thinking back to 2016 when the Berniecrat candidate lost by a greater margin than Hillary did, despite having even better polling results than her.
---

Colorados Dem nominee for GOVERNOR is openly gay, so that could be a big breakthrough.
---

Parliamentary system hasn't helped israel retain much of a democracy fwiw
---

Liberal and Conservative are meaningless terms in American politics. They are just used to mean left and right (or rather, right and really right) rather than having anything to do with actual conservative or liberal ideals.

The mainstream democrats (and the most moderate republicans) are basically actual conservatives. The "socialists" are usually actually liberals and at most social democrats. And the other republicans range from effectively radical liberals (mainly economically) to actual totalitarians and theocrats.
---

Peace___Frog posted...

Parliamentary system hasn't helped israel retain much of a democracy fwiw

Yeah but theyre ready for World War Z
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Colorados Dem nominee for GOVERNOR is openly gay, so that could be a big breakthrough.

Same in Texas fwiw, though I expect her to lose pretty handily even though I really despise Abott
---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1011869514408001537

The Best Deal
---

Jakyl25 posted...

I would love it if progressive Democrats broke off to ourselves, leaving the moderate Republicans more free to hook up with moderate Democrats to form a Moderate party. I think (modDems + modGOP) > (modDems + Progressives). I dont think Trumpism could beat a party that encompassed Kasich, Manchin, Romney, Kaine, Jeb!, Schumer, etc.

There's a cynical part of me that looks at that list and thinks "You can call them the global elite coalition."

Also, that's also kind of how Hillary ran her 2016 campaign; picked Kaine as her running mate, spent most of her time trying to court moderate Republicans. She and Kaine lost to Trump AND in the end there were more registered Democrats who voted for Trump than there were registered Republicans who voted for Hillary. Know who else lost to trump? Kasich. Jeb Exclamation Point. And Romney also denounced Trump during the campaign.

I'm not convinced the "out of touch establishment coalition that loves Wall Street" is the path to defeating Trump.
---

Then how do we beat him?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Then how do we beat him?

you wait until the US is tired of his bullshit.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Then how do we beat him?

Make sure you have a candidate that plans to visit Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Then how do we beat him?

you wait until the US is tired of his bullshit.

What Ill never understand is that a majority are tired of his bullshit on an intellectual level, but so many still dont care enough to vote

Still a thread of hope that 2016 was a wake up call to those people. We will find out in a few months!
---

metroid composite posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

I would love it if progressive Democrats broke off to ourselves, leaving the moderate Republicans more free to hook up with moderate Democrats to form a Moderate party. I think (modDems + modGOP) > (modDems + Progressives). I dont think Trumpism could beat a party that encompassed Kasich, Manchin, Romney, Kaine, Jeb!, Schumer, etc.

There's a cynical part of me that looks at that list and thinks "You can call them the global elite coalition."

Also, that's also kind of how Hillary ran her 2016 campaign; picked Kaine as her running mate, spent most of her time trying to court moderate Republicans. She and Kaine lost to Trump AND in the end there were more registered Democrats who voted for Trump than there were registered Republicans who voted for Hillary. Know who else lost to trump? Kasich. Jeb Exclamation Point. And Romney also denounced Trump during the campaign.

I'm not convinced the "out of touch establishment coalition that loves Wall Street" is the path to defeating Trump.

My position is pretty simple - you cant kick people out of your coalition because this is a first past the post system and 50% of americans cant agree on anything more controversial than statements like 'coke is better than pepsi'.

What gets me and other moderates pissed off is when you attack us for being the problem while the right is systematically robbing the public because the left can't get their heads out of their asses long enough to fucking vote them out. Im certainly not a global elite either and I dont think you have to be to want what is essentially just free trade and minimal market disruption except on cases of abuse by dishonest members of the market.

I would gladly govern with a House Freedom Caucus level of thorn in the side of the mainstream part Socialist Caucus if it meant having basic safeguards against our democracy being plundered, our foreign allies no longer being pissed at us and human rights abuses at the very least not an active goal of our government.

Its been a frustrating day to be moderate honestly.

Ive seen multiple people pulling the false equivalency shit with opposing some of what Ocasio wants on cost claiming I had no issue when trump did it and its like, yes yes I fucking did have a problem with it, go fuck yourselves for suggesting this isnt a reasonable position to actually hold.
---

Of course the right are snowflakes. That's why they coined the term.
---

Kennedy's retiring

RIP usa
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Working with moderate Dems isnt getting us closer to UBI, to trans acceptance, to more open borders, to universal health care, etc.

Do you not consider the ACA to be be progress towards universal health care?
---

The Mana Sword posted...

Kennedy's retiring

RIP usa

FUCK
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The Mana Sword posted...

Kennedy's retiring

RIP usa

FUCK

---

And for the umpteenth time, "Trump said worse" is not a good defense. Forget Trump and focus on bringing forward good ideas people want, with candidates with some tact, and you'll win.

If you absolutely cannot resist playing Trump's game, think about why he gets away with his attacks on people. They threaten a small percentage of US voters! Mostly, he attacks foreigners, who don't vote in US elections.
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Working with moderate Dems isnt getting us closer to UBI, to trans acceptance, to more open borders, to universal health care, etc.

Do you not consider the ACA to be be progress towards universal health care?

It's going backwards.
---

Here's hoping that Trump fucks up and nominates another Souter
---

Get ready for the media to begin fawning over 'moderate swing vote Roberts'
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

The Mana Sword posted...

Kennedy's retiring

RIP usa

FUCK

Elections. Fucking. Matter.
---

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1012037565925298176

This actually seems like poor strategy. Part of the reason McConnell's decision to block the last SCOTUS nominee was so devious was that in brought out republicans to vote who may have stayed home otherwise. "Oh jeez if we don't win guys we'll lose this seat wink wink." I feel like if they did the same thing here, it might swing several key senate seats.

Then again, the risk is that it implodes and they still don't do well in the elections. But I think even worse case scenario, Republicans have 51 senate seats and a bunch of moderate democrats that have shown willingness to work with Trump in the past. I don't see the benefit to rush to confirm here.
---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

red sox 777 posted...

She called half of Trump supporters deplorables. Trump received about half the votes. So she called about a quarter of the country deplorable.

she said she was "being grossly generalistic." the clear implication is "take this with a grain of salt, i'm not literally calling half of trump supporters deplorables."

man, where's lopen when you need him? whenever i "take something way too literally" he's always first in line to bash me into the ground.

You can't make language non-threatening simply by adding a disclaimer that you don't really mean what you say. I mean, your supporters will no doubt buy it 100%, just as millions of people insist that none of Trump's statements should instill any fear in minorities because he always includes disclaimers like "and some are good people."
---

Also, Jakyl, I think all of those things you mentioned are winning issues except for open borders. America is really against open borders. Run a candidate who campaigns on the other issues and you have a good shot of winning provided said candidate is not constantly undermined by moderate Democrats talking about how those things could never pass.
---

Suprak the Stud posted...

https://twitter.com/ABC/status/1012037565925298176

This actually seems like poor strategy. Part of the reason McConnell's decision to block the last SCOTUS nominee was so devious was that in brought out republicans to vote who may have stayed home otherwise. "Oh jeez if we don't win guys we'll lose this seat wink wink." I feel like if they did the same thing here, it might swing several key senate seats.

Then again, the risk is that it implodes and they still don't do well in the elections. But I think even worse case scenario, Republicans have 51 senate seats and a bunch of moderate democrats that have shown willingness to work with Trump in the past. I don't see the benefit to rush to confirm here.

If that group could get someone like Neil Gorsuch in then I imagine they don't need the senate elections. Republican Senators are still likely to remain the same or even gain and I feel they don't want to risk the advantage.
---

I think its so he can bandy about '2 republican justices appointed' as a republican accomplishment ahead of the election.
---

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/which-justices-were-bffs-this-scotus-term/

Interesting article in light of Kennedy's retirement.

Kennedy's percentage of similar opinions in this calendar years decisions with the other judges:
Roberts: 91%
Thomas: 83%
Alito: 82%
Gorsuch: 82%
Kagan: 72%
Breyer: 70%
Ginsburgh: 70%
Sotomayor: 66%

He is much more conservative this session, which could just be based on the cases they saw or it could have to do with him becoming more conservative over recent years.

Kennedy to Roberts as the swing is not as significant a change as I expected. Of course, the stolen seat of Garland to Gorsuch is what is really hurting. And if Ginsburgh dies, the Republicans may hold an iron tight majority for the remainder of our lives.

So yay.
---