Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 182: Vesuvius of Mendacities

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

Yo Moderate Democrats and Never-Trumpers

Yall go ahead and start your own third party together. Pearl Clutchers Party.

Leave us progressive democratic socialists to fight the nationalists.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ElectoralCollege1972.svg
---

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

The United States electorate is not progressive. Heed my good-natured warning: moving left will utterly decimate the Democratic party.

You all would be wise to start courting Bloomberg imo.
---

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?
---

Got it, so the right answer is move further left and ignore Bloomberg.

Glad you're here to make it easy.
---

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.
---

You don't have to be super left or right to have an ideology
---

LordoftheMorons posted...

You don't have to be super left or right to have an ideology

Correct

But the Democrats, as an establishment, dont have one.
---

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.
---

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?
---

This just in: Crowley was primaried because he was too mean to Trump
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1011795883925663744
---

#AbolishICE

Ocasio-Cortez has me PUMPED in a way I havent felt in a long time, as small as the victory is.
---

https://twitter.com/onlxn/status/1011804065104138240?s=21

not the nights best news but definitely the funniest: a white supremacist said Paul Ryan was too much of a pussy to talk shit about him and he was 100% right

---

https://twitter.com/dauragon/status/1011790300845608960?s=21

*Undertaker Throat Cut Motion at Chuck Schumer*

---

Jakyl25 posted...

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

jesus christ americans
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

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

I have a feeling you've never read any of his stuff. There's quite a bit more nuance.
---

CelesMyUserName posted...

jesus christ americans

Thats Mormonism. Speaking of, Romney easily won his primary tonight.

Nate Silver pointed out that Utah is the one red state where criticism of Trump still plays to the GOP voters.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Yo Moderate Democrats and Never-Trumpers

Yall go ahead and start your own third party together. Pearl Clutchers Party.

Leave us progressive democratic socialists to fight the nationalists.

Get rid of progressives too and I think you'll have a winner. I agree that moderate Democrats (of the Wall Street wing, not those like Joe Manchin) and never Trumpers are dead weight.

I want a full throated denunciation of Hillary Clinton from a candidate at a Dem debate. The way Trump attacked George W. Bush. If I believe it's truly sincere, I'll consider voting for a Democrat.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I want a full throated denunciation of Hillary Clinton from a candidate at a Dem debate.

On what basis?

red sox 777 posted...

If I believe it's truly sincere, I'll consider voting for a Democrat.

I have a difficult time imagining an answer to the above that leads me to think you would in anyway be a realistic voter for the Democratic party.
---

Voting for the war in Iraq, voting for the Patriot Act, encouraging zero tolerance/tough on crime laws, NAFTA, supporting Obamacare, giving speeches to Wall Street banks for $200,000+ per speech, insider trading of cattle futures, support for TPP, having no positive achievements in decades in public service, calling half the country deplorable, receiving debate questions from the media before the debate, colluding with the DNC to favor her over Bernie, changing her position on any issue where the public changes its opinion, lying, refusing to take responsibility for any mistakes ever, the list goes on and on and on.
---

red sox 777 posted...

calling half the country deplorable

Oh so you're one of those
---

Like half of those are false and most of the rest aren't even bad
---

You really want to push people out of the tent?

Really?

Jakyl you really dont get it.

Realize that super progressive socialist policies are the perogative of rich white people and that a Democratic party without the support of moderates (a group which includes MOST hispanics and african americans by the way) would make McGovern look like Clinton. Bill Clinton.
---

Eddv posted...

You really want to push people out of the tent?

I don't think this case really represents that.

Apparently Crowley refused to debate Cortez. If you want to run/hold the seat you should probably be willing to hold that debate. Sounds like Cortez better represents the district anyway.

I didn't take Jakyl as being serious when saying the moderate wing of the Democratic party should separate itself. Just excited about the outcome of this race. If he was serious, then yeah, I disagree - that's not a good idea, particularly at this moment where it's kind of a "all hands on deck" thing.
---

I have a difficult time imagining an answer to the above that leads me to think you would in anyway be a realistic voter for the Democratic party.

I've voted for Democrats in 2 out of 3 presidential elections. 1 out of 2 if you toss out the protest vote from 2016. I think (speaking generally here) the failure to imagine how people who aren't progressive might vote Democrat is a huge problem, and what leads to nonsense statements like that famous deplorables comment.

It feels like the only reason some people can think of why someone who leans conservative would vote Democrat is they don't like Trump. That's a total failure of imagination.
---

red sox 777 posted...

and what leads to nonsense statements like that famous deplorables comment.

History has vindicated Clinton on that comment IMO. Really, if anything, the mistake she made there was backing down from it and trying to apologize.

red sox 777 posted...

I think (speaking generally here) the failure to imagine how people who aren't progressive might vote Democrat is a huge problem

No, I can. It's just what you're advocating doesn't seem to reflect my view of it. Unfortunately I think previous discussions have shown we're at an impasse. I think my view will prevail with the midterm results but nothing we can really do but wait for that.
---

Once she made it she shouldn't have apologized but she shouldn't have made it in the first place. And she lost the election - not sure how history could vindicate her?

And yeah, I guess we'll see what the next couple elections bring.
---

I mean she was right
---

red sox 777 posted...

And she lost the election - not sure how history could vindicate her?

Things like the Charlottesville rally and the current internment camps at the border and the support for it?

Hell, Clinton straight up said she didn't want to see children separated from their parents re: immigration at one of the Presidential Debates. There's more to history than election results. A lot of terrible and atrocious people and activities have been approved by elections.
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

And she lost the election - not sure how history could vindicate her?

Things like the Charlottesville rally and the current internment camps at the border and the support for it?

Hell, Clinton straight up said she didn't want to see children separated from their parents re: immigration at one of the Presidential Debates. There's more to history than election results. A lot of terrible and atrocious people and activities have been approved by elections.

None of these things needed to have happened and probably, none of them would have happened if she had won the election. I have no doubt that the majority of people are capable of doing awful things if those things are approved by authority. I think the Milgram experiment demonstrated that pretty well. So, if the claim is that people are deplorable because of that - I think it's a lot more than half of Trump supporters who are deplorable. If the claim is that there's something special about Trump supporters or one-half of them, I disagree strongly.
---

I would compare it to this. You want to get someone to do something. You can try to convince them nicely, or you can try to coerce them by pointing a gun at them. If you try to persuade with words, you might succeed, you might not. If you threaten them with a gun, you certainly won't persuade them, but you might get them to do what you want anyway. Unless they are sitting in a tank, in which case not only will they not do what you want, but they might fire on you in self-defense.

If you decide to take the awful step of using coercion - because you are sure your cause is right - then make absolutely certain you will win the war. Because you will bring the worst of all possible situations on yourself if you lose.
---

red sox, do you actually believe she called "half of the country" deplorables
---

currently, 27% of the country is a registered republican.

At the absolute worst she was calling 13.5% of americans deplorable.
---

Eddv posted...

currently, 27% of the country is a registered republican.

At the absolute worst she was calling 13.5% of americans deplorable.

That sounds about right.

What's worse, she was specific in qualifying it right after she said it

We are living in a volatile political environment. You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

Like, the people that went around going "guess I'm a deplorable!" are either mentally unable to comprehend, or refused to listen to anything beyond the snippet on right wing news.
---

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

Actually, calling a minority deplorable is much worse than calling a majority deplorable. Majorities won't feel threatened because they can stick up for themselves. Minorities can't, unless they can find some others to band together with.
---

red sox 777 posted...

I would compare it to this.

I wouldn't.

Her point wasn't complicated and it is almost impossible for me to believe that you believe what you're saying here. She was not using coercion.

She was making the claim that a subset of Trump supporters held views she found abhorrent and called that subset "deplorable." She went on to say that this subset was not a group that was persuadable because there were irreconcilable differences in worldview between them and her. It was the rest of the group that could perhaps be persuadable.

Naturally, of course, the group of people who use "snowflake" and "political correctness" unironically threw a tantrum at this and distorted her message as they always do and the press, weak-willed as it is, went along with it.

You can argue that this was a political mis-step on Clinton's part, certainly her backpedaling on it made it one. However that is not the lens in which I am saying she has been vindicated in. I'm saying she has been shown to be correct on the substance of what she said. Honestly, I don't even think you disagree - rather I think you'll contest my view of what she claimed or otherwise perpetuate the distortion of what she said or sidestep entirely because you seem to care more about the political outcome rather than the substantive one - ironic for someone who named "lying" as a fault he took with her. I would cite the support for some of the most abhorrent policies Trump has enacted as evidence to support the substance of what Clinton said.

red sox 777 posted...

None of these things needed to have happened and probably, none of them would have happened if she had won the election. I have no doubt that the majority of people are capable of doing awful things if those things are approved by authority.

Except we were told what the consequences of our actions would be. Voters didn't go along with authority, they heard what their decision was and voted that choice into authority. Granted, not a plurality of voters. But enough voters in a distorted subset of American voters to decide the election.

None of this was a surprise. The decision was clear.
---

Yeah, man. Those poor racists and homophobics can't stick up for themselves about being called deplorable
---

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.

Actually, calling a minority deplorable is much worse than calling a majority deplorable. Majorities won't feel threatened because they can stick up for themselves. Minorities can't, unless they can find some others to band together with.

they're all white purple so I think they'll be fine as part of an actually meaningful majority
---

I wouldn't.

Her point wasn't complicated and it is almost impossible for me to believe that you believe what you're saying here. She was not using coercion.

She was making the claim that a subset of Trump supporters held views she found abhorrent and called that subset "deplorable." She went on to say that this subset was not a group that was persuadable because there were irreconcilable differences in worldview between them and her. It was the rest of the group that could perhaps be persuadable.

Naturally, of course, the group of people who use "snowflake" and "political correctness" unironically threw a tantrum at this and distorted her message as they always do and the press, weak-willed as it is, went along with it.

You can argue that this was a political mis-step on Clinton's part, certainly her backpedaling on it made it one. However that is not the lens in which I am saying she has been vindicated in. I'm saying she has been shown to be correct on the substance of what she said. Honestly, I don't even think you disagree - rather I think you'll contest my view of what she claimed or otherwise perpetuate the distortion of what she said or sidestep entirely because you seem to care more about the political outcome rather than the substantive one - ironic for someone who named "lying" as a fault he took with her. I would cite the support for some of the most abhorrent policies Trump has enacted as evidence to support the substance of what Clinton said.

Think about it from the perspective of a Trump supporter who hears it, not Clinton. Someone who has said some politically incorrect things before, not out of any malice, but just a lack of awareness or carelessness, and been attacked for it, or is friends with people who have done that. How would you feel, knowing that people have literally lost their careers over this? It really sounds like Clinton is calling for open season on people she deems deplorable - like if she wins she will institute open discrimination against "deplorables." She even did the classic thing people who discriminate do of reducing people - human beings - to a single characteristic and condemning them for it.

It absolutely makes sense that you would feel threatened. And don't say that you'll feel fine if you yourself aren't a racist, sexist, etc. Clinton just said half of Trump supporters were those things. That means that if there aren't actually that many racists out there, they'll still find more of them among people like you. And who knows, why would she stop there? Why not condemn 100% of people who oppose her? It's just a hop and skip down the slippery slope.

So what's the message? Vote for me, and I won't condemn you for being deplorable. I won't take away your job, your reputation, everything you hold dear.

And what's the answer any proud person must give to such a threat when it appears that the person giving the threat is not invincible? No, no, a thousand times no.

If you honestly can't see things from this perspective, I think you are very out of touch with a large segment of America. And that's not their fault.
---

It's like Robespierre giving a speech to the National Convention talking about a conspiracy against him, without naming the conspirators. Everyone was afraid he meant them, and they formed an actual conspiracy to get rid of him before he could get rid of them.
---

red sox 777 posted...

If you honestly can't see things from this perspective, I think you are very out of touch with a large segment of America. And that's not their fault.

If they jump immediately into that slippery slope you just provided, then yes, that is their fault and speaks to a persecution complex.

To jump to a slightly different, but not entirely unrelated topic, let's take race. When people talk about white privilege or "white people have done [negative thing]" and such. I can understand the knee-jerk reaction of thinking/saying, "Wait a second! I don't think/believe/do [thing]! That's wrong!" I can absolutely understand how someone could take such statements and immediately personalize it and view it as a personal attack on them. I can get that.

But I don't think it should be too much to ask to look past that kind of initial reaction and realize the one making it about you is you. And to look at the statement as it was actually presented and analyze/think about it/discuss it instead of entrenching into some siege mentality forever.

To have that initial reaction, sure, I can understand that. I can relate to it even because it can be hard sometimes to not try and defend yourself when you feel you're being lumped into a group and criticized or blamed when you feel that doesn't reflect you as an individual.

But if you elect to stay there and have that reaction cease being a reaction and instead become a mentality? Nope. Sorry. That is on you. I can understand intellectually how you got there but that doesn't mean I think it's right or rational.
---

Great ruling on a day with several terrible ones:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/politics/federal-court-order-family-separations/index.html
---

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"
---

xp1337 posted...

red sox 777 posted...

If you honestly can't see things from this perspective, I think you are very out of touch with a large segment of America. And that's not their fault.

If they jump immediately into that slippery slope you just provided, then yes, that is their fault and speaks to a persecution complex.

To jump to a slightly different, but not entirely unrelated topic, let's take race. When people talk about "white privilege" or "white people have done [negative thing]" and such. I can understand the knee-jerk reaction of thinking/saying, "Wait a second! I don't think/believe/do [thing]! That's wrong!" I can absolutely understand how someone could take such statements and immediately personalize it and view it as a personal attack on them. I can get that.

But I don't think it should be too much to ask to look past that kind of initial reaction and realize the one making it about you is you. And to look at the statement as it was actually presented and analyze/think about it/discuss it instead of entrenching into some siege mentality forever.

To have that initial reaction, sure, I can understand that. I can relate to it even because it can be hard sometimes to not try and defend yourself when you feel you're being lumped into a group and criticized or blamed when you feel that doesn't reflect you as an individual.

But if you elect to stay there and have that reaction cease being a reaction and instead become a mentality? Nope. Sorry. That is on you. I can understand intellectually how you got there but that doesn't mean I think it's right or rational.

There absolutely is a persecution complex. Among Christians, because Christianity was born out of persecution and teaches that persecution is normal and to be expected. I think there's a lot of existential doubt that a lot of Christians in majority-Christian countries suffer, actually, where they wonder if the lack of persecution they are facing means they aren't properly following God.

Among people who live in rural areas, there is a persecution complex based on government seeming to favor urban areas. You can see the draining of jobs and people to urban areas, and when politicians propose infrastructure that exclusively helps urban areas like most public transportation - it registers as persecution. Because it is, at least, discrimination.

As for Hillary's statement though - I just read it again since you posted it - that is pretty terrifying in itself. I won't blame anyone for being scared by that statement. This is very different from a statement that white people enjoy privilege in this country or in this world. This is more akin to Trump's statements about large groups of people. Only, with even less Democrats condemning it than Republicans who condemned Trump's statements before the election.
---

It's like those billboards conservatives put up in poor minority neighborhoods, stating that voter fraud is a felony punishable by years in prison. It absolutely is intimidating, it's not a defense to say that innocent people need not fear prosecution.
---

red sox 777 posted...

Among people who live in rural areas, there is a persecution complex based on government seeming to favor urban areas.

Which is ridiculous because the actual government as constituted actually favors rural areas by giving them undue influence

red sox 777 posted...

As for Hillary's statement though - I just read it again since you posted it - that is pretty terrifying in itself. I won't blame anyone for being scared by that statement.

i didn't post it

And if you truly, honestly believe her statement is terrifying then I just don't know how this discussion can continue.
---

Imagine seriously debating red sox in 2018.
---

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.
---

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".
---