Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Loud Whispers]

In other news, Elizabeth Warren alienates moderate supporters.
You really think it'd be a good idea to alienate your centrist supporters after your party just got stomped in an election? I guess this is where their conclusion led them though. "Hillary lost because she was too moderate." Not because of any other reason, but simply because she was too close to the middle.
There's room for far left views, there's room for moderate views, and there's room for conservative views. What there isn't room for is this pattern of "If you're not with us, you're against us and we don't need you." Even the two opposing parties in congress are starting to show the tinglings of realization that you can't simply ignore the other side. And yet here is Warren saying that she wants to ignore part of her own party... Not to mention if she IS going to run in 2020, she's insulting a large chunk of independent moderates that she'd need to sway too.
I used to like her a few years ago, but I guess it's true that if you give most people a microphone they'll give you a reason to take it away.

A Roman general was once asked by a consul why he thought invading Greece was a bad idea, at a time when the Greek city states were warring amongst themselves. He showed the consul a pack of dogs, throwing some meat between the dogs they fought amongst themselves. He then had someone bring a wolf in, at which point the dogs ceased infighting and became a whole pack once more.

In the UK the labour party became liberal in its efforts to appeal to centrists. Jeremy Corbyn took control as a marxist, supported by students and workers' unions, much to the chagrin of the party. Opinion polls showed that Corbyn was electoral poison, the liberal faction would not stand to suffer Corbyn's leadership and he offered few incentives or policies that appealed to centrists or the conservatives.
And then the election was called, and the people had to choose between the wolf or uniting the pack. And so they united the pack in time to score a symbolic victory, that though they were infighting they were united against their opponents nonetheless. If Warren takes control, I have no doubt that all the disgruntled liberals will choose Warren 2020 over Trump 2020, whatever they think of moving the party leftwards

*EDIT
And whatever the outcome, it would certainly do much to improve the image of integrity for the Democrat party's leaders to actually believe in the things they say

[Neonivek]

If anything the Democrats would do well to use the ball of hate stored in the ideological left. Which, honestly, if the election was called right now the democrat could win just by calling the Republicans a "hate group" that support Nazis. Just go on and on about how the Right are Nazis and that something should be done about them.

Moderates don't hate everyone enough. You can't spur them on as a hate group as easily as the Liberals and Conservatives.

[smjjames]

If anything the Democrats would do well to use the ball of hate stored in the ideological left. Which, honestly, if the election was called right now the democrat could win just by calling the Republicans a "hate group" that support Nazis. Just go on and on about how the Right are Nazis and that something should be done about them.

I don't think anybody wants the same sort of intensity and animosity between the two parties as we saw in the 2016 campaign. Doing that sort of thing seems like a rather bad idea.

[sluissa]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In other news, Elizabeth Warren alienates moderate supporters.
You really think it'd be a good idea to alienate your centrist supporters after your party just got stomped in an election? I guess this is where their conclusion led them though. "Hillary lost because she was too moderate." Not because of any other reason, but simply because she was too close to the middle.
There's room for far left views, there's room for moderate views, and there's room for conservative views. What there isn't room for is this pattern of "If you're not with us, you're against us and we don't need you." Even the two opposing parties in congress are starting to show the tinglings of realization that you can't simply ignore the other side. And yet here is Warren saying that she wants to ignore part of her own party... Not to mention if she IS going to run in 2020, she's insulting a large chunk of independent moderates that she'd need to sway too.
I used to like her a few years ago, but I guess it's true that if you give most people a microphone they'll give you a reason to take it away.

A Roman general was once asked by a consul why he thought invading Greece was a bad idea, at a time when the Greek city states were warring amongst themselves. He showed the consul a pack of dogs, throwing some meat between the dogs they fought amongst themselves. He then had someone bring a wolf in, at which point the dogs ceased infighting and became a whole pack once more.

In the UK the labour party became liberal in its efforts to appeal to centrists. Jeremy Corbyn took control as a marxist, supported by students and workers' unions, much to the chagrin of the party. Opinion polls showed that Corbyn was electoral poison, the liberal faction would not stand to suffer Corbyn's leadership and he offered few incentives or policies that appealed to centrists or the conservatives.
And then the election was called, and the people had to choose between the wolf or uniting the pack. And so they united the pack in time to score a symbolic victory, that though they were infighting they were united against their opponents nonetheless. If Warren takes control, I have no doubt that all the disgruntled liberals will choose Warren 2020 over Trump 2020, whatever they think of moving the party leftwards

*EDIT
And whatever the outcome, it would certainly do much to improve the image of integrity for the Democrat party's leaders to actually believe in the things they say

I think you give too much credit to the US electorate. For the individual voter it's not a battle where you either form ranks or die. You can easily not participate if you can't get fired up enough for one candidate or another or you don't feel the stakes are big enough, or the battle feels already won. AS WE HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF TIMES... Even in the UK with regards to the Brexit vote.

I feel like Corbyn's "success" is only due to how recent the bad feelings from the Brexit vote were and May's complete out of touch-ness with the current political climate. And it STILL didn't win them the battle it just resulted in the conservatives having to pay off "mercenaries" to shore up their ranks.

Give Trump 3 more years (I still don't think he'll last that long, but let's just assume a Warren vs Trump 2020 election for this argument.) 3 years is a lot of time to get used to Trump's craziness. A lot of time for Trump to mellow out. A lot of time for people to simply get bored and burn out of political activism. We've just come off of a record long electoral season (nearly 2 years from announcement to election day) and the politics hasn't died down much since then. It might sustain itself, but odds are things will wear down and if there's no "rest" period when 2020 rolls around the armies will be tired and when non-participation is an option, many will take it.

If anything the Democrats would do well to use the ball of hate stored in the ideological left. Which, honestly, if the election was called right now the democrat could win just by calling the Republicans a "hate group" that support Nazis. Just go on and on about how the Right are Nazis and that something should be done about them.

Moderates don't hate everyone enough. You can't spur them on as a hate group as easily as the Liberals and Conservatives.

I'm not saying they can't USE the extremists. You need the people willing to get out on the street and march and volunteer and plant signs and attend rallies, and man call centers and do the vital but generally mundane drudge work of a campaign. Your average moderate party member won't be doing that. But if you pander to your closest allies you will lose the masses. No matter how much any one individual does for you, they're still only one vote.

You're right. The democrats could probably win RIGHT NOW... but the election isn't happening RIGHT NOW. Mid terms are over a year away. Presidential is 3 years. That's a long time in the 24hr news cycle politics world.

[smjjames]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

In other news, Elizabeth Warren alienates moderate supporters.
You really think it'd be a good idea to alienate your centrist supporters after your party just got stomped in an election? I guess this is where their conclusion led them though. "Hillary lost because she was too moderate." Not because of any other reason, but simply because she was too close to the middle.
There's room for far left views, there's room for moderate views, and there's room for conservative views. What there isn't room for is this pattern of "If you're not with us, you're against us and we don't need you." Even the two opposing parties in congress are starting to show the tinglings of realization that you can't simply ignore the other side. And yet here is Warren saying that she wants to ignore part of her own party... Not to mention if she IS going to run in 2020, she's insulting a large chunk of independent moderates that she'd need to sway too.
I used to like her a few years ago, but I guess it's true that if you give most people a microphone they'll give you a reason to take it away.

A Roman general was once asked by a consul why he thought invading Greece was a bad idea, at a time when the Greek city states were warring amongst themselves. He showed the consul a pack of dogs, throwing some meat between the dogs they fought amongst themselves. He then had someone bring a wolf in, at which point the dogs ceased infighting and became a whole pack once more.

In the UK the labour party became liberal in its efforts to appeal to centrists. Jeremy Corbyn took control as a marxist, supported by students and workers' unions, much to the chagrin of the party. Opinion polls showed that Corbyn was electoral poison, the liberal faction would not stand to suffer Corbyn's leadership and he offered few incentives or policies that appealed to centrists or the conservatives.
And then the election was called, and the people had to choose between the wolf or uniting the pack. And so they united the pack in time to score a symbolic victory, that though they were infighting they were united against their opponents nonetheless. If Warren takes control, I have no doubt that all the disgruntled liberals will choose Warren 2020 over Trump 2020, whatever they think of moving the party leftwards

*EDIT
And whatever the outcome, it would certainly do much to improve the image of integrity for the Democrat party's leaders to actually believe in the things they say

I think you give too much credit to the US electorate. For the individual voter it's not a battle where you either form ranks or die. You can easily not participate if you can't get fired up enough for one candidate or another or you don't feel the stakes are big enough, or the battle feels already won. AS WE HAVE SEEN A NUMBER OF TIMES... Even in the UK with regards to the Brexit vote.

I feel like Corbyn's "success" is only due to how recent the bad feelings from the Brexit vote were and May's complete out of touch-ness with the current political climate. And it STILL didn't win them the battle it just resulted in the conservatives having to pay off "mercenaries" to shore up their ranks.

Give Trump 3 more years (I still don't think he'll last that long, but let's just assume a Warren vs Trump 2020 election for this argument.) 3 years is a lot of time to get used to Trump's craziness. A lot of time for Trump to mellow out. A lot of time for people to simply get bored and burn out of political activism. We've just come off of a record long electoral season (nearly 2 years from announcement to election day) and the politics hasn't died down much since then. It might sustain itself, but odds are things will wear down and if there's no "rest" period when 2020 rolls around the armies will be tired and when non-participation is an option, many will take it.

So, since Trump stayed stuck in campaign mode and started his 2020 campaign almost right away, does that mean his supporters will be burnt out long before the 2020 election?

If anything the Democrats would do well to use the ball of hate stored in the ideological left. Which, honestly, if the election was called right now the democrat could win just by calling the Republicans a "hate group" that support Nazis. Just go on and on about how the Right are Nazis and that something should be done about them.

Moderates don't hate everyone enough. You can't spur them on as a hate group as easily as the Liberals and Conservatives.

I'm not saying they can't USE the extremists. You need the people willing to get out on the street and march and volunteer and plant signs and attend rallies, and man call centers and do the vital but generally mundane drudge work of a campaign. Your average moderate party member won't be doing that. But if you pander to your closest allies you will lose the masses. No matter how much any one individual does for you, they're still only one vote.

You're right. The democrats could probably win RIGHT NOW... but the election isn't happening RIGHT NOW. Mid terms are over a year away. Presidential is 3 years. That's a long time in the 24hr news cycle politics world.

Depends on which extremists you're talking about here.

Anyway, I wonder how Trump would respond to the aftermath of a particularily nasty hurricane? After all, hurricane (and other natural disaster) response is the most politically neutral as you can possibly get. Even the most seasoned politians can botch up a response to a hurricane, though George W. Bush tried to make amends.

[Neonivek]

Fine I'll delete me stuff SMJJAMES below me.

My frustration around finding out the Left are ordinary people... isn't too important.

[smjjames]

Neo, I was responding to sluissa about 'doesn't mean that they can't USE the extremists'. Or maybe you did get who I was responding to, not sure.

[sluissa]

Neo, I was responding to sluissa about 'doesn't mean that they can't USE the extremists'. Or maybe you did get who I was responding to, not sure.

Extremist might not have been the right word to use there. Passionate party members, maybe more accurate, people with strong opinions, perhaps. But certainly if you can funnel the energy of the people who'd be out starting fights and use them instead to do more peaceful political activities, that's certainly a win for everyone involved.

I do, however, think that Trump's more moderate supporters are getting burnt out. It's clear not only in people around me that used to defend Trump but now are more silent on the issues, but also in the media as well. Fox news has backed off from "100% Trump support" to a more generalized conservative line that's giving Congressional leaders more support. Trump still has backers, and still will have backers for as long as he's a political object. But I think he's losing the "masses" he'd need to win. This is true of both sides, however. There's fatigue all around and it's far too early to tell what the climate is going to look like in a year or 3.

[RedKing]

In other news, Elizabeth Warren alienates moderate supporters.

You really think it'd be a good idea to alienate your centrist supporters after your party just got stomped in an election? I guess this is where their conclusion led them though. "Hillary lost because she was too moderate." Not because of any other reason, but simply because she was too close to the middle.

There's room for far left views, there's room for moderate views, and there's room for conservative views. What there isn't room for is this pattern of "If you're not with us, you're against us and we don't need you." Even the two opposing parties in congress are starting to show the tinglings of realization that you can't simply ignore the other side. And yet here is Warren saying that she wants to ignore part of her own party... Not to mention if she IS going to run in 2020, she's insulting a large chunk of independent moderates that she'd need to sway too.

I used to like her a few years ago, but I guess it's true that if you give most people a microphone they'll give you a reason to take it away.

Show me where Democratic centrists/moderates ever gave a fuck about alienating progressives. Goes both ways.

[smjjames]

Neo, I was responding to sluissa about 'doesn't mean that they can't USE the extremists'. Or maybe you did get who I was responding to, not sure.

Extremist might not have been the right word to use there. Passionate party members, maybe more accurate, people with strong opinions, perhaps. But certainly if you can funnel the energy of the people who'd be out starting fights and use them instead to do more peaceful political activities, that's certainly a win for everyone involved.

I do, however, think that Trump's more moderate supporters are getting burnt out. It's clear not only in people around me that used to defend Trump but now are more silent on the issues, but also in the media as well. Fox news has backed off from "100% Trump support" to a more generalized conservative line that's giving Congressional leaders more support. Trump still has backers, and still will have backers for as long as he's a political object. But I think he's losing the "masses" he'd need to win. This is true of both sides, however. There's fatigue all around and it's far too early to tell what the climate is going to look like in a year or 3.

Yeah, there's so much that can change in a year, which is almost an eternity in politics and world events these days, let alone three years. We're only 7 months into the first year of his tenure.

[Playergamer]

Considering that the 'OP' tweet has since been deleted, and the lack of corroborating evidence, I think this can safely be chalked up to more right-wing nonsense.

Oh, and Playergamer? Drop the fucking faux tears for the poor, neglected Confederate dead. I don't know which part of the country you hail from, but I'm a Southerner descended of a Confederate POW who died in a Union prison camp outside of Philadelphia. I probably lost more Confederate relatives in the war than you can even name.
And yet, you don't see me throwing a fuss.

This statue was right down the road from me, figuratively speaking. It very well could be considered as memorializing my specific ancestors, as NC Confederate dead.
And yet, you don't see me shedding a tear at it being brought down.

When I was younger, I used to try and make the arguments that the Confederacy wasn't all bad, that my ancestors weren't bad (after all, they didn't own slaves). And I still think they weren't all bad. But the symbols, the images, the very concept of the Confederacy has been irreparably fouled by the racist, ignorant fucks that wrap themselves in it.

You want to do something to memorialize Confederate dead? Beat the living fuck out of the next guy you see screaming about n----rs and s--cs and k--es while sporting a Confederate flag. Because those are the people that are putting the legacy of those soldiers in the mud, not the people bringing down statues.

Shut the fuck up. My family's from Virginia. I can list by name my ancestors who died in the civil war, their relatives who died in the civil war, which battle they died at, and where they're buried. If you want me to drop the "faux tears," you should drop the high and mighty liberal shit. Of course I don't approve of racists waving confederate flags, but at least they're not giving war memorials the Saddam treatment.

Maybe you're not shedding a tear because you care more about self-flagellating for other people's racism than you do about your own goddamn history.

[RedKing]

Fine, so you've got some skin in the game too. Do you agree with the last part of what I said? Because if not, we've got nothing further to discuss.

Removing a memorial doesn't taint their legacy. Running around acting like a giant douchebag while sporting Confederate regalia does. Proudly displaying those symbols right next to Nazi symbols does.

EDIT: I don't need a statue to know my family's history. And I think your true colors are starting to peek through, bro.

[Playergamer]

Fine, so you've got some skin in the game too. Do you agree with the last part of what I said? Because if not, we've got nothing further to discuss.

Removing a memorial doesn't taint their legacy. Running around acting like a giant douchebag while sporting Confederate regalia does. Proudly displaying those symbols right next to Nazi symbols does.

Yeah, I agree with that, although I still sort of think that pulling down statues in an angry mob does taint their legacy. Sorry if I was a bit hostile with that post; I just woke up after a bad night, and I was feeling a little pissed.

[smjjames]

Given the extent and numbers of the fighting, most people in the US who have ancestors who were around back then, have at least one ancestor who fought in the war. Heck, even Californians got involved.

I know theres at least one ancestor on my moms side who fought in the civil war as I saw a photograph of an ancestor who did fight in it. I don't know which side they were on.

Point is that ALL of us had at least one ancestor who had some sort of role in it, so lets freaking stop fighting each other over it.

[Helgoland]

Shut the fuck up. My family's from Virginia. I can list by name my ancestors who died in the civil war, their relatives who died in the civil war, which battle they died at, and where they're buried. If you want me to drop the "faux tears," you should drop the high and mighty liberal shit. Of course I don't approve of racists waving confederate flags, but at least they're not giving war memorials the Saddam treatment.

Maybe you're not shedding a tear because you care more about self-flagellating for other people's racism than you do about your own goddamn history.

Wait, so it's okay now for me to claim the Wehrmacht wasn't all that bad, because one of my grandfathers spent the war dropping bombs on Russian cities, and another one spent quite a bit of time in a special unit* that didn't exactly fight clean? Should I maybe put up a Göring statue in my front yard?

I'll go one step further than RedKing: Fuck your tears, whatever their origin. The confederates were literally worse than Saddam, so it's only good and proper to give them the Saddam treatment - regardless of whether the crotch to which you trace your lineage belonged to a slave owner or just a fellow doing the dirty work for them. Fuck heritage, fuck ancestry, fuck honoring the dead, if it means developing selective moral blindness and not acknowledging what happened in the past. Just like we make mistakes and own up to them, we should accept that our ancestors made mistakes - and even if they did not own up to them, we at least are still alive to do just that.

Why is it important to remember them as Confederate soldiers, as opposed to remembering them as your forebears?




*The Brandenburger, in case anyone cares. He claimed he never shot anyone, but he did have stories about using Soviet uniforms and conducting counter-partisan operations, with one soldier every ten meters forming a line and advancing through the woods... And there were things he did not talk about, ever.