U.S. Politics: A Request to Address the Cleft on the Left

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

Drunk American Gets Punched in the Head then Cited for Nazi Salute in German Bar...

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/08/13/world/american-man-nazi-salute-germany-trnd/index.html

 

 

/Heh. 

[Shryke]

17 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

But the activist base is desperate to do what it takes to get rid of Trump. Which means nominating a centrist for the Dems backs them into a corner and pretty much forces them to vote for him/her. At this stage (which might change in 3 years) I would think the Left wing of the Democratic party would vote for a warmed up corpse Democrat over a charismatic Green. But the independent left may well be happy to see the whole edifice crumble with 4 more years of Trump.

What nominating a centrist who's name isn't Clinton does is give centre-right independents and Republicans a safe harbour, they can vote to keep a Republican congress but take the Whitehouse keys out of Trump's hands by voting for an ideologically acceptable Democrat. What they won't do is vote for a Democratic candidate that is solidly left.

It hasn't even been a year since the 2016 election. I would hope we have not forgotten it already.

A large enough portion of the Democratic base wasn't gonna come out for "centrist devil" Clinton in order to get rid of Trump. And you think they'll come out for fucking Bloomberg?

And you think giving Republicans a "safe harbour" is gonna work? Clinton fucking campaigned on that and it didn't do shit where it mattered. I mean, come on.

I think y'all are vastly vastly overestimating the appeal of Bloomberg while vastly vastly underestimating the extent to which a lot of left-wing voters hate him.

[Red Tiger]

33 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Nah. The establishment would be the most receptive to Bloomberg. It's the activist base that will (and to some extent, do) hate his guts. 

Running Bloomberg is like running Hillary Clinton again, except way more centrist.

I stand corrected.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Yeah I cannot imagine Bloomberg doing better than Clinton.  He's not going to play any better with the Dem base that didn't turn out in 2016.  And the left 2/3rds of the party likely have a lot of issues with him.  I think speculation about a candidate at this point is irrelevant.  The Dems need to figure out what they want to do and figure out how to communicate that to the public.  You're not going to beat Trump by trotting out the most republican friendly or centrist candidate you scrape up from the functional government, corporate friendly, chamber of commerce approved candidate pool (and old white guy to boot) that you drag out of the swamp and toss up on the podium.

[GAROVORKIN]

23 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Yeah I cannot imagine Bloomberg doing better than Clinton.  He's not going to play any better with the Dem base that didn't turn out in 2016.  And the left 2/3rds of the party likely have a lot of issues with him.  I think speculation about a candidate at this point is irrelevant.  The Dems need to figure out what they want to do and figure out how to communicate that to the public.  You're not going to beat Trump by trotting out the most republican friendly or centrist candidate you scrape up from the functional government, corporate friendly, chamber of commerce approved candidate pool (and old white guy to boot) that you drag out of the swamp and toss up on the podium.

The Democrats could start by replacing Tom Perez  as DNC  Chairman.  He's a bit too controversial and divisive.  His stand  on not supporting  pro life democrats will cost them support that they need to win.  They need to appeal too wider spectrum of voters, theres is no getting around that.  

[ThinkerX]

Left out of this discussion - except almost as an aside by Shryke is this:  Most of the younger voters were far more interested in Sanders than they were in Clinton.  The democratic party forgets that at its gravest peril.  Bring the younger, leftist vote on board or lose big time.  Centrist won't cut it.

[DMC]

So there's Papa Tomato, Momma Tomato and Baby Tomato walking along the street.  Baby Tomato starts lagging behind, and Papa Tomato starts getting really angry.  So, he turns around and squishes Baby Tomato and says, 'Ketchup ... Ketchup.'

@Shryke

Quote

What's the answer? You don't let them speak. It's really not that hard.

If the goal is to defeat, quell, or contain Nazi sentiment, yes, it most certainly is going to be much more difficult than simply denying/suppressing speech.

Quote

Your last paragraph here really illustrates the extent to which you are not understanding the point. (frankly, I have zero idea where you are getting due process here) By allowing a system of absolutist free speech you allow the spread of ideas and political movements that undermine that very system. A free and democratic society with the rule of law does not protect itself.

To use the analogy from A Man for All Seasons, More imagines that the forest protects him as much as the Devil. But he's a fool because this quote can't imagine that allowing the Devil protection simply allows him to grow till he's powerful enough to control the whole thing. And at that point, all the trees in the england ain't gonna do shit. White supremacists and fascists aren't gonna do you a solid because you kept the system in place for them. They will hide behind the protections you afford them and then when they get the chance they will stomp your face in with no regard for the ideals you hold that you believe protect the both of you from each other.

This quote, and particularly the bolded, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the theses posited by A Man for All Seasons, Thomas More, and the essential concepts of how law is the natural extension of a social compact.

 

@Kalbear

Quote

I know it wasn't your argument - it was @Manhole Eunuchsbane's. You were just responding to my quip. 

Yeah, don't associate me with that guy.  What a douche! 

Quote

I am not saying that one shouldn't - @Sword of Doom and I disagree with that, in that I believe there are in theory ways in which the government can actually help. But I am saying right now assuming that the government can help and will help is actively dangerous, given that we have Trump and Sessions running the law department, and Gorsuch et al at the top of SCOTUS. So saying that the government should do these things is true, and it is also entirely lacking in any helpful action. 

So I'll ask you a hypothetical. Assume the government cannot act to stop white supremacy from rising. How do you feel about violence of private individuals then?

Ok, let's back up here.  My terrorist org classification proposal is just that.  Hypothetically, I think it could eventually get through Congress - but let's highlight eventually.  And that would take awhile no matter which party controls government - I can't imagine it being justified for reconciliation which means it would need to pass cloture.  Then, even if it's passed - and even if the president is pressured enough to sign it - it would be immediately challenged in the courts.  That's why in my discussion with butterbumps I readily acknowledged such an effort would be a long and arduous road.  At my upmost optimistic, I can't really fathom it becoming the law of the land before Trump leaves office anyway.

So, in the meantime, should one be vigilant and prepared to defend oneself against Nazi protests?  No one's arguing against that - and I think one immediate effort that can be undertaken is making sure each and every such gathering prohibits firearms.  

To answer your hypothetical, what I and others are arguing against is the premise that it has reached the point in which preemptive violence is necessary.  It has not - for instance, what rights are the nazi protesters denying you?  White supremacy has been an endemic problem in this country since Plymouth Rock.  Our fathers and grandmothers defeated this half a century ago with a clarion call for nonviolence.  I think the discussion and arguments these threads have been subject to over the past ten days tramples over their heroic legacy.

[Shryke]

3 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

@Shryke

If the goal is to defeat, quell, or contain Nazi sentiment, yes, it most certainly is going to be much more difficult than simply denying/suppressing speech.

This quote, and particularly the bolded, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the theses posited by A Man for All Seasons, Thomas More, and the essential concepts of how law is the natural extension of a social compact.

No, it doesn't. It represents an understanding of the huge flaws in his argument. Ones I already covered in that post that you don't address at all. Like, you aren't actually arguing anything here. You are trying to skate by just claiming, without any argument, that it's wrong because ... no reason given.

And no one claimed you could completely end white supremacist or fascist or nazi sentiment just by denying them a platform. You can certainly do a lot to minimize their power and spread doing so though.

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

So there's Papa Tomato, Momma Tomato and Baby Tomato walking along the street.  Baby Tomato starts lagging behind, and Papa Tomato starts getting really angry.  So, he turns around and squishes Baby Tomato and says, 'Ketchup ... Ketchup.'

@Shryke

If the goal is to defeat, quell, or contain Nazi sentiment, yes, it most certainly is going to be much more difficult than simply denying/suppressing speech.

This quote, and particularly the bolded, represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the theses posited by A Man for All Seasons, Thomas More, and the essential concepts of how law is the natural extension of a social compact.

 

@Kalbear

Yeah, don't associate me with that guy.  What a douche! 

Ok, let's back up here.  My terrorist org classification proposal is just that.  Hypothetically, I think it could eventually get through Congress - but let's highlight eventually.  And that would take awhile no matter which party controls government - I can't imagine it being justified for reconciliation which means it would need to pass cloture.  Then, even if it's passed - and even if the president is pressured enough to sign it - it would be immediately challenged in the courts.  That's why in my discussion with butterbumps I readily acknowledged such an effort would be a long and arduous road.  At my upmost optimistic, I can't really fathom it becoming the law of the land before Trump leaves office anyway.

So, in the meantime, should one be vigilant and prepared to defend oneself against Nazi protests?  No one's arguing against that - and I think one immediate effort that can be undertaken is making sure each and every such gathering prohibits firearms.  

To answer your hypothetical, what I and others are arguing against is the premise that it has reached the point in which preemptive violence is necessary.  It has not - for instance, what rights are the nazi protesters denying you?  White supremacy has been an endemic problem in this country since Plymouth Rock.  Our fathers and grandmothers defeated this half a century ago with a clarion call for nonviolence.  I think the discussion and arguments these threads have been subject to over the past ten days tramples over their heroic legacy.

Oh give me a break.  That 'clarion call to to nonviolence' was just the establishment reaction to blatant police brutality and blatant racism against black communities.  

A lot of people died before that was ever addressed by law (understatement of the century).  Peace and nonviolence have not fixed things.  It's not like a new tomorrow is just one less 'nazi-takes-an-egg-to-face' away from happening.

You're whitewashing whatever legacy the Civil Rights movement has.

[Shryke]

Wait, you think the Civil Rights movement defeated white supremacy? Have you been paying attention to America? Do you know what the Southern Strategy is? What the Republican party is?

The Civil Rights movement that culminated in the 60s won a battle. They didn't even come close to winning the war. And as Shelby County v. Holder demonstrated, that didn't stop those wins from being rolled back after decades of hard work by the white supremacists.

And that's not even touching on the idea of non-violence as the main and sole reason for those wins.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

28 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Left out of this discussion - except almost as an aside by Shryke is this:  Most of the younger voters were far more interested in Sanders than they were in Clinton.  The democratic party forgets that at its gravest peril.  Bring the younger, leftist vote on board or lose big time.  Centrist won't cut it.

I have to believe Trump takes care of much of that problem just by being Trump. Does anyone see Dem voters staying at home in anywhere near the same numbers regardless of who the candidate is? 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Left out of this discussion - except almost as an aside by Shryke is this:  Most of the younger voters were far more interested in Sanders than they were in Clinton.  The democratic party forgets that at its gravest peril.  Bring the younger, leftist vote on board or lose big time.  Centrist won't cut it.

The conundrum they face is that if  they go too far to the left , they  risk losing  the moderate centrist voters and with it,  the 2020 election. They need a diverse voting base  with a  candidate. that everyone can agree on and so far, there's  no sign that they've found their ideal candidate. 

[DMC]

20 minutes ago, Shryke said:

No, it doesn't. It represents an understanding of the huge flaws in his argument. Ones I already covered in that post that you don't address at all. Like, you aren't actually arguing anything here. You are trying to skate by just claiming, without any argument, that it's wrong because ... no reason given.

And no one claimed you could completely end white supremacist or fascist or nazi sentiment just by denying them a platform. You can certainly do a lot to minimize their power and spread doing so though.

Ok, what's your proposed solutions?  Please, indulge.  You say there's a huge flaw in the basics of common law - please explain specifically how you counteract nazism, white supremacy, whatever through preemptive violence that will eradicate for the problem for good.  It's incredibly ironic that you think I have no argument when you haven't even clearly defined what exactly you're for.

17 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Oh give me a break.  That 'clarion call to to nonviolence' was just the establishment reaction to blatant police brutality and blatant racism against black communities.  

A lot of people died before that was ever addressed by law (understatement of the century).  Peace and nonviolence have not fixed things.  It's not like a new tomorrow is just one less 'nazi-takes-an-egg-to-face' away from happening.

You're whitewashing whatever legacy the Civil Rights movement has.

The fuck?  So MLK and SNCC were the "establishment" reaction?  And damn right a lot of people died, and damn wrong I'm whitewashing over that legacy:

Quote

Between 1882 and 1968 the best estimates are 3,440 African Americans were lynched throughout the South, along with about 1300 white people.  These were done with impunity or even encouragement of local/state governments.  Should be noted that during this time the Northern/Western states also had “de-facto” segregation and did little-to-nothing to curb the violence in the South.

That's from my lecture notes from the Civil Rights unit of my intro American Gov't class.  Your attempt at accusing me of not understanding history solely served the purpose of demonstrating you don't understand history.

[GAROVORKIN]

43 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I have to believe Trump takes care of much of that problem just by being Trump. Does anyone see Dem voters staying at home in anywhere near the same numbers regardless of who the candidate is? 

If your a democratic voter and you don't  have a palatable candidate to  vote for , there is  a reasonable.  chance  that your going to stay away from the voting booth .

 

[GAROVORKIN]

1 hour ago, ThinkerX said:

Left out of this discussion - except almost as an aside by Shryke is this:  Most of the younger voters were far more interested in Sanders than they were in Clinton.  The democratic party forgets that at its gravest peril.  Bring the younger, leftist vote on board or lose big time.  Centrist won't cut it.

The Bernie supporters didn't want Hillary so, some of them stayed away from the voting booth. But the biggest mistake they made was  alienating the working class voters.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

2 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

The fuck?  So MLK and SNCC were the "establishment" reaction?  And damn right a lot of people died, and damn wrong I'm whitewashing over that legacy:

Yeah, I don't understand how you could whitewash the legacy of the CRM by advocating for non-violence.That's honoring it's legacy.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

If your a democratic voter and you don't a have a palatable candidate to  to vote for , your more then likely going stay away from the voting booth. 

In the face of another 4 years of this incompetent, dangerous clown? To be fair, I felt that way about him this time around. That said I have to imagine he's made some of the stay at homers regret their decision already. 

[GAROVORKIN]

17 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

In the face of another 4 years of this incompetent, dangerous clown? To be fair, I felt that way about him this time around. That said I have to imagine he's made some of the stay at homers regret their decision already. 

 

The midterm elections will tell us if that's the case, especially if the democrats  make gains in both houses.  If Trump and the Republican somehow  deliverers on Healthcare and tax reform and the economy stays good and produces enough jobs, those voters having second thoughts will likely stick with him at for the first term. 

[DMC]

9 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I don't understand how you could whitewash the legacy of the CRM by advocating for non-violence.That's honoring it's legacy.

Because Gandhi and MLK were inspired by those white transcendentalists Emerson and Thoreau.  They were white dudes in the 19th century - come on!

[Week]

2 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

The Democrats could start by replacing Tom Perez  as DNC  Chairman.  He's a bit too controversial and divisive.  His stand  on not supporting  pro life democrats will cost them support that they need to win.  They need to appeal too wider spectrum of voters, theres is no getting around that.  

Disagree - too big a tent risks a situation where (to mix metaphors) the left stands for so many things that they stand for nothing.

The Left needs a strong leader with the strength of their convictions. The moderate/Centrist argument is a bit overblown in my mind. Those voters are undecided and need to be drawn in - not pandered to. The backlash to 'identity politics' (blech at that word) feels as though it is conflated with a distaste for (perceived at least) pandering as much as policies themselves.