US Politics: Let's Arm All the Teachers! 30 Pieces of Silver to Shoot a Student!

[DMC]

18 minutes ago, Shryke said:

Soft is absolutely about ideology. It's always been about ideology.

Please explain how "soft" has to do with anything related to ideology.  One can be "hard" and "centrist."  See Rahm Emanuel.  Now, I suppose you could say Feinstein votes "with" Trump at a 27.7% clip, which is nearly 9 points higher than her expected value.  But I suspect that's not what Californian activists are upset about.  I suspect they're more upset that she didn't take more of a "hard" rhetorical position on Trump.  Which again, isn't about ideology.  Or, at least, what ideology used to mean.

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, Altherion said:

They most certainly do. For example, one of them main arguments of the Republicans opposed to Trump during the 2016 campaign was that his views and behavior are way too far from the norm and having him run would drag down the Republicans running for Congress.

Even without Trump, the Republican Party is still bat shit crazy. They didn't need Trump to do that. They managed to accomplish that before all by themselves. Trump is symptom of the Republican Party, not the root cause of the problem. Even without Trump, it should have been apparent the Republican Party has gone off its rocker. Trump just made what should have been obvious, even more obvious. People like George Will and David Brooks can declare they are leaving the Republican Party and blame it all on Trump. But they are deluding themselves. The Republican Party became rotten before Trump ever showed up. Cause you know it's not like Trump came in and fucked up the wonderful Republican Party, though I'd imagine in a few years some people might try to sell that crapola narrative.

Supposing Trump hadn't captured the nomination and a more "establishment" candidate had. The advice of the both sides crowd would have been what?

[GAROVORKIN]

35 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Sounds like both sides concern trolling.

Two quick thoughts.

1. Define what you consider to be "far left".

2. Why do both sides concern trolls and professional centrist never offer up this advice to the Republican Party?

Big super gigantic stupendous  government progressives and their Noble  good intentions for us all . That should norrow it down a bit  

[Darth Richard II]

Sea lions, man.

[Week]

8 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Sea lions, man.

The spacing, grammar, and random capitalization suggests speciation -- a new breed of sea lion

Unsurprisingly, the definition of "far left" is just as arbitrary and nonsensical as the use of the term in the first place. Also unsurprising is the inability to bring the both sides concern trolling to ... erm, well ... both sides.

[LongRider]

12 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Sea lions, man.

Sea lions, how do they work?

Never mind , we already know to well. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, GAROVORKIN said:

If the Demcrats continue to slide to far to the left, they will ultimately render themselves politically  nonviable and unelectable at the national level.

Tell that to FDR . . .

Of course, thanx to the Dems, i.e. Obama and some of his programs the nation is better off financially than when he took office.  El dorkdong is doing his best, as he has with every biz he's ever touched except Stupid TV. to turn this around.

[Larry of the Lawn]

45 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Big super gigantic stupendous  government progressives and their Noble  good intentions for us all . That should norrow it down a bit  

Genuinely curious as to what you consider far left

[OldGimletEye]

23 hours ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Big super gigantic stupendous  government progressives and their Noble  good intentions for us all . That should norrow it down a bit  

Well see, the thing is you didn't tell us, how many hippies you went and punched out this week end. 

Because as everyone knows, you're not a very serious person unless you smack around some hippies. The way you establish yourself as a very serious person is 1) Punch Hippies and 2) Declare "golly guys it's both sides".

That's a joke.

Anyway, you seem to think progressives are delusional in their policy proposals, yet don't seem to think conservatives are being delusional. Uh bullshit. In less than 20 years, I've seen the Republican Party elect two clowns, botch one military conflict under Dubya and then be completely out to lunch on the worst recession since the Great Depression. On a variety of policy issues, conservatives are simply out to lunch, whether we are talking about climate change, healthcare reform or whatever. Even their signature issue tax cuts was a bloody mess.

Yet for some reason, the professional centrist believe it's the progressives that are the ones being delusional, while somehow conservatives and Republicans are being realistic. I have no idea how this notion would occur, other than perhaps some really lazy and sloppy thinking.

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, OldGimletEye said:

Supposing Trump hadn't captured the nomination and a more "establishment" candidate had. The advice of the both sides crowd would have been what?

Some people would have gone for Jill Stein or the libertarian or, in an even more futile effort, fought for some write-in candidate (probably  Sanders). Most would have simply accepted that the establishment had won again.

[DMC]

50 minutes ago, GAROVORKIN said:

Big super gigantic stupendous  government progressives and their Noble  good intentions for us all . That should norrow it down a bit  

Not to norrow it down too much, but this is farcical.  Is Noble capitalized because you're referring to a person?  Maybe former WWE wrestler Jamie Noble?  He's just a producer now.  I don't think he has too much effect on the product.

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Altherion said:

Some people would have gone for Jill Stein or the libertarian or, in an even more futile effort, fought for some write-in candidate (probably  Sanders). Most would have simply accepted that the establishment had won again.

Well that's a very dumb and invalid assumption.  Why would more people vote for Jill Stein?  As for Gary Johnson (the libertarian), it's very obvious he got so much of the vote because of Republican voters dissatisfied with Trump.  In case you didn't notice, they named themselves and are still around.

[OldGimletEye]

22 hours ago, Altherion said:

Some people would have gone for Jill Stein or the libertarian or, in an even more futile effort, fought for some write-in candidate (probably  Sanders). Most would have simply accepted that the establishment had won again.

Yeah, I'm sure if Rubio or even that nut job Cruz would have one the nomination, professional centrist would have like, "whoa Democrats don't go too far left" without giving the same advice to Republicans.

There is the old joke that a liberal is somebody that won't take their own side in an argument. That crap needs to stop. Today's Republican Party is playin' for keeps. And Democrats better play for keeps. If they don't, it will be like a bunch of lambs going up against a pack of wolves. And the professional centrist crowd ain't helpin' matters much. And I believe are giving really bad advice.

It's not that I think where policy making is concerned that "anything goes". I do believe policy proposals should be realistic and feasible and well thought out to the extent practicable. But, whatever policies the Democrats decide upon, they need to fight for them and ignore the both sides crowd and the triangulation bullshit. If you try to triangulate with crazy, you end up in crazy land.

[DireWolfSpirit]

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

......there's no reason the democrats need to run a centrist in fucking California.....

PhuknAyRight!!

[KingintheNorth4]

20 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well see, the thing is you didn't tell us, how many hippies you went and punched out this week end. 

Because as everyone knows, you're not a very serious person unless you smack around some hippies. The way you establish yourself as a very serious person is 1) Punch Hippies and 2) Declare "golly guys it's both sides".

That's a joke.

Anyway, you seem to think progressives are delusional in their policy proposals, yet don't seem to think conservatives are being delusional. Uh bullshit. In less than 20 years, I've seen the Republican Party elect two clowns, botch one military conflict under Dubya and then be completely out to lunch on the worst recession since the Great Depression. On a variety of policy issues, conservatives are simply out to lunch, whether we are talking about climate change, healthcare reform or whatever. Even their signature issue tax cuts was a bloody mess.

Yet for some reason, the professional centrist believe it's the progressives that are the ones being delusional, while somehow conservatives and Republicans are being realistic. I have no idea how this notion would occur, other than perhaps some really lazy and sloppy thinking.

They're not as "Centrist" as they claim to be, that much is obvious. It shows that susceptible to being bias as well.

[TheKitttenGuard]

30 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Well that's a very dumb and invalid assumption.  Why would more people vote for Jill Stein?  As for Gary Johnson (the libertarian), it's very obvious he got so much of the vote because of Republican voters dissatisfied with Trump.  In case you didn't notice, they named themselves and are still around.

Gary Johnson got more votes most likely due to overall more enthusiasm from the Conservative/Right in the last election cycle.

 

There was an article on Friday I read that break down the Third Party in both 2000 and 2016. In 2000 Nader got significatly more votes than Stein did. It is the reverse for Libertarians with Johnson doing better than Browne. Now in all cases but 2000 Florida the Major Party Candidate who is viewed as more ideological to the Third Party won the state. So it could very well be that it is better to have a strong third party that will drive overall enthusiasm from the base.

It also another example that 2000 Florida was a real outlier or some shenanigans did occurred. Though I admit the confirmation bias on that.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2018/02/23/99972/

I have an issue with the author intent but overall I found the breakdown of the third party very interesting.

This is far from perfect for Republican did hold on to Congress but I found it a interesting correlation.

 

[Shryke]

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Please explain how "soft" has to do with anything related to ideology.  One can be "hard" and "centrist."  See Rahm Emanuel.  Now, I suppose you could say Feinstein votes "with" Trump at a 27.7% clip, which is nearly 9 points higher than her expected value.  But I suspect that's not what Californian activists are upset about.  I suspect they're more upset that she didn't take more of a "hard" rhetorical position on Trump.  Which again, isn't about ideology.  Or, at least, what ideology used to mean.

What the fuck do you think ideology means exactly? Cause it does not seem to be the actual definition used by the rest of the english speaking world.

This whole thing is about ideology. Feinstein is a centrist and has made some comments and votes that the base ain't happy with. And so the base is looking to make that happen. That's a conflict about ideology.

And her soft stance on Trump and several of his issues is entirely about the fact that she's a centrist and kinda of a shitty one at that. She's been in the crosshairs of the activists since Trump got them riled up. Voting for some of his nominees, agreeing with the idea that DACA was on shaky legal ground, saying Trump could be a good president, etc, etc. These are all ways in which her stances conflict with the ideology of the party base, especially the ideology emerging from the 2016 campaign and the post-Trump activism.

[GAROVORKIN]

2 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Well see, the thing is you didn't tell us, how many hippies you went and punched out this week end. 

Because as everyone knows, you're not a very serious person unless you smack around some hippies. The way you establish yourself as a very serious person is 1) Punch Hippies and 2) Declare "golly guys it's both sides".

That's a joke.

Anyway, you seem to think progressives are delusional in their policy proposals, yet don't seem to think conservatives are being delusional. Uh bullshit. In less than 20 years, I've seen the Republican Party elect two clowns, botch one military conflict under Dubya and then be completely out to lunch on the worst recession since the Great Depression. On a variety of policy issues, conservatives are simply out to lunch, whether we are talking about climate change, healthcare reform or whatever. Even their signature issue tax cuts was a bloody mess.

Yet for some reason, the professional centrist believe it's the progressives that are the ones being delusional, while somehow conservatives and Republicans are being realistic. I have no idea how this notion would occur, other than perhaps some really lazy and sloppy thinking.

I do think your joke could have used a little work in the humor department.

Under Obama, the Democrats lost 69 seats in the House and a number seats in the Senate.  Perhaps the Progressives were not paying attention  ? And then there is the fact that the majority of State Governors  are  Republican . And no I don't think Conservatives really care a fig about the voters  but, the fact of the matter is the voters put them  control and that  tells me that they must have had some issues with Progressives and their programs, including  ACA which at the time was not popular with the voters.  And yes the I do have an issue or two about Trump Administrations  environmental stand. I do think global   warming is for real and something needs to be done namely, developing non fossil fuel alternatives  that are renewable.  But in the new cheap oil era , that seems less likely. 

As to the Tax plan, In the short term it will put money people pockets, make them happy and probably allow the Republicans to hold on to the Senate and the House come midterms  and yes due to decreased revenue,  it will   balloon the deficits and probably lead to serious  recession in a few years.

 

[DMC]

50 minutes ago, Shryke said:

What the fuck do you think ideology means exactly? Cause it does not seem to be the actual definition used by the rest of the english speaking world.

What the fuck do you think it means?  Seriously?  Are you going to sit here and tell me Dianne Feinstein isn't a liberal?  Like she hasn't been a stalwart for liberal causes since back when my parents voted in the Bay Area?  Unless you're much older than I gather, she's fought for liberal causes since you were in diapers.  She's the reason an Assault Weapons Ban was passed in 1994.  She was one of the very few Democrats to oppose John Roberts' nomination.  On foreign policy issues is she hawkish?  Sure.  Welcome to the political reality and necessity for every female Democrat that hopes to have influence.  

But, no seriously, what's your definition of ideology, and why does Feinstein violate it?  Because so far you've given fuck all.  So please enlighten me.  I bet you give me some bullshit on weed.

1 hour ago, Shryke said:

Feinstein is a centrist and has made some comments and votes that the base ain't happy with. And so the base is looking to make that happen. That's a conflict about ideology.

What votes?  Please specify the votes.  Here's her voting record on major votes with Trump in office.  What exactly do you have a problem with?  Beyond voting for certain Trump nominees in which, ya know, the vast majority of the Senate did as well, I suspect you have no earthly idea. 

As for comments, yeah, that's what I was saying, and all you're doing is proving the point.

[DMC]

1 hour ago, TheKitttenGuard said:

Gary Johnson got more votes most likely due to overall more enthusiasm from the Conservative/Right in the last election cycle.

I really don't want to have another 2016 argument.  But yeah, that was kinda my point.