Jump to content

US Politics: Red, Red Whine


Fragile Bird

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Martell Spy said:

It was a real question. I was seeing if you are purveyor of "both sides do it", a fairly well-known term to regulars in this thread.

So, are you saying all the vitriol I read here about conservatives isn't serious?  I mean, I know it is written, because I read it here on this thread every day.

 Or, you think that conservatives don't spout similar vitriol about liberals? You don't think conservatives also feel that liberals are hypocrites, destructive, violent, awful?  I'm confused as to what your point is here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Meanwhile, you (conservatives) are winning. And you need to realize that you can't win and play the victim card at the same time.

This is the amazing thing to me. Right now conservatives pretty much hold all the power, but yet act like they are are small band of rebels fighting the evil liberal galactic empire. And people actually buy that horseshit.

Of course conservatives have always exercised enormous power and influence, even though they tried to convince everyone they didn't,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Or, you think that conservatives don't spout similar vitriol about liberals? You don't think conservatives also feel that liberals are hypocrites, destructive, violent, awful?  I'm confused.  

I don't care what conservative have to say about liberals.  They have been saying that shit for years, even to the point of convincing people that being liberal is bad and that people stop calling themselves liberal.

Conservatives can try to make their points. But you know, most often their "points" don't carry much water.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

So, are you saying all the vitriol I read here about conservatives isn't serious?  I mean, I know it is written, because I read it here on this thread every day.

 Or, you think that conservatives don't spout similar vitriol about liberals? You don't think conservatives also feel that liberals are hypocrites, destructive, violent, awful?  I'm confused as to what your point is here.  

I think the point is that one side supports open journalism, science, evidence, and data. The other side supports an administration that lies more than the previous 7 admins combined, routinely makes up things and threatens to close down news organizations that write bad things about them.

So yes, you're right - both sides do view the other as essentially harmful to democracy; the difference is that one is significantly worse than the other. Your argument is precisely akin to the Nazi argument that the Jews were attempting to cause a White Genocide and doing horrible things, and the Jews were arguing that, well, the Nazis were doing that. The two values aren't equivalent when one side is actively lying. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think the point is that one side supports open journalism, science, evidence, and data. The other side supports an administration that lies more than the previous 7 admins combined, routinely makes up things and threatens to close down news organizations that write bad things about them.

So yes, you're right - both sides do view the other as essentially harmful to democracy; the difference is that one is significantly worse than the other. Your argument is precisely akin to the Nazi argument that the Jews were attempting to cause a White Genocide and doing horrible things, and the Jews were arguing that, well, the Nazis were doing that. The two values aren't equivalent when one side is actively lying. 

 

Well, thank you for calling me a Nazi in such a nice, polite way....I guess there is nowhere to go from there, though, which was my original point, that we may be past the point of no return, each side views the other as beneath contempt and not worth listening to, so it will end in some kind of death match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cas Stark said:

Well, thank you for calling me a Nazi in such a nice, polite way....I guess there is nowhere to go from there, though, which was my original point, that we may be past the point of no return, each side views the other as beneath contempt and not worth listening to

Only one side is kidnapping children and locking them up in concentration camps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Well, thank you for calling me a Nazi in such a nice, polite way....I guess there is nowhere to go from there, though, which was my original point, that we may be past the point of no return, each side views the other as beneath contempt and not worth listening to, so it will end in some kind of death match.

Not sure I called you a Nazi. I have no idea what you identify as. 

And no, there really isn't anywhere to go from there. Conservatives in the US have the goal of making the US less and less democratic. And they are succeeding. They openly want to force US citizens to leave the country to go with their non-US citizen parents. They openly want to suppress voting. They openly put children in prison. They are happy to put someone who is brazenly partisan into the highest supposedly nonpartisan position in the land, and celebrate this as a major victory for their platform - which it is. All the while lying left and right and openly bringing up conspiracy theories with no evidence of anything. 

If that's your side, so be it. There is no value in negotiating with it. There is only value in encouraging those who have remained on the sidelines to act against that side. That is the only democratic response left. Otherwise I agree; there are likely only nondemocratic responses after that. Chances are good that the US simply turns into a single-party, minoritarian state that routinely oppresses its ethnic minorities, abuses human rights and acts largely in favor of corporate masters. This isn't particularly different than what it has been for the last 40 years, mind you, save that it hasn't been a single party and many human rights violations have been overturned or fought against. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Jesus Christ you fucking snowflakes. Is there any right winger on this site able to make a rebuttal besides "You called me a Nazi!"

Well, I said I was a moderate conservative.  The post equated conservatives with Nazis and progressives with WWII era Jews....seems pretty straightforward.  I'm not upset, I already know what the majority here think about non progressives.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Jesus Christ you fucking snowflakes. Is there any right winger on this site able to make a rebuttal besides "You called me a Nazi!"

The Libruls on this board appear to be more or less self-rebutting to me.

If the claim is that conservatives have the slenderer grip on truth between the two sides, the swivel-eyed rant above which seems to predict a US invasion of Canada and the dopey comparison between Trump and Putin/Erdogan suggest the opposite.

Why don't you stop being such a snowflake? The fact is you can easily win the mid-term elections this November, retaking the legislature and then the presidency in 2020. There has been no attempt by the Republicans to use force/illegality to prevent themselves being turfed out of power by democratic means, such as you would find in actual dictatorships. They're hanging on by a thread and if the economy tanks Trump will likely be gone. 

Compare this to situations where we can actually say democracy is in danger of coming to an end and minorities stand to be slaughtered, such as Brazil if the election goes Bolsonaro's way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's pretty amazing how close the Democrats came to pulling this off. There's a pretty good chance that it really came down to a single vote: Manchin only said that he'd vote to confirm after Collins did so (and thus rendered his vote mostly irrelevant). Pretty impressive given that they had absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing. There are quite a few innovations here, but also some things to avoid.

First, I underestimated the brilliance of structuring the story so that while there isn't any evidence for it, there's also no evidence against it. I thought the utter lack of a time, place or even a single witness present at the scene who'd be willing to corroborate the allegations would be enough to have this dismissed immediately, but it seems that given a sufficiently compelling accuser and a sympathetic media environment, evidence isn't necessary (well, until the very end when Senator Collins pointed out that there wasn't any).

Second, it was really clever of the Democrats to use crowdfunding. It's not so much because it saves whoever organized this money (for games at this level, the crowdfunded cash is pocket change), but because it provides a means of rewarding the accuser without anyone being able to argue that the testimony was paid for. Of course, she might also be able to get a book deal or something of the sort later, but more than half a million upfront is nice to have (the lawyers worked pro bono so there are no significant financial costs).

Those two things were very well done... but the rest isn't so great. For one thing, I still question the wisdom of waiting until the very end of the confirmation process to play this card. I guess they meant for it to influence the upcoming election by riling up a certain faction of the Democrats and they accomplished this, but based on the polls, they've also managed to rile up a considerable number of Republicans who are furious at the way Justice Kavanaugh has been treated. Was it worth it given that leaving the accusations until the end obviously makes this look like a political move? I doubt it.

The second thing that didn't go so well was the appearance of the secondary accusers. It was clear that there would be some if the Democrats were serious about this, but their quality left much to be desired. As with the primary, there was absolutely no evidence or corroborating witnesses, but the second one openly admitted that she was drunk to the point where she can't be sure of her accusations and the third one... I'm pretty sure that was an independent operator because such outlandish accusations almost certainly did more harm than good.

Finally, I'm not sure what purpose the riots that erupted once it became clear he had the votes served. They were new and innovative a couple of years ago, but now they look more like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum anytime things don't go her way than anything else. It's probably time for another approach.

All in all, they got more out of this than I thought possible... but it wasn't quite enough. Also, regarding the erosion of democracy: there's one side here that has no qualms about discarding the assumption of innocence until proven guilty (at least for the purposes of promotion) and it's not the Republicans. Fortunately, there's now a Supreme Court Justice who has firsthand experience of such evidence-free accusations. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to get worried that Trump will win another term in 2020.  He's had some huge wins for Republicans in his first two years.  Appointed two highly conservative Supreme Court Justices.  Passed a massive tax cut.  And the economy appears to be doing very well, despite the trade wars Trump is starting.  And I think Republicans generally like what he's been doing on immigration, as long as you leave out the part where he's basically putting children in prison camps.

There was a lot of optimism earlier in the year that Democrats would take the House, and maybe even take the Senate, although that was always considered unlikely.  If large numbers of Democrats remain apathetic and don't show up at the polls despite 2 years of Trump and losing two seats in the Supreme Court, then the Democratic Party is hopeless and needs to be razed to the ground, though that will never happen.  We'll see what happens in about a month...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, OldGimletEye said:

Probably by convincing certain sorts of centrist that their centrism is often based on a lot of illogical and confused bull pucky.
They may feel their centrism is more reasonable than "both sides", but often they are just splitting the middle without very good reasons, and think that they are in fact above the fray, when in the truth they are just confused.
And once these certain sort of centrist stop being centrist just for the sake of looking centristy and trying to put on airs of being reasonable, they may come to the conclusion that one side is a lot crazier than the other and has been for years.

Though admittedly some "both sides" centrist types aren't really centrist at all, but are Trump supporters and too embarrassed to admit it.

As a centrist, I have to take issue with this assessment.

My chief concern is the political spectrum becoming so utterly polarized the US slides into either civil war, revolution, or paranoid tyranny.  The last two options are dangerously unstable and probably mean the end of the country.

 

More and more, even on once rational sites like this one, I see a tendency towards demonization, utterly ignoring points in common, and also ignoring severe flaws in the faction one subscribes to.  And yes, some points in common DO exist - enough to build on for those not blinded by hatred.

 

Wake up - a very large minority of the country subscribes to conservatism.  Likewise, another large minority could be termed progressive.  Final victory for either side here is not feasible, even with super-charged voter suppression and police state measures.   If the different ideological factions do not find some way to get along, the result is a no-win nightmare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

As a centrist, I have to take issue with this assessment.

My chief concern is the political spectrum becoming so utterly polarized the US slides into either civil war, revolution, or paranoid tyranny.  The last two options are dangerously unstable and probably mean the end of the country.

 

More and more, even on once rational sites like this one, I see a tendency towards demonization, utterly ignoring points in common, and also ignoring severe flaws in the faction one subscribes to.  And yes, some points in common DO exist - enough to build on for those not blinded by hatred.

 

Wake up - a very large minority of the country subscribes to conservatism.  Likewise, another large minority could be termed progressive.  Final victory for either side here is not feasible, even with super-charged voter suppression and police state measures.   If the different ideological factions do not find some way to get along, the result is a no-win nightmare. 

Give some examples of the bolded

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

I'm starting to get worried that Trump will win another term in 2020.  He's had some huge wins for Republicans in his first two years.  Appointed two highly conservative Supreme Court Justices.  Passed a massive tax cut.  And the economy appears to be doing very well, despite the trade wars Trump is starting.  And I think Republicans generally like what he's been doing on immigration, as long as you leave out the part where he's basically putting children in prison camps.

There was a lot of optimism earlier in the year that Democrats would take the House, and maybe even take the Senate, although that was always considered unlikely.  If large numbers of Democrats remain apathetic and don't show up at the polls despite 2 years of Trump and losing two seats in the Supreme Court, then the Democratic Party is hopeless and needs to be razed to the ground, though that will never happen.  We'll see what happens in about a month...

Unless the Democratic Party somehow nominates a candidate that is BOTH genuinely charismatic AND is willing to aggressively campaign for such things as Medicaid for All, a increased minimum wage, and such causes, my current assessment is that Trump has at least a 50% chance of winning reelection - even if partially impeached (by the house, not the senate.)  Most of the democratic presidential prospects floated thus far in these threads come across to me as boring technocratic types who WILL lose.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

Unless the Democratic Party somehow nominates a candidate that is BOTH genuinely charismatic AND is willing to aggressively campaign for such things as Medicaid for All, a increased minimum wage, and such causes, my current assessment is that Trump has at least a 50% chance of winning reelection - even if partially impeached (by the house, not the senate.)  Most of the democratic presidential prospects floated thus far in these threads come across to me as boring technocratic types who WILL lose.

 

Wow, someone should probably let the Dems know that they should include those things in the party platform.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A

nd yes, some points in common DO exist - enough to build on for those not blinded by hatred.

 

Give some examples of the bolded

 

Biggies are some variant of 'Medicaid for All' and an acknowledgment that Global Climate Change exists. 

I also pointed out before that a good non-religious case can be made against abortion.

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/most-americans-now-support-medicare-for-all-and-free-college-tuition.html

 

The vast majority of Americans, 70 percent, now support Medicare-for-all, otherwise known as single-payer health care, according to a new

Reuters survey. That includes 85 percent of Democrats and 52 percent of Republicans. Only 20 percent of Americans say they outright oppose the idea.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/28/opinion/sunday/republicans-climate-change.html

 

In 2014 and 2016, we conducted two national surveys of more than 2,000 respondents on the issue of climate change. We found that most Republicans agreed that climate change is happening, threatens humans and is caused by human activity — and that reducing carbon emissions would mitigate the problem.

 

I live in a heavily conservative area, and know conservative types who freely admit Medicare for all would be a good thing, and who also acknowledge climate change as an issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Wow, someone should probably let the Dems know that they should include those things in the party platform.

Did you somehow miss the part about a charismatic candidate being essential?  Without a charismatic candidate pushing *EXTREMELY* hard on such issues - to the point where 'regular democratic officials' start to squeal in genuine outrage - the democratic party will fail to take the white house.  I'm talking Sanders levels of dedication here.  It's that or fail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

As a centrist, I have to take issue with this assessment.

My chief concern is the political spectrum becoming so utterly polarized the US slides into either civil war, revolution, or paranoid tyranny.  The last two options are dangerously unstable and probably mean the end of the country.

 

More and more, even on once rational sites like this one, I see a tendency towards demonization, utterly ignoring points in common, and also ignoring severe flaws in the faction one subscribes to.  And yes, some points in common DO exist - enough to build on for those not blinded by hatred.

 

Wake up - a very large minority of the country subscribes to conservatism.  Likewise, another large minority could be termed progressive.  Final victory for either side here is not feasible, even with super-charged voter suppression and police state measures.   If the different ideological factions do not find some way to get along, the result is a no-win nightmare. 

1. I don't mind making a well reasoned critique of the left. In fact, once a while, I might find myself in disagreement with others on the left. However, there is a big difference between making a well reasoned criticism of the left, than just doing mindless "both sidism", which seems to me what many self described centrist do.

2. Centrist just might have to make a decision here on what to do, unless they just want to keep on both sidin'. I'm not particularly asking centrist to agree with the left on every point, but what I would ask many centrist is to examine whether their "both siding" is remotely reasonable, at this juncture. I don't think it is. And I think many self described centrist do it because they think they are being reasonable and above the fray.

3. The current state of American Conservatism is atrocious. I want to smash it or put enough pressure on it until reforms. Some conservatives tried to reform it, but they failed as the dynamics within the movement make it nearly impossible. The only thing to do is hand it political defeat after political defeat, until Republican politicians fear the wrath of the general electorate more than they fear their own base and the Hannity's, Limbaughs and so forth. If such pressure was brought on American conservatism to change how it operates and if centrist want to go having some disputes with those on the left, I'm fine with that. I'd even have a civil conversation about it. But, right now, something needs to be done about the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...