Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
No, it actually does argue that the end goals of the far left and the right are ultimately similar in function if not in the precise rationalization. Whatever the case, it's main use as far as I can see is being waved around by centrists to justify them being in charge; it's a roundabout way of the appeal to moderation in other words.
@Ambar: That remark about Fox and the merits of eating sounds rather similar to what is often said on this thread about the right and their blind hatred of the other side.
edited 15th May '17 9:50:39 PM by CaptainCapsase
![]()
![]()
I'm not sure I agree. Because as much as I dislike the Far Left going too far with their purity nonsense, it's preferable to the right wing which sticks with their guy no matter what he or she does, which is ironic, that the most people crying about freedom, have the most authoritarian tendencies when it comes down to it. You can see it with Blue Lives Matter, support of Trump's blatantly unconstitutional executive orders, and general disgusting behavior in general.
The Guy Fawkes masks as protest symbol are more attributable to V For Vendetta than actual history. Then Anonymous got a hold of it (and as wacky as they were they actually occasionally latched onto some actual good causes and some of them probably moved away from just lulz to actual activisim.)
edited 15th May '17 9:54:48 PM by Elle
![]()
Bingo. Those of you wishing the left would just fall in line should look across the isle and see what that looks like. Republican politicians are as unpleasant as they are not because they are worse people than Democratic politicians, but because their constituents allow it.
edited 15th May '17 9:55:09 PM by CaptainCapsase
You edited your post—which is fine; not a criticism—after I'd started this. I'm going to leave my response to one of your original comments in, then comment on the rest.
No, I think that if the people who have no interest in governing shut up and let those who have an interest in governing do their jobs, things would be better. Not the same thing. If the Unicorn Brigade had a coherent strategy for improving the party and/or winning elections, that'd be great and I'd be all ears (they'd also, not coincidentally, no longer be worthy of the Unicorn Brigade label at this point).
I've said this before, but it apparently bears repeating—I'm not a centrist. I think the cult of centrism does vast amounts of damage to the political system itself. I'm a member of the NDP. Jack Layton was my political hero. I'm all for the legit hard left trying to radicalize populace and party alike. But it has to be done intelligently, and I'm not seeing that right now.
Absolutely. But once you get out to the absolute edges of the lunatic fringe—a fringe which, I should specify, I don't think a single poster in this thread actually belongs to—you start seeing a lot more similarities. Your average hard-right Republican and your average hard-left Democrat don't have much in common, but there's a startling amount of fluidity once you get beyond that. It's not accidental that some of the loudest Bernie or Bust guys were previously Ron Paul fanboys (or that some of those same people either voted for Trump, or spend more time defending him than they do their supposed leftist colleagues). Now you can say those people are statistically insignificant, and they probably are, but they exist and they're a recognizable phenomena.
This conversation grew out of me linking to a genuinely crazy article, from a seemingly unhinged "radical leftist" who wants to pretend away the Russia scandal and whose talking points and hatred of "the liberal establishment" would be near indistinguishable from those of the alt-right. I was making a mostly joking crack about those kinds of people more than anything, not suggesting horseshoe theory deserved another serious scholarly look.
I don't want "the left" to fall in line. I want them to put up or shut up. They think the Democrats are doing a horrid job? Do something about it. They think that their kind of candidate can win in a red state? Okay, great. Let's test this theory. Instead of primarying Joe Manchin, who has proven he can win against Republicans, they should go run one of their candidates in a district where nobody (or at least nobody serious) is running against a Republican incumbent. They say they understand grassroots fundraising? They say they know how to get people to turn out to vote for their notion of what a progressive is? That's fantastic. They should do that.
If they succeed, they demonstrate to the Democrats that there is a future is swinging in that direction. If they fail, they've done comparatively little harm because they've aimed their efforts at the Republicans, not fellow Democrats. While they're at it, go after governance at a local level. Try to get their kinds of candidates elected not only to Congress, but to state legislatures, mayor's offices, school boards, in areas where the DNC and the Democratic Party as a whole, have traditionally neglected to try. Do it at the local level too, and don't lecture the party about how your way is going to get results; get the results, then show the party how you did it.
There's plenty of room for reasonable leftist dissent in the Democratic Party. That just doesn't seem to be what we're seeing.
edited 15th May '17 10:03:13 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
While I wouldn't go so far as to consider starvation if someone on FOX News said "eating is necessary for human survival", mainly because this is something that just about everyone else and personal experience have taught me is true, I would be suspicious if someone on FOX News said "eat this <insert food or drink product> it's good for you." At the very least, I'd look for more information.
Disgusted, but not surprisedThe thing I find puzzling about the "fringe left" is that they seem to spend an awful lot of time and energy lambasting the democratic establishment or people who are ostensibly on the same side as they are, and seem to almost regard republican politicians and the harm they can cause as an afterthought in comparison, some easily destroyed enemy they could easily vanquish if they only had their way, or otherwise regard that damage as a necessary evil for some political revolution.
Which, you know, discussions about intra-party politics and platforms are important, as are offering criticisms, but in this particular instance it kinda feels like they're directing most of their resentment at the wrong people.
edited 15th May '17 10:27:48 PM by Draghinazzo
No one here is denying they exist but the amount of bytes that get spent here talking about them is probably vastly disproportionate to their actual importance and it does sometimes feel like they are being scapegoated for everything that's wrong with the Democrats up to and including Clinton's loss. Here, at least, the shouting has not-infrequently risen to a point where it undermines attempts at reasoned discussion.
This whole thing is reminding me of a recent conversation I had with a friend on Twitter. We got into politics and he skews conservative, mostly due to encountering uber-snowflakes in liberal colleges. In the course of our discussion, where I offered my main points of political view (Trump's a moron, GOP's untrustworthy, and you'll never convince me Clinton wasn't the sane choice) and, in the course of that discussion the topic turned to that whole "Clinton is in poor health/suffered a concussion" thing that was going on.
In the process of trying to prove this idea to me, he links me to a Breitbart article on the subject. Now, that would be bad enough, but I had literally just told him, since the subject of where we get news had also come up, that I'm liable to dismiss a source I consider too biased. My response, and I quote "Still, I say in no uncertain terms I'm liable to dismiss a blatantly biased source and you give me Breitbart?"
Much as was noted here, he also noted that the article contained links to other sources: a story by ABC (which was four years old) and that doctor who diagnosed her after watching her on TV (or, as I phrased it then "ABC reported the concussion years ago, Breitbart is turning that into a health issue using a doctor who watched her on tv."
My point: Sources are important, and there are news services that can, will, and on a regular basis do turn the facts to make them look like something they aren't. That goes both ways (oi the number of "Trumps' just suffered an EPIC takedown headlines I see...). When I try to link something here, I regularly try to keep to a source I know the board as a whole generally trusts (WaPo, Politico, Reuters), as close to the original/local article as I can find, or make a note that I'm not certain of the reliability so people know to be in "grain of salt" mode.
![]()
![]()
A lot of that kind of leftist seem to see the Republicans as the spawn of Democratic failure. "If only the Democrats ran the way we want them to, nobody would vote Republican" goes the argument. End result, they do treat the Republicans as an incidental problem, one that will be solved as soon as they have control of the Democratic Party.
I try to do the same. That's not to say I don't link to opinion pieces from websites I like—I do it fairly frequently—but I always try to remember to say that it's an opinion piece, not hard news, or that I'm posting it for the board's amusement, or what have you.
edited 15th May '17 10:07:35 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
![]()
Exactly. And often an apparent misunderstanding of what drives demographics that tend to go Republican (or in the case of my country, Conservative). When people tell me that radical left-wing politics will work in white, rural areas, I always think, "I'm from a white, rural area. I worked for an NDP campaign in a white, rural area. It didn't go so well."
Obviously that's just my anecdotal experience with the subject, but still.
I think that's true of some. With others, though, it does seem to stem from a genuine, if misguided, belief that deep down everyone shares their politics and that therefore, if the politics were just sold right, everyone would vote for it.
It's also not a disease that is entirely symptomatic of the left. The right has its own ingrained belief that a majority of the population shares its beliefs and that the evil, leftist media is the only thing luring people away from/hiding that most people share those beliefs. The right is just better at harnessing that anger into convincing people to vote Republican (or at least against the Democrats).
edited 15th May '17 10:13:08 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
Or better yet start preparing that candidate for a senate race against a Republican, if they honest to god have someone who they think can win a West Virginia senate seat that's awesome, start campaigning today, build local connections, talk to the people of West Virginia, get to ready to take the Republican held West Virginia Senate seat come 2020.
edited 15th May '17 10:11:24 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran![]()
Exactly. I'd be all in favour of this. They think leftists can take the West Virginia senate? Do it. Take the West Virginia senate. Take its Congressional reps too. They've got almost four years to get ready for it.
The key is that there would be no harm in trying. If the various Sanders-leaning leftist groups wanted to put together the money to run candidates in West Virginia races where the Democratic establishment isn't liable to run anyone serious anyway, more power to them I say.
edited 15th May '17 10:17:12 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
That people like the Justice Democrats aren't already doing this and instead focusing on attacking the likes of Joe Manchin is somewhat telling. At best it shows that they have poor judgement and Skewed Priorities. Or that they're impatient and want to have a win as soon as possible as opposed to spending several years working for it.
edited 15th May '17 10:23:07 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedIt's worth noting that the seat was only lost in 2014, so the Dems would be fighting to retake a traditionally Democrat seat. The thing is the groups involved have to get out of college lecture theatres and into the mines, you want West Virginia you have to talk labour, organised labour, miners and their families, how you're going to keep mining towns alive when the mine gets shut down.
You can't talk minimum wage and free college, talk about getting treatment for black lung, talk about bringing back the ability of the unions to hold bosses to account, talk pensions for when they retire, talk about bringing in new jobs that work for everyone so that the next generation don't flee to other states.
edited 15th May '17 10:23:28 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranJustice Democrats have the same problem the Green Party has. They're not willing to put the time and money in starting from the ground up, and instead want to swing for the fences (a person with no prior political experience to the US Senate? Hell no.)
What about school boards? Mayor? City Council? Change starts from the bottom up, not the top down.
edited 15th May '17 10:28:15 PM by TacticalFox88
New Survey coming this weekend!![]()
,
What, did you expect a group that gave itself the name "Justice Democrats" to go the Boring, but Practical route?
edited 15th May '17 10:28:45 PM by M84
Disgusted, but not surprisedSecret Republican Senate Talks Are Shaping Health Care Legislation
"I am encouraged by what we are seeing in the Senate. We're seeing senators leading," said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, one of the 13 Republicans involved in the private talks. "We're seeing senators working together in good faith. We're not seeing senators throwing rocks at each other, either in private or in the press."
Senate Democrats have a different take. "Your morning reminder that under the cloud cover of the FBI story, 13 GOP Senators are still secretly writing a bill to destroy the ACA," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., tweeted Monday morning.
Senate Republicans have shrugged away criticism about their decision to avoid action in committees in favor of closely guarded meetings in the U.S. Capitol to craft legislation to repeal and replace key pillars of President Barack Obama's health care law and reshape Medicaid.

@Ambar: I don't agree with your assertion however, that the basic tenors of the arguments being put forwards are essentially identical, any more than your disagreement with me and mine with you are essentially a matter of tribalism. Superficially speaking, that's correct since some degree tribalism is an inherent part of virtually all interpersonal conflicts, but that's a very reductionist way of looking at things. There's a fundamental difference in values between the left and the right (and the center), and while there's a certain degree of clustering of certain types of personalities, you generally find all sorts of people in any given faction. Some of whom are quite volatile, bad at arguing, and prone to outbursts, some of whom are quite reasonable and very learned, and many falling somewhere in between. It's the differences in values that ultimately matter more than the personalities involved.
I'd much rather give a genie's lamp to Cenk Ughyr than Richard Spencer, for example. Or, perhaps to get a less extreme contrast, Mike Cernovich instead of the outright neo-Nazi, and that has very little to do with personality and everything to do with values.
edited 15th May '17 9:51:14 PM by CaptainCapsase