Red Mosquito

I feel like a lot of you would love for the country to stay split down the middle and let the extremists on both sides continue to run things, rather than get back to bipartisanship and actually getting things done. This nitpicking everything the guy says while propping up extreme-left positions and candidates is basically the mirror image of Trumpism.

Yeah man. Like, both sides. Right?

washing machine liked "I feel like a lot of you would love for the country to stay split down the middle and let the extremists on both sides continue to run things, rather than get back to bipartisanship and actually getting things done. This nitpicking everything the guy says while propping up extreme-left positions and candidates is basically the mirror image of Trumpism."

except the "extreme left" positions aren't actually extreme

i'm sorry but if your message is "return america to the good old days of 2014" then fuck you

meatwad wrote:I feel like a lot of you would love for the country to stay split down the middle and let the extremists on both sides continue to run things, rather than get back to bipartisanship and actually getting things done. This nitpicking everything the guy says while propping up extreme-left positions and candidates is basically the mirror image of Trumpism.

It's a fucking primary, the point is to get the best candidate.

Correct, the best candidate to win the general election, not unrealistic and empty promises to fulfill every liberal wet dream.

meatwad wrote:I feel like a lot of you would love for the country to stay split down the middle and let the extremists on both sides continue to run things, rather than get back to bipartisanship and actually getting things done. This nitpicking everything the guy says while propping up extreme-left positions and candidates is basically the mirror image of Trumpism.

None of that is a refutation of any comment on substance. Its just a complaint about how it makes you feel.

What era do we need to get back to, I wonder, in order to rediscover bipartisanship?

I’m less interested in going back to anything than finding a new way forward that breaks the now decades-long stagnation and divisiveness that people on both sides have become far too accustomed to.

meatwad wrote:Correct, the best candidate to win the general election, not unrealistic and empty promises to fulfill every liberal wet dream.

Incredible to me that you think amplifying the right-wing myth that Democrats are the debt party is somehow going to convince neutral voters but sure man go on with your bad self.

In any case critiquing Pete's suspect rhetoric as part of his general neoliberal strategy (which btw sucks ass) is not the "mirror image" of Trumpism. Maybe if we started calling him Pete Buttchug, but even then there are substantial differences that go beyond aesthetic performance.

meatwad wrote:I’m less interested in going back to anything than finding a new way forward that breaks the now decades-long stagnation and divisiveness that people on both sides have become far too accustomed to.

Talk to me about how you see that working. What does it look like? As in, what changes to each side do you see (or desire) happening? What kinds of things get done as a result? What policy changes, or accomplishments? How does each side need to grow, in order to get there?

I’m not looking to walk you into a “gotcha.” I won’t fight or debate it. This is a learning exercise for me.

Just, please, really take the time to write about what you’re picturing...and I will only read. I won’t respond, except in thanks, and I will try to understand. Because I can’t recognize the path you’re after unless you walk me there.

Ignore Mickey.

Mickey wrote:

meatwad wrote:Correct, the best candidate to win the general election, not unrealistic and empty promises to fulfill every liberal wet dream.

Incredible to me that you think amplifying the right-wing myth that Democrats are the debt party is somehow going to convince neutral voters but sure man go on with your bad self.

Do you think it’s a bit much to take one off-hand statement the guy made to one crowd during a primary to such an extreme?

McParadigm wrote:

meatwad wrote:I’m less interested in going back to anything than finding a new way forward that breaks the now decades-long stagnation and divisiveness that people on both sides have become far too accustomed to.

Talk to me about how you see that working. What does it look like? As in, what changes to each side do you see (or desire) happening? What kinds of things get done as a result? What policy changes, or accomplishments? How does each side need to grow, in order to get there?

I’m not looking to walk you into a “gotcha.” I won’t fight or debate it. This is a learning exercise for me.

Just, please, really take the time to write about what you’re picturing...and I will only read. I won’t respond, except in thanks, and I will try to understand. Because I can’t recognize the path you’re after unless you walk me there.

You can reply...I'm not afraid of having my perspective challenged and seeing things in a different light. I think that's probably the biggest problem in our discourse these days, is that people are so entrenched in party lines that they no longer see the forest for the trees. I don't want to be a part of that.

I understand the "all-in" approach as well. I like the idea of Medicare for All. I agree that we should be taxing billionaires more. The problem right now is that both sides do nothing but preach to the choir. And the result is career politicians who don't really give a shit if anything gets done, because they are taken care of regardless, and they amass more wealth and power. This is true of both sides; I'm not going to buy into some good guy vs. bad guy, your team vs. my team bullshit.

I don't really have an answer or a road map on how we get there McP. It's a political quagmire, and both sides have done a formidable job of rallying their troops. So I don't think it's about continuing to push divisive or extreme ideas on people, because they're going to only reject that and say, "See, this is why I will never vote (insert other party)." The only way to get things done is to compromise and find common ground. I don't expect all my political wishes to come true because one person gets elected president. I'm sorry, but that's a fool's errand. Change in our system is incremental absent some massive shift that usually comes about by a shared event or outrage.

meatwad wrote:

Mickey wrote:

meatwad wrote:Correct, the best candidate to win the general election, not unrealistic and empty promises to fulfill every liberal wet dream.

Incredible to me that you think amplifying the right-wing myth that Democrats are the debt party is somehow going to convince neutral voters but sure man go on with your bad self.

Do you think it’s a bit much to take one off-hand statement the guy made to one crowd during a primary to such an extreme?

Sure, we should look deep into his heart instead and find out his true character.

Nevermind the fact that this idea of "oh we gotta rein it in," in addition to, again, being historically false, totally comports with last week's edition of Pete tripping over his own dick with the college plan messaging and is thus most likely not an off-hand comment so much as it is an indicator that Pete's campaign is starting to pivot from the faux-leftist look he came in on to the type of third-way rhetoric that Hillary ran on in 2016 which uhh by the way, fucking lost.

How do you propose we cross the isle and embrace the party that parrots Russian propaganda as fact? The GOP just needs to dissolve.

Bammer wrote:Mickey and/or Burt,

Explain to me how my day-to-day life will be any different if someone other than Trump wins the election. Aside from, of course, being inundated with media coverage about the president acting like an ass.

Throwback Thursday: Even small differences can translate to large outcomes

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/ ... ns2004.usa

Noam Chomsky, the political theorist and leftwing guru, yesterday gave his reluctant endorsement to the Democratic party's presidential contender, John Kerry, calling him "Bush-lite", but a "fraction" better than his rival.

Professor Chomsky - a linguist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as a renowned chronicler of American foreign policy - said there were "small differences" between Senator Kerry and the Republican president. But, in an interview on the Guardian's politics website, he added that those small differences "can translate into large outcomes".

He describes the choice facing US voters in November as "the choice between two factions of the business party". But the Bush administration was so "cruel and savage", it was important to replace it.

verb_to_trust wrote:How do you propose we cross the isle and embrace the party that parrots Russian propaganda as fact? The GOP just needs to dissolve.

I don’t know, or I’d be running for President. But I think the strategy should be less about trying to convert the most extreme elements, who you’re never going to reach, but rather working on the minds that either haven’t been made up yet or are so apathetic because of the current climate that they don’t want to hear any of it. Nearly 50% of eligible voters don’t vote after all.

Mickey wrote:Nevermind the fact that this idea of "oh we gotta rein it in," in addition to, again, being historically false, totally comports with last week's edition of Pete tripping over his own dick with the college plan messaging and is thus most likely not an off-hand comment so much as it is an indicator that Pete's campaign is starting to pivot from the faux-leftist look he came in on to the type of third-way rhetoric that Hillary ran on in 2016 which uhh by the way, fucking lost.

Lost yes, but had the support of 3+ million more people.