|
Post by celawson on Aug 17, 2018 13:23:00 GMT -5
I think Cass is a moderate Democrat. I’d be interested to hear who she thinks are moderate Democrats who might run for the nomination.
And yes I think you and I have different views of the word “liberal”. I thought liberals were for free markets, freedom of religion, free speech etc as well as the stuff progressives emphasize like equality and social justice. Using that definition, I don’t think Warren qualifies at all as a true liberal, but she certainly does as a leftist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 13:31:56 GMT -5
I can accept that last argument (though I do not necessarily agree with it 100%) only up to a point -- and that point is when the candidate for whom you are "compromising" is no longer simply a flawed candidate but instead is simply unfit to hold that office.
I've given you a pile of reasons why I believe Trump is profoundly unfit, but allow me to illustrate just how strongly I feel about it. Let's imagine for a moment that Trump does an abrupt flip-flop and runs as a Democrat in 2020, espousing policies I love. (He was a Democrat for quite a while, so actually, that's not quite crazy.) It's Bizarro World in this scenario, so despite everything that has happened he actually wins the Democratic nomination.
In that scenario, you would really have to dig for a Republican nominee I wouldn't vote for before I'd go for Democrat Trump. Susan Collins, John McCain, Lisa Murkoski? Obviously. Jeff Flake, Ben Sasse, Mitt Romney? Sure. I wouldn't like a lot of what they'd do, but they're smart guys with some principles. But fuck, I'd go for TED FUCKING CRUZ over Democrat Trump. Mind you, I loathe Cruz. I think he's slimy, I cannot respect the way he's groveled to Trump even after Trump insulted his wife and father, I am positive I'd HATE lots and lots of what he'd do as president -- but he's still far more fit for office than Trump is. I'd grit my teeth and vote for him over faux Democrat Trump. You'd have to go all the way down to Roy Moore child molester level before I'd find myself torn in my decision. (Say what you will about Hillary Clinton -- she's a flawed candidate for sure, IMO, but nowhere near that level.) I'd go very, very far to keep Trump out of office, whatever his party.
THAT'S how profoundly unfit I think Trump is. THAT'S how fundamentally important I think it is to keep profoundly unfit, unhinged candidates out of the White House -- far, far more important than mere policies that can be voted out in four years.
ETA:
I'm still thinking about whom I'd like to see go for the Democratic nomination in 2020. I'll get back with some proposals. I wouldn't mind Biden, but fwiw, my guess is that the candidate is going to emerge somewhat in the way Obama did back in 2008 -- a dark horse who isn't currently being particularly bandied about. It's not going to be Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 17, 2018 13:38:38 GMT -5
I think Cass is a moderate Democrat. I’d be interested to hear who she thinks are moderate Democrats who might run for the nomination. And yes I think you and I have different views of the word “liberal”. I thought liberals were for free markets, freedom of religion, free speech etc as well as the stuff progressives emphasize like equality and social justice. Using that definition, I don’t think Warren qualifies at all as a true liberal, but she certainly does as a leftist. I confess I do not pay as much attention to Elizabeth Warren as a lot of liberals do, nor to the internal workings of the Democratic Party since I am not a registered Democrat. But has Elizabeth Warren come out against free markets, freedom of religion, and free speech? I am still not sure how you distinguish between "liberal" and "leftist." I notice you haven't answered any of my questions about whether the Clintons or Obama were moderate Democrats or "leftists."
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Aug 17, 2018 15:31:21 GMT -5
I'm still thinking about whom I'd like to see go for the Democratic nomination in 2020. I'll get back with some proposals. I wouldn't mind Biden, but fwiw, my guess is that the candidate is going to emerge somewhat in the way Obama did back in 2008 -- a dark horse who isn't currently being particularly bandied about. It's not going to be Elizabeth Warren or Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders. I like Gavin Newsom. He's sometimes a bit far left for my usual tastes, but he at least seems fair and reasonable and I've yet to hear him discuss a major issue or put forth a policy proposal that I've haven't mostly agreed with. He also comes across as (mostly) calm and dignified, which would be a refreshing palette-cleanser to wash the turd taste of Trump from the country's mouth. I used to like Booker but he's recently really dived head-first into the deep end of SJW-rhetoric, especially with his groan-worthy new phrase that he tried out at Netroots last week of, "It's time to get folk woke!" He obviously hasn't learned the hard lesson that several businesses have experienced of, "get woke, go broke." Same for Warren. I like a lot of what she says, but her shtick is starting to wear a bit thin on me. Her "the entire justice system is racist!" bullshit last week (said at a speech and also in a since-deleted post on FB), suggests to me that she's progressively (no pun intended) becoming less concerned with sincerity and more concerned with hollow grandstanding. *shudder* Potential candidates on the Dem side are starting to ooze desperation, which seems to be behind the frantic push to the far left several of them are making. It's like they don't know what else to do. If they try to be more center and inclusive, appealing to a larger swath of the populace, the far-left crazies will likely attack them and start calling them homophobic, transphobic, Islamaphobic, Nazi white supremacists. Take a far-left turn is definitely not a winning strategy for 2020. Trump does the same thing, i.e. appealing only to his small base. But he's more likely to get re-elected than any of the far-left candidates are to get elected, mainly because most Republicans seem to put party above candidate when they vote (which makes them a very solid, effective bloc) while many Democrats seem to put candidate over party (which makes them a fractured, confused, and ultimately weak voting bloc).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 15:43:34 GMT -5
A good candidate will focus his or her campaign on issues that sound with a broad swath of voters. This does not require throwing progressive voters under the bus and repudiating the stuff they care about.
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama managed to strike this balance; the Dems need to find a person who can do the same (and has something approaching their charisma).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 20:20:03 GMT -5
Just saw this Twitter thread by a NeverTrump conservative for whom I have a lot of respect, Tom Nichols. I don't agree with everything he says, or side with him on every issue, not by any means, but I find him extremely intelligent and thoughtful, and I believe he is principled and intellectually consistent. This is his take on the "should conservatives support Trump for policy wins":
Many of us, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Independent, oppose Trump for reasons far beyond mere policy.
|
|
|
Post by michaelw on Aug 17, 2018 20:37:06 GMT -5
I thought liberals were for free markets, freedom of religion, free speech etc They used to be. You're livin' in the past, man.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2018 20:46:56 GMT -5
Now they're all about throwing Christians to the lions and tossing journalists into oubliettes. Libs, I'm tellin' ya.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2018 7:58:02 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2018 10:01:04 GMT -5
If only eating paper was the worst of the crazy...
|
|
|
Post by markesq on Aug 19, 2018 10:46:12 GMT -5
Unhinged. This ranting lunatic is our president. Good lord.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2018 11:19:50 GMT -5
if you're wondering what the ranting about "discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices" is about -- there is an absurd conspiracy theory on the far right fringe that Twitter is "shadowbanning" conservatives--letting them post but making their tweets invisible to users. Alex Jones is big on it. (If you see people on Twitter with a red X next to their name, they are claiming that they are being shadowbanned.)
Funny thing-- Alex Jones is still posting away. (Twitter banned me for a joke at the expense of the alt-right Red Hen lunatics, btw--I started a new account--yet Alex Jones rants on.) I can still see the people who claim to be shadowbanned. That's taking aside that Twitter would have a perfect right to ban Alex Jones and his like, and IMO, they should. Because of him, e.g., Sandy Hook parents have been persecuted by right wing conspiracy kooks.
But our president is ranting about this conspiracy. Our president.
And he's slandering public servants, some of whom are not flawless but all of whom served their country (in a way he sure as hell never did).
This is not harmless. This isn't something to shrug about for "policy wins." This is why the NeverTrump Republicans and conservatives are joining Democrats in speaking out against this president. This is not mere liberal pouting.
I will be honest. I find it impossible to excuse anyone who shrugs this stuff off.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Aug 19, 2018 15:36:43 GMT -5
Actually, Facebook did a number on PragerU (though the issue has now been addressed, it would seem), deleted posts, blocked followers from seeing any new posts, etc. And twitter's CEO has admitted that the company as a whole is "largely left-leaning," a reality that can't help but impact decisions to some degree. So there's ammo out there for those who want to believe Trump has a point. Me, I don't think he does, I think he continues to embarrass himself and the office. There's no conspiracy to silence right wing voices, at all. That said, social media has become far too important a vehicle, imo. And there's a very uneven application of standards by the companies who mostly control it (Facebook and twitter). But again, I don't think it's a conspiracy at all, it's just another facet of the bubble-world that impacts the media in general.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2018 15:49:16 GMT -5
Oh, I'm sure that's happened to some right-leaning folks -- but it's also happened to some left-leaning folks. Facebook and Twitter are now belatedly trying to get a handle on the abuse that has taken place on their forums, and in the process of dealing with their massive troll/bot problem are stomping on some people who shouldn't be stomped on (as I know all too well).
But that's for proles like me. With regard to verified/famous folks, the fact that Twitter is still allowing Alex Jones to tweet (he got a stinking one week suspension for something pretty egregious) says it all -- they are bending over backward to allow them to have a platform. And if you look at some of the stuff Alex Jones has tweeted, yeah, he doesn't deserve it.
I don't want to see "right-leaning" voices silenced, even the ones I dislike. But I don't see that platforms like Twitter and Facebook giving trolls and vicious conspiracy theorists free rein to spread their madness does anyone any good. If they want to spread their crap, they can do it on their own websites.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2018 16:01:50 GMT -5
...and then too, some of these guys just don't understand how Twitter settings work:
|
|