2017 Democratic Thread

[bmags]

Why does it feel like if Democrats elected Susan Sarandon for president we wouldn't be hearing that it was actually the fault of republicans for not creating an accurate tier system of liberal labels to help us decide who was an acceptable candidate.

[bmags]

Maybe we should address the fact that when several Republican lawmakers had to identify what made Hitler evil they focused on expanded government run healthcare. Maybe this is a more deeply ingrained issue of not being able to identify illiberal, anti-democratic ideas among conservatives that is more dangerous than liberals being as careful in calling out degrees of bad.

[southsider2k5]

Why does it feel like if Democrats elected Susan Sarandon for president we wouldn't be hearing that it was actually the fault of republicans for not creating an accurate tier system of liberal labels to help us decide who was an acceptable candidate.

 

I'd full well admit that the Sanders presidency run was set up by the right wing gobbling up moderates on the Democratic side. Hell they are going after Donnelly here in Indiana who was voted least supportive of the Dems, knowing it full well could result in one less moderate and one more radical left winger.

[Soxbadger]

Strangesox,

 

Where did I say you cant call them "conservative". The comment is "evil". Do you believe that being a conservative makes you "evil?"

 

Bmags,

 

Again. Because I cant control what other people do. What I can control is what I do. What I can do is to try and do everything in my power to accomplish what goals I want. I dont want another President like Trump. If that means that I have to do certain things to ensure it, I will. If those things dont harm me in anyway, then why do I care?

 

I dont care what people would or would not do if anyone else was President.

 

I care what I have to do to try and make sure that Trump wont win in 2020. That is the beginning and the end of the argument of why do this.

 

 

[bmags]

Do you think Obama is evil? Do you think Truman is evil? Thomas Jefferson?

 

I could make arguments for all of them. But I leave that term for people who I truly think are trying to purposefully do bad things. And that is the difference, evil requires intent.

 

If Bush was truly evil, he wouldnt be friendly with Obama, he wouldnt be out there trying to make things better. If you cant see the difference between Trump and Bush, I dont really know what else to say.

 

Here's why I'm fine with your argument, because sure, evil is an absolute. But I find it immature that the approach is to force others to accept the framing that there can be no nuance in framing someone as evil.

 

And I say this because it is so stupidly happening with racism. If you call someone a racist, people jump in front of him like heroes "No! No! he can't be a racist! Racists carry flaming torches and chant nazi phrases!" And when they ARE carrying torches and chanting nazi phrases "No, no, they...need to be physically attacking a minority and saying they are doing it because they are a minority!"

 

Bush may not have been purposefully doing evil things because he likes doing things that offend the conscience, but he enabled and hired a whole lot of people in the administration that he was the executive that performed many evil acts. And maybe this was just a lack of uncertainty in the world. BUt their "we know the answers now give us the information to prove it" mindset created these gigantic cracks in the world that many innocent people slipped into with no way to get out. Crime charges with no way to prove innocence, captivity with torture, never ending war with no clarity with what constitutes success.

 

But, at the very least, there were many moments in the Bush admin that showed they were still operating within the norms of American politics and civility. Ashcroft holding orders. When Scooter Libby was being prosecuted there was no sense they'd just pardon him before and refuse an investigation. They seemed to accept, if not respect, opposition performed through our institutional means.

 

And that last graph is what I just don't see happening. They do not respect that checks can happen if they do not benefit them. And make the case that anything that does not benefit them is illiberal, but worse, partisan and part of a conspiracy. It's incredibly dangerous.

[illinilaw08]

Here's why I'm fine with your argument, because sure, evil is an absolute. But I find it immature that the approach is to force others to accept the framing that there can be no nuance in framing someone as evil.

 

And I say this because it is so stupidly happening with racism. If you call someone a racist, people jump in front of him like heroes "No! No! he can't be a racist! Racists carry flaming torches and chant nazi phrases!" And when they ARE carrying torches and chanting nazi phrases "No, no, they...need to be physically attacking a minority and saying they are doing it because they are a minority!"

 

Bush may not have been purposefully doing evil things because he likes doing things that offend the conscience, but he enabled and hired a whole lot of people in the administration that he was the executive that performed many evil acts. And maybe this was just a lack of uncertainty in the world. BUt their "we know the answers now give us the information to prove it" mindset created these gigantic cracks in the world that many innocent people slipped into with no way to get out. Crime charges with no way to prove innocence, captivity with torture, never ending war with no clarity with what constitutes success.

 

But, at the very least, there were many moments in the Bush admin that showed they were still operating within the norms of American politics and civility. Ashcroft holding orders. When Scooter Libby was being prosecuted there was no sense they'd just pardon him before and refuse an investigation. They seemed to accept, if not respect, opposition performed through our institutional means.

 

And that last graph is what I just don't see happening. They do not respect that checks can happen if they do not benefit them. And make the case that anything that does not benefit them is illiberal, but worse, partisan and part of a conspiracy. It's incredibly dangerous.

 

This is an excellent post.

[StrangeSox]

Here's why I'm fine with your argument, because sure, evil is an absolute. But I find it immature that the approach is to force others to accept the framing that there can be no nuance in framing someone as evil.

 

And I say this because it is so stupidly happening with racism. If you call someone a racist, people jump in front of him like heroes "No! No! he can't be a racist! Racists carry flaming torches and chant nazi phrases!" And when they ARE carrying torches and chanting nazi phrases "No, no, they...need to be physically attacking a minority and saying they are doing it because they are a minority!"

 

Bush may not have been purposefully doing evil things because he likes doing things that offend the conscience, but he enabled and hired a whole lot of people in the administration that he was the executive that performed many evil acts. And maybe this was just a lack of uncertainty in the world. BUt their "we know the answers now give us the information to prove it" mindset created these gigantic cracks in the world that many innocent people slipped into with no way to get out. Crime charges with no way to prove innocence, captivity with torture, never ending war with no clarity with what constitutes success.

 

But, at the very least, there were many moments in the Bush admin that showed they were still operating within the norms of American politics and civility. Ashcroft holding orders. When Scooter Libby was being prosecuted there was no sense they'd just pardon him before and refuse an investigation. They seemed to accept, if not respect, opposition performed through our institutional means.

 

And that last graph is what I just don't see happening. They do not respect that checks can happen if they do not benefit them. And make the case that anything that does not benefit them is illiberal, but worse, partisan and part of a conspiracy. It's incredibly dangerous.

 

[bmags]

Strangesox,

 

Where did I say you cant call them "conservative". The comment is "evil". Do you believe that being a conservative makes you "evil?"

 

Bmags,

 

Again. Because I cant control what other people do. What I can control is what I do. What I can do is to try and do everything in my power to accomplish what goals I want. I dont want another President like Trump. If that means that I have to do certain things to ensure it, I will. If those things dont harm me in anyway, then why do I care?

 

I dont care what people would or would not do if anyone else was President.

 

I care what I have to do to try and make sure that Trump wont win in 2020. That is the beginning and the end of the argument of why do this.

 

My response prior I think addresses this. And while I understand your critique as a form of effective messaging, I resist the idea of applying fault of Trump's election on people accurately calling Trump as uniquely dangerous instead of those without the ability to critically interpret obvious signs correctly.

[Soxbadger]

Here's why I'm fine with your argument, because sure, evil is an absolute. But I find it immature that the approach is to force others to accept the framing that there can be no nuance in framing someone as evil.

 

And I say this because it is so stupidly happening with racism. If you call someone a racist, people jump in front of him like heroes "No! No! he can't be a racist! Racists carry flaming torches and chant nazi phrases!" And when they ARE carrying torches and chanting nazi phrases "No, no, they...need to be physically attacking a minority and saying they are doing it because they are a minority!"

 

Bush may not have been purposefully doing evil things because he likes doing things that offend the conscience, but he enabled and hired a whole lot of people in the administration that he was the executive that performed many evil acts. And maybe this was just a lack of uncertainty in the world. BUt their "we know the answers now give us the information to prove it" mindset created these gigantic cracks in the world that many innocent people slipped into with no way to get out. Crime charges with no way to prove innocence, captivity with torture, never ending war with no clarity with what constitutes success.

 

But, at the very least, there were many moments in the Bush admin that showed they were still operating within the norms of American politics and civility. Ashcroft holding orders. When Scooter Libby was being prosecuted there was no sense they'd just pardon him before and refuse an investigation. They seemed to accept, if not respect, opposition performed through our institutional means.

 

And that last graph is what I just don't see happening. They do not respect that checks can happen if they do not benefit them. And make the case that anything that does not benefit them is illiberal, but worse, partisan and part of a conspiracy. It's incredibly dangerous.

 

Bmags,

 

Maybe in a better world people could understand nuances and not live in absolutes. But you play the hand your dealt. So if I think that calling people "evil" will result in Trump being re-elected Im going to argue against it until the end of time. And its the same with calling them racist.

 

Words mean nothing. If you could have framed Hitler differently and it resulted him never being elected, wouldnt you do it? Who cares if its not "nuanced." Ends justify the means.

[Soxbadger]

My response prior I think addresses this. And while I understand your critique as a form of effective messaging, I resist the idea of applying fault of Trump's election on people accurately calling Trump as uniquely dangerous instead of those without the ability to critically interpret obvious signs correctly.

 

If you think Im blaming people for accurately calling Trump something youre missing the point.

 

The point is that people inaccurately (or accurately depending on your perspective) calling other people something, may have led to calling Trump it meaningless. And now that we have gotten to the point where it may be meaningless, you need to re-frame the argument.

 

Im not blaming anyone, if I blame anyone its the people who cant think for themselves and realize this on their own. But since I cant change them, I have to work in their confines.

 

(edit)

 

To go back to the Earth is flat argument. Lets say I have a picture of the round Earth and someone keeps disagreeing. I am not blaming the person who shows the picture, I am blaming the person who wont accept the fact. BUT, if my life depends on convincing that person that the Earth is round, I certainly am going to do whatever it takes to convince them, even if it means that I stop using the picture and I try to convince them in another way.

 

Thats the point. Its not about the truth, its about what "people believe" and eventually you have to accept that it is their belief, no matter how wrong you may think it is. And until you accept that its their belief, you will be pounding your head against a wall.

Edited October 19, 2017 by Soxbadger

[bmags]

If you think Im blaming people for accurately calling Trump something youre missing the point.

 

The point is that people inaccurately (or accurately depending on your perspective) calling other people something, may have led to calling Trump it meaningless. And now that we have gotten to the point where it may be meaningless, you need to re-frame the argument.

 

Im not blaming anyone, if I blame anyone its the people who cant think for themselves and realize this on their own. But since I cant change them, I have to work in their confines.

 

(edit)

 

To go back to the Earth is flat argument. Lets say I have a picture of the round Earth and someone keeps disagreeing. I am not blaming the person who shows the picture, I am blaming the person who wont accept the fact. BUT, if my life depends on convincing that person that the Earth is round, I certainly am going to do whatever it takes to convince them, even if it means that I stop using the picture and I try to convince them in another way.

 

Thats the point. Its not about the truth, its about what "people believe" and eventually you have to accept that it is their belief, no matter how wrong you may think it is. And until you accept that its their belief, you will be pounding your head against a wall.

 

I understand. Different audiences require different arguments but I do hope there is always space to make and think through the argument you truly believe in with the words you believe in.

[illinilaw08]

Bmags,

 

Maybe in a better world people could understand nuances and not live in absolutes. But you play the hand your dealt. So if I think that calling people "evil" will result in Trump being re-elected Im going to argue against it until the end of time. And its the same with calling them racist.

 

Words mean nothing. If you could have framed Hitler differently and it resulted him never being elected, wouldnt you do it? Who cares if its not "nuanced." Ends justify the means.

 

Respectfully, I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Your flat Earth analogy isn't on point with what we're dealing with here because this isn't about convincing the flat Earthers that the world is round. It's convincing enough people who either don't care about the argument generally to agree that the Earth is round.

 

The goal is to prevent Donald Trump - who is uniquely unqualified for the job as President of the United States - from winning a second term. That doesn't mean only convincing Donald Trump's supporters that he is uniquely unqualified, it also involves getting people who might not have voted because of voter ID laws, or people who feel that both parties are different sides of the same coin, or people who are apathetic about politics to participate in 2020. It's about creating as large of a tent as possible from the voter pool. If someone feels that the political machine systematically ignores the issues minorities face in this country because they don't confront racist words and acts, you risk pushing that voter out of your tent - and that should be an easier person to pull into the tent than the person who thinks that kneeling during the National Anthem is the worst sin an American can commit.

 

Based on what we've seen in the first 10 months of the Trump Presidency, I have no hope that said support is going to come from Republicans in any meaningful way. Politico had an article up about Jeff Flake today (linked below) that was littered with quotes from Republicans wondering why Flake would criticize the President in an election year. Trump's base is rabid, and his base is keeping previously mainstream Republicans from talking about the stuff that makes President Trump uniquely unqualified to lead. You need more Republicans to speak out against the things that make Donald Trump unique.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/19/j...-arizona-243925

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Respectfully, I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Your flat Earth analogy isn't on point with what we're dealing with here because this isn't about convincing the flat Earthers that the world is round. It's convincing enough people who either don't care about the argument generally to agree that the Earth is round.

 

The goal is to prevent Donald Trump - who is uniquely unqualified for the job as President of the United States - from winning a second term. That doesn't mean only convincing Donald Trump's supporters that he is uniquely unqualified, it also involves getting people who might not have voted because of voter ID laws, or people who feel that both parties are different sides of the same coin, or people who are apathetic about politics to participate in 2020. It's about creating as large of a tent as possible from the voter pool. If someone feels that the political machine systematically ignores the issues minorities face in this country because they don't confront racist words and acts, you risk pushing that voter out of your tent - and that should be an easier person to pull into the tent than the person who thinks that kneeling during the National Anthem is the worst sin an American can commit.

 

Based on what we've seen in the first 10 months of the Trump Presidency, I have no hope that said support is going to come from Republicans in any meaningful way. Politico had an article up about Jeff Flake today (linked below) that was littered with quotes from Republicans wondering why Flake would criticize the President in an election year. Trump's base is rabid, and his base is keeping previously mainstream Republicans from talking about the stuff that makes President Trump uniquely unqualified to lead. You need more Republicans to speak out against the things that make Donald Trump unique.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/19/j...-arizona-243925

 

More Republicans have spoken out against Trump than any President of the same part in my lifetime. By far.

[Soxbadger]

I understand. Different audiences require different arguments but I do hope there is always space to make and think through the argument you truly believe in with the words you believe in.

 

 

And I hope so too. But right now we are in crisis mode, so we have to do whatever it takes.

 

Respectfully, I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Your flat Earth analogy isn't on point with what we're dealing with here because this isn't about convincing the flat Earthers that the world is round. It's convincing enough people who either don't care about the argument generally to agree that the Earth is round.

 

The goal is to prevent Donald Trump - who is uniquely unqualified for the job as President of the United States - from winning a second term. That doesn't mean only convincing Donald Trump's supporters that he is uniquely unqualified, it also involves getting people who might not have voted because of voter ID laws, or people who feel that both parties are different sides of the same coin, or people who are apathetic about politics to participate in 2020. It's about creating as large of a tent as possible from the voter pool. If someone feels that the political machine systematically ignores the issues minorities face in this country because they don't confront racist words and acts, you risk pushing that voter out of your tent - and that should be an easier person to pull into the tent than the person who thinks that kneeling during the National Anthem is the worst sin an American can commit.

 

Based on what we've seen in the first 10 months of the Trump Presidency, I have no hope that said support is going to come from Republicans in any meaningful way. Politico had an article up about Jeff Flake today (linked below) that was littered with quotes from Republicans wondering why Flake would criticize the President in an election year. Trump's base is rabid, and his base is keeping previously mainstream Republicans from talking about the stuff that makes President Trump uniquely unqualified to lead. You need more Republicans to speak out against the things that make Donald Trump unique.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/19/j...-arizona-243925

 

 

Illini,

 

You may be right. I think the best strategy would be to employ both methods depending on the audience. That being said, I just dont really have faith in people who didnt vote last time to now vote this time. I think that with a slightly better focus, Trump is beatable and I think that focus is on WI, MI and PA. Focus on the result of the last 4 years, that when your in charge you have no one to blame but yourself.

 

That is being a leader, accepting that the buck stops there.

 

(edit)

 

SS2k,

 

Does bring up a good point. People like Bush etc, admitted to not voting for Trump. Not sure I can recall that ever happening before (but then again it would have been before I was born.)

Edited October 19, 2017 by Soxbadger

[illinilaw08]

More Republicans have spoken out against Trump than any President of the same part in my lifetime. By far.

 

Yeah, but what Republicans are speaking out (and by speaking out, I mean consistently)? Those that have retired from political life or have already retired. People who aren't up for election in 2018. The fact that Flake - who is running in 2018 - is the only Senator running in '18 who has spoken out against the President speaks volumes.

 

89% of registered Republicans voted for Trump in '16. Lots of Republicans spoke out about Trump during the campaign, but 89% still voted for him. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exit-...-us-presidency/

 

After Donald Trump does something extreme, you get tepid "that's bad" from Republican legislators. I hope that if a similarly extreme Democrat was somehow elected president that you would get consistent pushback from the Democratic Party...

[StrangeSox]

Flake may be speaking out, but he's still voting right in line.

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, but what Republicans are speaking out (and by speaking out, I mean consistently)? Those that have retired from political life or have already retired. People who aren't up for election in 2018. The fact that Flake - who is running in 2018 - is the only Senator running in '18 who has spoken out against the President speaks volumes.

 

89% of registered Republicans voted for Trump in '16. Lots of Republicans spoke out about Trump during the campaign, but 89% still voted for him. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-exit-...-us-presidency/

 

After Donald Trump does something extreme, you get tepid "that's bad" from Republican legislators. I hope that if a similarly extreme Democrat was somehow elected president that you would get consistent pushback from the Democratic Party...

 

I have yet to see any Democrat face anything near the backlash that the Republicans give to their own. Democrats march in lockstep with their leaders right or wrong.

[Quin]

I have yet to see any Democrat face anything near the backlash that the Republicans give to their own. Democrats march in lockstep with their leaders right or wrong.

 

[Balta1701]

What was the "projection" quote in the other thread? Lots of that today.

[Quin]

What was the "projection" quote in the other thread? Lots of that today.

 

Good Ol' Projection

[Balta1701]

So...I cannot vouch for this source/author, so this darn well might be fake news, but Senator McCain is out there saying there's more about Niger than we know and the Republican Congress won't investigate so I don't feel that bad about rumor mongering right now. At the very least I'm 99% sure I saw the "Private contractor evacuation" part of this verified today.

@laurasessions10

Follow Follow @laurasessions10

More

THREAD 1. What happened in Niger.

 

2/ While everyone is so busy talking about the president's handling of his call to the widow of the soldier killed in Niger....

 

http://3.you 're all missing the important part of that story...the part about what happened that night in Niger.

 

4. The story that is emerging is so much worse than anything that happened in Benghazi

 

5. but the same GOP Congress that investigated Benghazi with a fury seems to have little or no interest in this story.

 

6. Here's what we know so far...

.These soldiers went to a meeting in an area near the border with Mali a well known hot spot for ISIS

 

7 Our soldiers were not backed up by US Military air support- backed up by the French, who were not authorized to intervene or even fire

.

8 Our soldiers did not have armored vehicles. They traveled in pickup trucks.

.

Our soldiers were given faulty intel... that said

 

9 "it was unlikely that they would meet any hostile forces." Of course, they walked into an ISIS ambush-chaotic and they took three lives

 

10 It took the French 30 minutes to arrive. When they did they were not authorized to help.

 

11. So, a dozen of our Green Berets fought a battle with more than 50 Isis fighters, without help, for 30 minutes.

 

12 Finally, a rescue helicopter arrived, but it was not a US military helicopter.

 

13 No, we apparently outsourced that job to “private contractors.”

 

14 So, these contractors landed and loaded the remaining troops, the injured and the dead.

.

Here's where this gets really bad...

 

15 Because they were not military, they never did a head count. That is how Sgt. La David Johnson was left behind.

 

16 That's right...they left him behind.

 

17According to the Pentagon, his locator beacon was activated on battlefield, which indicates that he was alive when they left him there

 

18 They recovered his body 48 hours later but are refusing to say where.

 

19 According to his widow, she could not have an open casket. This means that he was mutilated after being left behind on the battlefield.

[caulfield12]

 

Apparently he hasn't noticed the guerilla warfare between centrist/moderate Democrats and the Sanders/Warren wing over the party for the past 24 months....to the point where the Democratic Party still has no clear direction or anything resembling a consensus moving forward.

 

California almost belongs in its own political party...watching what is going on with Diane Feinstein since Trump was elected being one prime example.

[StrangeSox]

So...I cannot vouch for this source/author, so this darn well might be fake news, but Senator McCain is out there saying there's more about Niger than we know and the Republican Congress won't investigate so I don't feel that bad about rumor mongering right now. At the very least I'm 99% sure I saw the "Private contractor evacuation" part of this verified today.

 

WSJ reported earlier today that the FBI has been brought into the investigation. Something doesn't seem right here.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/death-of-u-s-s...cism-1508457444

[caulfield12]

WSJ reported earlier today that the FBI has been brought into the investigation. Something doesn't seem right here.

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/death-of-u-s-s...cism-1508457444

 

Originally it was reported that French Mirage jets were part of the rescue...but rules of engagement prevented them from actually dropping bombs, they could only "buzz" the 50-75 ISIS (supposedly, since the administration hasn't been clear on who the enemy was...) fighters involved in the ambush.

 

Then there was the story about a private contractor actually doing the rescuing and carrying off of the 3 dead soldiers (reported yesterday on CNN among other places).

 

Plus the issue of Sergeant Johnson unaccounted for at least 2 days/nights...whether he died instantly or what was the extent of his injuries?

[Quin]

Fake news! Brought to you by Fox.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning...m=.6600258cb676