ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I like it when Democrats win.
Is there any chance this is upheld as legal by the courts?
I like it when Democrats win.
I like it when Democrats win.
Oh wow. Although that's cool and all, can't the legislature override this?
‏@Taniel
This will go to court as Cooper challenges law that restricts this. Will the fact that Dems just took control of state Supreme Court matter?
This reminds me of a new blog I found, which gave its Joe Lieberman award to Tim Kaine talking about a similar phenomenon.Webb is pretty emblematic of 2006 when Democrats ran socially conservative/moderate veterans left and right to counter the "Democrats are liberal pussies, Republicans are tough on turror!" meme that defined the Bush years.
Great when we needed every vote we could get against Bush, pain in the ass otherwise - I expect some similar candidates to pop up in state and local races over the next four years. Candidate recruitment already seems much better, Trump winning put a fire under every Democrat. Just in time!
Why Tim Kaine? What did Tim Kaine ever do to anyone? He was almost a total non-entity in 2016, yet he symbolizes everything that went wrong with Hillary Clinton's campaign and the strain of Democratic Party politics that has proven itself time and again to be a disaster. In the true spirit of the Lieberman Award, Kaine is the embodiment of the New Democrat centrism that sounds suspiciously like being a moderate Republican. His choice as the running mate is, in hindsight, one of the clearest signs that Clinton still doesn't Get It, writ large.
Really, what is Tim Kaine but a time capsule from the W Bush era, a Democrat perfectly designed to win a statewide election in a reddish-purple state circa 2006? He is the culmination of the Bill Clinton-led New Democrat movement in the early 90s that posited that the best way for Democrats to win elections was to do most of the things Republicans do but, I dunno, seem a little less bloodless and unhip while doing it? People like Kaine are a way for educated white people to vote for a Republican without having to feel bad about themselves because the name has "D" after it. The turn to Eisenhower Republicanism produced some short-term success for Democrats, but the 2016 Clinton campaign is likely to be its Waterloo.
As another writer put it, Tim Kaine is Civil Unions. Tim Kaine is every half-assed compromise position that New Democrats have proposed over the past 25 years in the belief that what voters really want is a candidate who thinks a lot and kinda refuses to take a firm position on anything. He is the personification of the belief that trying to please all of the people all of the time is both possible and desirable. Is Kaine the worst human being on Earth? Of course not. But he is an excellent case study in a political ideology so bankrupt that it could not stand up against a candidate who ran literally as a joke and was as shocked as anyone that he won anything.
Relevant:
Posting that blog without the context of its background is pretty misleading, because with the context of its background, you know not to take it seriously.This reminds me of a new blog I found, which gave its Joe Lieberman award to Tim Kaine talking about a similar phenomenon.
http://www.ginandtacos.com/2017/01/02/2016-lieberman-award-winner-tim-kaine/
Oh and horseshoe theory is total shit.
Huh? He's kind of silly but he means all of it.Posting that blog without the context of its background is pretty misleading, because iwth the context of its background, you know not to take it seriously.
Yes, he means all of it.Huh? He's kind of silly but he means all of it.
Am I an extremist? I caucused and voted for Clinton and think Jill Stein is a moron, I just don't think socialists and fascists are the same
It's more about "how much they screwed things up this year, for instance LOTY in 2008 was Norm Coleman.Comparing Kaine to 90s centrist Democrats is nonsense for many reasons, and if you think turning your back on people like Kaine because they don't fit the profile of the perfect liberal/progressive is going to benefit the Democratic Party, I don't know what to say.
He's really not? It's a jokey image of communist propaganda with gin and tacos photshopped in and he's not even a socialist, just a liberal.Yes, he means all of it.
That doesn't matter. If you're walking around parading communist imagery on your website, you aren't actually interested in getting Democrats elected.
If you think that the way to electoral success is purging the center, you're an ideologue, no matter what the ideology is.It's more about "how much they screwed things up this year, for instance LOTY in 2008 was Norm Coleman.
He's really not? It's a jokey image of communist propaganda with gin and tacos photshopped in and he's not even a socialist, just a liberal.
Comparing Kaine to 90s centrist Democrats is nonsense for many reasons, and if you think turning your back on people like Kaine because they don't fit the profile of the perfect liberal/progressive is going to benefit the Democratic Party, I don't know what to say.
People who spend their lives opposing the death penalty, serving as civil rights lawyers and promoting spending on education and mental health care (after the VaTech shooting, notably) aren't close to Republicans at all. Even stuff like his personal objection to abortion is countered by his refusal to let that get in the way of his support for reproductive rights.
This is why the Republican Party has been crushed electorally at every level since the Tea Party became a thing!If you think that the way to electoral success is purging the center, you're an ideologue, no matter what the ideology is.
What is with this insane idea that Horseshoe Theory has anything to do with the center that you and others keep spouting off?This is why the Republican Party has been crushed electorally at every level since the Tea Party became a thing!
Horseshoe theory is shit because the center is constantly shifting so there's no golden mean that ever exists because moving to the center changes where the center already is. Once, liberalism was a crazy extremist ideology and only stopped being so after most of the world's major powers became liberal democracies.
Horseshoe theory is all about worshiping the center as superior to extremes. It paints both sides as the same and declares that the best results come from the mean of their ideas, but that doesn't make sense because the center changes constantly and shifts around on different issues. The Missouri Compromise was the center option for the "radical" idea of opposing slavery.What is with this insane idea that Horseshoe Theory has anything to do with the center that you and others keep spouting off?
It's completely about the extreme ends behaving in identical fashion. The center isn't what we're discussing- moderate Ds/Rs clearly don't behave the same way.
I needed some comedy
My god, a spoof on communist imagery! Extremism!
If horseshoe theory is just about "people on both sides become more violent as they become more radicalized regardless of direction" well then sure that's possible. But that assumes that all violence is morally reprehensible on an equal level and it lumps together a bunch of different people who might be violent for different reasons.
I find that it's usually just used to say "socialists are just as bad as fascists" without taking nuance into account. You can have very good socialists and very bad socialists and both can be "extreme" compared to liberals. But you can only have bad fascists.
what is the "center" comprimise for what blm is fighting for
bringing wanton murder of blacks down to just wanton wounding? determining their fate with a coin flip?
Horseshoe theory is all about worshiping the center as superior to extremes. It paints both sides as the same and declares that the best results come from the mean of their ideas, but that doesn't make sense because the center changes constantly and shifts around on different issues. The Missouri Compromise was the center option for the "radical" idea of opposing slavery.
what is the "center" comprimise for what blm is fighting for
bringing wanton murder of blacks down to just wanton wounding? determining their fate with a coin flip?
The point of "horseshoe theory" is "extremes bad, center good". Whatever the center is is what the person thinks is the best view of government. Like, if I think social democracy is the ideal because it's an in-between stage of socialism and libertarianism. Or if you think libertarianism is ideal because it's between communism and fascism. It says less about the ideologies it's critiquing and more about the person proposing it.Show me where the horseshoe theory says the bolded.
Fact is, we see the far left (Green Party, HAHA Goodman, Glen Greenwald, etc.) and the deplorables both:
- constantly defend Russia and Wikileaks
- push isolationist trade policy
- shittalk NATO and EU while (ironically) claiming that liberals/democrats want WW3
- attack perfectly fine sources as "Mainstream Media Elite Establishment Working for Special Interests and Globalists"
- praise bullshit sources like breitbart as "real news"
- claim that the whole system is "rigged" for "the establishment"
Extremism isn't always a bad thing.
And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice?
The bolded is NOT true. It means that the far left and far right are both trash. It doesn't mean that the regular left and regular right are both the same. It just means that going to the extreme is bad, regardless of why you're going to the extreme.Horseshoe theory is all about worshiping the center as superior to extremes. It paints both sides as the same and declares that the best results come from the mean of their ideas, but that doesn't make sense because the center changes constantly and shifts around on different issues. The Missouri Compromise was the center option for the "radical" idea of opposing slavery.
I think it's a bit hypocritical to complain about extremists having echo chambers when most of the Bernie people here got chased out over the course of the primary.
The point of "horseshoe theory" is "extremes bad, center good". Whatever the center is is what the person thinks is the best view of government. Like, if I think social democracy is the ideal because it's an in-between stage of socialism and libertarianism. Or if you think libertarianism is ideal because it's between communism and fascism. It says less about the ideologies it's critiquing and more about the person proposing it.
And anyways, who are the far left? We have a few socialists around here, none of which I've seen pushing Breitbart or defending Russia or anything, but their political goals are pretty extreme. Meanwhile, I've seen plenty of liberals say "give Trump a chance" after the election. Are liberals the same as fascists?
I cannot see the ACA getting fully repealed. You may not have faith in the government or voters to prevent that from happening, but you can have faith in healthcare lobbyists; a full repeal would be apocalyptic for the industry. They're going to work with Republican congressional leadership to find the necessary number of sacrificial Republicans to oppose the bills.
Show me where the horseshoe theory says the bolded.
Fact is, we see the far left (Green Party, HAHA Goodman, Glen Greenwald, etc.) and the deplorables both:
- constantly defend Russia and Wikileaks
- push isolationist trade policy
- shittalk NATO and EU while (ironically) claiming that liberals/democrats want WW3
- attack perfectly fine sources as "Mainstream Media Elite Establishment Working for Special Interests and Globalists"
- praise bullshit sources like breitbart as "real news"
- claim that the whole system is "rigged" for "the establishment"
So basically you are creating straw men of what you think the horseshoe theory is, such as claiming the horseshoe theory treats communism and fascism as two ends of the spectrum (which makes no sense because the opposite of communism is radical libertarianism not fascism
And no, liberals have NOT been saying "give Trump a chance". they have been saying shit like "#Resistance".
I hope Beto O'Rourke succeeds. His past arrests shouldn't be a huge hit against him. I'm more concerned about the El Paso VA. It continuously ranks extremely low which is embarrassing given the size of Ft. Bliss. He's been pushing for improvements and I think the success of that will be key.
But outside of that I'm just glad he is the Congressman. I agree with him on most things. He's also voiced his support for legalization of marijuana which would help him younger voters. I appreciate that he's continuously supported pretty bleak efforts to turn some land at the base of the mountains into a national monument to preserve some of the nature in the area instead of the cookie cutter strip malls and Border Patrol expansion that would likely go up. It just feels like he makes a concerted effort to stay in touch with the region despite the fact that we voted for Hillary by a larger percentage than we did Obama so he wasn't exactly in any danger of losing his seat.
Alternatively, they were tired of the constant talk about how terrible Sanders was and criticisms of Hillary were good? I mean, people gave him endless shit of the "unqualified" thing even though she pulled the same shit on Obama.Most of the people who got "chased out" of this forum got chased out because they were being intellectually dishonest assholes who couldn't back up their claims with real sources.
Go google "horseshoe theory" and every serious image for like the first two rows will end with either anarchism or communism on one side and fascism on the other lolSo basically you are creating straw men of what you think the horseshoe theory is, such as claiming the horseshoe theory treats communism and fascism as two ends of the spectrum (which makes no sense because the opposite of communism is radical libertarianism not fascism).
What sphagnum said, but like, I'm a socialist and I'm mostly pro globalization and pro NATO and anti Russia.I TOLD YOU WHO THE FAR LEFT IS.
And no, we DO have the far left on this forum defending Russia CONSTANTLY, claiming that "bringing up Russia is just liberals deflecting blame from Hillary" and calling Wikileaks "a respectable organization that exposed how the primaries were RIGGED".
And no, liberals have NOT been saying "give Trump a chance". they have been saying shit like "#Resistance".
What sphagnum said, but like, I'm a socialist and I'm mostly pro globalization and pro NATO and anti Russia.
The problem with this is that you're cherry picking who counts as the far left so that you can equate it with the far right. That's not to say that there aren't people like that (obviously there are a bunch) but according to horseshoe theory the further left I go then I must become more amenable to those positions.
But maybe there are people on the far left who don't subscribe to some of those, or all of those. Where has Bernie been defending Russia and Wikileaks, or talking bad about NATO, or praising Breitbart? Or is he not far left enough?
Chomsky is in favor of globalization. Anarchists will have completely different opinions from everyone else and each other on each of those issues. And there are genuine criticisms that can be levied against capitalist media and the Democratic Party, which certainly does favor more moderate candidates for obvious reasons.
I'm far left, do I seem like I fit those bullet points?
Alternatively, they were tired of the constant talk about how terrible Sanders was and criticisms of Hillary were good? I mean, people gave him endless shit of the "unqualified" thing even though she pulled the same shit on Obama.
Go google "horseshoe theory" and every serious image for like the first two rows will end with either anarchism or communism on one side and fascism on the other lol
What sphagnum said, but like, I'm a socialist and I'm mostly pro globalization and pro NATO and anti Russia.
What sphagnum said, but like, I'm a socialist and I'm mostly pro globalization and pro NATO and anti Russia.
This explains why you're both mad at something that acknowledges that leftism inevitably descends into authoritarianism.*fist bump*
This explains why you're both mad at something that acknowledges that leftism inevitably descends into authoritarianism.
Bernie probably privately believes that private ownership of capital is a bad thing, which is much more radical than anything Jill Stein campaigned on.
Why does he not count as far-left?
Also this is my whole point that a shifting center makes differentiating between extremes pointless. Drop FDR in 1800 and he will be absurdly far to the left of (probably) everyone in existence. This wouldn't make New Deal liberalism any more or less good.
whatever helps you sleep at night. in the end we're right and you're wrong. :^)
And YOUR political experience is .....WHAT...... exactly?
oh cool a purity test!
Nope not a purity test. This is me asking what experience you have that shows you actually know what wins elections.
Posting on a forum don't mean shit. Let me know when you have experience working for an actual campaign.
Bernie probably privately believes that private ownership of capital is a bad thing, which is much more radical than anything Jill Stein campaigned on.
Why does he not count as far-left?