HellToupee
Footballguy
"illegal is offensive"
Tim there is no such thing as centrism. It's a contradiction in terms. Nothing is "center", nothing is truly in the middle. When Hillary supported the border fence and bombing Libya, that was conservative. When Hillary supported national health care and raising taxes it was liberal. The problem is that people often did not believe she was coming from a set of core beliefs. It wasn't centrism that killed her it was her lack of a center.timschochet said:I get it though. People hate centrism. Conservatives have complained for decades that their candidates aren't conservative enough. Progressives have complained for decades that their candidates aren't progressive enough. They want ideologues, not politicians, who will shove it in the face of the other party and refuse to work with them.
It's entirely possible part of the extremists emerged as being so powerful because you and your ilk abandoned the party and left a small voice to become a larger share.timschochet said:It's too late Commish. That battle was lost a long time ago, though I was slow to realize it. Now I have much more in common with Democrats, whatever Groovus claims. You realize that if it's Bernie vs. any kind of current Republican, I'm voting for Bernie, right? We've got to do something about climate change and Bernie will. None of this other stuff is nearly as important.
Hmm. Well I suppose anything's possible.It's entirely possible part of the extremists emerged as being so powerful because you and your ilk abandoned the party and left a small voice to become a larger share.
It's also possible the extremists slowly grew in response to folk who aren't really conservative hijacking the party and letting it stagnate in the 'center' of a political abyss, and now that those 'cenrists' are trying to sneak into camp liberal they'll cause a similar backlash from life long liberals angry their party has been hijacked by indecisive fence sitters with zero vision and no guts to fight for it even if they did.
By the way, I love when people write this about me. It's not true, but I wish it was. I'd love to have an ilk.you and your ilk
Gr00vus said:The Democratic party used to be (for much of the 20th century) the party of the lower and middle class. The party of the blue collar workers, unions, all that kind of thing. Now they're in bed with Goldman Sachs as much as the Republicans. That's the Clinton legacy, the 3rd ####### way, and now there is no party that represents the blue collar workers, the unions, the little guy. There are just 2 parties that lie about it. Some of us on the left actually do want to defend the little guy, but the Democratic party has been coopted by swell folks like Tim telling us how to be liberals now, that we need to embrace plutocracy and rampant corporatism.
Please stop with the zero sum game. It should not be pro vs anti. Markets create businesses. Businesses create jobs, Jobs pay wages. Wages create markets.timschochet said:Your history is off. The party of Hillary Clinton is the party of FDR, Harry Truman, and LBJ. None of those guys were ever anti-Wall Street or anti-business or anti-trade. And all of them, particularly FDR, were opposed by the extremist progressives of the time (such as Norman Thomas, head of the socialist party.)
Grace Under Pressure said:I don't consider myself pro-corporate at all, but I think the party has a big enough tent to welcome those who share views like fighting against discrimination, fighting to save the environment, and those who support universal healthcare as a right. People didn't like Hillary personally by and large and that's why she couldn't beat a moron. But if we chase off reasonable people who are done with the Republican party, I think that's a mistake.
The issue the large tent invites though is the one the Repubs are facing, that many factions end up squabbling and not being able to agree on much, assisted by the "we're not for stuff, we are against the liberals (and Obama)" attitude of the past few years.The Commish said:Fwiw I'm of the "the more the merrier" mindset as long as you are working through the same general lens as me. We can disagree inside that context but as soon as you try to shift from the overall point of view we have a problem. Order of priority for me puts "we the people" first and foremost
I want to make clear that my only real requirement that is not negotiable is that all deals must have the American people first. For the time being anyway. That can also change once the balance is shifted back to wards the middle and we begin to be represented more than corporations by our reps.The issue the large tent invites though is the one the Repubs are facing, that many factions end up squabbling and not being able to agree on much, assisted by the "we're not for stuff, we are against the liberals (and Obama)" attitude of the past few years.
On the other hand the big tent invites compromise and reaching across the aisle.
Although if compromise in politics (for the greater good) was really an aim, a two party system is and was not the right way to go.
This statement is as vague as all of the similar ones made by President Trump. What trade agreement that we ever agreed to did not have the American people first? I would argue that all of them did. Certainly TPP would have provided great benefit to American consumers.I want to make clear that my only real requirement that is not negotiable is that all deals must have the American people first. For the time being anyway. That can also change once the balance is shifted back to wards the middle and we begin to be represented more than corporations by our reps.
Led Zeppelin taught me the meaning of misogyny.Da Guru said:Tell the truth...Did anyone know what misogyny meant a year ago??
I've already been down this rabbit hole with you Tim. Not doing it again. It's been shown to you several times by several of us how TPP isn't what you keep trying to make it out to be.This statement is as vague as all of the similar ones made by President Trump. What trade agreement that we ever agreed to did not have the American people first? I would argue that all of them did. Certainly TPP would have provided great benefit to American consumers.
timschochet said:Of the issues I listed, which are accepted, or at least not opposed, by the Republican party?
Bill Kristol is not a liberal, and he would wholeheartedly endorse this particular point.timschochet said:In foreign affairs we should continue our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world.
That wasn't really the point of my last post though. The point was that your statement was so vague as to be meaningless. Who decides what puts the American people first? That's not an objective standard. You might as well have written, "my only requirement is that I like the deal"; that would have been just as clear.I've already been down this rabbit hole with you Tim. Not doing it again. It's been shown to you several times by several of us how TPP isn't what you keep trying to make it out to be.
Yes you're right about that point. Somewhat. Though I would argue that Kristol's neoconservatism is more coldly geopolitical than the original Woodrow Wilson/FDR model which I was referring to.Bill Kristol is not a liberal, and he would wholeheartedly endorse this particular point.
Also, as The Commish noted, "Republican" is not the the opposite of "liberal." The opposite of "liberal" is "not liberal," which includes lots of people who do not identify as Republicans, such as me for example.
Aside from the fact that Kristol would almost certainly disagree with your assessment, how about Reagan then?Yes you're right about that point. Somewhat. Though I would argue that Kristol's neoconservatism is more coldly geopolitical than the original Woodrow Wilson/FDR model which I was referring to.
Well, Reagan supported El Salvador, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, and the Apartheid regime in South Africa, all because they were on our side of the Cold War.Aside from the fact that Kristol would almost certainly disagree with your assessment, how about Reagan then?
So? Reagan and Kristol would still argue sincerely that they were acting "our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world." And it's not difficult to find similar stuff to criticize self-identified liberals for. Foreign policy is messy and often requires us to work with folks we'd prefer not to work with. (You're a big fan of Churchill and FDR -- if we scour the historical record, could we find any unsavory regimes that those guys ever partnered up with?)Well, Reagan supported El Salvador, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, and the Apartheid regime in South Africa, all because they were on our side of the Cold War.
Again I agree somewhat. I would argue that, as a general rule, the more we place morality first in foreign affairs, the more liberal we are being. The more we place self-interest first, the more conservative we are being. There's a lot of gray area in between of course.So? Reagan and Kristol would still argue sincerely that they were acting "our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world." And it's not difficult to find similar stuff to criticize self-identified liberals for. Foreign policy is messy and often requires us to work with folks we'd prefer not to work with. (You're a big fan of Churchill and FDR -- if we scour the historical record, could we find any unsavory regimes that those guys ever partnered up with?)
I think this is a poor dichotomy. It makes it sound like conservatives are just Machiavellians while liberals are just goopy idealists. Good foreign policy presidents (Reagan and JFK would both qualify) have combined a clear moral vision for US leadership along with a willingness to push aggressively and efficiently to advance that vision. Presidents who focus too much on moral ideals to the exclusion of pragmatism (Carter, George W. Bush) tend to fail. That isn't a conservative-vs-liberal thing. It's more about pragmatism and seeing the world as it is as opposed to how we wish it were.Again I agree somewhat. I would argue that, as a general rule, the more we place morality first in foreign affairs, the more liberal we are being. The more we place self-interest first, the more conservative we are being. There's a lot of gray area in between of course.
I wrote that there is a lot of gray area. And earlier I wrote that you were somewhat right.I think this is a poor dichotomy. It makes it sound like conservatives are just Machiavellians while liberals are just goopy idealists. Good foreign policy presidents (Reagan and JFK would both qualify) have combined a clear moral vision for US leadership along with a willingness to push aggressively and efficiently to advance that vision. Presidents who focus too much on moral ideals to the exclusion of pragmatism (Carter, George W. Bush) tend to fail. That isn't a conservative-vs-liberal thing. It's more about pragmatism and seeing the world as it is as opposed to how we wish it were.
The politicians do in the way they write the legislation (or allow it to be written for them by their lobbyists)That wasn't really the point of my last post though. The point was that your statement was so vague as to be meaningless. Who decides what puts the American people first? That's not an objective standard. You might as well have written, "my only requirement is that I like the deal"; that would have been just as clear.
She will lob softball after softball at her.Hillary will be interviewed by Rachel Maddow tonight. I expect Rachel to be fair, open-minded, somewhat sympathetic, but also willing to ask tough questions. I'm looking forward to it.
I think there was a bit of brouhaha about some contras tooWell, Reagan supported El Salvador, Pinochet in Chile, Marcos in the Philippines, and the Apartheid regime in South Africa, all because they were on our side of the Cold War.
The ANC was definitely supported by the Soviets like most other colonial freedom fighting movements as well - probably more this than anything else. The vaunted "containment" doctrine, I believeI wrote that there is a lot of gray area. And earlier I wrote that you were somewhat right.
But I also think there is a lot of truth to my point as well. Why, for instance, did Reagan and previous Presidents support South Africa? At least part of the reason was because it was the established regime, and an end to the white government, they feared, would bring about anarchy and discord. .
The Anderson Cooper interview will likely be more productiveHillary will be interviewed by Rachel Maddow tonight. I expect Rachel to be fair, open-minded, somewhat sympathetic, but also willing to ask tough questions. I'm looking forward to it.
I really don't give a ####, but verified purchase reviews?Amazon deleting 1 star reviews . Somehow I'm really not surprised
And this is not surprising either:Amazon deleting 1 star reviews . Somehow I'm really not surprised
This is a magnificent take-down, however intended or unintended.So? Reagan and Kristol would still argue sincerely that they were acting "our role as the leader of the free world, and as a moral beacon for the world." And it's not difficult to find similar stuff to criticize self-identified liberals for. Foreign policy is messy and often requires us to work with folks we'd prefer not to work with. (You're a big fan of Churchill and FDR -- if we scour the historical record, could we find any unsavory regimes that those guys ever partnered up with?)
Oh,Hillary will be interviewed by Rachel Maddow tonight. I expect Rachel to be fair, open-minded, somewhat sympathetic, but also willing to ask tough questions. I'm looking forward to it.
She was on CNN too. The only weird part is when she talked about how much Trump didn't get inside her head at the first debate and all I heard was her revealing how much he got inside her head. She's still swirling about it. I mean Trump was a freak (the chair thing was outright weird) but she totally let him get to her. It bugs me that she was so defenseless in what was such an amateur maneuver.Hillary will be interviewed by Rachel Maddow tonight. I expect Rachel to be fair, open-minded, somewhat sympathetic, but also willing to ask tough questions. I'm looking forward to it.
My favorite part was where she railed on Bernie for not unifying the party but yet she says she will continue to be very active in the party. Does she really not know how divisive she is?She was on CNN too. The only weird part is when she talked about how much Trump didn't get inside her head at the first debate and all I heard was her revealing how much he got inside her head. She's still swirling about it. I mean Trump was a freak (the chair thing was outright weird) but she totally let him get to her. It bugs me that she was so defenseless in what was such an amateur maneuver.
Thank you! Twitter is a #### storm of Clinton Dems vs. Bernie Bros. It's literally destroying the party. The nonstop infighting is going to give us Trump 2020.The Commish said:My favorite part was where she railed on Bernie for not unifying the party but yet she says she will continue to be very active in the party. Does she really not know how divisive she is?
Unifying the party means everyone falling in line behind Hillary and her vision. Bernie wasn't, and still isn't, doing that.The Commish said:My favorite part was where she railed on Bernie for not unifying the party but yet she says she will continue to be very active in the party. Does she really not know how divisive she is?
My wife and I were talking about exactly this last night. It's quite amazingI find it weird that Hillary is still obsessed with Bernie and that Trump is still obsessed with Hillary. I literally can't recall a time when the victor of a race couldn't let it go, and it's happened twice just in this cycle..
It's a symptom of limitless narcisism.I find it weird that Hillary is still obsessed with Bernie and that Trump is still obsessed with Hillary. I literally can't recall a time when the victor of a race couldn't let it go, and it's happened twice just in this cycle..