ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez , DCCC , democrats

Reply
Old 27th March 2019, 11:49 AM   #41
Beelzebuddy
Philosopher
 
Beelzebuddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,721
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I honestly don't know much about her, save her green deal stuff, and her high-pitched voice, but why is she so much in the news lately? What's so cool or horrible about her?
She has an excellent grasp of internet media so she scares the GOP witless, and she argues against bipartisan concessions so the party leadership isn't fond of her either.
Beelzebuddy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 11:51 AM   #42
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,406
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
She has an excellent grasp of internet media so she scares the GOP witless, and she argues against bipartisan concessions so the party leadership isn't fond of her either.
Yeah who'd want concessions and compromise in a democratic society?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 11:54 AM   #43
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Yeah who'd want concessions and compromise in a democratic society?
You want the abolition of slavery, I want ten slaves. We'll compromise and I'll only have five slaves. Are you happy with our democratic compromise?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 11:55 AM   #44
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,962
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You want the abolition of slavery, I want ten slaves. We'll compromise and I'll only have five slaves. Are you happy with our democratic compromise?
What are the options? Five slaves now, and abolition in my lifetime, seems like a much better compromise than five slaves now, several hundred thousand dead people, and abolition in my lifetime.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 11:59 AM   #45
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,406
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You want the abolition of slavery, I want ten slaves. We'll compromise and I'll only have five slaves. Are you happy with our democratic compromise?
You're right. It's much better to just drop democracy and rule with an iron fist, imposing our will on those who are not like us...

...oh, wait. No, it isn't. And yes, that's exactly how they dealt with slavery, trying to compromise it into non-existence through several generations. If things didn't lead to war in the 19th century, slavery would probably have been phased out somehow.

But the idea of compromise isn't to find some mathematical middle ground that satisfies some ridiculous hypothetical like what you posted, presumably without thinking about it much. Compromise is that you get what you want by giving someone else what they want, too. No one's completely happy but they can live with the compromise. That doesn't mean that there aren't things you _can't_ compromise on.

TL;DR, your response is ridiculous and was not written or posted in order to further discussion.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 27th March 2019 at 12:00 PM.
Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 11:59 AM   #46
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,488
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You want the abolition of slavery, I want ten slaves. We'll compromise and I'll only have five slaves. Are you happy with our democratic compromise?
I like to think we're all adults here and can see the grey area between "Compromise on everything, even when the compromise is stupid and neither side gets what they want" and "Never compromise on anything because every hill is a hill that one must die defending and never let the 'other side' get their way in anything just because."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 11:59 AM   #47
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
What are the options? Five slaves now, and abolition in my lifetime, seems like a much better compromise than five slaves now, several hundred thousand dead people, and abolition in my lifetime.
Let's compromise again! I agree to your terms above, all I add for my side is I get to pick any five people I want to enslave. I pick you and Belz, I think you'd do well in my ocean floor manganese nodule mining venture. You can hold your breath, right?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:01 PM   #48
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I like to think we're all adults here and can see the grey area between "Compromise on everything, even when the compromise is stupid and neither side gets what they want" and "Never compromise on anything but every hill is a hill that one must die defending."
Unfortunately recent history has shown that compromise gets you bad healthcare and no Supreme Court appointments. If one side is not willing to compromise unless their most outrageous terms are granted compromise ceases to be a good thing.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:02 PM   #49
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,406
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I like to think we're all adults here and can see the grey area between "Compromise on everything, even when the compromise is stupid and neither side gets what they want" and "Never compromise on anything because every hill is a hill that one must die defending and never let the 'other side' get their way in anything just because."
Clearly we have a poster here who doesn't see any gray there. They've given up on the idea of democracy. Hell, even society itself.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:04 PM   #50
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
You're right. It's much better to just drop democracy and rule with an iron fist, imposing our will on those who are not like us...

...oh, wait. No, it isn't. And yes, that's exactly how they dealt with slavery, trying to compromise it into non-existence through several generations. If things didn't lead to war in the 19th century, slavery would probably have been phased out somehow.

But the idea of compromise isn't to find some mathematical middle ground that satisfies some ridiculous hypothetical like what you posted, presumably without thinking about it much. Compromise is that you get what you want by giving someone else what they want, too. No one's completely happy but they can live with the compromise. That doesn't mean that there aren't things you _can't_ compromise on.

TL;DR, your response is ridiculous and was not written or posted in order to further discussion.
I don't take assessments of discussion furtheration from people bandying about with Bob.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:06 PM   #51
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Clearly we have a poster here who doesn't see any gray there. They've given up on the idea of democracy. Hell, even society itself.
Yeah, that must be it. You sound slightly hysterical, perhaps your nerves have been compromised.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:07 PM   #52
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,406
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I don't take assessments of discussion furtheration from people bandying about with Bob.
Hey, you can't blame me for at least trying to get through to him once in a while.

But how about you address my actual points? So far you've been very keen to avoid the discussion. First, your example with slaves is so clownishly extreme as to be completely outside of the realm of possibilities for what we're discussing here, and YET I managed to show you that even in that instance compromise would've gotten the US rid of it in time. Second, now you responded to what you considered the low-hanging fruit in my post, attacking the arguer and ignoring the argument altogether.

Would you like to try for something more productive?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:09 PM   #53
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,406
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Yeah, that must be it. You sound slightly hysterical, perhaps your nerves have been compromised.
More personal attacks.

But hey, support your claim: what's "hysterical" in my post? You're the one who made the statement, in response to my comment that AOC's lack of willingness to compromise is a negative trait, that compromise leads to horrible consequences. Do you believe in the democratic process that leads to compromise or not?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:09 PM   #54
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,488
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Unfortunately recent history has shown that compromise gets you bad healthcare and no Supreme Court appointments. If one side is not willing to compromise unless their most outrageous terms are granted compromise ceases to be a good thing.
The problem is when one sides starts being unreasonable and you decide they aren't worth talking to anymore... they don't go away. And in politics they don't give up any of their power.

A lot of people seem to have a huuuuuge problem with the idea that I think the Republicans are just as bad as they do.... and yet I still think talking to them is our best course of action.

Mainly because it's not like we have a choice. They hold all the cards right now. Talking to them has to be the first step in getting anything done.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:10 PM   #55
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,962
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Let's compromise again! I agree to your terms above, all I add for my side is I get to pick any five people I want to enslave. I pick you and Belz, I think you'd do well in my ocean floor manganese nodule mining venture. You can hold your breath, right?
Meh.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:12 PM   #56
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,251
Primaries are okay as long as the winner has pledged allegiance to the DNC.

You so much as lean out of the center-left circle and establishment Democrats give you the cold shoulder at best, try to undermine you at worst.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:13 PM   #57
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,406
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
Primaries are okay as long as the winner has pledged allegiance to the DNC.

You so much as lean out of the center-left circle and establishment Democrats give you the cold shoulder at best, try to undermine you at worst.
On the other hand it's pretty understandable even from just a strategic point of view: alienating the swing voters is rarely a good idea.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:22 PM   #58
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Hey, you can't blame me for at least trying to get through to him once in a while.
I can indeed. You're exacerbating a problem, and you know it full well as even you point out the futility of replying to him in your replies to him.


Quote:
But how about you address my actual points? So far you've been very keen to avoid the discussion. First, your example with slaves is so clownishly extreme as to be completely outside of the realm of possibilities for what we're discussing here, and YET I managed to show you that even in that instance compromise would've gotten the US rid of it in time. Second, now you responded to what you considered the low-hanging fruit in my post, attacking the arguer and ignoring the argument altogether.
Let's see, you leapt from a single legislator arguing against compromise with the opposition (which has a recent history of abusing compromise) to that being an attack upon the whole institution of democracy. I think characterizing that leap, in the tone you wrote, as 'hysterical' was perfectly appropriate.

As for your misunderstanding of American history it was compromise that enabled slavery. It took a war and undemocratic decree to end slavery here. It's an argument against compromise as always good, not an argument for it. That you imagine somehow slavery would have been ended through compromise is something you can explore when writing alternate history fiction.

Quote:
Would you like to try for something more productive?
I don't see any productive conversation in this thread. Unless Democrat leadership or AOC is reading it, and are swayed by your calm and reasonable misunderstandings of history and democracy to change their ways.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:25 PM   #59
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
The problem is when one sides starts being unreasonable and you decide they aren't worth talking to anymore... they don't go away. And in politics they don't give up any of their power.

A lot of people seem to have a huuuuuge problem with the idea that I think the Republicans are just as bad as they do.... and yet I still think talking to them is our best course of action.

Mainly because it's not like we have a choice. They hold all the cards right now. Talking to them has to be the first step in getting anything done.
In that case whichever party refuses to budge wins. They can get more and more concessions from the compromise-loving opposition just by making more and more unreasonable demands.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:27 PM   #60
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,062
Originally Posted by The_Animus View Post
What?

I'm saying that telling your voters you don't care what they want, they're going to vote for who you tell them to and like it, is asking for people to stay home or vote third party.
Yes, it is.

But that's not really much of a threat to most incumbents. Most of them are in districts which will stay blue no matter what. For them, primary challengers are a bigger risk than the Republican party. They'd rather keep their seat and lose the House/Senate/Presidency than win any/all of them but lose their seat.

Quote:
If a progressive challenger can beat a centrist incumbent in a fair primary then they should be on the ticket. If they can't then that's fine too. But don't try to rig it one way or the other.
Are you trying to appeal to their better natures? Or ethical principles?

Do you think that really works on politicians?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:27 PM   #61
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,488
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I can indeed. You're exacerbating a problem, and you know it full well as even you point out the futility of replying to him in your replies to him.
If you don't like seeing people talking to Bob, ignore it. You can ignore people talking to Bob exactly as easily in perfect 1:1 ratio as people can ignore Bob and should be given the exact same expectations to do so.

I'll never understand how people who won't stop complaining about how they can't ignore people "feeding the trolls" don't see the irony in that.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:28 PM   #62
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,488
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
In that case whichever party refuses to budge wins. They can get more and more concessions from the compromise-loving opposition just by making more and more unreasonable demands.
I don't believe in that scenario anyone is really winning.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:29 PM   #63
Delphic Oracle
Master Poster
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 2,993
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Let's just keep up the "we don't need no stinking centrist/moderates" stuff.

And hand Trump reelection on a silver platter.
Repeatedly attacking our own purported ideals is working any better?
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:29 PM   #64
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
If you don't like seeing people talking to Bob, ignore it. You can ignore people talking to Bob exactly as easily in perfect 1:1 ratio as people can ignore Bob and should be given the exact same expectations to do so.

I'll never understand how people who won't stop complaining about how they can't ignore people "feeding the trolls" don't see the irony in that.
I don't care if people feed them unless they keep on saying they know they shouldn't as they do it. Eat the cake or don't eat the cake, just don't eat the cake while crying about the calories.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:30 PM   #65
Drewbot
Philosopher
 
Drewbot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 6,988
Originally Posted by thaiboxerken View Post
When are they going to learn that making the party Republican-lite isn't a winning strategy anymore?
Wait-
Obama basically won running as Republican Lite.

Hillary went left and lost.

You can't take a split victory in the mid terms as evidence the Dems need to run far left.

A reasonable Dem running closer to Trump, disavowing the leftists, would probably win in a landslide.
__________________
"I dont call that evolution, I call that the survival of the fittest." - Bulletmaker
"I thought skeptics would usually point towards a hoax rather than a group being duped." - makaya325
Kit is not a skeptic. He is a former Bigfoot believer that changed his position to that of non believer.- Crowlogic
Drewbot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:31 PM   #66
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,782
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
A) the Democrats were not who were ruled against in this case. It was the state law.
Huh-huh. Do you really want to suggest that if it were not for a state law (created at the behest of Democrats), then a political party could generate rules only allowing whites to vote in their primary? The court case established that parties, contrary to your original claim, are not purely private organizations. And the landmark Supreme Court case predates Brown, and the social-political transformations that have since taken place.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:32 PM   #67
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I don't believe in that scenario anyone is really winning.
In the sense of principles, no. In the sense of getting the things you want done, yes. Tax cuts for billionaires! Hobbled healthcare reform! Deregulated banking! The unprincipled don't care about the principles, they just want stuff. And they've been extremely successful at it lately.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:50 PM   #68
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,617
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Huh-huh. Do you really want to suggest that if it were not for a state law (created at the behest of Democrats), then a political party could generate rules only allowing whites to vote in their primary? The court case established that parties, contrary to your original claim, are not purely private organizations. And the landmark Supreme Court case predates Brown, and the social-political transformations that have since taken place.
Yes. Watch.

The political party of btc is holding our primary right now and only black members can vote.

Zero votes were cast again. Better luck next election.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 12:55 PM   #69
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,782
Well, I'm convinced. You should get your head examined.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:19 PM   #70
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Personally, I think AOC is on the right lines. The American political system is inherently adversarial. We don't have a parliament where people work together to form coalitions. It's a battle between opposing sides. Compromise is rare, usually it's more concessions wrung out of the opposition after they've been beaten. The Republicans know this, and have been openly saying so for years now. The old guard Democrats either don't realize it, or think it better not to openly admit it. So they try to sound like the reasonable adults, and talk of common good, compromise, working together, etc. But the other side doesn't want to work together, they don't care about the common good, they're there for a fight. Which is what AOC and her cohorts campaigned on, and what they're willing to do. It's what the Democrats need, but the old fogeys in charge are unwilling to see it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:38 PM   #71
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,406
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I can indeed. You're exacerbating a problem, and you know it full well as even you point out the futility of replying to him in your replies to him.
There's no way to make the problem go away. Making at least a token effort to address it once in a while isn't much of a waste.

Quote:
Let's see, you leapt from a single legislator arguing against compromise with the opposition (which has a recent history of abusing compromise) to that being an attack upon the whole institution of democracy. I think characterizing that leap, in the tone you wrote, as 'hysterical' was perfectly appropriate.
Except that this isn't what happened. You're lying by omission, here, removing the middle steps to make it appear that it went from A to Z directly, not unlike trolls who delete their offensive posts from Facebook after people responded to them, making it seem like they're responding to someone else.

What did happen is that I said that being unwilling to compromise was a bad thing. That's what I said. You deliberately added interpretation onto it (in this case, an absolutist interpretation that saw the issue as only ALWAYS compromise or NEVER) and that's what I said was anti-democratic, because your only solution if you are against the very concept of compromise with those who have views incompatible with yours is to split up completely. Most humans seem to understand the concept of compromise just fine, while at the same time accepting that some compromises are impossible. They can hold two thoughts at once; imagine that!

Quote:
As for your misunderstanding of American history it was compromise that enabled slavery.
Slavery already existed, so clearly you're wrong. In addition, the alternative was no United States of America. Do you think this was a preferable outcome? They didn't.

Quote:
It took a war and undemocratic decree to end slavery here. It's an argument against compromise as always good, not an argument for it.
That's ridiculous. Britain got rid of slavery without a civil war. Clearly you can get there without shedding the mantle of democracy and imposing your will on others.

Now that we've dealt with your extreme and ridiculous hypothetical, how about you instead address my original post on its own merits rather than your, let's say, hysterical response?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:53 PM   #72
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,807
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
In that case whichever party refuses to budge wins. They can get more and more concessions from the compromise-loving opposition just by making more and more unreasonable demands.
We're basically already there with the Republicans. If the Democrats adopt the same strategy, who will they (Democrats) get concessions from?
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:54 PM   #73
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Except that this isn't what happened. You're lying by omission, here, removing the middle steps to make it appear that it went from A to Z directly, not unlike trolls who delete their offensive posts from Facebook after people responded to them, making it seem like they're responding to someone else.
I have no idea what they do on Facebook. Nor am I trolling. I interpreted your statement to mean that AOC "arguing against compromise", which is what you were replying to, was a bad thing. I disagreed.

Quote:
What did happen is that I said that being unwilling to compromise was a bad thing.
Yeah. That's what I was arguing against. Unwillingness to compromise can be a good thing if the proposed compromise is a bad one. I don't see what's "undemocratic" about that.

Quote:
That's what I said. You deliberately added interpretation onto it (in this case, an absolutist interpretation that saw the issue as only ALWAYS compromise or NEVER) and that's what I said was anti-democratic, because your only solution if you are against the very concept of compromise with those who have views incompatible with yours is to split up completely. Most humans seem to understand the concept of compromise just fine, while at the same time accepting that some compromises are impossible. They can hold two thoughts at once; imagine that!
Funny how you accuse me of 'absolutist' interpretation of your remarks while doing it to mine. Can we start over? My position is this: compromise is not always good, and in the current American political situation this is one of those times when the Democrats need to fight more and compromise less.

Quote:
Slavery already existed, so clearly you're wrong.
"Enabled" means more than "start".

Quote:
In addition, the alternative was no United States of America.
Not necessarily. Again, a "what-if" scenario better suited for fiction.

Quote:
That's ridiculous. Britain got rid of slavery without a civil war. Clearly you can get there without shedding the mantle of democracy and imposing your will on others.
I said "here", meaning America. Which was very clear from context. Again, we'll never know what "could have been" historically, we only know what happened: we had to fight a war over it.

Quote:
Now that we've dealt with your extreme and ridiculous hypothetical, how about you instead address my original post on its own merits rather than your, let's say, hysterical response?
I don't know what you consider your original post, but the one I started talking to you about was the one where you asked "Yeah who'd want concessions and compromise in a democratic society?" as a hyperbolic rhetorical question in response to someone saying AOC "argues against bipartisan concessions". What merits are present there that require addressing? I already stated I disagree with your premise that opposition to compromise is undemocratic.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 01:58 PM   #74
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
We're basically already there with the Republicans. If the Democrats adopt the same strategy, who will they (Democrats) get concessions from?
They can't get concessions without beating the opposition. That's the point. It's a boxing match where one person is there to fight, and the other is standing there saying "well, maybe we should just talk it over and work together" and then wondering why there are so many stars out in the daytime. Someone who refuses to recognize they're in a fight isn't going to be the winner. It's time to fight, not compromise. AOC and company realize that. The voters realize that, which is why they elected them. The Democrat machine doesn't realize it, or won't accept it, and that's why they lose ground every day.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 02:01 PM   #75
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,406
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I have no idea what they do on Facebook. Nor am I trolling.
I'm not saying you're trolling, nor do I think you are. I'm comparing your behaviour to others in order to illustrate how counter-productive it is.

Quote:
I interpreted your statement to mean that AOC "arguing against compromise", which is what you were replying to, was a bad thing. I disagreed.
Well, to employ your earlier black-and-white style, are you saying that compromise is always bad? Because I'm pretty sure you're not (and, checking below, this is confirmed), neither was I saying that they are always good. But perhaps we can both agree that the ability to compromise is an important quality for a diplomat or politician?

Quote:
Yeah. That's what I was arguing against. Unwillingness to compromise can be a good thing if the proposed compromise is a bad one. I don't see what's "undemocratic" about that.
Given that my original comment on compromise was about AOC's stated unwillingness to compromise (otherwise unqualified), I took your disagreement to mean that compromise is, generally at the very least, a bad thing. Since compromise is central to living in a society and especially a democratic one, this prompted said comment by me.

Quote:
Can we start over?
Gladly.

Quote:
My position is this: compromise is not always good, and in the current American political situation this is one of those times when the Democrats need to fight more and compromise less.
Agreed. I wish you had led with that.

Quote:
"Enabled" means more than "start".
See below.

Quote:
Not necessarily.
Yes, necessarily. There is no way the slave states would've signed on unless the other states were prepared to conquer them. I'm not sure the USA would've turned out democratic under that scenario.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 02:01 PM   #76
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,617
The DCCC is not stopping primary challenges, they are not banning them from using consultants. They are simply declaring that they wont do further business with these consultants. The consultants are not exactly members of the party.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 02:34 PM   #77
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
But perhaps we can both agree that the ability to compromise is an important quality for a diplomat or politician?
Diplomats, yes. Politicians? Not necessarily. If they belong to a party then let some be compromisey and others not, then they can be employed when needed for each situation as it arises. Legislators don't all need to be diplomatic. Executives might.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 02:41 PM   #78
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,406
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Diplomats, yes. Politicians? Not necessarily. If they belong to a party then let some be compromisey and others not, then they can be employed when needed for each situation as it arises. Legislators don't all need to be diplomatic. Executives might.
I'm not sure where you stand, then. That language above essentially covers all possibilities. Your answer is "maybe"?

I mean, we've all lived with other people, either in long-term relationships or whatever, and in communities. Politicians represent us in the larger whole. Not everybody can get everything they want, so clearly, as a general rule, compromises will and must happen. Setting aside things one is not willing to compromise on, of course. What part of that do you disagree with?
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 02:52 PM   #79
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,251
Originally Posted by Drewbot View Post
Wait-
Obama basically won running as Republican Lite.

Hillary went left and lost.

You can't take a split victory in the mid terms as evidence the Dems need to run far left.

A reasonable Dem running closer to Trump, disavowing the leftists, would probably win in a landslide.
Hillary already had tons of political baggage on her. When she "went left" a ton of people already didn't believe her.

On the other hand, a much more obscure Barack Obama was able to capture progressives and undecideds and cleanly win on a progressive message.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th March 2019, 03:03 PM   #80
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 48,711
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I'm not sure where you stand, then. That language above essentially covers all possibilities. Your answer is "maybe"?
It's "no". I do not agree that compromise is a necessary quality in all politicians. I do not conflate politicians and diplomats, I don't think the skillset of a legislator requires a desire to compromise.

Quote:
I mean, we've all lived with other people, either in long-term relationships or whatever, and in communities. Politicians represent us in the larger whole. Not everybody can get everything they want, so clearly, as a general rule, compromises will and must happen. Setting aside things one is not willing to compromise on, of course. What part of that do you disagree with?
That compromises sometimes occur doesn't make them desirable in all situations. In this situation (the current US legislature) I believe compromise on the part of the Democrats would be in general a mistake. They should fight more and compromise less.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.