Continuation The Biden Presidency (3)

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

What the hell are you talking about? You replied to me. If that wasn't an actual response to what I was actually saying, you were just taking the opportunity to shake your cane and yell at clouds, then fine but you ought to have said so.

[ETA] On second thought, this is exactly the problem. Old liberals identify more with old conservatives than with young liberals, to the extent that they'd rather reach across the aisle for support than sort out conflicts within their own party. We saw this last year when Dem leadership sided with Republicans to kill the progressive half of the BBB rather than push it through as they'd promised.

You asked me

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

What, then, should the young members of your party think when they see their venerable leadership refuse to give up the torch, or fight for issues important to them, or even allow them their own voice in the party, because they did a thing [i]fifty years ago?

I replied:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Why are you asking me this when this has never been a point I've debated? My point is that I'm tired of Baby Boomers being blamed for all the ills of the world which is pretty much what you were doing. It had NOTHING to do with older leadership refusing to give way to the younger generation.

(You asked me questions based on a position I had not taken. I never discussed the older Congress members refusing to 'give up the torch' or refusing to 'fight for issues important' to you.)

You replied:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

What do you think "gerontocracy" means?

I replied:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

I didn't introduce that word; you did. I repeated it and put it into quotes for a reason:
"I'm so tired of baby boomers...the old folks, the "gerontocracy", the "olds" being blamed for the ills of this country."
Try reading for context.

(Being asked what 'gerontocracy' means does not address the issue that you asked me to basically defend things I'd never argued in the first place.)

You replied:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

"Okay Boomer"

[ETA] Sigh... I hate flippant replies even if they're called for. Putting something into "quotes" doesn't mean you can just ignore it and knock down a strawman instead.

(I put those words in quotes because I was quoting your words. I didn't ignore your question which was obviously rhetorical; not really meant to be answered. What should also be obvious is that I know what a 'gerontocracy' is from the context of my posts. Exactly what 'strawman' are you talking about?)

I said:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

And yet again, you fail to actually address the issue which is that your question to me was based on a false premise that I had argued something I never did. There was no strawman on my part.

You said:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

What the hell are you talking about? You replied to me. If that wasn't an actual response to what I was actually saying, you were just taking the opportunity to shake your cane and yell at clouds, then fine but you ought to have said so.

I don't understand what your point here is. It doesn't make any sense to me. Did I ever say I hadn't responded to you? What I said was that you still weren't addressing my point that you were asking me to basically defend something I'd never argued in the first place.

You said:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

...you were just taking the opportunity to shake your cane and yell at clouds, then fine but you ought to have said so.

[ETA] On second thought, this is exactly the problem. Old liberals identify more with old conservatives than with young liberals, to the extent that they'd rather reach across the aisle for support than sort out conflicts within their own party. We saw this last year when Dem leadership sided with Republicans to kill the progressive half of the BBB rather than push it through as they'd promised.

You really do seem to have a bee up your butt with a very black and white view of Boomers/Gen.X's. You lump us all into one basket as if we all think the same. We don't. It's also very convenient for you to have someone to blame for everything...which was my original point. Have you ever considered that B & W view is part of the problem? You want everything you want without compromise which is exactly the problem with the right-wingers. But politics don't work that way in the real world whether you like it or not. And that's a reality that we 'old farts' have learned through experience.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You asked me


I replied:


(You asked me questions based on a position I had not taken. I never discussed the older Congress members refusing to 'give up the torch' or refusing to 'fight for issues important' to you.)

You replied:


I replied:


(Being asked what 'gerontocracy' means does not address the issue that you asked me to basically defend things I'd never argued in the first place.)

You replied:


(I put those words in quotes because I was quoting your words. I didn't ignore your question which was obviously rhetorical; not really meant to be answered. What should also be obvious is that I know what a 'gerontocracy' is from the context of my posts. Exactly what 'strawman' are you talking about?)

I said:


You said:


I don't understand what your point here is. It doesn't make any sense to me. Did I ever say I hadn't responded to you? What I said was that you still weren't addressing my point that you were asking me to basically defend something I'd never argued in the first place.

You said:


You really do seem to have a bee up your butt with a very black and white view of Boomers/Gen.X's. You lump us all into one basket as if we all think the same. We don't. It's also very convenient for you to have someone to blame for everything...which was my original point. Have you ever considered that B & W view is part of the problem? You want everything you want without compromise which is exactly the problem with the right-wingers. But politics don't work that way in the real world whether you like it or not. And that's a reality that we 'old farts' have learned through experience.

Uh huh. But before all that:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

The Democrats' goal is to make things better for everyone, or try to, which is laudable. But right now they're also a gerontocracy

Which you interpreted as a statement about Boomers in general, I guess? and it was off to the races.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Uh huh.

I notice you fail to address ANY of my points. Handwaving away something is not a rebuttal.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

But before all that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
The Democrats' goal is to make things better for everyone, or try to, which is laudable. But right now they're also a gerontocracy

Which you interpreted as a statement about Boomers in general, I guess? and it was off to the races.

Was it not? It was immediately preceded and followed by:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

It's not quite that simple, I think. It's a matter of age gaps and anti-entitlement sentiment. The Democrats' goal is to make things better for everyone, or try to, which is laudable. But right now they're also a gerontocracy, so "better" is largely defined in the context of problems they remember having in the good old days. Student loans were not one of those problems. So the olds don't understand why the young folks aren't being more appreciative of Biden's efforts to address something they don't even see as a problem in the first place (read the last page or two if you disagree), while the youngs see a backhanded token gesture from Biden that does nothing to fix the broken system he campaigned on fixing.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Was it not? It was immediately preceded and followed by:

Yes? That's still about the Dem leadership, not Boomers in general. How else would you have me phrase "they've been fighting for sole ownership of the party for so long they're decades out of touch and now there's no one they can lean on that even understands how to reach young voters any more?" That could be applied to Boomers in general, I guess, but it wasn't in this case. Hell one of the two people I said the Ds need to do more to emulate was Bernie, and he's just a grumpy bottle of Ensure in a knit cap at this point.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Yes? That's still about the Dem leadership, not Boomers in general. How else would you have me phrase "they've been fighting for sole ownership of the party for so long they're decades out of touch and now there's no one they can lean on that even understands how to reach young voters any more?" That could be applied to Boomers in general, I guess, but it wasn't in this case. Hell one of the two people I said the Ds need to do more to emulate was Bernie, and he's just a grumpy bottle of Ensure in a knit cap at this point.

Uh-huh...The majority of the "gerontocracy" in Congress are Boomers: 53% with only 27% older. But then you went on to make it abundantly clear whom you were referring to:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

What, then, should the young members of your party think when they see their venerable leadership refuse to give up the torch, or fight for issues important to them, or even allow them their own voice in the party, because they did a thing fifty years ago?

Who were doing those things "fifty years ago"? The Millennials? No, the Boomers.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

The young liberals who stand to inherit the party once the boomers finally die in their seats? DNC leadership (which to their credit typically were the people in the marches, etc) have spent a lifetime fighting down every challenge to their power, making it them or nothing, and now they're old, and it's still them or nothing.

But you weren't referring mainly to the Boomers, were ya?

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Uh-huh...The majority of the "gerontocracy" in Congress are Boomers: 53% with only 27% older. But then you went on to make it abundantly clear whom you were referring to:



Who were doing those things "fifty years ago"? The Millennials? No, the Boomers.



But you weren't referring mainly to the Boomers, were ya?

I could point out the bits in those quotes which indicate I'm specifically referring to the Boomers in charge of the Democratic party, but if you're so determined to make it about your entire generation, there's not much I can do to dissuade you. It's what you've been doing your whole lives, why stop now. Hopefully there'll be a country left to save when it finally gets pried from your cold dead hands.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

I could point out the bits in those quotes which indicate I'm specifically referring to the Boomers in charge of the Democratic party, but if you're so determined to make it about your entire generation, there's not much I can do to dissuade you. It's what you've been doing your whole lives, why stop now. Hopefully there'll be a country left to save when it finally gets pried from your cold dead hands.

And I can point out that's it's your attitude toward Boomers in general, not just those in the Dem Party or the Dem leadership. You concentrate on those because they're the ones you're pissed at for not giving the Progressives everything they want as in:

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Beelzebuddy's Evil Plan to Save America

• Take a pen and paper.
• Give them to AOC.
• Do everything she says.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

It's not quite that simple, I think. It's a matter of age gaps and anti-entitlement sentiment. The Democrats' goal is to make things better for everyone, or try to, which is laudable. But right now they're also a gerontocracy, so "better" is largely defined in the context of problems they remember having in the good old days. Student loans were not one of those problems. So the olds don't understand why the young folks aren't being more appreciative of Biden's efforts to address something they don't even see as a problem in the first place (read the last page or two if you disagree), while the youngs see a backhanded token gesture from Biden that does nothing to fix the broken system he campaigned on fixing.

You're referring to me and other members of the 'gerontocracy' who don't think there should just be a general forgiveness of all student loans across the board as in "read the last page or two if you disagree". Or are you going to claims it's only the Dem leadership or Dem politicians who don't see them as a problem because they didn't experience it?

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Think back to those times, which were *checks watch* fifty years ago. What would you have thought of someone who was then 68? What do you think they would have thought of you at the time?

They were the very people who tried to make "things better for everyone" in the 10s and 20s. They fought for suffrage. They brought in the New Deal. Did you respect your elders, young Stacyhs, and let them set the pace of social adjustment on the strengths of their laurels from bygone ages? Or did you write them off as doddering old coots, maybe well-intentioned but archaic and hidebound in their perception of society's ills?

What, then, should the young members of your party think when they see their venerable leadership refuse to give up the torch, or fight for issues important to them, or even allow them their own voice in the party, because they did a thing fifty years ago?

You're referring to Boomers here in general, as being allowed to " set the pace of social adjustment on the strengths of their laurels from bygone ages," just as fifty years ago we didn't respect our elders. You're NOT talking about the leadership, but the generation.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

[ETA] On second thought, this is exactly the problem. Old liberals identify more with old conservatives than with young liberals, to the extent that they'd rather reach across the aisle for support than sort out conflicts within their own party. We saw this last year when Dem leadership sided with Republicans to kill the progressive half of the BBB rather than push it through as they'd promised.

Again, you're not referring to the Dem leadership: you're talking about people like me, an "old liberal" who said to you "You want everything you want without compromise which is exactly the problem with the right-wingers. But politics don't work that way in the real world whether you like it or not. And that's a reality that we 'old farts' have learned through experience."


So, please, stop being intellectually dishonest and claiming you're only talking about Dem politicians/leadership. You're pissed at Boomers in general because you see them as preventing the implementation of your Progressive dream.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

And I can point out that's it's your attitude toward Boomers in general, not just those in the Dem Party or the Dem leadership. You concentrate on those because they're the ones you're pissed at for not giving the Progressives everything they want as in:





You're referring to me and other members of the 'gerontocracy' who don't think there should just be a general forgiveness of all student loans across the board as in "read the last page or two if you disagree". Or are you going to claims it's only the Dem leadership or Dem politicians who don't see them as a problem because they didn't experience it?




You're referring to Boomers here in general, as being allowed to " set the pace of social adjustment on the strengths of their laurels from bygone ages," just as fifty years ago we didn't respect our elders. You're NOT talking about the leadership, but the generation.



Again, you're not referring to the Dem leadership: you're talking about people like me, an "old liberal" who said to you "You want everything you want without compromise which is exactly the problem with the right-wingers. But politics don't work that way in the real world whether you like it or not. And that's a reality that we 'old farts' have learned through experience."


So, please, stop being intellectually dishonest and claiming you're only talking about Dem politicians/leadership. You're pissed at Boomers in general because you see them as preventing the implementation of your Progressive dream.

You're going to burst something with all that bold typefacing. At first I thought I'd humor you and had a whole rant about Boomers typed up, you'd have loved cherry picking strawmen to get rustled about, but it's just not important. This thing, that we're doing here, where you're trying like hell to seek victimization? It's a waste of both our time. No matter how low you think my opinion of your generation is, there are people out there in the good ol' US of A who would happily see both of us dead, and are trying their damndest to reach that fateful day. Not only can it happen here, it has happened here. We would probably disagree as to the role of chronic complacency in letting fascism take root to the extent it has, but it's here nonetheless.

This might go against forty years of Democrat policy, but we're going to have to actually do something about it. I'll worry about "Progressive Dream" once "Fascist Nightmare" is avoided. We can have all the arguments about health care and universal basic income you want. But these issues? Student loans, and voting rights, and union protections, Supreme Court representation? That's not the Progressive Dream. That's basic **** that Dems should have taken care of years ago before it ever got as bad as it has, but it didn't personally affect them so they couldn't be bothered to pull their heads out of their asses. They had theirs. Well, those are all still problems, and now they're pretty pressing. Dems NEED the votes dependent on those issues. This may not be the best environment to address them in, what with the Ds having compromised everything away until they're dependent on a literal coal baron to pass legislation. Tough ****. Make it work. We might not get another chance.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

You're going to burst something with all that bold typefacing. At first I thought I'd humor you and had a whole rant about Boomers typed up, you'd have loved cherry picking strawmen to get rustled about, but it's just not important. This thing, that we're doing here, where you're trying like hell to seek victimization? It's a waste of both our time. No matter how low you think my opinion of your generation is, there are people out there in the good ol' US of A who would happily see both of us dead, and are trying their damndest to reach that fateful day. Not only can it happen here, it has happened here. We would probably disagree as to the role of chronic complacency in letting fascism take root to the extent it has, but it's here nonetheless.

This might go against forty years of Democrat policy, but we're going to have to actually do something about it. I'll worry about "Progressive Dream" once "Fascist Nightmare" is avoided. We can have all the arguments about health care and universal basic income you want. But these issues? Student loans, and voting rights, and union protections, Supreme Court representation? That's not the Progressive Dream. That's basic **** that Dems should have taken care of years ago before it ever got as bad as it has, but it didn't personally affect them so they couldn't be bothered to pull their heads out of their asses. They had theirs. Well, those are all still problems, and now they're pretty pressing. Dems NEED the votes dependent on those issues. This may not be the best environment to address them in, what with the Ds having compromised everything away until they're dependent on a literal coal baron to pass legislation. Tough ****. Make it work. We might not get another chance.

Your rant, includng your petty nitpicking about the bold typeface is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the fact that, instead of you providing "the bits in those quotes which indicate (you're) specifically referring to the Boomers in charge of the Democratic party," I used your own words to prove otherwise.

Why bother with typing up yet another "whole rant about Boomers"...oh, excuse me...the Democrat politicians and Dem leadership ...when your previous ones are quite sufficient? How much more whining about the poor Progressive youngsters being the victims of their "venerable leadership (who) refuse to give up the torch, or fight for issues important to them, or even allow them their own voice in the party" and who "have spent a lifetime fighting down every challenge to their power, making it them or nothing" do you have in you?

As for " Student loans, and voting rights, and union protections, and Supreme Court representation" who the hell do you think fought for those very things for the last 60+ years? Those of you still in pooping in your Pampers then? But you're right about one thing: That's not the Progressive Dream: it's been the Democrats' dreams. But sorreeeee if a perfect world wasn't handed to you tied up with a big, red bow.

I'm sure in 50 years when all us horrible Boomers are out of your way, you Progressives will have produced a virtual paradise on Earth. and if not, I'm sure you'll still find someone to blame.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Your rant, includng your petty nitpicking about the bold typeface is nothing more than an attempt to distract from the fact that, instead of you providing "the bits in those quotes which indicate (you're) specifically referring to the Boomers in charge of the Democratic party," I used your own words to prove otherwise.

Why bother with typing up yet another "whole rant about Boomers"...oh, excuse me...the Democrat politicians and Dem leadership ...when your previous ones are quite sufficient? How much more whining about the poor Progressive youngsters being the victims of their "venerable leadership (who) refuse to give up the torch, or fight for issues important to them, or even allow them their own voice in the party" and who "have spent a lifetime fighting down every challenge to their power, making it them or nothing" do you have in you?

As for " Student loans, and voting rights, and union protections, and Supreme Court representation" who the hell do you think fought for those very things for the last 60+ years? Those of you still in pooping in your Pampers then? But you're right about one thing: That's not the Progressive Dream: it's been the Democrats' dreams. But sorreeeee if a perfect world wasn't handed to you tied up with a big, red bow.

I'm sure in 50 years when all us horrible Boomers are out of your way, you Progressives will have produced a virtual paradise on Earth. and if not, I'm sure you'll still find someone to blame.

Entirely typical of arguing with Boomers:
"We shouldn't be fighting, we have a more pressing common enemy"
"Well that's because YOU can't stop blaming us for everything"

Quote:

who the hell do you think fought for those very things for the last 60+ years

You know what I've never once seen a Boomer voluntarily brag about? Accomplishments after 1980.

[ETA] I know I'm getting trolled, but **** it, I'll take a nibble.

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

But you're right about one thing: That's not the Progressive Dream: it's been the Democrats' dreams.

Yeah. We know. Wanna talk about how well you've been pursuing those dreams? How about the last time you "fought" for them? Remember the BBB bill, Biden's flagship Obamacare-equivalent that he based his campaign on? It had a bunch of that. It was bisected by Senate Democrats into two bills, one with everything Joe Manchin did not object to, and one with everything he did. Guess which half held all those Democrats' dreams? Guess which half got passed (after further trimming by Republicans), and which died a forgotten and shameful death?

That's not to say that no Democrats tried to fight for Democrats' dreams. In the House, a caucus of Progressives worked together to hold up an unrelated but must-pass bill, until Dem leadership in the Senate agreed to at least put the half of the BBB bill containing their Democrats' dreams to a vote. To get it out and discussed and argued for in the public eye. In response, Dem leadership in the House sided with Republicans (reminder: the GOP is currently in the middle of a historically obstructionist period, driven to prevent anything that might make Democrats look good at all costs) to overrule the Progressive caucus and push through the bill they were blocking, while pinky-swearing to consider bringing up the BBB bill at some unspecified point in the future and oh look, it's dead.

Whether you like it or not, the message is clear as crystal: Democrats would rather side with Republicans than fight for their dreams.

So it's been for the last forty years. "Oh golly, we'd love this common sense legislation too, remember what we did back in the sixties and seventies? But this just isn't the right time to bother with it, maybe next administration, we'll fight you to the death if you disagree, remember to vote for us, byeee!" We're at the point where Democrats have gotten so pathetic that a slim minority of people genuinely prefer being governed by Florida Man, and somehow we still haven't hit rock bottom hard enough to overcome the decades of complacent inertia.

[Delvo]

The problem isn't just the oldtimers in government; it's also how oldtimers in the voting population vote.

But the biggest problems withing the party are not really even about generation gaps anyway; that's just ancillary. The real problems are:

• that most "Democrats" in government are functionally Republicans, fighting & attacking their own party's left more than they would ever even imagine standing up to Republicans; and
• that they insist on & keep repeating, and thus fool many constituents/voters with, the myth that what leads to wins & losses for their party is exactly backward from reality, claiming that doing what actually wins would lose and doing what actually loses would win, with no more defense/support for the claim than just "But there was that one election back in the 1960s!!!...".

If they'd break out of that, I wouldn't care how old they were. Unfortunately, they never will, so the only way for the party to ever get loose from it is for them to just be gone, which brings us back to the age thing...

[theprestige]

David Brooks in the New York Times, about where the current crop of Democrats in power are at - and where he thinks they should be: Seven Lessons Democrats Need to Learn — Fast

The article is behind a paywall, but Ann Althouse summarizes the lessons thusly:

"It is possible to overstimulate the economy.... Law and order is not just a racist dog whistle.... Don’t politicize everything.... Border security is not just a Republican talking point.... 'People of color' is not a thing.... Deficits do matter.... The New Deal happened once."

She also provides a brief commentary.

[Beelzebuddy]

Yes, how could we forget the concern trolls too.

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Yes, how could we forget the concern trolls too.

Yeah, that list definitely sounds like concern trolling.

It is possible to overstimulate the economy - Okay. That wouldn't justify Republican sabotage, though.

Law and order is not just a racist dog whistle - Duh. Unfortunately, it IS being used as one, far too much of the time. Going further, dismissing actually legitimate concerns being raised about both crime and policing ain't gonna help much. Throwing more money at the police is not always an actually good way to decrease crime, after all, especially when other avenues to fundamentally prevent crime are cut. Certainly, crime is gonna happen and needs guarded against, but an ounce of prevention really is worth a pound of cure so much of the time.

Don’t politicize everything - pfft. So very much of Democrat "politicization" is more along the lines of accurately calling out the politicization being employed by Republicans. Naturally, this makes it the fault of the Democrats. That's before getting to so much of the rest, of course. Talk about berating Democrats for the splinter in their eye, while Republicans ignore the log in their own.

Border security is not just a Republican talking point - Duh. To sum up things there, Democrats overwhelmingly support border security. It's just that Democrats support efficient, effective, and humane as the primary values that border security needs to uphold. Republicans have made it perfectly clear that efficient and humane are not their concern at all and that effective is of dramatically less concern than simple and flashy. When Republicans are criticized for being wildly inefficient, exceedingly inhumane, and frequently questionably effective, they like to spin it as Democrats being weak on or opposed to border security, nevermind reality.

'People of color' is not a thing -

Deficits do matter - Yes, they do. Hence "Tax and spend responsibly Democrats" tend to be much more responsible than "Spend, spend, spend and reduce taxes to the rich Republicans." Going further, though, there's the whole thing about making responsible investments for the future versus short sighted extraction.

The New Deal happened once - And it was quite good and effective, by the look of it. Restoring/rehashing some important parts could very well be quite good and effective now, too. And?

[JoeMorgue]

Yes I totes believe the exact same alt-right trolls who were demanding over and over we show them were Trump ever said anything stupid or wrong are really concerned for the mental health of Joe Biden. I totally believe it. This is me believing it. Look at this. See this? This is my "I believe it face."

[bruto]

It's' really easy to say "people of color" aren't a real thing if you're not one.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Entirely typical of arguing with Boomers:
"We shouldn't be fighting, we have a more pressing common enemy"
"Well that's because YOU can't stop blaming us for everything"


You know what I've never once seen a Boomer voluntarily brag about? Accomplishments after 1980.

[ETA] I know I'm getting trolled, but **** it, I'll take a nibble.

Yeah. We know. Wanna talk about how well you've been pursuing those dreams? How about the last time you "fought" for them? Remember the BBB bill, Biden's flagship Obamacare-equivalent that he based his campaign on? It had a bunch of that. It was bisected by Senate Democrats into two bills, one with everything Joe Manchin did not object to, and one with everything he did. Guess which half held all those Democrats' dreams? Guess which half got passed (after further trimming by Republicans), and which died a forgotten and shameful death?

That's not to say that no Democrats tried to fight for Democrats' dreams. In the House, a caucus of Progressives worked together to hold up an unrelated but must-pass bill, until Dem leadership in the Senate agreed to at least put the half of the BBB bill containing their Democrats' dreams to a vote. To get it out and discussed and argued for in the public eye. In response, Dem leadership in the House sided with Republicans (reminder: the GOP is currently in the middle of a historically obstructionist period, driven to prevent anything that might make Democrats look good at all costs) to overrule the Progressive caucus and push through the bill they were blocking, while pinky-swearing to consider bringing up the BBB bill at some unspecified point in the future and oh look, it's dead.

Whether you like it or not, the message is clear as crystal: Democrats would rather side with Republicans than fight for their dreams.

So it's been for the last forty years. "Oh golly, we'd love this common sense legislation too, remember what we did back in the sixties and seventies? But this just isn't the right time to bother with it, maybe next administration, we'll fight you to the death if you disagree, remember to vote for us, byeee!" We're at the point where Democrats have gotten so pathetic that a slim minority of people genuinely prefer being governed by Florida Man, and somehow we still haven't hit rock bottom hard enough to overcome the decades of complacent inertia.

I started to read this and then stopped when it became apparent early on it's just another unhinged rant. Blah, blah, blah. I'm not wasting my time on them anymore. Buh-bye.

[Aridas]

May as well poke at this now. In response to widespread concerns about harmful disinformation being spread by criminals of several varieties, the Biden Administration has apparently pushed out an initiative to more directly counter such. Naturally, the rightwing allies of said criminals and those who rely heavily on disinformation have gone ballistic and are working hard to dub it as an autocratic Ministry of Truth.

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Department of Homeland Security is stepping up an effort to counter disinformation coming from Russia as well as misleading information that human smugglers circulate to target migrants hoping to travel to the U.S.-Mexico border.

“The spread of disinformation can affect border security, Americans’ safety during disasters, and public trust in our democratic institutions,” the department said in a statement Wednesday. It declined The Associated Press’ request for an interview.

A newly formed Disinformation Governance Board announced Wednesday will immediately begin focusing on misinformation aimed at migrants, a problem that has helped to fuel sudden surges at the U.S. southern border in recent years. Human smugglers often spread misinformation around border policies to drum up business.

[snip]

The new board also will monitor and prepare for Russian disinformation threats as this year’s midterm elections near and the Kremlin continues an aggressive disinformation campaign around the war in Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly waged misinformation campaigns aimed at U.S. audiences to further divisions around election time and spread conspiracy theories around U.S. COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, Russian state media outlets, social media accounts and officials have used the internet to call photographs, reporting and videos of dead bodies and bombed buildings in Ukraine fake.

The board will be led by disinformation expert Nina Jankowicz, who has researched Russian misinformation tactics and online harassment.

As a side note, I like her already. That's a fun way to explain a bit.

[DetectedMotion]

Originally Posted by Aridas

May as well poke at this now. In response to widespread concerns about harmful disinformation being spread by criminals of several varieties, the Biden Administration has apparently pushed out an initiative to more directly counter such. Naturally, the rightwing allies of said criminals and those who rely heavily on disinformation have gone ballistic and are working hard to dub it as an autocratic Ministry of Truth.



As a side note, I like her already. That's a fun way to explain a bit.

It may be funny what she sings, but which part about the government deciding what qualifies as free speech makes that a cool idea?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by DetectedMotion

It may be funny what she sings, but which part about the government deciding what qualifies as free speech would be a cool idea?

What makes you think that this is the government deciding what qualifies as free speech? Nothing about what she sings or in the article even suggests that that's even in play.

[DetectedMotion]

Originally Posted by Aridas

What makes you think that this is the government deciding what qualifies as free speech? Nothing about what she sings or in the article even suggests that that's even in play.

A Governance disinformation board? Why would that be needed at all? In what manner could that be trusted with the government running it?

[Aridas]

Originally Posted by DetectedMotion

A Governance disinformation board? Why would that be needed at all?

Do you deny that significant harm is being done by disinformation? If so, there's honestly not much point in continuing discussion. If not, you've got your answer already.

Originally Posted by DetectedMotion

In what manner could that be trusted with the government running it?

What, specifically, would make it fundamentally untrustworthy? Republicans going out of their way to politicize and corrupt everything? Countering disinformation isn't exactly a novel government task, regardless, especially when the disinformation is harmful lies about current government policy.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by DetectedMotion

A Governance disinformation board? Why would that be needed at all? In what manner could that be trusted with the government running it?

Ummmm....because there's a crapload of disinformation being deliberately spewed about government policies, the pandemic, the election, etc., especially on the internet, by people and groups who are doing great harm?

[gnome]

You can make any policy initiative look scary if you assume the government is going to break laws to pursue it.

Not that the government should be trusted, but it's just not a useful tool for evaluating policy.

[SuburbanTurkey]

Originally Posted by theprestige

David Brooks in the New York Times, about where the current crop of Democrats in power are at - and where he thinks they should be: Seven Lessons Democrats Need to Learn — Fast

The article is behind a paywall, but Ann Althouse summarizes the lessons thusly:

"It is possible to overstimulate the economy.... Law and order is not just a racist dog whistle.... Don’t politicize everything.... Border security is not just a Republican talking point.... 'People of color' is not a thing.... Deficits do matter.... The New Deal happened once."

She also provides a brief commentary.

It's useful to see such opinions because no matter conservatively Democrats govern, they'll never get credit for it from the right.

The example of policing is a good one, because the Democratic party has done nothing but re-affirm their undying loyalty to cops over and over and over again, putting money where their mouths are, and the pundits still pretend that the party has adopted some radical abolitionist stance.

Likewise with border security. The mass incarcerations and refusals of desperate masses at the border continues uninterrupted from administration to administration, yet Democrats get lampooned as leaving the border wide open. Pure fantasy world.

No matter how much the Democratic party positions itself to be the Conservative-Lite party, they'll never get credit for it. They'll be endlessly caricatured as being some ultra-lefty radicals, getting all the blame for these imagined positions while garnering none of the good will that comes with adopting left-populist ideas.

A "heads we win, tails you lose" situation that the party seems determined to double down on at every opportunity.

[DetectedMotion]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Ummmm....because there's a crapload of disinformation being deliberately spewed about government policies, the pandemic, the election, etc., especially on the internet, by people and groups who are doing great harm?

Sure Stacy nothing to worry about here, right?

https://youtu.be/rnzfhJExrkk

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by theprestige

David Brooks in the New York Times, about where the current crop of Democrats in power are at - and where he thinks they should be: Seven Lessons Democrats Need to Learn — Fast

The article is behind a paywall, but Ann Althouse summarizes the lessons thusly:
.....

Same column reprinted elsewhere:
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/04/...to-learn-fast/

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by DetectedMotion

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
Ummmm....because there's a crapload of disinformation being deliberately spewed about government policies, the pandemic, the election, etc., especially on the internet, by people and groups who are doing great harm?

Sure Stacy nothing to worry about here, right?

https://youtu.be/rnzfhJExrkk

Yes...there is something to worry about: the organized disinformation campaigns being spread on social media by various groups. Some are intentionally harmful like Russia's disinformation campaign to influence our elections. Others are by people who think they're right when they're not like people who claim they cause autism, that Covid vaccines alter your DNA, inject tracking devices, etc. And some are just by nut jobs like QAnon. Then there's the whole "rigged election" nonsense.

As usual, the GOP response is "BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID! They're going to take away our free speech! Our First Amendment rights! " when that's not the case at all.

Quote:

The board, though, is an internal working group and doesn’t have operational authority, instead serving in a more advisory role. It’s intended to gather best practices and support counter-disinformation activities, not monitor Americans, Mayorkas said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday.

“It works to ensure that the way in which we address threats, the connectivity between threats and acts of violence that are addressed without infringing on free speech, protecting civil rights and civil liberties, the right of privacy,” Mayorkas said, conceding that the department could’ve done a better job of explaining the group’s role.

Quote:

Mayorkas has also asked the bipartisan Homeland Security Advisory Council to recommend ways DHS can address disinformation while “protecting free speech and other fundamental rights,” according to the fact sheet.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/05/02/polit...ard/index.html

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

Others are by people who think they're right... like people who claim they cause autism, that Covid vaccines alter your DNA, inject tracking devices, etc. And some are just by nut jobs

They are all nutjobs, deliberately spreading harmful misinformation to bolster their own egos. This is no different to shouting Fire! in a crowded theater. Not all 'free' speech is protected - for good reason.

Quote:

As usual, the GOP response is "BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID! They're going to take away our free speech! Our First Amendment rights! " when that's not the case at all.

They are also nutcases. Why should we have to put up with their ravings?

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Stacyhs

You asked me


I replied:


(You asked me questions based on a position I had not taken. I never discussed the older Congress members refusing to 'give up the torch' or refusing to 'fight for issues important' to you.)

You replied:


I replied:


(Being asked what 'gerontocracy' means does not address the issue that you asked me to basically defend things I'd never argued in the first place.)

You replied:


(I put those words in quotes because I was quoting your words. I didn't ignore your question which was obviously rhetorical; not really meant to be answered. What should also be obvious is that I know what a 'gerontocracy' is from the context of my posts. Exactly what 'strawman' are you talking about?)

I said:


You said:


I don't understand what your point here is. It doesn't make any sense to me. Did I ever say I hadn't responded to you? What I said was that you still weren't addressing my point that you were asking me to basically defend something I'd never argued in the first place.

You said:


You really do seem to have a bee up your butt with a very black and white view of Boomers/Gen.X's. You lump us all into one basket as if we all think the same. We don't. It's also very convenient for you to have someone to blame for everything...which was my original point. Have you ever considered that B & W view is part of the problem? You want everything you want without compromise which is exactly the problem with the right-wingers. But politics don't work that way in the real world whether you like it or not. And that's a reality that we 'old farts' have learned through experience.

Every generation likes to blame the previous generation for all it's problems.
When they take power, they find out things are not that simple.
Of couruse Bellezy greatly oversetimates the number of hard left votes out there....the old "lost tribe" political theory.

[Delphic Oracle]

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets

They are all nutjobs, deliberately spreading harmful misinformation to bolster their own egos. This is no different to shouting Fire! in a crowded theater. Not all 'free' speech is protected - for good reason.



They are also nutcases. Why should we have to put up with their ravings?

The "fire in a crowded theatre" example is a terrible one to cite.

It was an analogy used to quash legitimate free speech and the precedent was reversed and disavowed.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by dudalb

Every generation likes to blame the previous generation for all it's problems.
When they take power, they find out things are not that simple.
Of couruse Bellezy greatly oversetimates the number of hard left votes out there....the old "lost tribe" political theory.

True.

[dudalb]

"eelzebuddy's Evil Plan to Save America
Take a pen and paper.
Give them to AOC.
Do everything she says."


ANybody see why this is a stupid idea?
hint: subsitute Trump for AOC.

[Stacyhs]

Originally Posted by dudalb

"eelzebuddy's Evil Plan to Save America
Take a pen and paper.
Give them to AOC.
Do everything she says."


ANybody see why this is a stupid idea?
hint: subsitute Trump for AOC.

Yes. I thought it was dumb, too.

[Hercules Rockefeller]

Oh, look! Sinema and Manchin are in agreement.

[Roger Ramjets]

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

The "fire in a crowded theatre" example is a terrible one to cite.

It was an analogy used to quash legitimate free speech and the precedent was reversed and disavowed.

This is why we can't have nice things.

[Beelzebuddy]

Originally Posted by dudalb

"eelzebuddy's Evil Plan to Save America
Take a pen and paper.
Give them to AOC.
Do everything she says."


ANybody see why this is a stupid idea?
hint: subsitute Trump for AOC.

Yes, shutting out charismatic, passionate young party members on the off chance people will end up liking them more than you is a much more sensible approach.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Yes, shutting out charismatic, passionate young party members on the off chance people will end up liking them more than you is a much more sensible approach.

I just can't understand why AOC threatens them so much. I guess it is because they are uncomfortable with her not toeing the Republican Lite line of her more geriatric colleagues.

[Delvo]

I believe the idea behind the objection must have been that the "do whatever (s)he says" part sounds like a dictatorship, if taken too literally. I took it as a metaphor for "get the government, through the standard legal processes, to enact her ideas", not a complete replacement of form of government. But I understand that, for some people, turning everything you read into the worst thing you can possibly come up with for it (especially if you're in one party and the thing you're looking at is from or about the other party) is a habitual pastime.

[Susheel]

Originally Posted by Delvo

I believe the idea behind the objection must have been that the "do whatever (s)he says" ....

The problem is that, this interpretation of Beelzebuddy's stance seems to be a product of the poster's paranoid fantasy more than anything else.