|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Nov 8, 2020 5:36:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by hatoflords on Nov 8, 2020 7:40:07 GMT -5
Also, listen to yourself. You should take your own advice. I haven't even remotely denied her frustration. It's childish to think it's unique to Progressives, especially when you're going to lie about it. She isn't being attacked for support Medicare for All or Black Lives. She's being attacked for her attitude and isn't helping her own case. Queens County is not the rest of the country. The parts where she was right was the failure to engage digital platforms and a laziness about canvassing (part of which was a down ballot problem stemming from Biden's lack of in-person canvassing). Learn to do two things at once and stop being childish reactionaries. Biden hasn't even announced a Cabinet yet (never mind that people around him have talked as much about appointing people like Elizabeth Warren as they have Republicans) and you're whining that he already has one announced like it's a done deal. Learn a lesson from Trump. Being a dick turns as many people against you as for you.
|
|
|
Post by semipotentwalrus on Nov 8, 2020 8:43:32 GMT -5
Having slept on it, I think I'm coming around to seeing what you mean. Does the following sound like a fair representation of what you're arguing?
The difference between the Obama presidency and now is that the Democrats would not be expecting Republicans to actually be cooperating in good faith this time around. Nonetheless, offers of cooperation should be made in good faith because, if handled properly, the Democratic party can only win. Either they get cooperation, in which case they get to implement policies that they want, or the Republican party refuses to cooperate, in which case nothing has really been lost assuming that the Democrats have simultaneously been planning to proceed as if they would be stonewalled at every turn, but the Democrats now have more political ammunition with which to attack the Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by A Town Called Malus on Nov 8, 2020 9:06:18 GMT -5
Having slept on it, I think I'm coming around to seeing what you mean. Does the following sound like a fair representation of what you're arguing? The difference between the Obama presidency and now is that the Democrats would not be expecting Republicans to actually be cooperating in good faith this time around. Nonetheless, offers of cooperation should be made in good faith because, if handled properly, the Democratic party can only win. Either they get cooperation, in which case they get to implement policies that they want, or the Republican party refuses to cooperate, in which case nothing has really been lost assuming that the Democrats have simultaneously been planning to proceed as if they would be stonewalled at every turn, but the Democrats now have more political ammunition with which to attack the Republicans. Political ammunition against republicans doesn't really matter as long as people watch media like fox news, though. They will lie to spin it the way they want.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2020 9:30:37 GMT -5
The difference between the Obama presidency and now is that the Democrats would not be expecting Republicans to actually be cooperating in good faith this time around. Nonetheless, offers of cooperation should be made in good faith because, if handled properly, the Democratic party can only win. Either they get cooperation, in which case they get to implement policies that they want, or the Republican party refuses to cooperate, in which case nothing has really been lost assuming that the Democrats have simultaneously been planning to proceed as if they would be stonewalled at every turn, but the Democrats now have more political ammunition with which to attack the Republicans. Basically this. The GoP leadership will refuse to cooperate till hell freezes over, as long as it looks politically feasible. You have to make it unfeasible. The first step in this is to try and build bridges. A good first step is to integrate the freshmen senators and congresspersons. At the moment, Dems and GoP are segregated from day one. The second step is to make Gerrymandering a federal crime. With the current SCOTUS and senate a law prohibiting dark money will never happen, so go for a law that will be publically popular, but kneecap 'guaranteed' seats. He'll get push-back from both parties on that, but it's a necessity to pare back extremism from both parties.
Trumpism isn't a political organization, its a cult, so 'exposing' their crimes will do little to curb the enthusiasm of it's followers. And, weirdly, they're a symptom of something going on world wide. It's been noted that far right extremism has been increasing globally, for reasons unknown.
To be blunt: what a mess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2020 11:05:46 GMT -5
Edited since there might actually be enforcement of the Hatch Act now.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 8, 2020 11:27:58 GMT -5
Also, listen to yourself. You should take your own advice. I haven't even remotely denied her frustration. It's childish to think it's unique to Progressives, especially when you're going to lie about it. She isn't being attacked for support Medicare for All or Black Lives. She's being attacked for her attitude and isn't helping her own case. Queens County is not the rest of the country. The parts where she was right was the failure to engage digital platforms and a laziness about canvassing (part of which was a down ballot problem stemming from Biden's lack of in-person canvassing). Learn to do two things at once and stop being childish reactionaries. Biden hasn't even announced a Cabinet yet (never mind that people around him have talked as much about appointing people like Elizabeth Warren as they have Republicans) and you're whining that he already has one announced like it's a done deal. Learn a lesson from Trump. Being a dick turns as many people against you as for you. 1. No one has said it's "unique" to progressives, that's you putting words in others' mouthes. If you actually read the article you linked and more specifically, where they sourced it for their sensationalist headline since they clipped a couple paragraphs from a decently sized interview, there was a lot more to the "complaint" than you think. She used it towards the end of the interview to explain a struggle she overcame, highlight issues she sees within the party, and why she ran for re-election anyway. Hell, there was even a call for party unity within it from her saying "Is the party ready to, like, sit down and work together and figure out how we’re going to use the assets from everyone at the party?" Why is this such a problem? You seem to support doing so with republicans, and we all know they're never going to "unify" with democrats for anything. 2. I did not say it was solely because of progressive issues that the moderate democrats lost. No one has. Not AOC, and not me. Hell, we've both agreed before that the democrats SUCK at messaging and advertising which is a large part of what AOC was saying, but you seem focused on this incorrect thing over what AOC actually said. 3. They "haven't announced" a cabinet officially, but they've been vetting quite a few republicans and republican-lites, and they've been open about this. This isn't a secret. Their current list (according to politico) includes people like Doug Jones who voted with trump more often than almost any other democrat (and according to politico, is a front runner for a spot in Biden's administration). Seriously though, my issue here is that you seem willing to attack progressives for anything, but you'll give moderates a pass for anything. It's bad when AOC points out problems and describes her struggles while offering solutions and calling for internal party unity because it's "childish," but you seem ok with democrats buying into "unity" and "compromise" with republicans which has NEVER worked out well, and running shit campaigns that prevent them from getting the senate, losing seats in the house, and barely squeaking out a win against trump because "almost losing is still winning." Most of what AOC said and suggested isn't new on this forum. It's largely what we've both said and agreed on, and that's what irks me. It feels like your cherry-picking something to rationalize your dislike of her (to me at least), and so you can ignore some of the problems she pointed out.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2020 14:17:59 GMT -5
The reason that we're critical of AoC is her mouth is going to cost us the votes we need in Georgia to secure the senate.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 8, 2020 14:37:07 GMT -5
The reason that we're critical of AoC is her mouth is going to cost us the votes we need in Georgia to secure the senate. AOC is not going to cost you voters. Ignoring her advice (which is fucking common sense at this point) is costing the dems elections. It's already happened in fact. If you don't spend money on digital ads and don't do some door-to-door campaigning, that's on you. The dems already screwed the pooch on the senate. Hell, why aren't you critical of the "moderates" who ran a shit campaign? It's ironic considering what hatoflords said: but being a child about criticism makes no one want to listen to her. "Moderates" are being childish about criticism right now, but it's funny, I don't see either of you pointing that out or holding them accountable for it. Also, this is, ironically, exactly what AOC was talking about. Being blamed by "moderates" for their loss.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2020 15:16:13 GMT -5
AOC is not going to cost you voters. Ignoring her advice (which is fucking common sense at this point) is costing the dems elections. It's already happened in fact. If you don't spend money on digital ads and don't do some door-to-door campaigning, that's on you. The dems already screwed the pooch on the senate. Hell, why aren't you critical of the "moderates" who ran a shit campaign?
Because we did those things.
AOC has no fucking idea what goes on in the field outside major cities. Her brand of campaigning works very well in a metropolitan area, but sucks massive ass when your seat isn't gerrymandered to the point that the other party has to struggle just to get on the ballot. I'd love to see her try her campaign strategy out here in the wilderness of PA. It's a very different political world out here, and that's something that you and she fail to understand.
The far extremes cost the moderates seats because we actually have to compete against the other party. Not the further fringe of our own party.
And that, more than anything else, is the problem with American politics right now.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 8, 2020 15:19:20 GMT -5
No, you didn't "do those things". More than a few of the lost races for the house (i.e.) didn't spend a single damn dime on digital advertising. One of the reasons for Biden's poor performance in Georgia was a lack of door-to-door canvassing. You're denying reality. I don't even think you read the interview, let alone glanced at it. You're just blaming her because it's an easy target so you can keep pushing "unity" with fascists as the one true solution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2020 15:39:12 GMT -5
*Sigh* Yeah, because before moving on the Federal government I only held office in PA for 12 years. What would *I* know?
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 8, 2020 15:43:22 GMT -5
*Sigh* Yeah, because before moving on the Federal government I only held office in PA for 12 years. What would *I* know? An appeal to authority, nice. Got any other logical fallacies you want to trot out? Maybe not look at some more data before making claims? Maybe a slippery slope somewhere next time? Maybe try coming up with like, some actual facts, or proof, or voter breakdown, or something besides "trust me, I'm an authority figure on X because of Y."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2020 16:03:10 GMT -5
An appeal to authority, nice. Got any other logical fallacies you want to trot out? Maybe not look at some more data before making claims? Maybe a slippery slope somewhere next time? Maybe try coming up with like, some actual facts, or proof, or voter breakdown, or something besides "trust me, I'm an authority figure on X because of Y."
Ok, explain Sharice Davids then. Since, by your logic, she should have been run out on a rail, as she was opposed by the far left as well as Republicans.
|
|
|
Post by Emblematic Wolfblade on Nov 8, 2020 16:12:39 GMT -5
An appeal to authority, nice. Got any other logical fallacies you want to trot out? Maybe not look at some more data before making claims? Maybe a slippery slope somewhere next time? Maybe try coming up with like, some actual facts, or proof, or voter breakdown, or something besides "trust me, I'm an authority figure on X because of Y." Ok, explain Sharice Davids then. Since, by your logic, she should have been run out on a rail, as she was opposed by the far left as well as Republicans.
Sorry, I'm not 100% informed on every single campaign, but I would assume she actually spent time and money on canvassing, digital ads, and probably outspent her opponent, along with being the incumbent. Also, nowhere did I state what you're claiming, or imply it. Now you're making a strawman. I guess I forgot the /s after my last post, huh? Baron, you're not engaging in good faith. You're not even reading my posts properly.
|
|