All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[Theleviathan]

1. It's not semantics. You can have a good faith discussion on who is and isn't a progressive.

You didn't understand what I posted. Best to move on.

Your question is a foolish road to go down, it's best if that kind of question is realized for its toxicity and discarded by all. I hope you do the same. If you'd like to ask about "progressive enough" and see the error of your first question, I'd gladly answer.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You should try and separate from your ideology a bit then on the practicality of it. Which argument do you think, based on history and the elements of the battle ground, are more persuasive? Fear about change or aspirational appeals?

Call me a cynic but I know which one I'd bet on. I hope I'm wrong. Either way, this is where the battle happens. Not on generic polls about policies as you cited before.

Again silly argument. Do you think any Democrat who wins isn't going to be facing a Republican counter argument based around fear on change? They did it with Obama, they did it with Clinton. That's their strategy. You either make the compelling counter argument and win or you don't and lose. You're making a massive assumption that both a Sanders/Warren/Harris canidacy will face more resistance than a Biden one. They will do the same fearmongering and label Biden a Socialist as they labled Obama one.

[Theleviathan]

You're still setting aside that there will be the individual realities of people/family insurance plans and how they actually feel about them.

In the same way that it was an issue for Dems in 2016, I have my personal doubts about Trump just being able to counter that particular reality with bit. Quite a few others? Sure. Selling folks on that they have great plans if they actually don't? Feels like a far harder sell.

I genuinely hope you're right. I'm a bit of a cynic about human behavior on the other hand...

[Theleviathan]

Again silly argument. Do you think any Democrat who wins isn't going to be facing a Republican counter argument based around fear on change? They did it with Obama, they did it with Clinton. That's their strategy. You either make the compelling counter argument and win or you don't and lose. You're making a massive assumption that both a Sanders/Warren/Harris canidacy will face more resistance than a Biden one. They will do the same fearmongering and label Biden a Socialist as they labled Obama one.

There is a difference between facing a counter-argument and willfully walking into an unwinnable war on policy perception.

[The Overlord]

In the same comments, Trump claimed that he fixed the problems of the 1994 crime bill. I'd also guess he'll have a different strategy about what he'll talk about during the general election than he would during the Democratic primary when there are different vulnerabilities.

I'm also really curious what kind of policy President Trump would offer that is similar to mandatory busing. That probably wouldn't go over well with his base.

Oh his solutions to Biden's flaws will be BS, but that's what he is great at, he throws a bunch a lies out there, but sometimes mixes a little bit of truth in to make it stick.

A lot of his criticism of Clinton was BS, but there were nuggets of truth, that NAFTA was not the best deal for the Middle Class or that Clinton was close to Wall Street, that 's what stuck, the best lies have a little bit of truth in them to make them work, but anyone who thinks Trump wouldn't bring up ''forced busing'' or the crime bill with Biden, is naive, those things will totally come up.

[numberthirty]

I genuinely hope you're right. I'm a bit of a cynic about human behavior on the other hand...

I'm just not seeing how even the most cynical version of events results in a family that has a costly and burdensome health insurance plan is just going to decide it is cat's pajamas just because current President Trump says so.

Not seeing where he gets around a reality that they face daily.

Never mind that the choice will likely be Trump saying they are going to come up with this great change to the current flawed system post-election versus a Democratic candidate who will likely be laying out a different change.

It's not like anyone is probably going to be running on just sticking with where we are.

[aja_christopher]

"Beto O'Rourke holds protest at downtown Houston facility housing unaccompanied minors"

More than 100 people attended the protest Saturday. O’Rourke is hoping to shut down facilities like Casa Sunzal and others that house undocumented kids.

"Democratic Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke held a rally near downtown Houston Saturday afternoon in front of a controversial facility that houses unaccompanied migrant children. Casa Sunzal, which is run for the nonprofit Southwest Key Enterprises, made headlines in 2018 when Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner tried to stop it from opening. It’s housed at the corner of Emancipation Ave and Prairie Street.

Cesar Espinosa, executive director of FIEL, said the facility opened this past May.

“We know approximately 150 to 200 children are being deprived of their liberty in what they call a shelter, but in reality is a detention center for undocumented youth," Espinosa said.

More than 100 people attended the protest Saturday, including Molly Herring.

“I couldn’t believe that it was in my backyard,” said Herring. “My heart breaks for their possible fear and their possible crying for their parents… I just can’t even imagine. I just want to go hug them all, you know?”

O’Rourke is hoping to shut down facilities like Casa Sunzal and others that house undocumented kids.

“We are incarcerating more children than anytime in America’s history since we interned Japanese-Americans during World War II,” O’Rourke said. “Kids who have committed no crime against the United States of America.”

Southwest Key Enterprises didn’t respond to KHOU’s request for information regarding the number of children currently housed at the facility. It’s designed to hold more than 200 kids ages 3 to 17.

“We have transparency issues here,” O’Rourke said. “We cannot find any information on the children that are being detained here in Houston at Southwest Key.”

In an email, Southwest Key said they sent a letter to the O’Rourke campaign asking that he request a formal visit of the facility through the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which funds the facility."

https://www.khou.com/article/news/po...8-f8e8e13d87c7

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

You didn't understand what I posted. Best to move on.

Your question is a foolish road to go down, it's best if that kind of question is realized for its toxicity and discarded by all. I hope you do the same. If you'd like to ask about "progressive enough" and see the error of your first question, I'd gladly answer.

I did understand what you posted. It's just a silly post that you made to frame the argument as though it's totally subjective and you can't have a reasonable discussion on what is generally accepted to be progressive.

1. It's foolish to argue that there isn't a subset of the Democratic Party that is viewed as part of the "Progressive movement" or whatever you want to call it.
2. It's more foolish to argue that that subset of the Democratic Party doesn't have particular ideological leanings and policies that they rally around and hold up as pivoltal to that cause.
3. From there, it would be silly argue against the notion that they don't pick their preferred candidates based off where they line up amongst those leanings and policies.
4. At that point yes someone who is interested in having a real discussion with value to it can compare the track records of particular candidates along those lines and determine whether they would fall amongst the preferences of that branche of the Party.

You don't want to answer the question because it's easier to avoid it because then you'd have to concede that for that particular branche of the party, Biden's resume wouldn't line up with what they demand from their preferred politicians.

So to get around that you've done several things. You've tried to stretch out the term of progressive to be beyond what that group considers it. You tried to say that because there is some subectivity to it that you can't make a good faith argument on who would and wouldn't line up there (which is on it's face ridiculous and if we go down that road then you'd have to start conceding that you couldn't examine even some far right Republicans because of sjubectivity). And you tried to change the discussion to some notion you made up of "being progressive" at particularly instances where an otherwise unprogressive canidate did something good (because apparently small individual moments supercede general career trends or something).

The problem with what you're doing and the case you are trying to make is that it's purely about trying to box in an argument so you can win it and not about making the compelling case. The case should be whether Biden would be defined as progressive to the progressive wing of the party and whether he would be able to garner enough support from them on those merits. By stretching it the way you are, you are distorting the parameters on how those folks define that to the point where the relevancy is lost. Like maybe to someone who doesn't see what you are doing you can win off saying that it's all very subjective, but I'm pretty sure the bulk of progressives in the party have an idea on what they understand to be progressive. Maybe you can say Biden's been progressive on a few instances, but I'm pretty sure those people are weighing his career in totality and not buying into a few instances. Maybe you can get them to say the term progressive can be stretched to be pretty broad, but within that context they have a generally accepted understanding of it.

It's not a lack of understanding your point. It's that your point isn't compelling or relevant in the face of the current reality.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

There is a difference between facing a counter-argument and willfully walking into an unwinnable war on policy perception.

Unwinnable? So you don't mind using subjectivity when it suits your argument? okay

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Oh his solutions to Biden's flaws will be BS, but that's what he is great at, he throws a bunch a lies out there, but sometimes mixes a little bit of truth in to make it stick.

A lot of his criticism of Clinton was BS, but there were nuggets of truth, that NAFTA was not the best deal for the Middle Class or that Clinton was close to Wall Street, that 's what stuck, the best lies have a little bit of truth in them to make them work, but anyone who thinks Trump wouldn't bring up ''forced busing'' or the crime bill with Biden, is naive, those things will totally come up.

The biggest thing Trump will do is that he'll find 3 things that have those little curnals of truth in them and he'll spend the whole campaign on that. Democrats made the mistake of getting enamored by every Trump **** up to the point where the public got so overhwhelmed with **** that was being thrown at them that truly abhorrent **** was getting thrown in the pile with some smaller stuff and it all lost meaning.

A more savvy campaign might have made a point to only talk about the Access Hollywood tape, his bankruptcies (he's a failure in business) and his lack of experience.

[The Overlord]

The biggest thing Trump will do is that he'll find 3 things that have those little curnals of truth in them and he'll spend the whole campaign on that. Democrats made the mistake of getting enamored by every Trump **** up to the point where the public got so overhwhelmed with **** that was being thrown at them that truly abhorrent **** was getting thrown in the pile with some smaller stuff and it all lost meaning.

A more savvy campaign might have made a point to only talk about the Access Hollywood tape, his bankruptcies (he's a failure in business) and his lack of experience.

Sure, Trump is kinda an idiot savant, when it comes to this stuff. Trump harped on a couple of things with Clinton (a lot of BS, but a little truth to make it stick).

What is needed is some lessons from 2016:

* Don't assume he will implode, Clinton made that gamble and it cost her.

* Counter the 3 things he will bring up.

* Do not cede ground to him, Clinton thought she could just cede ground to him on trade and he clobbered her with it.

I think Sanders and Warren will have fewer weaknesses then Biden (Trump will scream socialist at them no matter what and the ''Native American thing'' with Warren will be brought up by Trump a million times), but I think Biden has more exploitable flaws then either of them.

[Theleviathan]

You don't want to answer the question because it's easier to avoid it because then you'd have to concede that for that particular branche of the party, Biden's resume wouldn't line up with what they demand from their preferred politicians.

I don't have a branch of the party. I like Warren right now and am keeping an open mind on the nomination. As for this post.....I took just one sentence out of this ranting mess because it reflects the value of it. This is all baseless nonsense. It's a strawman you constructed.

Progressive policies and how they poll only have a narrow value, how they survive to counter attacks and questions (which polling is much less positive about) is what matters ultimately. It doesn't mean you can't try and run on them, it just means how you used them was stupid.

I don't engage in whether anyone is a progressive or a conservative or not because, depending on who I'm talking to, those terms are all over the fucking map. Maybe you don't broaden your circles enough to realize how wide ranging those terms are. So I avoid that because it's a pointless minefield. So I'll answer the question that isn't dumb:

Is Biden progressive enough for me? Yes. I accept his warts and will vote for him if he is nominated. Why? Because my bar is incredibly low for my vote right now. As in: I'll vote for anything on the ballot who isn't a declared Republican. You can put a tomato in a hat on the ballot and I'll vote twice for that **** if it gets a Republican out. "Not a Republican" is progressive enough for me.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I don't have a branch of the party. I like Warren right now and am keeping an open mind on the nomination. As for this post.....I took just one sentence out of this ranting mess because it reflects the value of it. This is all baseless nonsense. It's a strawman you constructed.

Progressive policies and how they poll only have a narrow value, how they survive to counter attacks and questions (which polling is much less positive about) is what matters ultimately. It doesn't mean you can't try and run on them, it just means how you used them was stupid.

I don't engage in whether anyone is a progressive or a conservative or not because, depending on who I'm talking to, those terms are all over the fucking map. Maybe you don't broaden your circles enough to realize how wide ranging those terms are. So I avoid that because it's a pointless minefield. So I'll answer the question that isn't dumb:

Is Biden progressive enough for me? Yes. I accept his warts and will vote for him if he is nominated. Why? Because my bar is incredibly low for my vote right now. As in: I'll vote for anything on the ballot who isn't a declared Republican. You can put a tomato in a hat on the ballot and I'll vote twice for that **** if it gets a Republican out. "Not a Republican" is progressive enough for me.

Dude stop calling things a strawman because you don't want to address the principle discussion you decided you wanted to walk into. You are wasting everyones time. If you think Biden is a progressive, that's fine. You probably should acknowledge that there is a actually is a progressive wing of the Party and that most people in that wing don't view Biden as a progressive and that you are not considered part of that wing of the party.

You have a very alternative definition to alot of generally accepted values when it comes to the modern progressive movement that just don't reflect the reality of it. So yeah maybe for you it works. It's just doesn't hold much value in practice with the current structure.

The fact of the matter is you justed wasted everyones time because you refused to concede a point that what is generally accepted as the progressive part of the party doesn't view Biden as progressive so you just spun a bunch of none arguments and tried to muck it up as much as possible so you can win while losing the plot.

Thanks again for making a bunch of arguments nobody was interested in so you could try to find a way to be right on this one. Later

[The Overlord]

I don't have a branch of the party. I like Warren right now and am keeping an open mind on the nomination. As for this post.....I took just one sentence out of this ranting mess because it reflects the value of it. This is all baseless nonsense. It's a strawman you constructed.

Progressive policies and how they poll only have a narrow value, how they survive to counter attacks and questions (which polling is much less positive about) is what matters ultimately. It doesn't mean you can't try and run on them, it just means how you used them was stupid.

I don't engage in whether anyone is a progressive or a conservative or not because, depending on who I'm talking to, those terms are all over the fucking map. Maybe you don't broaden your circles enough to realize how wide ranging those terms are. So I avoid that because it's a pointless minefield. So I'll answer the question that isn't dumb:

Is Biden progressive enough for me? Yes. I accept his warts and will vote for him if he is nominated. Why? Because my bar is incredibly low for my vote right now. As in: I'll vote for anything on the ballot who isn't a declared Republican. You can put a tomato in a hat on the ballot and I'll vote twice for that **** if it gets a Republican out. "Not a Republican" is progressive enough for me.

Fair enough and that may be enough for the short term, but the long term needs to address.

If Biden defeats Trump but does not defeat Trumpism, we could someone like Trump talking power in short order again. Reagan moved the Overton window to the right in the 80s and the Dems allowed it to go further right in the meantime. Anyone who is not willing to fight to move that window further to left will ensure Trumpism will continue. and thrive

[numberthirty]

Sure, Trump is kinda an idiot savant, when it comes to this stuff. Trump harped on a couple of things with Clinton (a lot of BS, but a little truth to make it stick).

What is needed is some lessons from 2016:

* Don't assume he will implode, Clinton made that gamble and it cost her.

* Counter the 3 things he will bring up.

* Do not cede ground to him, Clinton thought she could just cede ground to him on trade and he clobbered her with it.

I think Sanders and Warren will have fewer weaknesses then Biden (Trump will scream socialist at them no matter what and the ''Native American thing'' with Warren will be brought up by Trump a million times), but I think Biden has more exploitable flaws then either of them.

The one upside is that I honestly doubt that anyone in the current field will actually do that(or do something similar as far as buying into polling or what states are in their back pocket...)

If they do, they deserve to take the loss.