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

[Theleviathan]

Question for the thread.

Whats with the large number of conservative posters on social media ? I see tons of right wingers slinging **** on YT comments, Twitter etc. Yet never in a more legitimate forum where actual debate can be had ?

They prefer to say "rabble! rabble! rabble!" in large groups as a safety net for dumb ideas. Hard to rally up a group of buffoons on any one random site. Broader platforms like YT and Twitter have ready-made groups.

That's my theory at least. Though, to be fair, neither political side is all that interested in discussion right now. Even ideas that are independent or divergent can be assailed quickly by either side.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Ehhh that depends. People said that with Trump that as people dropped out an alternative to him would take the lead.

Turns out people aren’t a monolith and everytime someone dropped out some people would stay home and take themselves out of the equation and some people would go for Trump. I could see a lot of Bernie voters going for a Tulsi for instance and I could see Warren having more support from the center which could send some Biden’s way.

Also don’t underestimate a unicorn. Bernie brings people to the table that don’t always turn out. They might just go back to not turning out. It’s not a totally binary choice

That's the problem with Bernie supporters, it's either him or no one, and to hell with what might happen otherwise. They took their votes and went home in 2016, and I see no reason to think they won't do that again next year if Sanders doesn't get the nomination.

[worstblogever]

Question for the thread.

Whats with the large number of conservative posters on social media ? I see tons of right wingers slinging **** on YT comments, Twitter etc. Yet never in a more legitimate forum where actual debate can be had ?

Bots can make it seem like there are far more ***holes than there actually are on the big sites that don't delete accounts fast enough.

[worstblogever]

I have thought a Warren/Harris ticket would be good for a while now.

I keep flipping back and forth about which I'd rather see, Warren/Harris, or Harris/Warren.

I'm leaning the former because then Harris can run from the VP slot in '28.

[Mister Mets]

None of this is relevant to charging a woman who was shot by another woman with the death of her own child, but none of us are surprised that you would, in fact, find a way to argue that this is okay.

My argument is more against the certainty of the other position.

The incident raises some difficult questions, and I should also note that I was also responding to specific points made by Tami, so it was relevant to her comments about whether the end result is all that matters.

With the specific situation, the argument from the authorities seems to be that a pregnant woman made a decision to bring the law in a way that endangered the life of her unborn child.

Question for the thread.

Whats with the large number of conservative posters on social media ? I see tons of right wingers slinging **** on YT comments, Twitter etc. Yet never in a more legitimate forum where actual debate can be had ?

What would be examples of legitimate forums where actual debate can be had?

If you're looking at this board, it's largely a handful of regulars so it's not going to representative of most online discourse.

[jetengine]

My argument is more against the certainty of the other position.

The incident raises some difficult questions, and I should also note that I was also responding to specific points made by Tami, so it was relevant to her comments about whether the end result is all that matters.

With the specific situation, the argument from the authorities seems to be that a pregnant woman made a decision to bring the law in a way that endangered the life of her unborn child.

What would be examples of legitimate forums where actual debate can be had?

If you're looking at this board, it's largely a handful of regulars so it's not going to representative of most online discourse.

I was reffering more to any place that actually has moderation.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

Here's the thing with Bernie....I don't see his support growing at any point. And I don't see him throwing in the towel no matter how much it shrinks or falls behind.

He could very well have a negative effect on how this plays out.

My only reservation with Bernie is the bad blood some former Hillary supporters have for him. He’s tremendously popular and his ideas are being mugged by everyone on both stages. However I fear the spite vote as establishment Dems have proven untrustworthy when many flipped to McCain in 08 and it took Obama to overcome that. That’s the same group that dislikes Bernie.

It’s s big reason why I prefer Warren.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

That's the problem with Bernie supporters, it's either him or no one, and to hell with what might happen otherwise. They took their votes and went home in 2016, and I see no reason to think they won't do that again next year if Sanders doesn't get the nomination.

Because a lot of his support is younger and people who in general won’t normally turn out. It’s less him or the highway and more “I’m only engaged because of him and once he was gone I went back to not caring”. That’s what you are dealing with and that’s the risk with him. He’s not able to translate that to other Democrats. Warren might be able to get some of that. Others will struggle on credibility imo.

I’ll still take that over Hillary voters going for McCain which is far more damaging

[Farealmer]

My argument is more against the certainty of the other position.

The incident raises some difficult questions, and I should also note that I was also responding to specific points made by Tami, so it was relevant to her comments about whether the end result is all that matters.

With the specific situation, the argument from the authorities seems to be that a pregnant woman made a decision to bring the law in a way that endangered the life of her unborn child.

Where does that end? If a woman get into a car accident and loses her child should it be open season? If she drinks? Eats poorly? This is the issue people have with you and the conservatives Mets. This slide from "I don't want abortions except in the most dire of cases" to "If the fetus dies for any reason the mother is a criminal". Regardless of the specifics of this case it sets a troubling standard. One the republican side can use for further over reach against pregnant woman's rights. It doesn't help that you are effectively armchair philosophizing something you have no real stake in. While real people have their rights taken away.

[aja_christopher]

My only reservation with Bernie is the bad blood some former Hillary supporters have for him. He’s tremendously popular and his ideas are being mugged by everyone on both stages. However I fear the spite vote as establishment Dems have proven untrustworthy when many flipped to McCain in 08 and it took Obama to overcome that. That’s the same group that dislikes Bernie.

It’s s big reason why I prefer Warren.

Bernie gets "bad blood" because all his supporters do is attack other Democrats while supporting a candidate who prefers not to even identify as a Democrat -- nearly every post you (or thirty) has made has been about attacking Hillary, Biden, Harris, or Beto, and what comes around goes around.

Don't blame "spite" for people disliking Sanders supporters -- you brought it on yourselves in the last election, and you're repeating the same behavior today.

From a more neutral point of view, Sanders lost the last nomination and he's in the position of losing again -- dragging down other candidates while yours if far from a sure thing does nothing to improve the chances of Democratic success in the next election and in fact is a direct hindrance to said success, just as it was last presidential election.

[Mister Mets]

Yup, the courts won't fix the unbalanced system keeping Democrats from winning the majority of seats despite getting the majority of votes so our solution is . . . to continue to vote in the unbalanced system hoping to win more seats?

Instead: The SCOTUS could rule that Gerrymandering is Illegal and require/recommend Congress set up independent groups to redraw them (Or require their creation independent of congress), as that's what happens most often when these sorts of lower court cases go against the gerrymanderers as far as I know. Of course that assumes that both the SCOTUS and Congress actually work for the people instead of the partisan bullshit they are currently bogged down in.

It is difficult to suggest that was part of the legacy of the fifth Vice President is unconstitutional 200+ years later.

It would also be unclear what the exact standards would be for the independent groups, as well as the question of who composes the groups. I wrote this before, but should we seek to maintain communities of interest when dividing borders? Should we have completely random geographically contiguous districts? Should we create artificial borders in order to increase the chances that the popular vote will match the outcomes (IE- that states where a majority of the vote goes to one party have a similar split in the legislature)? A problem with that is that populations change, so what works in one election may get skewed results in another (IE- suburban women swung heavily against Republicans after the nomination of Trump, which is the kind of thing that changes the dynamics of districts.) It'll be a trainwreck if judges and commissions have solutions to different problems. There is also the risk with commissions of having a politically unaccountable group pushing behind the scenes for preferred outcomes without any checks on what they can do.

To be fair, gerrymandering shouldn't be a partisan issue. If affects both sides. In fact, one of the cases the SCOTUS heard was from Maryland who argued that there was gerrymandering in favor of the Democrats. Gerrymandering tends to occur a lot around urban areas that make up certain demographic areas in order to secure the most votes for whose ever side is in power. Look at the Illinois 4th. At least that's within one community. There was the old New York 28th that encapsulated part of Rochester, shot up North, got a small sliver a long the lake all the way to Niagara Falls and the suburbs of Buffalo.

Unfortunately Republicans seem to be really good at not caring about stuff like this.

Democrats weren't exactly hiding the Maryland abuses, but promoting the story in order to get Republicans on-board with their preferred policy outcome.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

I keep flipping back and forth about which I'd rather see, Warren/Harris, or Harris/Warren.

I'm leaning the former because then Harris can run from the VP slot in '28.

Warren’s older so I’d lean towards her for the same reason. If they win and they have a good run, you can turn 8 years into 16 years.

I’m hesitant to run that ticket for two reasons

1. You have Senators from MA and CA. Two of the most liberal. Typically you want someone who can bring you a swing state or at least get you some traction in the Midwest where you need to win.

2. This is bad but I worry about two women on the same ticket.

[Theleviathan]

My only reservation with Bernie is the bad blood some former Hillary supporters have for him. He’s tremendously popular and his ideas are being mugged by everyone on both stages. However I fear the spite vote as establishment Dems have proven untrustworthy when many flipped to McCain in 08 and it took Obama to overcome that. That’s the same group that dislikes Bernie.

It’s s big reason why I prefer Warren.

The reservation I have is that Bernie Sanders doesn't sway people. If you like his policies - you generally climb aboard pretty quickly. If you don't? Well, I wouldn't put "persuasive" as a strength of Bernie. He just yells and stumps mostly.

He has good points (like how many people would see a net win each month on his healthcare, even with higher taxes) he's just brutal about articulating it. In a general election, that's a defeat waiting to happen. At least Warren has some persuasiveness to her. She's likable and relatable, but still passionate. In terms of that wing of the party, she's the better bet.

[KNIGHT OF THE LAKE]

The reservation I have is that Bernie Sanders doesn't sway people. If you like his policies - you generally climb aboard pretty quickly. If you don't? Well, I wouldn't put "persuasive" as a strength of Bernie. He just yells and stumps mostly.

He has good points (like how many people would see a net win each month on his healthcare, even with higher taxes) he's just brutal about articulating it. In a general election, that's a defeat waiting to happen. At least Warren has some persuasiveness to her. She's likable and relatable, but still passionate. In terms of that wing of the party, she's the better bet.

The thing is how persuasive do you have to be when your policies are the most popular? Warren is more personable and can sell herself more, true. And since she supports pretty much everything he does, I think that’s better.

However I think he’s pretty much a sure thing in a general against Trump. He doesn’t scare the far right because a lot of them actually agree with him, the Midwest loves him for some reason. He has a problem with more pragmatist Democrats in the South but they don’t help you win a general

[Mister Mets]

I was reffering more to any place that actually has moderation.

What would be some places with moderation? I sometimes participate in the Open Fire Politics group on Facebook, the Ricochet podcast network websites, and the Election Atlas forums, all of which do have active conservatives and are moderated.

Most political conversation occurs in places without moderation, so that's going to be one factor in why conservatives can be found in those places. You would generally need to seek out a place with moderators, and be familiar with the existing community, whereas comments sections just allow you to just respond to an article you've already found.

It's also possible that plenty of conservatives are in moderated forums, but these are in spheres we're unaware of. Maybe some Nascar message board has a fantastic politics thread.

One final potential factor is the fairness of moderators and the online community, and how they treat people with unpopular views within that context of that community. Moderators aren't always going to make the right calls when determining whether something is so outrageous that it should not be discussed, and the community might respond poorly to people who disagree with them.

Where does that end? If a woman get into a car accident and loses her child should it be open season? If she drinks? Eats poorly? This is the issue people have with you and the conservatives Mets. This slide from "I don't want abortions except in the most dire of cases" to "If the fetus dies for any reason the mother is a criminal". Regardless of the specifics of this case it sets a troubling standard. One the republican side can use for further over reach against pregnant woman's rights. It doesn't help that you are effectively armchair philosophizing something you have no real stake in. While real people have their rights taken away.

This is a difficult question. One potential line would be whether someone is actually committing a crime. This could include assaults and drug charges, but not unhealthy eating, precarious but legal physical activities, etc. So in that case, it still isn't "if the fetus dies for any reason the mother is a criminal."