All purpose news and politics thread part VI: This Is Not The Time For Posing

[Xheight]

Like Qpublicans thought we could win in Afghanistan?

If you think I am going defend staying in Afghanistan forget it the GOP has enough to answer for about Iraq. Obama meanwhile made "winning" a priority. "Obama has even said we must “win” there. But it’s the same question we have faced in Iraq: What does he define as “winning”? How much are we willing to expend (in lives lost and money) at a time of a severe budg..."https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obamas-promise-to-win-in_b_117719 https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/29...stan-promises/

[Xheight]

Do you have any data for this?

The "talking points" argument is a bit silly since it doesn't address the substance of the argument. It pretends that because someone people disagree with said something, it must be tainted. Obvious and accurate criticisms become talking points because a lot of people on the other side will point something obvious and accurate.

Democrats will have no problem whatsoever mentioning that Donald Trump was recorded bragging about grabbing women by the pussy. It would be silly to dismiss it as a talking point, because it's true and showcases some reprehensible behavior, which is why Trump's detractors will point it out. The fact that they do so doesn't mean they're wrong.

Perhaps the meaning here is that 'talking point' is something one likes to talk about and the other side sees nothing wrong with the situation; like with Monica and Bill. one person's gottya is another's got what?

[Tami]

John Harrison broke records as a candidate in South Carolina.

https://apnews.com/article/senate-el...c73f4fd0a8b79c

Sara Gideon raised a total of $74,000,000.

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/su...e=2020&id=MES2

People progressives like seem to do okay in campaign spending.

Incidentally, Sinema won with $22,197,141 in 2018.

https://www.opensecrets.org/races/su...e=2018&id=AZS2

All fine and good, except that it doesn't explain why Sinema, now, is hobnobbing with Interests that don't want Biden's Human infrastructure plan nto get passed because of how it would raise taxers on big business and the ultra wealthy.

She is a wild card, so who knows what is going on with her.

[Mister Mets]

All fine and good, except that it doesn't explain why Sinema, now, is hobnobbing with Interests that don't want Biden's Human infrastructure plan nto get passed because of how it would raise taxers on big business and the ultra wealthy.

She is a wild card, so who knows what is going on with her.

Perhaps she believes she's doing the right thing.

Perhaps the meaning here is that 'talking point' is something one likes to talk about and the other side sees nothing wrong with the situation; like with Monica and Bill. one person's gottya is another's got what?

I don't think it's something where the other side sees nothing wrong. It's often an excuse to dismiss legitimate criticism, because they do not want to talk about the obviously bad thing someone on their side did.

If Mayor Mackie gets high on coke and crashes his car into a school bus, many people are going to talk about it, especially those who didn't like him before. His defenders would be accurate to say it's a talking point. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

If the other side makes a bullshit argument, the smart response isn't to say it's a talking point, but to show how it's bullshit, and how the argument reflects badly on those making it.

[worstblogever]

If Democrats supposedly "don't hold their own accountable" as Xheight is floating out their for a trial balloon of "both sides" bulls***... based on a quarter century old example, no less...

Well, if they don't, Al Franken would probably still be a Senator, and Andrew Cuomo would still be a Governor.

Nice try, though.

[PwrdOn]

Perhaps she believes she's doing the right thing.

I don't think it's something where the other side sees nothing wrong. It's often an excuse to dismiss legitimate criticism, because they do not want to talk about the obviously bad thing someone on their side did.

If Mayor Mackie gets high on coke and crashes his car into a school bus, many people are going to talk about it, especially those who didn't like him before. His defenders would be accurate to say it's a talking point. That doesn't make it illegitimate.

If the other side makes a bullshit argument, the smart response isn't to say it's a talking point, but to show how it's bullshit, and how the argument reflects badly on those making it.

Well most of the common Republican talking points have already been debunked countless times, it's just that they never actually acknowledge that they're wrong and then come back the next time saying the exact same damn thing. And as much as liberals love to lecture people about why they're wrong, constantly having to argue the same point over and over gets tiresome. And I mean this sort of thing just happens time and time again on the internet, right? Some conservative jumps in with the intent of owning the libtards with facts and logic, tosses out some stale arguments that get thrown right back in his face, and then throws a fit about snooty elite liberals talking down to him and being uncivil. At some point you need to get some new arguments or at least try some new tactics.

[4saken1]

Do you have any data for this?[/url]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr..._United_States

As of 2019, white people (including Latinos) numbered about 236,475,401, or 72.0% of the population.[19] According to the 2020 Census, Non-Latino white make up 60.1% of the country's population.

[JackDaw]

At some point you need to get some new arguments or at least try some new tactics.

Of course, at some point all political parties need to change their tactics.

But not sure Republican Party has reached that point yet….they are pretty successful in elections, amazingly so in light of the quality of candidates they often run.

Let me put a hypothetical scenario:

Imagine the Donald was ruled out of next Presidential elections, and replaced with a younger, more charismatic candidate. (Not that unlikely, the Donald might be ruled out for a load of reasons…health, jail time, wanting to play even more golf, etc, etc. Once that happened…hardly “Mission Impossible” to find a better candidate.)

Then isn’t it likely that the better candidate would beat either Joe B or Kamala H?

I think in that scenario Republican candidate would probably win..and that the point hasn’t come when they need to substantially change tactics, just need to fine tune a few things. (Judged purely on question of being effective in winning elections! Obviously I would love them to change many of their policies and approaches.)

[numberthirty]

Of course, at some point all political parties need to change their tactics.

But not sure Republican Party has reached that point yet….they are pretty successful in elections, amazingly so in light of the quality of candidates they often run.

Let me put a hypothetical scenario:

Imagine the Donald was ruled out of next Presidential elections, and replaced with a younger, more charismatic candidate. (Not that unlikely, the Donald might be ruled out for a load of reasons…health, jail time, wanting to play even more golf, etc, etc. Once that happened…hardly “Mission Impossible” to find a better candidate.)

Then isn’t it likely that the better candidate would beat either Joe B or Kamala H?

I think in that scenario Republican candidate would probably win..and that the point hasn’t come when they need to substantially change tactics, just need to fine tune a few things. (Judged purely on question of being effective in winning elections! Obviously I would love them to change many of their policies and approaches.)

They didn't even get a resounding win with the guy flubbing handling a pandemic.

It amounted to about the same margin Trump beat HRC by. In the midst of dude doing his best to hand them a win.

Realistically, all they have to do to potentially lose is do about the same job handling the pandemic that they have done after throwing out the "You Can Go Back To Your Normal Life..." pitch.

Wouldn't even need that leaving Afghanistan looked anything except "Competent..."

[Tendrin]

Well, I'm back and was about to resume a conversation with someone but that seems hard now.

I seem to have missed a lot in the last 72 hours or so!

[Gray Lensman]

If Democrats supposedly "don't hold their own accountable" as Xheight is floating out their for a trial balloon of "both sides" bulls***... based on a quarter century old example, no less...

Well, if they don't, Al Franken would probably still be a Senator, and Andrew Cuomo would still be a Governor.

Nice try, though.

It also seems to be holding Clinton up to the standards of today rather than the 1990s. 25ish years ago, the affair was seen as consensual, and most of the late night jokes went after Lewinsky rather than Clinton. If such a thing happened now, there would be more calls for him to resign as society now recognizes the power imbalance in such a relationship.

To say nothing of how that scandal came out of what was supposed to be an investigation into a bad real estate deal but ballooned into "keep digging until you get something" - and telling that the people involved aren't willing to hold anyone on their own side to even a fraction of that standard while simultaneously insisting that other investigations are somehow going much further into being fishing expeditions than their own.

[Gray Lensman]

Well, I'm back and was about to resume a conversation with someone but that seems hard now.

I seem to have missed a lot in the last 72 hours or so!

It's hard to follow most conversations here after 24 hours away, much less 72!

[Tendrin]

It's hard to follow most conversations here after 24 hours away, much less 72!

Well, I worked from Saturday at 5:30 PM until 2:00 PM Sunday, then had to be back to work back 6:30 PM and at it until 8:00 AM the next day, and then back to it at 7:00 PM. Home caregiving can be very hard when your support does not show up.

[Mister Mets]

If Democrats supposedly "don't hold their own accountable" as Xheight is floating out their for a trial balloon of "both sides" bulls***... based on a quarter century old example, no less...

Well, if they don't, Al Franken would probably still be a Senator, and Andrew Cuomo would still be a Governor.

Nice try, though.

Democrats hold their own accountable when the replacement will be a Democrat, and it allows for messaging against Republicans in other elections.

The calls for Ralph Northam to resign ended once it seemed possible that his replacement would be a Republican, because the second in line had multiple sexual assault allegations and third in line had also done blackface in college.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/02/...-governorship/

An argument I've made before is that there seems to be an insistence that Republicans of good character support the Democrat in a general election in which the Republican has a scandal, even if it means they're going to be less likely to get their policy objectives. It seems to be more about partisan gain than principal if Democrats are generally only willing to throw someone under the bus when it won't result in a Republican taking over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demogr..._United_States

The demographics of the United States differ from demographics of voters.

Latino Americans are overrepresented among people that can't vote (non-citizens, citizens under 18.)

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Of course, at some point all political parties need to change their tactics.

But not sure Republican Party has reached that point yet….they are pretty successful in elections, amazingly so in light of the quality of candidates they often run.

Let me put a hypothetical scenario:

Imagine the Donald was ruled out of next Presidential elections, and replaced with a younger, more charismatic candidate. (Not that unlikely, the Donald might be ruled out for a load of reasons…health, jail time, wanting to play even more golf, etc, etc. Once that happened…hardly “Mission Impossible” to find a better candidate.)

Then isn’t it likely that the better candidate would beat either Joe B or Kamala H?

I think in that scenario Republican candidate would probably win..and that the point hasn’t come when they need to substantially change tactics, just need to fine tune a few things. (Judged purely on question of being effective in winning elections! Obviously I would love them to change many of their policies and approaches.)

I'm of the belief Republican voters, addicted to the insanity Trump brought to the Oval Office, not to mention his overt support of white grievance/nationalism/supremacy will want someone just as racist and cray-cray as he was. For damn sure the GQP will want another demogogue, but someone who doesn't have bats in the belfry like The Former Guy and won't say and/or do stupid **** any chance he gets. On the Dem side, I strongly suspect Joe is one term and done as he'll be 82 come Election Day 2024, no telling if he'll have the energy, or the desire to go through a second campaign, so I don't think he'll run again, as for Kamala, it's likely she could be tainted by the Afghanistan pullout debacle and the ongoing mess with the virus, and god only knows what other crises that might come down the road over the next two years. I honestly don't know if the party, or voters would support her if she ran for president. If neither Trump or Biden run again, the election could literally be up in the air.