Democrats Have Abandoned Civil Liberties

[Howel]

Either you claim everything Matt Taibbi said is a complete lie, despite numerous citation links provided, in which case I eagerly await you actually proving what Matt Taibbi wrote is all completely made up.

It kind of is. There isn't a comparison with any other point in history, meaning it is a status without reference. World war 1 had either amazingly low or amazingly high death counts, if you don't compare it to anything else. You can't abandon something, if you aren't sure you ever had it.

And weirdly enough the only comparison is to Republicans, who are by the article's own words: worse. So Democrats have abandoned civil liberties, then republicans have?

[Elegiac]

It kind of is. There isn't a comparison with any other point in history, meaning it is a status without reference. World war 1 had either amazingly low or amazingly high death counts, if you don't compare it to anything else. You can't abandon something, if you aren't sure you ever had it.

And weirdly enough the only comparison is to Republicans, who are by the article's own words: worse. So Democrats have abandoned civil liberties, then republicans have?

I'd also like to point out that a lot of these "Democrats are globalist authoritarians" narratives are a) usually rooted in internet conspiracy theories that have an awful lot to say about a certain class of people acting as a shadowy elite, something that Theo has parroted before, and b) typically authored by well-off/educated whites and not, say, Latino asylum seekers who have been incarcerated without due process, or black victims of the War on Drugs or police brutality, or poor women lacking access to reproductive health.

In short, "abandoning civil liberties" is a dogwhistle for "attacking the system which supports our privilege".

[eschatological]

Since when has Matt Taibbi written trash like this? I've known his work for a long time, he started in the States in my hometown (Buffalo). His Rolling Stones work has largely been about excoriating the war criminals of the Bush Administration. His books are about Eric Garner and the 2008 Recession and a book about Trump being elected called Insane Clown Presidency (admittedly, haven't read any of his books, but I roughly know what they're about).

After some brief research, it seems like Russia is an incredibly big blind spot for him, which dates back to him actually being Russian and working in Russia. And his rabid opposition to "RussiaGate" has made him a poster boy for the alt-right? Plus his online personality is very critical of media and how they cover things, which admittedly can come off as right wing at times.

Honestly, it's the only shitty opinion of his I've read.....and this particular op-ed seems to stem from that disdain for the Russian collusion investigation. Very weird for a journalist whose work I really admired in the '00s and early '10s. Coincidentally, doesn't seem like Rolling Stone is publishing much of this stuff.

[starlord]

Is Theo done pretending to be some moderate / left-wing / right-wing but totally not a Trump supporter now? I get confused with how quickly they change their stance.

she's a performance artist with no actual ideology, only seeking attention. one can only speculate as to the reasons why.

[Howel]

I'd also like to point out that a lot of these "Democrats are globalist authoritarian" narratives are a) usually rooted in internet conspiracy theories that have an awful lot to say about a certain class of people acting as a shadowy elite, something that Theo has parroted before, and b) typically authored by well-off/educated whites and not, say, Latino asylum seekers who have been incarcerated without due process, or black victims of the War on Drugs or police brutality, or poor women lacking access to reproductive health.

In short, "abandoning civil liberties" is a dogwhistle for "attacking the system which supports our privilege".

I think that might be going a bit too the extreme. There is definitely something to be said about the notion that they have and still do support the Patriot act, to whatever degree it might have been at the time; that it is an abandoning of civil liberties is not exactly within that sphere, especially as I keep saying, they don't have some gold track record of being paragons of it.

[Felya]

Well even in a vacuum, it is not like we aren't without worry. It is not like terrorists groups, foreign and domestic, don't exist. So to be a paragon of virtue, would also at the same time mean, to risk lives. That of course is not an excuse, seeing as the Patriot Act and all the other nonsense that comes with it, is without flaw, by far is that the case.
So yes they voted for it, douchebags. But not voting for it, without a restructuring it, would frankly make them a douchebag as well. That kind of duality is what I personally hate about politics, because those not in it, is very quick to be for purity, when they don't have to deal with that duality (which to some extend we actually experience on a forum like this, where no answer is actually correct).

Totally, it’s why I refuse to register or claim allegiance to any party. I don’t know if this is an apt way to describe it, but it seems apt... It’s kind of twist on a structure is stronger than the sum of its parts, because with politics, that case has to be in spite of the sum of its parts. I think in modern times of social media, it’s hard for people to argue outside if the idea, that the person they are arguing doesn’t understand. When especially with politics, I have never voted were it wasn’t despite obvious flaws, not ignoring them. If I only voted for the perfect candidate, I’d never vote...

[Theodarzna]

Is Theo done pretending to be some moderate / left-wing / right-wing but totally not a Trump supporter now? I get confused with how quickly they change their stance.

I've never ever said I was moderate, I'm going to need a citation on that. Also when have I ever claimed to be a Trump voter?

[Felya]

I've never ever said I was moderate, I'm going to need a citation on that. Also when have I ever claimed to be a Trump voter?

He never claimed either... Better request is examples of how you acted moderate and why he believes that has changed to a more overt support of Trump. Although, the first page of this thread sort of covers that...

[Howel]

Totally, it’s why I refuse to register or claim allegiance to any party. I don’t know if this is an apt way to describe it, but it seems apt... It’s kind of twist on a structure is stronger than the sum of its parts, because with politics, that case has to be in spite of the sum of its parts. I think in modern times of social media, it’s hard for people to argue outside if the idea, that the person they are arguing doesn’t understand. When especially with politics, I have never voted were it wasn’t despite obvious flaws, not ignoring them. If I only voted for the perfect candidate, I’d never vote...

Which is the duality one has to come to terms with. Which is also why it is hard to talk politics, because the second something is wrong, you are somehow intrinsically linked because you had the gall to vote for such a demon! Well yeah, but the other guy was literally Satan, the lord of all demons, not exactly an easy choice.

But again, I mean it is fair to want to point out that Democrats are still supporting something quite unpopular. That is an interesting propersition, albeit I do know that several posters are very much aware of how dogshit the Democratic party can be, and that they aren't exactly blind to such a fact. But it is when it is in the vacuum of "Democrats bad!", when even the article points out, Republicans are worse, that it gets weird

[Jastall]

I think that might be going a bit too the extreme. There is definitely something to be said about the notion that they have and still do support the Patriot act, to whatever degree it might have been at the time; that it is an abandoning of civil liberties is not exactly within that sphere, especially as I keep saying, they don't have some gold track record of being paragons of it.

Yeah, I don't think it realistic to say that the Democrats are, or ever were, angelic paragons of civil liberties. Until the '60s, or at least FDR, they were arguably worse at it than other parties in America. But now, compared to the modern Republicans, who mostly couldn't care less about the issue at all? They're still better. But a disturbing amount of these so-called free speech advocates seem to only ascribe standards to the Democrats and are very, very quick to call them out on everything they do, while completely ignoring the Republican side of the aisle on the matter.

It's kind of like the American Civil War. Was the North made up of saints? Absolutely fucking not. Lincoln himself would be seen as a reactionary today if not worse, and he was relatively progressive even among Northerners of his era. But the South were literally slavers who based their ideology on hardcore, unfettered racism. By comparison, yeah, the North were fairly good guys in terms of their morals, if not actions.

[Edge-]

In short, "abandoning civil liberties" is a dogwhistle for "attacking the system which supports our privilege".

This is such an incredibly relevant statement on the current state of the re-open protests etc.

[Felya]

Which is the duality one has to come to terms with. Which is also why it is hard to talk politics, because the second something is wrong, you are somehow intrinsically linked because you had the gall to vote for such a demon! Well yeah, but the other guy was literally Satan, the lord of all demons, not exactly an easy choice.

But again, I mean it is fair to want to point out that Democrats are still supporting something quite unpopular. That is an interesting propersition, albeit I do know that several posters are very much aware of how dogshit the Democratic party can be, and that they aren't exactly blind to such a fact. But it is when it is in the vacuum of "Democrats bad!", when even the article points out, Republicans are worse, that it gets weird

The weird should be understandable, when the article goes on pretty bizarre tangents to blame democrats before the conclusion. The mere idea that Flynn’s treatment by Barr and Trump, isn’t an example of Chainy, but his victims, is going pretty far.

[Howel]

The weird should be understandable, when the article goes on pretty bizarre tangents to blame democrats before the conclusion. The mere idea that Flynn’s treatment by Barr and Trump, isn’t an example of Chainy, but his victims, is going pretty far.

Oh yeah the article itself is a mess, I didn't really want to go into it, because holy heck would it take time its time to try and disassemble how those two aren't this straight line.

It is that federalist article all over again. The heck is it with these weird linking of completely separate things suddenly being merged to some grand conspiracies?

[beanman12345]

she's a performance artist with no actual ideology, only seeking attention. one can only speculate as to the reasons why.

Agreed, a complete and utter fraud.

[Howel]

Yeah, I don't think it realistic to say that the Democrats are, or ever were, angelic paragons of civil liberties. Until the '60s, or at least FDR, they were arguably worse at it than other parties in America. But now, compared to the modern Republicans, who mostly couldn't care less about the issue at all? They're still better. But a disturbing amount of these so-called free speech advocates seem to only ascribe standards to the Democrats and are very, very quick to call them out on everything they do, while completely ignoring the Republican side of the aisle on the matter.

It's kind of like the American Civil War. Was the North made up of saints? Absolutely fucking not. Lincoln himself would be seen as a reactionary today if not worse, and he was relatively progressive even among Northerners of his era. But the South were literally slavers who based their ideology on hardcore, unfettered racism. By comparison, yeah, the North were fairly good guys in terms of their morals, if not actions.

Democrats bad, Republicans also bad and often times more so. Truly we are making groundbreaking news on this website

You know, I half expect an article to come out at some point with the headline "Democrats are racist, because they still support police funding, even though police have shot unarmed black people!" - if it doesn't already, wouldn't surprise me at this point really.

[Felya]

Oh yeah the article itself is a mess, I didn't really want to go into it, because holy heck would it take time its time to try and disassemble how those two aren't this straight line.

It is that federalist article all over again. The heck is it with these weird linking of completely separate things suddenly being merged to some grand conspiracies?

It’s instant confirmation of every lunatic conspiracy theory of social media, combined with years of telling every kid they are a special snow flake... After you watch a flat earthers talk about how they can prove Einstein wrong in 10 seconds, it kind of puts all grand conspiracy in perspective.

[Howel]

It’s instant confirmation of every lunatic conspiracy theory of social media, combined with years of telling every kid they are a special snow flake... After you watch a flat earthers talk about how they can prove Einstein wrong in 10 seconds, it kind of puts all grand conspiracy in perspective.

You know, part off me can to some extend understand it. Like I am conservative, albeit not american conservative; so no go burning me on the cross here!
The feeling of abandonment that some conservatives have, like Skroe and a few others on here, can lead you down a strange path of thoughts and conspiracies (not saying that is what those people have done). And if one has been in the past, in the belief that Democrats were morally strong, and then that kind of falls flat when you come to understand how they vote and operate, and how despicable (and frankly close to republicans it is), you could find news like this more suited as some big aha moment.

[Jastall]

Democrats bad, Republicans also bad and often times more so. Truly we are making groundbreaking news on this website

You know, I half expect an article to come out at some point with the headline "Democrats are racist, because they still support police funding, even though police have shot unarmed black people!" - if it doesn't already, wouldn't surprise me at this point really.

Hey, I'm not American, I don't have to suffer from your fine folks's dogshit two-party system and thus am entitled to talk shit about both . Not that politics are perfect in my neck of the woods, oh no, but jeez you guys have some serious housecleaning to do, on the national level at least, statewide I hear and see a lot of good things from some of your Governors and such.

And indeed, I truly wouldn't be surprised if people like the OP made the exact claim you spoof, down to the very last word. Just look at how s/he's behaved in this very thread, every response is some passive-aggressive bait about how bad the Democrats are and how everyone who disagrees must be a Democrat shill who is pathologically unwilling to just accept the latest intellectual diarrhea s/he spewed on the forums. Confirmation bias incarnate.

[Theodarzna]

It kind of is. There isn't a comparison with any other point in history, meaning it is a status without reference. World war 1 had either amazingly low or amazingly high death counts, if you don't compare it to anything else. You can't abandon something, if you aren't sure you ever had it.

And weirdly enough the only comparison is to Republicans, who are by the article's own words: worse. So Democrats have abandoned civil liberties, then republicans have?

The point is the question, can one claim to be the party for "Restoring laws and norms" and "Fearful for the rule of law" when the parties own actions and deeds within just the last two decades entirely refutes those claims. Unless there is some normative form of gross corruption and civil liberties violation; in which case one has to prove that even the actions of the most recent Democratic president are somehow by some measurable sense more good? less bad? than what is currently happening. Or if we should accept this claim about being the champions of "Laws and Norms" when what they did when granted the power was abuse civil liberties and strip them.

- - - Updated - - -

Hey, I'm not American, I don't have to suffer from your fine folks's dogshit two-party system and thus am entitled to talk shit about both . Not that politics are perfect in my neck of the woods, oh no, but jeez you guys have some serious housecleaning to do, on the national level at least, statewide I hear and see a lot of good things from some of your Governors and such.

And indeed, I truly wouldn't be surprised if people like the OP made the exact claim you spoof, down to the very last word. Just look at how s/he's behaved in this very thread, every response is some passive-aggressive bait about how bad the Democrats are and how everyone who disagrees must be a Democrat shill who is pathologically unwilling to just accept the latest intellectual diarrhea s/he spewed on the forums. Confirmation bias incarnate.

The problem with your position is its ultimately dependent on a relativistic standard. The standard for being "Good on civil liberties" shouldn't be "Are they better than someone whom is plausibly worse" and I even say plausibly as I can't for sure measure and weigh how one defines worse in that respect. Is say a Gulag better if there are slightly less daily executions for example? Or is saying the person who does slightly less purges in the gulag like a hero of Civil Liberties and we should be emotionally invested in and super grateful to the new leader who does slightly less daily executions?

I am stating there is an objective standard that should be measured against and failure to meet it is the problem. Basically if this were a test it seems a lot of you are advocating that we grade these parties and politicians on a curve so that there is a chance a low performing person can get a few notches higher marks, I'm saying to not grade on a curve with this.

[Machismo]

The point is the question, can one claim to be the party for "Restoring laws and norms" and "Fearful for the rule of law" when the parties own actions and deeds within just the last two decades entirely refutes those claims. Unless there is some normative form of gross corruption and civil liberties violation; in which case one has to prove that even the actions of the most recent Democratic president are somehow by some measurable sense more good? less bad? than what is currently happening. Or if we should accept this claim about being the champions of "Laws and Norms" when what they did when granted the power was abuse civil liberties and strip them.

- - - Updated - - -



The problem with your position is its ultimately dependent on a relativistic standard. The standard for being "Good on civil liberties" shouldn't be "Are they better than someone whom is plausibly worse" and I even say plausibly as I can't for sure measure and weigh how one defines worse in that respect. Is say a Gulag better if there are slightly less daily executions for example? Or is saying the person who does slightly less purges in the gulag like a hero of Civil Liberties and we should be emotionally invested in and super grateful to the new leader who does slightly less daily executions?

I am stating there is an objective standard that should be measured against and failure to meet it is the problem. Basically if this were a test it seems a lot of you are advocating that we grade these parties and politicians on a curve so that there is a chance a low performing person can get a few notches higher marks, I'm saying to not grade on a curve with this.

Can you match that "objective standard?"