Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[starlord]

Is it that you seriously cannot grasp what people are actually saying, or are you being this dishonest on purpose?

There is no "rejection of bipartisanship", period. It's an understanding that attempting bipartisan efforts with a party that is opposed to any such thing is a waste of time.

If you're saying that Democrats should seek compromise with Republicans no matter what Republicans want, then I'm going to point out that your position is just appeasement in a new coat. The appropriate response to the Nazi Party saying "kill all Jews" when your party doesn't have a problem with Jews is not to say "how about we just kill SOME Jews? Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Nazis, sirs?"

Fuck. That. That's the abandonment of all principle.

"Semantics" is also known as "what words/language actually mean". Yes; words mean things, and what people said means something, and you don't get to just ignore those semantics to insert whatever horseshit you wish they'd meant instead.

i didn't say "they should seek compromise no matter what", i said i think we should work towards compromise being considered a good thing again, which theres more than one way to achieve. its become a dirty word to everyone, which is not good for the country.
yes, not everything should be compromised on, but there are some things much easier to swallow than others.

Historians have a word for people who supported the Nazi Party in their rise to power not because of any deep anti-semitism, but because of economic anxiety. Or fear of social disruption. Or desire for stronger policing. Or increasing Germany's political influence internationally. There's a word that fully describes those people.

That word is "Nazi". It doesn't matter why they supported the Nazis, only that they supported the Nazis.

Same applies here. If you're going to vote for Trump for stupid, indefensible reasons, that makes you as much a Trumpster as the mouth-frothing racist ranting about the oncoming "race war" and "blood for soil". You're trying to claim there's a significant difference, and I do not agree that there is any meaningful difference whatsoever. If you're willing to support horrible policymakers for some tepid goal, you still share in the responsibility for the actions of those you voted for, who are acting in your name.

you are looking at it like a regular guy and not like a politician. you're (general you) not going to "punish" any trumpers (especially being in canada...). theres gonna be no big court condemning them and validating everyone. its fun in fevered imaginings i guess.

so they remain, they still vote, their actions still matter. you can use them to your advantage or not, but it'd be really dumb not to.

[Elegiac]

i said i think we should work towards compromise being considered a good thing again

And as people have repeatedly told you: "compromise" is meaningless when the middle ground is still extreme. That is entirely a function of the GOP having gone off the deep end. To quote the late Diana Rigg:

My dear, you have been stripped of your dignity and authority, publicly shamed, and confined to the Red Keep. What’s left to work with?

It's also worth noting that the compromise clowns generally aren't the people who have their rights debated as part of said compromise.

[Themius]

And as people have repeatedly told you: "compromise" is meaningless when the middle ground is still extreme. That is entirely a function of the GOP having gone off the deep end. To quote the late Diana Rigg:



It's also worth noting that the compromise clowns generally aren't the people who have their rights debated as part of said compromise.

This will never not be relevant

[Elegiac]

This will never not be relevant

Basically.

It's exceedingly obvious which people never quite grew out of their South Park phase and still think judging a political ideology primarily by the strength of belief rather than its content is a good thing. They do not seem to grasp that political extremism isn't a function of believing in something really hard.

[Machismo]

hold on a second, isn't that strawmanning? i've never once blamed the dems for the repubs behavior. dems aren't the problem, they are part of the solution. which to their credit, efforts are being made.
since we're going with the nazi comparison, did america wait for the nazis to suddenly change their ways, give back those countries they invaded, and hope those indoctrinated by them will on their own decide to become good normal citizens again, or did they intervene?

so to go back to my conversation with fugus, is the ideal solution to wait for the alt right machine monster to suddenly come to it senses, say "gee guys actually we've been lying to you all along, also we're going to disband and disavow everything we've been pushing for the last ~40 years because we realize being racist assholes is bad", because "well its not MY fault things have gone to shit for everyone!"
apparently saying the dems can and should help the country be better, which bidens plan is a good way towards targeting, is "bad faith trolling."

- - - Updated - - -

what does "they should reject the practice of bipartisanship but not the concept" even mean in a country with 2 parties? who else are they gonna be bipartisan with?
repubs don't reject bipartisanship as a concept, as long as they get what they want right?
your entire argument is based off of semantics.

That's literally all you keep doing, blaming the Democrats for not being nicer to the GOP... who has gone off the deep fucking end.

[Endus]

i didn't say "they should seek compromise no matter what", i said i think we should work towards compromise being considered a good thing again, which theres more than one way to achieve. its become a dirty word to everyone, which is not good for the country.
yes, not everything should be compromised on, but there are some things much easier to swallow than others.

Compromise is only relevant if you lack the political capital to pass a bill as-is, in the first place.
And if you lack that, then you need to consider whether the compromise itself is worth passing. For a long time now, what Republicans have demanded as "compromise" has either been wildly extreme, or has been a moving goalpost that Republicans to a vote refuse to support even when it's offered.

you are looking at it like a regular guy and not like a politician. you're (general you) not going to "punish" any trumpers (especially being in canada...). theres gonna be no big court condemning them and validating everyone. its fun in fevered imaginings i guess.

so they remain, they still vote, their actions still matter. you can use them to your advantage or not, but it'd be really dumb not to.

Really trying to figure out how you thought this was a valid response to anything I said. It just feels like an ad hominem attack.

Edit: Also, advising political figures on policy has literally been part of my job description for a decade or so. So I'll thank you to not presume I'm somehow incapable of seeing things from a political perspective.

[starlord]

Bipartisanship is about the people, not the politicians. As per what you hope. Who cares what the GOP does in congress? If the Dems ram through legislation that the majority of Americans support it’s not a failing of the Dems. It’s a failing of the GOP to accurately represent their constituents.

correct, but some things are better approached this way than others.
some things that dems (especially the more progressive wing) want could very easily be turned into another ACA style rallying cry without careful handling.
i think Bidens learned his lesson with that though, which is why he's "softballing" first to test the waters.
to credit some one else's commentary, right now hes got nothing to lose and everything to gain from forcing stuff through.
he either :
> forces through popular legislation, thereby showing the repubs as out of touch and ineffective
or
>forces them to compromise, showing hes such a great leader

so, not a whole lot of risk involved.

- - - Updated - - -

Compromise is only relevant if you lack the political capital to pass a bill as-is, in the first place.
And if you lack that, then you need to consider whether the compromise itself is worth passing. For a long time now, what Republicans have demanded as "compromise" has either been wildly extreme, or has been a moving goalpost that Republicans to a vote refuse to support even when it's offered.



Really trying to figure out how you thought this was a valid response to anything I said. It just feels like an ad hominem attack.

Edit: Also, advising political figures on policy has literally been part of my job description for a decade or so. So I'll thank you to not presume I'm somehow incapable of seeing things from a political perspective.

well then i must question your advice if your first response to "how can we earn the trust of more voters" is "call them nazis and ignore them."

[Elegiac]

correct, but some things are better approached this way than others.
some things that dems (especially the more progressive wing) want could very easily be turned into another ACA style rallying cry without careful handling.

You mean that thing people despised primarily because it was too much of a compromise? Lol.

- - - Updated - - -

well then i must question your advice if your first response to "how can we earn the trust of more voters" is "call them nazis and ignore them."

Better question: why do we need the trust of people who've been brainwashed into fascist ideology?

Dealing with such a social cancer has never been a function of compromise. This is the way it's done:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification

Yes, the most effective way of dealing with fascists is in fact to gaslight, gatekeep, and girlboss them back into atomized obscurity.

[Endus]

well then i must question your advice if your first response to "how can we earn the trust of more voters" is "call them nazis and ignore them."

Where did I call them Nazis?

You're not mistaking the use of Nazis as an analogy with me directly calling Republicans "Nazis", are you? Because that would be fantastical.

And to address the meat of your point, which is sticking in my craw; if calling a fascist "a fascist" upsets the fascist, nothing is lost. And you were never gonna win the support of the fascist in the first place. You seem to be arguing that the Democrats shouldn't take an ideological stance, but should seek to appeal to more voters, no matter the ideological costs. Frankly, if the Democrats are going to become electorally irrelevant because fascist sentiments rise too high in the USA, then the solution cannot be for the Democrats to become fascist themselves. Losing a political fight on principle is more noble than sacrificing your principles for empty power-grabs. If the USA is in that dire a circumstance, it's already beyond salvation and the world needs to start treating them like an enemy.

I don't agree that's the case, but if it's not there, then I don't see how you even have an argument.

[starlord]

You mean that thing people despised primarily because it was too much of a compromise? Lol.

thats what the left said. thats not what the right said when using it as a platform. they used it to make martyrs of themselves. how would you avoid that?

Better question: why do we need the trust of people who've been brainwashed into fascist ideology?

Dealing with such a social cancer has never been a function of compromise. This is the way it's done:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_era
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification

Yes, the most effective way of dealing with fascists is in fact to gaslight, gatekeep, girlboss them back into atomized obscurity.

how do you plan to do that to people who can just put you on ignore and live in their own media ecosystem?
remember how far out of touch certain people here were during these past elections?
if we don't earn their trust, then more trumps and majory greenes will instead.

[Elegiac]

thats what the left said. thats not what the right said when using it as a platform. they used it to make martyrs of themselves. how would you avoid that?

Short of not electing a Black president I'm not sure there's anything that could have been done to avoid the Republican Party choosing to obstruct every legislative effort under Obama.

Or are you still pretending that their concerns were economic?

how do you plan to do that to people who can just put you on ignore and live in their own media ecosystem?

I'll consider it a job well done because fascists sticking to their own circles and not bothering the rest of us is kind of the goal here.

remember how far out of touch certain people here were during these past elections?
if we don't earn their trust, then more trumps and majory greenes will instead.

There has not been a single case in history where fascism has been averted by treating some of the fascists' ideology as legitimate. The way to defeat fascism is to show its impotence, not to humor it, Neville Chamberlain.

[starlord]

Where did I call them Nazis?

You're not mistaking the use of Nazis as an analogy with me directly calling Republicans "Nazis", are you? Because that would be fantastical.

And to address the meat of your point, which is sticking in my craw; if calling a fascist "a fascist" upsets the fascist, nothing is lost. And you were never gonna win the support of the fascist in the first place. You seem to be arguing that the Democrats shouldn't take an ideological stance, but should seek to appeal to more voters, no matter the ideological costs. Frankly, if the Democrats are going to become electorally irrelevant because fascist sentiments rise too high in the USA, then the solution cannot be for the Democrats to become fascist themselves. Losing a political fight on principle is more noble than sacrificing your principles for empty power-grabs. If the USA is in that dire a circumstance, it's already beyond salvation and the world needs to start treating them like an enemy.

I don't agree that's the case, but if it's not there, then I don't see how you even have an argument.

dems aren't compromising anything by reaching out to give more money for childcare and education, as well as revamping the economy. that shuts down the "dems are liberal elites who don't care about working class" bs right out of the gate.
what i'm talking about, they're already doing. *shrug*. i guess thats "appealing to fascists" or something though.


also, do you often advise your political clients to compare their constituents to nazis? you think thats a productive strategy? is that the starting point when campaigning?

[Elegiac]

dems aren't compromising anything by reaching out to give more money for childcare and education, as well as revamping the economy. that shuts down the "dems are liberal elites who don't care about working class" bs right out of the gate.

In which you admit that not compromising and focusing on good governance is actually a working strategy.

also, do you often advise your political clients to compare their constituents to nazis? you think thats a productive strategy? is that the starting point when campaigning?

This is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Sweaty, we get that most fascists don't like being called fascists. That doesn't make the label incorrect.

[draynay]

Short of not electing a Black president I'm not sure there's anything that could have been done to avoid the Republican Party choosing to obstruct every legislative effort under Obama.

Or are you still pretending that their concerns were economic?

Its because Obama was an "upstart"

[Elegiac]

Its because Obama was an "upstart"

Say "uppity" without saying "uppity".

Lol.

[starlord]

In which you admit that not compromising and focusing on good governance is actually a working strategy.

it works because it aligns with what the gop base wants as well as the dem base.

This is an appeal to popularity fallacy.

Sweaty, we get that most fascists don't like being called fascists. That doesn't make the label incorrect.

i realize that this is the internet, but when you want to persuade someone to your point of view irl you don't usually open with "you're a nazi and or facist" no matter how correct it is.
in fact treating people as "the enemy" is the favored facist tactic (oh no, the horseshoe has come around!)

Terrorism and ideologically inspired violence represent persistent and serious threats to U.S. national security. The January 6, 2021, attack at the U.S. Capitol and other recent events emphasize the need for more research to inform prevention and deradicalization strategies. In this report, the authors aim to characterize why and how individuals joined extremist organizations, as well as how some of them exited these groups. Semistructured interviews were conducted with former extremists and their family members, representing 32 unique stories of 24 white supremacists and eight Islamic extremists.

Exposure to propaganda on the internet, in music, and in books and literature was present in more than two-thirds of the sample. Although formal, top-down recruitment occurred for three Islamic extremists, the majority of white supremacists actively sought out participation in extremist organizations. Among the sample, 26 had exited the organizations; of those, six were still undergoing cognitive and emotional deradicalization. Among those who exited, 22 mentioned that a person or group intervened to help them by providing diverse cultural and demographic exposures, emotional support, financial stability, or domestic stability.

Interviewees also addressed such systemic issues as unemployment and the need for more-affordable and easily accessible mental health care. These interviews led to recommendations for both research and practice that emphasize the importance of incorporating the voices of those with personal experience and knowledge of ideological extremism into future research designs and efforts to prevent radicalization and promote deradicalization.

Recruitment to radical groups deliberately leverages psychological vulnerabilities

Radical groups develop ways to bolster ideological commitment through (1) restriction of access to information or circumstances that challenge ideological constructs and (2) social and cognitive strategies for reinforcing in-group bias and hatred toward people outside the group.

Both radicalization and deradicalization are linked to "being in the right place at the right time"

An individual's experience of a dramatic, challenging life event and of highly meaningful social interactions (both negative and positive) play fundamental roles in both processes.

Heavy-handed attempts by formal institutions to deradicalize individuals often fail

Such measures taken by intelligence and law enforcement agencies are understandable because of the need to protect the public but can sometimes deepen ongoing radicalization processes and push potentially salvageable cases to more-extreme behaviors and involvement.

Stigmatization of groups seems mostly to push at-risk individuals further down the extremist path

Punitive measures, banned speech, and indignant public discourse can backfire and increase the drive for radicalization.

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_r...RRA1071-1.html

[Endus]

dems aren't compromising anything by reaching out to give more money for childcare and education, as well as revamping the economy. that shuts down the "dems are liberal elites who don't care about working class" bs right out of the gate.
what i'm talking about, they're already doing. *shrug*. i guess thats "appealing to fascists" or something though.

You really seem dead-set on never addressing people's actual points, and just repeatedly offer new straw men instead.

also, do you often advise your political clients to compare their constituents to nazis? you think thats a productive strategy? is that the starting point when campaigning?

Your role as an advisor is to give your professional opinions based on facts and ethical best practices. It's not your role to make decisions for the policymakers. I never said I worked in campaign strategy or as a public relations guy, so I have no idea why the hell you're introducing more straw men here. You're just willfully refusing to understand what others are saying.

[starlord]

Say "uppity" without saying "uppity".

Lol.

SUMMARY: Though often described as an upstart or newcomer, Barack Obama has a solid resume in public service work — 20 years' worth, in fact.

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...rs-experience/

[Elegiac]

https://www.politifact.com/article/2...rs-experience/

Not sure what you think your point here is besides demonstrating that the Republicans' least racist talking point was also made up out of whole cloth, lol.

[Shadowferal]

The problem with Republicans is that they are no longer the GOP.