Rift in the Democratic Party

[GMDino]

(07-09-2019, 12:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hating trump is not a position and it sure as hell isn't original.

Neither is supporting Trump "just to watch liberals cry" yet that is the position of many. Even on this board.

(07-09-2019, 12:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I suppose we could call this the Colbert/Oliver/Noah position.

You mean comedians who make fun of the actual things that DJT says and does? I swear his supporters are as thin skinned as he is sometimes.

To the OP: Disagreement is good...if it leads to discussion and resolution. If it's just stomping your feet and holding your breath until you get your way.

The answer is not always compromise, but coming at an idea from two ends can produce good results if both ends are being honest and are open to new ideas. That is something we seem to have lost around these parts.

[*bfine32*]

Omar's thoughts on the matter:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ilhan-omar-pelosi-aoc-battle-sorry-not-sorry_n_5d22994be4b01b834738d3f5?ncid=yhpf

Quote:Patetico!

You know they’re just salty about WHO is wielding the power to shift “public sentiment” these days, sis.

Sorry not sorry. https://twitter.com/aoc/status/1147668951834476545 …

These Freshmen Congressmen might just have a little bit of an inflated view of themselves.
You might not want to tug on the Queen's robe much more.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2019, 05:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: But can't similar things be said about some GOP congressmen? Enbattled swing districts also do not need the extremes of a freedom caucus or (other example) a Steve King, and yet those folk, from equally safe red districts, do their thing.

It could and it has.  it's currently not nearly the issue for the GOP that it is for the Dems.

Quote:That's actually one of the few things I find pretty cool about the US system... not so much Steve King, but in general, that congressmen stay individuals with individual ideas fitting their individual district. E.g. in my country everyone's position in parliament is exactly on party line, and that's not such a good thing.

There's an enormous difference between individually representing your district and publicly castigating those among your party who don't subscribe to your extreme views.  Threats to primary them, public ridicule, neither of these are helpful to your party as a whole.

Quote:Why not? I think it is. I'd even argue it's a reasonable position.
I definitely wouldn't say one needs to hate him as a decent person (so please no one get me wrong); but there are valid reasons for a decent person to hate his indecency and/or his ignorance, his narcissism or all those other things often mentioned. I think that's perfectly legit.

You just perfectly illustrated why it is not; you didn't list one policy or position.  You just listed his personality traits.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2019, 08:56 AM)GMDino Wrote: Neither is supporting Trump "just to watch liberals cry" yet that is the position of many.  Even on this board.

You'll have to find the post arguing that this is a position.  I often find the histrionic reactions to Trump's every move amusing.  I don't confuse that with a political position.

Quote:You mean comedians who make fun of the actual things that DJT says and does?  I swear his supporters are as thin skinned as he is sometimes.

Nah, I mean the endless string of progressively unfunny crap they spew for easy laughs.  Norm MacDonald put it well, shitting on Trump is the newest form of hackery.  Colbert used to be one of the most clever, insightful comics around.  Now we get Putin's c%&kholster from him.  

Quote:To the OP: Disagreement is good...if it leads to discussion and resolution.  If it's just stomping your feet and holding your breath until you get your way.

You just illustrated the point of this thread.

Quote:The answer is not always compromise, but coming at an idea from two ends can produce good results if both ends are being honest and are open to new ideas.  That is something we seem to have lost around these parts.

Which side is the most guilty of not doing so in this scenario?

(07-09-2019, 10:59 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Omar's thoughts on the matter:
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ilhan-omar-pelosi-aoc-battle-sorry-not-sorry_n_5d22994be4b01b834738d3f5?ncid=yhpf


These Freshmen Congressmen might just have a little bit of an inflated view of themselves.  
You might not want to tug on the Queen's robe much more.

Always good to know what the resident antisemite thinks.  As I said earlier, some of these freshmen Dems have been given way too much, way too fast.  Egos through the roof.

[CJD]

(07-09-2019, 11:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nah, I mean the endless string of progressively unfunny crap they spew for easy laughs.  Norm MacDonald put it well, shitting on Trump is the newest form of hackery.  Colbert used to be one of the most clever, insightful comics around.  Now we get Putin's c%&kholster from him.  

They are political comedians. So what exactly do you expect for them to make jokes about? Trump is politics right now. He has inserted himself into every single topic since he began running for president. And, frankly, everything else about politics seems completely boring compared to his outlandish behavior. 

"Shitting on Trump" is a subjective measure. Norm may call it that. Others may call it "playing a literal video of Trump/Fox News/Republican Senator saying something/doing dumb and making jokes about them saying/doing something dumb." It's not a new formula. They did the same thing with Bush before him.

As far as Colbert's jokes, he's always been a political comedian and, when he first came to relevance, he took a different approach which was just satirizing Republicans. 

He can't really play that role anymore since he's on a network late night show. He clearly still has the same viewpoint and is making the same or similar jokes born from that viewpoint, he just now has to portray them from the more realistic side of the conversation (rather than illustrating the joke via satire, he is just telling the joke in a straight fashion). This change has less to do with who the President is and more to do with the company he works for. If you enjoyed the satire more, then you'd agree that it's a shame he didn't just stay with the Colbert Report (which, if it still existed, you know he'd be caricaturing Trump supporters right now), but it isn't an indication of his declining skills in the art of political comedy.

All those shows have sophomoric jokes (see: Putin's Cockholster), as well as insightful political commentary (See: Trevor Noah's Between the Scenes videos). Some are serious insights, others have a more tongue in cheek spin.

I don't see the difference between them now and during Bush's presidency. What, to you, has changed between these two Republican Presidents and their portrayal during the political comedy shows?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2019, 11:50 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: They are political comedians. So what exactly do you expect for them to make jokes about? Trump is politics right now. He has inserted himself into every single topic since he began running for president. And, frankly, everything else about politics seems completely boring compared to his outlandish behavior. 

"Shitting on Trump" is a subjective measure. Norm may call it that. Others may call it "playing a literal video of Trump saying something/doing dumb and making jokes about him saying/doing something dumb." It's not a new formula. They did the same thing with Bush before him.

As far as Colbert's jokes, he's always been a political comedian and, when he first came to relevance, he took a different approach which was just satirizing Republicans. 

He can't really play that role anymore since he's on a network late night show. He clearly still has the same viewpoint and is making the same or similar jokes born from that viewpoint, he just now has to portray them from the more realistic side of the conversation (rather than illustrating the joke via satire, he is just telling the joke in a straight fashion). This change has less to do with who the President is and more to do with the company he works for. If you enjoyed the satire more, then you'd agree that it's a shame he didn't just stay with the Colbert Report (which, if it still existed, you know he'd be caricaturing Trump supporters right now), but it isn't an indication of his declining skills in the art of political comedy.

All those shows have sophomoric jokes (see: Putin's Cockholster), as well as insightful political commentary (See: Trevor Noah's Between the Scenes videos). Some are serious insights, others have a more tongue in cheek spin.

I don't see the difference between them now and during Bush's presidency. What, to you, has changed between these two Republican Presidents and their portrayal during the political comedy shows?

I think you missed the point entirely.  I have no issue with political humor.  Did I not praise Colbert for once being immensely clever and witty?  The Colbert Report was one of the best satire shows ever made.  I'll condense the point down for you.  I don't mind political humor, at all.  I do mind hacky, unclever and obvious jokes spouted to get cheap applause.  There's a reason stand up comics hate hacks.  Hacks kill because they go for cheap laughs, that doesn't make them good.  I suppose I could condense this point even further, I hate pandering.

[CJD]

(07-09-2019, 11:56 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you missed the point entirely.  I have no issue with political humor.  Did I not praise Colbert for once being immensely clever and witty?  The Colbert Report was one of the best satire shows ever made.  I'll condense the point down for you.  I don't mind political humor, at all.  I do mind hacky, unclever and obvious jokes spouted to get cheap applause.  There's a reason stand up comics hate hacks.  Hacks kill because they go for cheap laughs, that doesn't make them good.  I suppose I could condense this point even further, I hate pandering.

I don't think that I missed the point. I believe I got the point and just don't understand your viewpoint. How can you view The Colbert Report, a show that satirized the absurdity of, primarily, President Bush by caricaturing someone stupid/uninformed/naive/hyperpatriotic/silly enough to support him as clever.

But you view someone commenting on the absurdity of President Trump (and, in doing so, highlighting how stupid/uninformed/naive/hyperpatriotic/silly you'd have to be to support him) as hackery? 

Now, maybe you just enjoyed the satire side of the joke more than the straight side. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the straight version of the joke is more hackish than the satire version of the same joke.

[Aquapod770]

Pelosi is 100% right here.

The bill may not be an immediate fix, but it was a compromise that should help the situation (even if just a little bit). Voting against it just proves AOC and her friends only care about pretending to care about the border.

[CJD]

(07-09-2019, 12:05 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Pelosi is 100% right here.

The bill may not be an immediate fix, but it was a compromise that should help the situation (even if just a little bit). Voting against it just proves AOC and her friends only care about pretending to care about the border.

Well, to be fair, they only voted against it because they knew it was going to pass and they wanted their objection to it to be noted in the official record. This is a common practice, especially in the House where 1 vote often does not decide all that much.

I think their biggest issue with Pelosi is the House offered a bill to the Senate. They struck it down in its entirety, and then sent back a new bill that they knew the Democrats wouldn't like (due to the appropriation of the money not being focused on the immigrants as much as it should be) and Pelosi accepted it with no changes.

This was an abuse by Mitch because he knew that the Democrats cared more about getting something - anything - to be passed before the Holiday break, so he knew he could throw their offer away entirely and send back what he wanted and they'd have to either accept it as is (Which they did) or refuse it and appear (at least, superficially) to not care about the people they claim they care about (the children).

AOC and the others were upset that Pelosi obviously recognized what Mitch did and just went along with it.

I don't see it as a schism in the party as much as I see it just as a difference in opinion in how you handle a person who is abusing your pragmatism (something Mitch did to Obama again and again and again).

AOC would have liked the Democrats to alter the proposal, pass it and send it to the Senate, which would put the pressure on Mitch to decline it and, as a result, not have anything passed before the 'deadline' imposed by the holiday (AOC even said she'd be more than willing to stay at work over the holiday to make sure a good deal got done) which would look bad for him.


Whereas Nancy prioritized getting the money to the border, even if it wasn't the money that the Democrats wanted it to be. She wasn't willing to risk sending a revised proposal to Mitch and him just outright saying "screw the kids, they get nothing, I'm going on vacation."

They both fell onto the same conclusion of "Mitch screwed us (and by extension, the children)," they just wanted to handle his f!@#ery differently.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2019, 12:01 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I don't think that I missed the point. I believe I got the point and just don't understand your viewpoint. How can you view The Colbert Report, a show that satirized the absurdity of, primarily, President Bush by caricaturing someone stupid/uninformed/naive/hyperpatriotic/silly enough to support him as clever.

But you view someone commenting on the absurdity of President Trump (and, in doing so, highlighting how stupid/uninformed/naive/hyperpatriotic/silly you'd have to be to support him) as hackery? 

Now, maybe you just enjoyed the satire side of the joke more than the straight side. That's fine. But that doesn't mean the straight version of the joke is more hackish than the satire version of the same joke.

I'm going to leave it at this because I'm not trying to derail the thread and we're talking about subjective taste.  I found Colbert Report and The Daily Show with John Stewart to be clever, well written and funny.  I find the easy "c%&kholster" jokes to be the exact opposite of this.  Easy jokes are usually bad ones and the late night gestalt humor is exactly that right now.

[GMDino]

(07-09-2019, 11:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You'll have to find the post arguing that this is a position.  I often find the histrionic reactions to Trump's every move amusing.  I don't confuse that with a political position.

(07-09-2019, 11:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I often find the histrionic reactions to Trump's every move amusing.  I don't confuse that with a political position.

Exactly.  People love when Trump "makes liberals lose their mind" but say they don't support what he does.  That's not a "true" political position anymore than "hating" Trump is.

(07-09-2019, 11:29 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nah, I mean the endless string of progressively unfunny crap they spew for easy laughs.  Norm MacDonald put it well, shitting on Trump is the newest form of hackery.  Colbert used to be one of the most clever, insightful comics around.  Now we get Putin's c%&kholster from him.  

So one joke?  


Trump has screwed up immigration, NK, Iran, China...lots of environmental rules, working on making education worse, messed up healthcare and tax cuts.  Something many (like me) have spoke on.  PLUS he's an asshat.  That's just the gravy on the mashed potatoes that are his "policies". 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2019, 12:20 PM)GMDino Wrote:




Exactly.  People love when Trump "makes liberals lose their mind" but say they don't support what he does.  That's not a "true" political position anymore than "hating" Trump is.

Which was exactly my point.  Thanks for reiterating it for me.

Quote:So one joke?  

Yeah, just that one.

Quote:Trump has screwed up immigration, NK, Iran, China...lots of environmental rules, working on making education worse, messed up healthcare and tax cuts.  Something many (like me) have spoke on.  PLUS he's an asshat.  That's just the gravy on the mashed potatoes that are his "policies". 

I don't agree that he screwed up immigration, it's no worse than it was under Obama.  I don't think he's screwed up with N. Korea, but you put way more stock in intangibles like "legitimizing" Kim than I do, likely because you've been told to.  I absolutely applaud what he's doing with China, it's about time someone took the screws to them.  I don't like his policy on the environment.  He hasn't affected my healthcare and I got substantially more back in taxes this past year, almost double.  Seems like approval is more in the eye of the beholder than people like you care to admit.

[GMDino]

(07-09-2019, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Which was exactly my point.  Thanks for reiterating it for me.

My pleasure.

(07-09-2019, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yeah, just that one.

That's kind of sad.

(07-09-2019, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't agree that he screwed up immigration, it's no worse than it was under Obama.  I don't think he's screwed up with N. Korea, but you put way more stock in intangibles like "legitimizing" Kim than I do, likely because you've been told to.  I absolutely applaud what he's doing with China, it's about time someone took the screws to them.  I don't like his policy on the environment.  He hasn't affected my healthcare and I got substantially more back in taxes this past year, almost double.  Seems like approval is more in the eye of the beholder than people like you care to admit.

You said that people weren't talking about his policies. He accomplished nothing at the border NK. China is playing him. He promised better healthcare (cheaper too) and has proposed zero and some people saw a tax cut, some did not, and most of the cuts have an expire date.

Point is there are plenty of "policies" to aim at. Some just choose to ignore his failures while accusing others of focusing on them.

[CJD]

(07-09-2019, 12:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't agree that he screwed up immigration, it's no worse than it was under Obama.  I don't think he's screwed up with N. Korea, but you put way more stock in intangibles like "legitimizing" Kim than I do, likely because you've been told to.  I absolutely applaud what he's doing with China, it's about time someone took the screws to them.  I don't like his policy on the environment.  He hasn't affected my healthcare and I got substantially more back in taxes this past year, almost double.  Seems like approval is more in the eye of the beholder than people like you care to admit.

I'm surprised that you don't think immigrant children dying while being detained is not an example of immigration being "screwed up" under Trump.

[hollodero]

(07-09-2019, 11:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: There's an enormous difference between individually representing your district and publicly castigating those among your party who don't subscribe to your extreme views.  Threats to primary them, public ridicule, neither of these are helpful to your party as a whole.

But that's exactly what Trump does. Only a hundred times worse.
Also, you criticized that they "don't appear to comprehend the need for a more moderate approach in most of the country". I don't think they have to do that. AOC unseated some established moderate democrat, it would be odd if she would just follow his lead once in Congress.
That I am not a fan of AOC's and their style is something else. I sure am not. She shouldn't ridicule people or castigate folks, but it's also not her task to fall in line and become moderate.

(07-09-2019, 11:24 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You just perfectly illustrated why it is not; you didn't list one policy or position.  You just listed his personality traits.  

Yeah, those do matter in my view.
But I sure could list some policy issues as well. Eg. he widely lost respect in foreign lands, his no progress in NK show just as well as the nearly attack on Iran that he obviously has no "oh he plays 3D chess" strategy, he's erratic, he denies climate change, raised the deficit in economic good times, he puts children in cage-like structures that lack basic sustenance etc. - which all can be seen as the result of severe personality flaws (or not, that's just my view of course - that he is severely flawed seems a more objective statement in comparison).
Also, I'd say such extreme flaws as Trump displays (like calling media outlets "enemy of the people") are disqualifying for a leader and to me that is a political statement. And it sure is a "position" and a valid, legit reason to be opposed to him. How can it not be?

Also, Dino has kind of a point. So many claim Trump's biggest asset is owning the libs and making 'em heads explode. Which is less political and way more petty than critizising a leader for not having the traits it takes to be one.

(And oh btw. China - and his demands that Europe do more for their own defense - are issues I do not have a problem with. It's not all bad.)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2019, 01:20 PM)GMDino Wrote: My pleasure.

I am pleased that you are pleased.

Quote:That's kind of sad.

Is it?

Quote:You said that people weren't talking about his policies.

No, I didn't.  I said being anti-Trump is not a policy position.

  

Quote:He accomplished nothing at the border NK.  China is playing him. He promised better healthcare (cheaper too) and has proposed zero and some people saw a tax cut, some did not, and most of the cuts have an expire date.

Some of these are your opinion, which is just that.  I was promised better healthcare from Obama too, didn't get it.  I did get a tax cut.  So, not a lot of substance to your argument here.

Quote:Point is there are plenty of "policies" to aim at.  Some just choose to ignore his failures while accusing others of focusing on them.  

Outstanding to hear.  Seeing as my point was that being anti-Trump was not a policy position it gladdens my heart to know that people can start focusing on the policies they dislike.

(07-09-2019, 01:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: I'm surprised that you don't think immigrant children dying while being detained is not an example of immigration being "screwed up" under Trump.

Dying while being detained or dying while in custody?  Those are two different things.  I care about anyone dying that shouldn't.  Is it demonstrable that these children died because of action or inaction by those supervising them?   I can say from reading two such stories that was not the case in either of them. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-09-2019, 02:07 PM)hollodero Wrote: But that's exactly what Trump does. Only a hundred times worse.

So you dislike it in this instance as well I assume?

Quote:Also, you criticized that they "don't appear to comprehend the need for a more moderate approach in most of the country". I don't think they have to do that. AOC unseated some established moderate democrat, it would be odd if she would just follow his lead once in Congress.
That I am not a fan of AOC's and their style is something else. I sure am not. She shouldn't ridicule people or castigate folks, but it's also not her task to fall in line and become moderate.

With respect you're reiterating my argument.  AOC is not from a moderate district.  That she unseated such an incumbent is one example, but there are other, rather obvious factors, for her victory.  I didn't say it was her task to do anything.  I did say her antics actually hurt her parties agenda nationwide.  So feel free to be the far left radical you were elected to be, just don't be surprised when the majority of your colleagues take issue with your approach.

Quote:Yeah, those do matter in my view.
But I sure could list some policy issues as well. Eg. he widely lost respect in foreign lands, his no progress in NK show just as well as the nearly attack on Iran that he obviously has no "oh he plays 3D chess" strategy, he's erratic, he denies climate change, raised the deficit in economic good times, he puts children in cage-like structures that lack basic sustenance etc. - which all can be seen as the result of severe personality flaws (or not, that's just my view of course - that he is severely flawed seems a more objective statement in comparison).
Also, I'd say such extreme flaws as Trump displays (like calling media outlets "enemy of the people") are disqualifying for a leader and to me that is a political statement. And it sure is a "position" and a valid, legit reason to be opposed to him. How can it not be?

I've already addressed many of these points above.  I didn't say there aren't policies of Trump to disagree with, I disagree with many of them as well.  I generally liked Obama, I disagreed with numerous policy positions of him as well.  BTW, one of them was his being anti-same sex marriage.  My point, which has yet to be refuted is that being anti-Trump is not such a position.

Quote:Also, Dino has kind of a point. So many claim Trump's biggest asset is owning the libs and making 'em heads explode. Which is less political and way more petty than critizising a leader for not having the traits it takes to be one.

I don't recall seeing anyone make the point that this is his biggest asset.

Quote:(And oh btw. China - and his demands that Europe do more for their own defense - are issues I do not have a problem with. It's not all bad.)

Hence my point that simply being anti-Trump is not a valid position.  I am glad we agree.

[CJD]

(07-09-2019, 02:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dying while being detained or dying while in custody?  Those are two different things.  I care about anyone dying that shouldn't.  Is it demonstrable that these children died because of action or inaction by those supervising them?   I can say from reading two such stories that was not the case in either of them. 

As far as I can tell, they died while they were in custody.

The details surrounding the deaths are hard to ascertain, as they are inherently skewed for political bias. But from what I read, the children got sick with diseases such as the flu. In one case, the child was made to wait an hour and a half before receiving any care after their symptoms were reported to the CBP. Others died of diseases that they did not enter the facilities with.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/why-are-migrant-children-dying-u-s-custody-n1010316

I can't say for sure (and I don't think anyone really can, to be honest) if these deaths, of which there are at least 7 in the last year, were a direct cause of the changes that Trump made to the detaining and housing of these children, but before these 7 deaths, there had not been one in similar detainee facilities (because Obama did detain children as well) for over a decade.

1 or 2 could be a coincidence. 3 or 4 could be a concerning pattern. 7 is pretty insane. And it's got a lot of people worried about what's going on under Trump's leadership.

[Dill]

(07-09-2019, 06:45 AM)treee Wrote: The Democratic message had become stale and the progressive wing of the party dormant. What has happened since the recession has been an ideological renaissance of the need for keeping the capital holders in check. And to compel them to contribute to our society in a fair manner (the society which they benifited from in the creation of their monied empires). That is the premise from which all democrats agree on and are being returned to.

Sounds pretty far leftish, Tree.

You got my vote.

[hollodero]

(07-09-2019, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: So you dislike it in this instance as well I assume?

In general, sure I do. I tend to make a bigger fuzz about it when it comes down to stupid insults and name-calling. As usual. As long as Trump leads that race to the bottom with an astronomical lead, I have a hard time getting too worked up over democrat's peanuts.

(07-09-2019, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: With respect you're reiterating my argument.  AOC is not from a moderate district.  That she unseated such an incumbent is one example, but there are other, rather obvious factors, for her victory.  I didn't say it was her task to do anything.  I did say her antics actually hurt her parties agenda nationwide.  So feel free to be the far left radical you were elected to be, just don't be surprised when the majority of your colleagues take issue with your approach.

Seems like I indeed do reiterate it.
Sure, she mustn't be surprised then. I can get behind that. Whenever she's surprised, I will gladly admit she shouldn't be :)

(07-09-2019, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't recall seeing anyone make the point that this is his biggest asset.

Oh I said biggest... my bad. Not his biggest. But an asset, sure, I saw that here and expecially elsewhere.

(07-09-2019, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hence my point that simply being anti-Trump is not a valid position.  I am glad we agree.

I start to see the logic here... and under that logic, sure, fair enough.
To me, being "anti-Trump" amounts to something like "in the sum of everything this man does and how he conducts himself, I came to be deeply opposed to him being president". It doesn't/shouldn't mean "everything he does is bad because it's him doing it". OK.