The Democratic Party has moved too far to the left.

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 05:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I can assume the Pumpkin analogy is steeped in Austrian tradition, because you've lost me on it.

Oh that's too bad. Just imagine this board (or me) being some kind of pumpkin evaluation committee, judging the two pumpkins that are your two parties. And having some folks advocating for the clearly more rotten one - albeit absent other persuasive alternatives mostly by claiming both pumpkins are clearly imperfect and so, it's clearly a tie. Also the judges are biased.

(12-02-2019, 05:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let me just ask you a simple question: Do you think there are those in this very forum that may obsess too much on Trump's words and actions? 

Yes, there are.
File it under "admitted facts that do not prove anything". I mean, what gives? That doesn't make Trump any less of a Trump.
Also, there are also those that obsess too much over AOC or Maxine Waters. Also proving nothing.

(12-02-2019, 05:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Schiff went off the rails with his "interpretation" of the Trump conversation and his desire to hear only the witnesses he wanted.

Well, he's a prosecutor of sorts here. But republicans could call in witnesses also. And they did. I guess three of those guys in the hearings were asked for by republicans. That they did not quite help their case it not Schiff's fault.
When the GOP wanted Hunter Biden or Glenn Simpson or any other witness totally irrelevant to the case, then of course they couldn't just get them though and turn the whole hearings into a travesty. You can hardly blame Schiff for that.

Regarding the "interpretation", I don't know what is referred here, I heard Trump say the same thing though. I listened to Schiff during the hearings. No interpretation of his seemed to be outlandish, not backed up by evidence or witness statements or following a clear train of logic. He made a good case to me. If there is a real fallacy in his case, tell me.
Also, and I feel I need to stress that, Trump or many of his surroundings were quite welcome to appear also. They just respectlessly declined.

(12-02-2019, 05:51 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Fortunately the last part will not be an option if it goes to the judiciary and it shouldn't have been during the House hearing.  

Well, that's on Trump. He was asked to appear and declined, also he forbids a bunch of other people to appear. When you do so, it's hard to complain that you don't get heard.

[fredtoast]

(12-02-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Now your turn: What Dem candidate would you vote for Trump over? 

You still don't get it.  The problem with Trump is not this party affiliation.  It is the fact that he is not qualified.


"Let me prove how 'fair and balanced' I am.  Here is a list of stuff I would rather eat than shit.  Now show me the list of things you would rather eat shit than."

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 06:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Radical is in the eye of the beholder. I remember many thinking Obama's views/actions on illegal immigration to be radical. Seems the more we disagree with something, the more radical it is. 

Yeah, that's a typical bfine conclusion.

In fact I stated those things appear radical to me, of course admitting a certain amount of subjectivity in that assessment. But that doesn't mean I simply disagree with those things and call them "radical" because I'm just a primitive baffoon and that's how we argue.

If we had reverse roles now, you would at this point trot out the literal definition of "ra-di-cal" to prove how objective your assessment is and how only personal bias drove the other person to disagree. I won't do that though.

[Dill]

(12-02-2019, 06:06 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, I spoke against Trump's decision to pull out of Syria. I was just surprised in the allies I had in this critcizim. 

But as the far Left thinks: Nothing wrong with an occasional slamming of good deeds. 

As to what it looks like: Hit the back arrow and breeze through a few pages of this forum. 

I have seen no one saying the Left is a problem; I see it saying too far from center (Left) is a problem. As to "never Leftisim" BS. I've already mentioned Dems I'd vote for over Trump.

Now your turn: What Dem candidate would you vote for Trump over? 

1. So far, I would vote for all of them over Trump. Even Gabbert.

2. Speaking of "the eye of the beholder," you appear to assume any and every Dem is a "leftist." So if you voted for Biden or Klobuchar or Gabbert you'd be voting for a "leftist" and that refutes any charge of "never 'leftism.'"  Tucker Carlson, deploying a similar definition of "the left," would agree with you.   And you are posting on a thread titled "The Democtratic Party has moved to far to the left," which suggests someone IS saying the "the Left" is a problem.  Perhaps "the far left" is now what used to be the left, and the center is "the left" now?

3. I have still see no examples of the "far left" slamming good deeds.  And as I said above, if it has happened a couple of times, why is that even an issue with this president, now up for impeachment on charges of obstruction and abuse of power? We are not in a constitutional crisis because "leftists" have slammed Trump for good deeds. We are in a crisis because Trump tramples rule of law, and part of his base cheers that while the rest find it preferable to something called "socialism"--as Tucker Carlson defines it for them.

4. Don't understand the Syria reference in this context, or your surprise at "allies."

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 06:37 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. So far, I would vote for all of them over Trump. Even Gabbert.

Blaine?

I have to say, for president yes, but when it came to the QB position I might prefer Ivanka.

[fredtoast]

Getting back to the OP.

One of the main reasons there is so much talk about the Dems moving too far to the left is because of the lies from the right.

They claim Dems want "open borders" instead of immigration reform.

They claim Dems want to take all guns away from private citizens instead of outlawing assault weapons.

They claim Dems hate religion when many Dems are religious.

They claim Dems hate wealth when in fact Dems make more money than Republicans.

Basically it is all based on lies from the right wing echo chamber.

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 06:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You still don't get it.  The problem with Trump is not this party affiliation.  It is the fact that he is not qualified.


"Let me prove how 'fair and balanced' I am.  Here is a list of stuff I would rather eat than shit.  Now show me the list of things you would rather eat shit than."

I just said that in reply to the "never Left" assertion being BS. I agree the :never Trump" assertion is not. 

BTW, I don't think your little examples says what you think it does.

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 06:37 PM)Dill Wrote: 1. So far, I would vote for all of them over Trump. Even Gabbert.

2. Speaking of "the eye of the beholder," you appear to assume any and every Dem is a "leftist." So if you voted for Biden or Klobuchar or Gabbert you'd be voting for a "leftist" and that refutes any charge of "never 'leftism.'"  Tucker Carlson, deploying a similar definition of "the left," would agree with you.   And you are posting on a thread titled "The Democtratic Party has moved to far to the left," which suggests someone IS saying the "the Left" is a problem.  Perhaps "the far left" is now what used to be the left, and the center is "the left" now?

3. I have still see no examples of the "far left" slamming good deeds.  And as I said above, if it has happened a couple of times, why is that even an issue with this president, now up for impeachment on charges of obstruction and abuse of power? We are not in a constitutional crisis because "leftists" have slammed Trump for good deeds. We are in a crisis because Trump tramples rule of law, and part of his base cheers that while the rest find it preferable to something called "socialism"--as Tucker Carlson defines it for them.

4. Don't understand the Syria reference in this context, or your surprise at "allies."

1. I knew that "Never Trump"

2. I have no problem voting for someone Left of Center in general; as long as he/she shares some of my views. I'll leave it to youto figure out the rest of the directions, but I think most, including Obama, realizes what "Too far Left" is.

3. You say you've seen it a couple of times while also saying you see no examples///

4. There are those that want us out of the ME at any cost, but when Trump makes a move to do so; it becomes "Did you see how he did it? He abandoned one of our unofficial allies in favor of one of our official allies. Damn him."

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 4. There are those that want us out of the ME at any cost, but when Trump makes a move to do so; it becomes "Did you see how he did it? He abandoned one of our unofficial allies in favor of one of our official allies. Damn him."

Yeah, damn him.

There's a way to do things and a way not to do things. Talking to Erdogan and then doing his will by hastily moving out and leaving bases behind for Russia to occupy, by that deed breaking a promise to an ally that was actually helpful beyond description, leaving said ally to flee for their lives,  is something possibly no one not named Rand Paul would have ever approved of, including yourself.

And yet you're able to take that example and turn it against Trump critics somehow.

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 06:27 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh that's too bad. Just imagine this board (or me) being some kind of pumpkin evaluation committee, judging the two pumpkins that are your two parties. And having some folks advocating for the clearly more rotten one - albeit absent other persuasive alternatives mostly by claiming both pumpkins are clearly imperfect and so, it's clearly a tie. Also the judges are biased.



Yes, there are.
File it under "admitted facts that do not prove anything". I mean, what gives? That doesn't make Trump any less of a Trump.
Also, there are also those that obsess too much over AOC or Maxine Waters. Also proving nothing.



Well, he's a prosecutor of sorts here. But republicans could call in witnesses also. And they did. I guess three of those guys in the hearings were asked for by republicans. That they did not quite help their case it not Schiff's fault.
When the GOP wanted Hunter Biden or Glenn Simpson or any other witness totally irrelevant to the case, then of course they couldn't just get them though and turn the whole hearings into a travesty. You can hardly blame Schiff for that.

Regarding the "interpretation", I don't know what is referred here, I heard Trump say the same thing though. I listened to Schiff during the hearings. No interpretation of his seemed to be outlandish, not backed up by evidence or witness statements or following a clear train of logic. He made a good case to me. If there is a real fallacy in his case, tell me.
Also, and I feel I need to stress that, Trump or many of his surroundings were quite welcome to appear also. They just respectlessly declined.



Well, that's on Trump. He was asked to appear and declined, also he forbids a bunch of other people to appear. When you do so, it's hard to complain that you don't get heard.

He characterized a sitting POTUS as a mafia leader.  

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 07:09 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, damn him.

There's a way to do things and a way not to do things. Talking to Erdogan and then doing his will by hastily moving out and leaving bases behind for Russia to occupy, by that deed breaking a promise to an ally that was actually helpful beyond description, leaving said ally to flee for their lives,  is something possibly no one not named Rand Paul would have ever approved of, including yourself.

And yet you're able to take that example and turn it against Trump critics somehow.

In your opinion: What would have been the approved way to do it? 

A slow withdraw (hint: that's what we're doing)?

Doing what our official ally (Turkey) asks?

I'm gonna go with maybe, just maybe regardless how he did it there would be those that would find fault in it because Trump. Apparently you do not.

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 07:10 PM)bfine32 Wrote: He characterized a sitting POTUS as a mafia leader.  

Well... I read up, he said "mafia-like shakedown". Which, given all facts, seems not too far from the truth. If extorting Ukraine is in fact found to be a crime (I sure think it is), then this has some mafia resemblances in it Underlings doing the boss' will in the criminal scheme, also mob-like language of rats and attourneys with "insurance" and slamming flippers, plus just the whole Trump world as described by many  testimonies, plus intimidating witnesses.
By the latter I am not just talking about shittweeting them, but also about guys that openly threatened Cohen in Congress. Some things are quite mafiaesque about this. Other things, not so much, sure.

That being said, should Schiff have said that? Nope, he shouldn't have. That was not wise.
It still pales in comparison to every other Trump tweet or anything Jordan or Nunes spout out. Also, it does not deevaluate Schiff's other stances and words. That particular one was chosen badly, but it is a bit thin to use that as proof of how Schiff's overall case is unfounded. It is very well founded.

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 07:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: Well... I read up, he said "mafia-like shakedown". Which, given all facts, seems not too far from the truth. If extorting Ukraine is in fact found to be a crime (I sure think it is), then this has some mafia resemblances in it Underlings doing the boss' will in the criminal scheme, also mob-like language of rats and attourneys with "insurance" and slamming flippers, plus just the whole Trump world as described by many  testimonies, plus intimidating witnesses.
By the latter I am not just talking about shittweeting them, but also about guys that openly threatened Cohen in Congress. Some things are quite mafiaesque about this. Other things, not so much, sure.

That being said, should Schiff have said that? Nope, he shouldn't have. That was not wise.
It still pales in comparison to every other Trump tweet or anything Jordan or Nunes spout out. Also, it does not deevaluate Schiff's other stances and words. That particular one was chosen badly, but it is a bit thin to use that as proof of how Schiff's overall case is unfounded. It is very well founded.

I never said anything anyone said was worse than the stuff Trump or Nunes says. That's just a point you made up to argue against. 

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 07:13 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm gonna go with maybe, just maybe regardless how he did it there would be those that would find fault in it because Trump. Apparently you do not.

Of course there would be those in any case. But again, that does not prove anything beyond "there are always those". 
Trump did it not any way, he did it this specific way and this specific way caused much very well deserved blowback. Your counterpoint is so awfully weak.

It's a counterpoint just as valid as saying "ah, some would not like Trump if he just drank tea, there are just those folks" when there is outrage over him shooting people in the street. As if the former were the more important part than the latter.

What the right course of action in Syria is, I do not know. Basic decency would at least demand for giving an ally a heads-up well in advance though. That's the bare minimum I'd ask for.

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 07:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I never said anything anyone said was worse than the stuff Trump or Nunes says. That's just a point you made up to argue against. 

I made the point to show how Schiff's "mishap" just pales in comparison. Yet you complain about him and only about him. You brought up his faults in the first place in your selective outrage.

And yet you're also the person accusing others of letting their personal bias shape their world view. Sure, you're smart enough to not defend Nunes or all the others when they are indefensible; you rather focus all attacks on democrats still and just say nothing about the others. But do not expect me to focus on the mouse when there's an elephant standing right next to it.

[Dill]

(12-02-2019, 07:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: 1. I knew that "Never Trump"

2. I have no problem voting for someone Left of Center in general; as long as he/she shares some of my views. I'll leave it to youto figure out the rest of the directions, but I think most, including Obama, realizes what "Too far Left" is.

3. You say you've seen it a couple of times while also saying you see no examples///

4. There are those that want us out of the ME at any cost, but when Trump makes a move to do so; it becomes "Did you see how he did it? He abandoned one of our unofficial allies in favor of one of our official allies. Damn him."

1. "Never Trump" against a field of normal politicians, yes. You might also have asked which 2016 Republican candidates I would vote for over Trump. Again--all of them.

2. LOL women's suffrage, social security, civil rights, medicare, gay marriage--today's "too far left" is tomorrow's moral high ground. Obama realizes that for sure.

3. I said "IF" there are examples of some "far left" slamming Trump for good deeds, not that I have "seen it a couple of times." Subjunctive mood.

4. We kind of went over this before.  I very much doubt that any individual who really "wanted the US out of the ME at any cost" complained when he announced the pull back from the Syrian border. 

It looks like you are manufacturing a contradiction here by pointing to some "leftists" who want us out of the ME (though not at any cost) and others (like myself) who critique Trump for abandoning allies, not listening to advice, and general making high impact foreign policy decisions in favor countries where he has or wants hotels, and then presenting these as somehow the same individuals talking out of both sides of their mouth.

All that while further ignoring that someone might indeed want the US out of ME but have a big problem nevertheless with Trump's making high impact foreign policy decisions in favor of countries where he has or wants hotels and to the detriment of those who have spilled blood in our interest.  Why in the world should even those who want us out at any cost be ok with that?

PS Trump still has us in Syria, "keeping the oil."

[*bfine32*]

(12-02-2019, 07:34 PM)hollodero Wrote: I made the point to show how Schiff's "mishap" just pales in comparison. Yet you complain about him and only about him. You brought up his faults in the first place in your selective outrage.

And yet you're also the person accusing others of letting their personal bias shape their world view. Sure, you're smart enough to not defend Nunes or all the others when they are indefensible; you rather focus all attacks on democrats still and just say nothing about the others. But do not expect me to focus on the mouse when there's an elephant standing right next to it.

Not one person has compared Schiff's words to Trump's. You're just arguing making a point against something never suggested. And I didn't complain about him and only him. 

There was no "selective outrage" I just used him as an example of Dems that take it a little to far. Contrasted him to the likes of Pelosci and Schumer. 

As to the rest....I'm going to bow out. 

[hollodero]

(12-02-2019, 10:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not one person has compared Schiff's words to Trump's. You're just arguing making a point against something never suggested. And I didn't complain about him and only him. 

There was no "selective outrage" I just used him as an example of Dems that take it a little to far. Contrasted him to the likes of Pelosci and Schumer. 

I did. I compared Schiff to Nunes (not Trump as much, but whatever) to outline your selective outrage. There's folks like Nunes spouting out Russian propaganda lies and then some quite unamerican things to cover for a likely extortion scheme, and you rather take issue with something rather unimportant regarding Schiff. That is a bit unreal and I make this comparison. Guilty as charged.

[GMDino]

Lot of defending Trump from someone who claims they don't always defend Trump. 

[Dill]

(12-02-2019, 10:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As to the rest....I'm going to bow out. 

Darn. We need some never-the-lefters to go on record regarding the Ukraine--

Did it hack the US election or not?  Do we back the FBI/CIA or Trump/Barr?

That reframes the whole debate about where our attention should be.