Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Frumple]

I'm very much of two minds about whether either interpretation is valid, but I think it's the sort of question that lies near the heart of mistrust towards democrats from people further to the left. There's an additional argument denying that this happened (I expect a characteristically condescending "...no?" frumple post in <24 hours asserting that all is imagined), but in light of the importance of the tax bill (and the way the media has played very loose with restraint under Trump over vanishingly less important issues) I'm convinced that their response was weak and noticeably so.

Too much of a very literal headache to be able to muster much of a shit to give, so probably not.

For what it's worth, if there's a question mark after the no it's generally fairly genuine confusion, with most of the rest being irritation at most. Condescension isn't something I aim for pretty much ever.

[Dorsidwarf]

Saying “Hilary lost, therefore the system is WRONG” is just abusing hindsight to make a point. Unless you have personal proof that Bernie would have won? Got one of those alternate history hoppers from the ol sci-fi?

In fact I very much doubt that if the DNC hadn’t interfered and Bernie had taken the primary (which he would have), but Trump still won because communism or whatever, that you would be banging your drum to the tune of “More candidate selection! Lack of curation by the party was the objectively wrong choice because Bernie lost!!”

[penguinofhonor]

You don't have to make up hypotheticals to see the double standard. You can just notice that nobody on the far left seems to think "Bernie lost to Hillary, therefore he is by definition the worse candidate" is a legitimate argument.

[redwallzyl]

The right seems to have a hell of a victim complex.
https://www.npr.org/2018/04/27/606230683/despite-so-much-winning-the-right-feels-like-its-losing
Maybe, just maybe we are disrespecting them because they keep following awful people doing awful things. The Republicans are not conservatives they are Republicans. Stop following them blindly and make them actually do good. I fucking hate the Republican party. I try so hard to have a nuanced opinion but they just keep throwing the same shit at the wall and I'm fucking done.

[Trekkin]

The right seems to have a hell of a victim complex.

Well, the proffered alternative is accepting as true that they got suckered into electing a thundering idiot because he promised the world really was as simple as it had to be to keep them from being obsolete. That is a lot to ask people to acknowledge.

[Maximum Spin]

You don't have to make up hypotheticals to see the double standard. You can just notice that nobody on the far left seems to think "Bernie lost to Hillary, therefore he is by definition the worse candidate" is a legitimate argument.

Well, because that doesn't follow, because people don't have strictly transitive preferences, so Bernie < Hillary and Hillary < Trump doesn't imply Bernie < Trump.

(obligatory caveat, I'm in the bottom right of the dumb politics grid so I have no horse in this race)

[Zangi]

The right seems to have a hell of a victim complex.

Well, the proffered alternative is accepting as true that they got suckered into electing a thundering idiot because he promised the world really was as simple as it had to be to keep them from being obsolete. That is a lot to ask people to acknowledge.

More like times are changing and what they value based on traditions are still getting muscled out, despite all the winning. 
Because, in the end, their side doesn't really represent them either, but it is the other sides fault anyways.

It really doesn't help them when parts of that old stuff could be classified as hate speech. 
And 'creative' interpretations could be classified as fake, but that swings both ways.

[McTraveller]

The Republicans are not conservatives they are Republicans.

I don't think I've ever seen this stated so succinctly.  Nice!

My problem with both political parties in the US is that they both seem to think you can get results just by declaring you want the result, rather than actually taking action to cause the result.  I would say the Republican party seems a little better about taking actions that have a close chance to meet their goals, I just don't like their goals.  The Democrats in general seem to have the more laudable goals, but their methods are far less effective.  ACA is a great example - it claims to have been aimed to get people more health care but what it did was give people health insurance.  In order to really get better health care at more affordable prices, you have to foster an environment that produces more health care providers (doctors, pharma, the whole shebang) at lower barriers to entry.

Pushing for "equal wages for group X" also sounds good on paper, but it falls apart when it comes to implementation.  It also can't be fixed in something less than a generation - you have to first change culture so that the labor pool for all jobs is first equally distributed with respect to all groups, then change the culture so that all laborers in each job are getting equal wages.  Simply mandating "equal wages for all in aggregate in a year" isn't going to work simply because the labor population isn't distributed in a way that makes that possible.

[PTTG??]

Republicans say they want a balanced budget,  then cut a couple tiny programs, spend twice that on furniture, and finally cut taxes on the wealthiest by a huge percentage.

[Loud Whispers]

Republicans say they want a balanced budget,  then cut a couple tiny programs, spend twice that on furniture, and finally cut taxes on the wealthiest by a huge percentage.

Inaccurate. They would've taken out loans to buy the furniture, so they can use taxes to pay interest on even more loans.

[McTraveller]

Like I said... the R's are better about actually accomplishing their goals.... (note: actual goals may differ from the goals pictured on the packaging). 

[Trekkin]

Well, the Correspondents' Dinner was...a thing. Lots of missed opportunities, though. I can't help but feel any of us could have done better -- perhaps not funnier, but at least less discomfiting and vulgar. Something like this:
"I understand several of you have reported the President is currently in Michigan instead of attending this event. Fake news, folks; we all know the President's in Moscow right now. But props to Washington Township for babysitting so Sarah can get out of the house. She needs the time off; the seventh decade of the Terrible Twos is the worst, you know."
And so forth.

[Kagus]

Yeah, more disappointing than anything. The funniest part about it is that Trump still didn't show up.

I am of the opinion though that there was no need for people to go bananas over Wolf's comments, as the BBC seems to be reporting. Not very funny, but certainly not that inflammatory either.

[hector13]

I thought the “maybe she’s born with it, maybe it’s lies. It’s probably lies” line was amusing.

[Trekkin]

I am of the opinion though that there was no need for people to go bananas over Wolf's comments, as the BBC seems to be reporting. Not very funny, but certainly not that inflammatory either.

Well, no, but histrionic pearl-clutching is an easy way to look better than "both sides" and appeal to fuzzy memories of the more dignified journalism of a past era. It's playing on Trump fatigue.