What is the democratic message?

[ChainFlow]

no if you commit a crime you lose your rights.

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

 

[MacDuffle]

There was one interview that changed my view on this (forgot who it was with) but the guy was a green barrette or something

I will pray for all of you

 

[kpt018]

I will pray for all of you

?

 

[Last Samurai]

we like gays & foreigners
because they vote for us

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Where does it say that in the Constitution?

Are rights included under liberty?

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

 

[ChainFlow]

Are rights included under liberty?

I believe that the word in that context refers to not being imprisoned.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I believe that the word in that context refers to not being imprisoned.

I'd think liberty would be much broader than that. But,...you don't have a right to not be imprisoned? Or to keep your property? Or your life? Regardless, the sentiment seems pretty clear that when you're convicted of crimes you forfeit some decision-making.

 

[jrams]

The infighting between Dems in this thread seems pretty analogous to the real world.

 

[franklinstower]

It's cool man, evil did strike me as hyperbolic.

And it's hard to say this without sounding like I'd ever give a free pass for killing innocent people but collateral damage happens in every war. If you're going to call him a war criminal you'll have to point to all the facts surrounding those cases.

There was one interview that changed my view on this (forgot who it was with) but the guy was a green barrette or something and he described missions in which they had orders to take out well known terrorists who were basically killing innocent people. They ordered a strike on him and the terrorists grabbed innocents because they knew Americans would take care to avoid killing them but they didn't know this so the terrorists and innocents were killed. In that scenario the terrorists used innocents as a shield and that's why they were killed.

Anyway, that's just one story from one dude but the issue is complicated.

And I asked Ultra but someone will have to point to actual crimes that Obama actively prevented investigations into, but I'm confident they don't exist. And the part about him having policies that favor the wealthy over the poor is just flat out wrong and quite the opposite.

Point taken but I have also heard interviews where they have said that some of these drone strikes that kill innocents are done with no confirmation at all the target is even there..... and sometimes the target is not there.

I cannot allow that in my heart or mind.

 

[ineverpost]

People love witch hunts and the democratic party and their affiliates are always looking to attack people.

 

[franklinstower]

People love witch hunts and the democratic party and their affiliates are always looking to attack people.

Both sides are --all the time.

 

[Trotsky]

Taking the public into account. Not "more agreeable" to left-wing ideologues.

It wasn't "agreeble" to independents or populists of any vein, either. The Clinton camp completely refused to grant legitimacy to populist concerns over economic issues (completely phoning in concerns about falling wages, etc.) and over the legitimacy of political platforms themselves (refusing to take principled stands on issues like police violence and NODAPL, opting instead for measures of expedience as usual).

First part is obvious bias, but the second part IMO shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the GOP (and the Intercept left).

On definitional arguments, you seem to be betraying at least one of your own rules with the implication of "bias." Haven't you routinely argued for a more informed understanding of that word? I did not disapprove of the Clinton campaign's message and tactics on the basis of their source, but on the value of the tactics and rhetoric themselves. Secondly, I do not know what the "Intercept left" is, but I've seen you use it with some implicit condescension and scorn before. As far as I can tell, the "Intercept left" would only be moderate liberals with a clear libertarian or anti-imperialist color.

The vitriol she inspired was solely a function of her position, and if someone else had that position, they'd inspire the same vitriol. Let's be honest: If Clinton had said in 2014 that she was retiring from public life to focus on her charitable work, she'd have 70%-plus approval from the public today, the State Department IT security protocol violation wouldn't have even been covered by Fox, and a lot of Republican voters and the far left would express sadness that we have the evil, corrupt, criminal, warmongering O'Malley or whomever instead of honorable, reasonable, peaceful Clinton. Plus, we'd have heard that, "OMG, Democrats could have nominated someone who was overqualified and super popular, but they chose X instead!"

I can't respond to this, other than to say I disagree with your hypothesis. Clinton was deeply unpopular with huge swaths of the electorate on the left and on the right, and this (on the left) peaked with the 2008 primary, wherein Clinton cast Obama as a gun-grabber, a foreigner, and a radical. On the right, it may well be a matter of Clinton's continued presence within the political conversation over the years, but it's frankly ludicrous to presume that the GOP could replicate the vitriol it has fostered in its base toward Clinton over the past 25 years so easily with an alternative opposition.

There are any number of choices, I think. Given the direction the GOP has gone, I think it's vital that they remain reasonable. They do have a fine line to walk--on the one hand not alienating swing voters and the other, not losing their own base. But the far left is simply not a reliable bloc, and they work against their own interests (to get something like, say, single payer requires full Democratic control of gov't and a big majority in the Senate, while the far left refusing to vote Democratic both prevents that and provides them with an unreasonable basis to not vote Democratic).

Do you have any electoral data to substantiate these tired aspersions? Was it not sufficiently shown that a higher percentage of Sanders voters (who I am assuming you are referring to as the "far left," since the communist far left exists in such trivial amounts that its participation can hardly be said to be electorally significant, nor even remotely represented by what ideology you would ascribe to The Intercept) voted for Clinton than Clinton voters did for Obama in 2008?

You have to be privy to the fact that you are epitomizing the cynical and elitist tone that the Clinton campaign itself suffered from.

 

[xcvbn]

A huge number of things come to mind- and only listing things where there is a fundamental disagreement w/Republicans-

Healthcare should be treated as a human right, workers from the lower-to-middle-class should make a larger share, we should stop redistributing wealth upward, gay/trans people should have the same rights as everyone else, racism and other forms of bigotry should continue to be eliminated, foreign countries should not be allowed to interfere with our democracy, abortion is a healthcare issue and women should have more control of their bodies, people should be allowed to vote no matter what race they are, we should base our environmental policy on scientific knowledge, etc etc etc

Good list. You should rank those issues in order of importance

 

[Deleted member 196663]

 

[RockstarChris]

What?

Im still not convinced that reading is within your skillset.

 

[Jack V Savage]

On definitional arguments, you seem to be betraying at least one of your own rules with the implication of "bias." Haven't you routinely argued for a more informed understanding of that word?

Not sure how it's betraying anything. The fact that you opposed the campaign is responsible for your reading some weird stuff into it. I don't think anyone who wasn't actively opposed to the candidate would see any cynicism (or an average or above-average level of it) or tastelessness, etc. Not worth arguing about, IMO, because it is just a subjective impression that is driven by pre-existing attitudes.

Secondly, I do not know what the "Intercept left" is, but I've seen you use it with some implicit condescension and scorn before. As far as I can tell, the "Intercept left" would only be moderate liberals with a clear libertarian or anti-imperialist color.

Far left types (particularly on foreign policy) who are politically aligned with the right as a practical matter (oppose actually trying to defeat the right at the polls). Left-wing CTers. People who come up with a different reason that left-leaning people shouldn't vote every election. People who think anyone who opposes them is a secret agent. You know what I mean.

I can't respond to this, other than to say I disagree with your hypothesis. Clinton was deeply unpopular with huge swaths of the electorate on the left and on the right, and this (on the left) peaked with the 2008 primary, wherein Clinton cast Obama as a gun-grabber, a foreigner, and a radical. On the right, it may well be a matter of Clinton's continued presence within the political conversation over the years, but it's frankly ludicrous to presume that the GOP could replicate the vitriol it has fostered in its base toward Clinton over the past 25 years so easily with an alternative opposition.

We've always been at war with Eastasia, is what this sounds like. Clinton's approval was in the mid-60s throughout her time as SoS. Seems like whole period has been memory-holed on the right, just as the perception of her as the left-wing half of the Clinton team and her sky-high approval ratings at the end of Bill's term has been memory-holed on the left.

Do you have any electoral data to substantiate these tired aspersions? Was it not sufficiently shown that a higher percentage of Sanders voters (who I am assuming you are referring to as the "far left," since the communist far left exists in such trivial amounts that its participation can hardly be said to be electorally significant, nor even remotely represented by what ideology you would ascribe to The Intercept) voted for Clinton than Clinton voters did for Obama in 2008?

I think you misinterpreted something. Most Sanders primary voters voted for Clinton, and that's not who I'm talking about. In any primary, there are people who want someone other than the eventual winner to win. But clearly the difference in 2016, as it often is, is people who stayed home (or effectively did) or voted for the candidate whose views were further from their own. The "tired aspersion" as you call it is a simple, well-known fact. Left-leaning eligible voters are far less likely to actually vote than right-leaning ones, and that is the primary reason that policy tilts right of public preferences. That's true in presidential years and even more true in non-presidential years. If all eligible voters voted every election, we would have had single payer (for example) a long time ago. And yet you see people use the failure of the left to wield sufficient policy as a *reason* not to support left-leaning politicians. It's madness.

You have to be privy to the fact that you are epitomizing the cynical and elitist tone that the Clinton campaign itself suffered from.

I'm not a politician, and I have no interest in swaying idiots. I'm just telling the truth.

 

[kpt018]

Im still not convinced that reading is within your skillset.

You shouldn't concern yourself with my skills and instead focus on whether you can articulate the point you're attempting to make.