***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

So it’s a mistake to do anything that might become a “negative news cycle” on conservative propaganda outlets?

That list would include:

• Wearing a tan suit.
• Wearing a sleeveless dress.
• Performing a fist bump.
• Appearing in public without an American Flag pin.
• Using Dijon mustard.
• Working in the Oval Office without a jacket.
• Riding a bicycle while wearing a helmet.
• Writing a children’s book.
• Not being Republican.

By this standard, the best thing Rashida Tlaib can do for her constituents is become Tulsi Gabbard.

I don't really get this attitude,

so basically the existence of fox news means that
democrats are totally exempt from criticism of messaging or tactics?

and shouldn't even bother to impose message discipline, or even analyze the political effectiveness of their messaging / actions?


unless im reading this wrong, it seems like the obvious implications of this line of reasoning.

 

[elpablo21]

 

[Methodical Management]

I don't really get this attitude,

so basically the existence of fox news means that
democrats are totally exempt from criticism of messaging or tactics?

and shouldn't even bother to impose message discipline, or even analyze the political effectiveness of their messaging / actions?


unless im reading this wrong, it seems like the obvious implications of this line of reasoning.

You’re now criticizing the very idea of a progressive giving a speech because the speech might be criticized.

Where is your message discipline?

 

[frankmatthews]

Russian ambassador said their aggression is not against the Ukrainian people but the junta in Kiev. Sheesh

 

[frink85]

Putin didn't have to invade Ukraine when he had a pool boy in the US dropping his shorts all day

 

[osh kosh bosh]

You’re now criticizing the very idea of a progressive giving a speech because the speech might be criticized.

Where is your message discipline?

...huh?

I'm criticizing giving a "response" to the STOU speech of the president of your own party.
a speech that doesn't seem to serve a purpose and may actually harm a president that has been pretty friendly to progressives.

not the idea of progressives giving a speech.

 

[uncalled4boy]

 

[RustyShackleford]

I didn't say you should excuse anything.
im pointing out that even in your own mental model of manchin, there is a point to his actions. you think the point is bad that's fine.
the fact that he didn't kill it smoothly or efficiently or did all this extra stuff, imo seems besides the point.

if you think he's a plutocrat hurting the dems the only non plutocratic party in american makes some kind of sense.
regardless of how perverse you or I think it is.

So this is the best defense for Manchin, if I think what he is bad it makes sense what he did? You didn't even think he would be this bad.

All I am doing is holding the dude accountable for things that come out of his mouth. You are his biggest supporter, and I want to see if you were gonna be consistent with your criticism.

It seems clear you think someone causing a "Dems in disarray" talking point is bad. So I was pointed out that Manchin caused a larger one. It is not beside the point, it addresses a specific issue YOU raised.

Imagine this. Maybe Tlaib wants to burn the party down. Centrist will take the biggest losses in the fall, not progressives. So hell, why not trigger another bad news cycle. And her actions make sense. You would obviously say this is bad, this hurts the party, this is unhelpful, majorities matter. Well, those things apply the reasons apply to Manchin, he is hurting the party.

By your own stated principles, by your own mental model of what is good party politics, you should have a much bigger issue with Manchin's actions, but you excuse his actions repeatedly. With the occasional "this is bad"

You are basically arguing that Manchin helping to destroy the Dem majority past this year is also worth it.

I didn't say she was a stupid woman, I just said this actions she's taking seems unwise.
it's unclear to me how doing this does anything for Biden, or the democratic party,

responses are generally done by opposing parties.
this stuff is watched by partisans, it's not like it's some persuadable audience.
just seems like whatever she says will be framed in an adversarial way, so imo it seems unwise.

I don't think that is a wild swipe at progressives.

Since Obama, there have been responses to the President's speech outside of the opposing party. The Green Party has them. Smaller parties did too.

Bernie has responded to Trump out of the Democratic Party's pick. If I remember correctly he did one to Obama as well

This is not some new concept

that's fine, the feeling is often mutual.

***Raylan Given voice*** If you run into an ******* in the morning....

you want me to have the same emotional response to machin et al.

humans are different.
Manchin while frustrating seems worth it to me, from a cost benefit perspective ,
so im only going to get but so mad at something ive already priced in.

You were wrong about him and the filibuster. You were wrong about him and BBB

Even I, who was telling people like gry60 Manchin is needed for now, didn't go that far.

You clearly didn't price in the entire cost of Joe Manchin being the 50th vote.

I am not asking you to be emotional, but stuff like this just reads like inconsistent BS to me.

You were very condescending for a while about Manchin. Then you switch to telling people to look on the bright side when Manchin did things you were sure he wouldn't do and you knew people were pissed.

Dude, I am not asking for an equal emotional response. I just want to know where and when the consistency starts with your general views on the Dems helping their party prospects

But your whole schtick about why you criticize progressive is that they hurt the party electoral perspectives, don't win enough seats, making it harder to materially change the lives of regular people. For this, you have page, upon page, upon page of shade for progressives. But when Manchin does it, nothing

When he does something you clearly thought he wasn't going to do, still, nothing.

You couldn't even respond to my original post with "yeah, that was unwise", which would have pretty much stopped my argument dead in its tracks. But instead, you chose some weird defense of Manchin's actions

Sinema for example im more pointed in my criticism,
because imo she's acting far more irrationally given that she can easily be replaced.

Sinema is worse is not an excuse for letting Manchin off the hook like you do

 

[elpablo21]

wavycrocket

 

[RustyShackleford]

wavycrocket

This man is shameless

 

[IATT]

 

[noskey]

And the sirens in Kiev are blaring.

 

[noskey]

 

[RustyShackleford]

This is so ******* tragic

 

[osh kosh bosh]

So this is the best defense for Manchin, if I think what he is bad it makes sense what he did? You didn't even think he would be this bad.

Im not defending manchin, explaining why this specific criticism applies to talib and not to manchin.
plenty of criticism can apply to manchin, just not this one exactly.

All I am doing is holding the dude accountable for things that come out of his mouth. You are his biggest supporter, and I want to see if you were gonna be consistent with your criticism.

It seems clear you think someone causing a "Dems in disarray" talking point is bad. So I was pointed out that Manchin caused a larger one. It is not beside the point, it addresses a specific issue YOU raised.

Imagine this. Maybe Tlaib wants to burn the party down. Centrist will take the biggest losses in the fall, not progressives. So hell, why not trigger another bad news cycle. And her actions make sense. You would obviously say this is bad, this hurts the party, this is unhelpful, majorities matter. Well, those things apply the reasons apply to Manchin, he is hurting the party.

my assumption is her goal is to advanced progressive causes
even if her goal is to destroy the democratic party, I don't see how doing that advances that progressivism.

Joe manchin's goal is definitely not to advanced progressivism,
so when he does something that hurts progressives, it may be bad, but there's self interested logic you can follow.

now if you want to tell, me her goal is merely performative progressivism with no material end goal in mind
okay fine I retract my criticism.

By your own stated principles, by your own mental model of what is good party politics, you should have a much bigger issue with Manchin's actions, but you excuse his actions repeatedly. With the occasional "this is bad"

You are basically arguing that Manchin helping to destroy the Dem majority past this year is also worth it.

yes I still think it's worth it. it's a closer call than before but personally I think it's still worth it.
that is a separate question than is this action by this house member, given their goals, and position in the party wise.

but you excuse his actions repeatedly. With the occasional "this is bad"

again this to sounds like bedside manner criticism.

this thread is filled with Joe Manchin rebukes,
I don't think you need me to add one more to the pile. i said it's bad.

im just not going to be as mad about it as you, I measure these thing differently.

Since Obama, there have been responses to the President's speech outside of the opposing party. The Green Party has them. Smaller parties did too.

Bernie has responded to Trump out of the Democratic Party's pick. If I remember correctly he did one to Obama as well

This is not some new concept

I didn't say it was new, or it's never happened.
I said it's generally delivered by the opposition, and thus will look adversarial

You clearly didn't price in the entire cost of Joe Manchin being the 50th vote.

I am not asking you to be emotional, but stuff like this just reads like inconsistent BS to me.

You were very condescending for a while about Manchin. Then you switch to telling people to look on the bright side when Manchin did things you were sure he wouldn't do and you knew people were pissed.

Dude, I am not asking for an equal emotional response.

But your whole schtick about why you criticize progressive is that they hurt the party electoral perspectives, making it harder to materially change the lives of regular people. For this, you have page, upon page, upon page. But when Manchin does it, nothing

When he does something you clearly thought he wasn't going to do, still, nothing.

because I still think it's worth it, I grant that the actions are bad.
but IMO, it's still worth it,
so while Joe Manchin's actions are bad I see no point in going on about it, because at the end of the day to me it is better than a republican.

mitch McConnell is very bad,
im much more sanguin on the merits. of BBB than you
and I don't think it's a clear political winner in a high inflation environment.

minds can differ, but for me once I make the faustian bargain, i don't see the point in wringing my hands over it.

Sinema is worse is not an excuse for letting Manchin off the hook like you do

im not letting anyone off the hook, i just accepted the price.
yelling about it at this point does nothing for me.

I don't accept the price of Sinema because sinema is not worth it.

You couldn't even respond to my original post with "yeah, that was unwise". If was instead some pseudo defense of Manchin's actions

its not a pseudo defense of anything.
the criticism didn't apply to manchin. I explained why it didn't.

i didn't say manchin there are no valid criticism of manchin.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

wavycrocket

man I can't imagine hating someone as much as Glen hates the democrats.

justifying the deaths of Ukrainians
...all because Hillary Clinton makes you mad. jeeze.

 

[Methodical Management]

I'm criticizing giving a "response" to the STOU speech of the president of your own party.
a speech that doesn't seem to serve a purpose and may actually harm a president that has been pretty friendly to progressives.

not the idea of progressives giving a speech.

As you’ve little inkling of its contents, the idea of the speech is essentially the only thing you have to criticize at the moment.

People critique something Dave Chappelle or Joe Rogan have actually said that contribute to negative outcomes and you call it a “bank shot argument,” and here you are grousing about a speech that has yet to be delivered because it “may actually harm” Joe Biden.

Forgive me if I think this is weak, even by your standards.

 

[IATT]

 

[Nike Jordan]

 

[IATT]

wavycrocket

 

[RustyShackleford]

Im not defending manchin, explaining why this specific criticism applies to talib and not to manchin.
plenty of criticism can apply to manchin, just not this one exactly.

You are in practice defending Manchin.

When given the opportunity to choose to move the goal post to what is logical given their goals.

Abandoning the part about what is politically prudent

my assumption is her goal is to advanced progressive causes
even if her goal is to destroy the democratic party, I don't see how doing that advances that progressivism.

Joe manchin's goal is definitely not to advanced progressivism,
so when he does something that hurts progressives, it may be bad, but there's self interested logic you can follow.

now if you want to tell, me her goal is merely performative progressivism with no material end goal in mind
okay fine I retract my criticism.

Joe Manchin didn't just hurt progressives.

He hurt the centrist president

He hurt the centrist running in swing districts (they have been complaining about having nothing to run on for months)

He did this while claiming he is helping them. So using his own words and actions, he is hurting people he swears he wants to help

Given his words, that is not logical. I am not gonna use my low views of Manchin to rationalize away his *******.

yes I still think it's worth it. it's a closer call than before but personally I think it's still worth it.
that is a separate question than is this action by this house member, given their goals, and position in the party wise.



again this to sounds like bedside manner criticism.

this thread is filled with Joe Manchin rebukes,
I don't think you need me to add one more to the pile. i said it's bad.

im just not going to be as mad about it as you, I measure these thing differently.

So you think he is worth it. Cool

You still didn't price in the cost of all the **** he will do. You were clearly wrong. So you can't argue you don't get upset because you priced everything in. You clearly didn't.

Stay you think it is still worth it now after things change. Fine. But you can't claim you priced it in from the jump. You did not

I am not telling you to match anyone's rhetoric on Manchin. I don't care about your bedside manner. When you were an ******* and had no issue with being one back. I really don't care.

But you undercut the foundations you use to justify your issues with progressives when you make excuses, defend, and generally handwave the harm Manchin causes.

Like your rationale for having issues with progressive looks like unprincipled BS, because you willingly abandon them for Manchin.

The general inconsistency that undermines your claims is still there.

I didn't say it was new, or it's never happened.
I said it's generally delivered by the opposition, and thus will look adversarial

It will look adversarial to the people that undermined the president. Not Biden, not the Democratic Party in general.

Seems like the nuance of who she is gonna criticize is completely lost.

because I still think it's worth it, I grant that the actions are bad.
but IMO, it's still worth it,
so while Joe Manchin's actions are bad I see no point in going on about it, because at the end of the day to me it is better than a republican.

So you conveniently don't want to talk about the thing that makes you look hypocritical. Makes sense

I agree Manchin is better than a Republican

And I also agree what Manchin is doing is highly destructive and counterproductive. And analysis of it should go beyond "this is bad"

mitch McConnell is very bad,
im much more sanguin on the merits. of BBB than you
and I don't think it's a clear political winner in a high inflation environment.

minds can differ, but for me once I make the faustian bargain, i don't see the point in wringing my hands over it.

The thing is that like Machin, you will not engage in an economic discussion on the merits of BBB in a high inflation environment. It has to be political discussion

So it is just gonna lead to us arguing in circles.

But on the politics, somehow the views of the centrist in swing districts, complaining they have nothing to run on is whatever as well. The fact Manchin killed any chance of it passing before inflation became a big story is whatever.

Even if it is not a political winner this year. It could be in future years. Just like the ACA. The same ACA Manchin criticized when coming into office, then ran on protecting a few years later.

Sure minds can differ. And they will differ because we can't have a substantive economic conversation about BBB actual effects in a high inflation environment.

And that exactly how Manchin likes it

im not letting anyone off the hook, i just accepted the price.
yelling about it at this point does nothing for me.

I don't accept the price of Sinema because sinema is not worth it.

Yes, you are. Fine, it does nothing for you. Good for you

It still undercuts nearly all your arguments on progressive that clearly do something for you.

its not a pseudo defense of anything.
the criticism didn't apply to manchin. I explained why it didn't.

i didn't say manchin there are no valid criticism of manchin.

You moved the goal post to explain why to avoid addressing Manchin as a Democrat that needlessly field bad news cycles against his party.

Something you willing to criticize a progressive for .

 

[RustyShackleford]

As you’ve little inkling of its contents, the idea of the speech is essentially the only thing you have to criticize at the moment.

People critique something Dave Chappelle or Joe Rogan have actually said that contribute to negative outcomes and you call it a “bank shot argument,” and here you are grousing about a speech that has yet to be delivered because it “may actually harm” Joe Biden.

Forgive me if I think this is weak, even by your standards.

Also, in the announcement, she said her speech will be in support of Joe Biden

 

[IATT]

 

[Mark Antony]

Folks been imprisoned and murked for being Russian ops in my lifetime now **** just slides.

 

[RustyShackleford]

All these self proclaimed left-leaning Russian apologists are really having a moment right now