What to do about Obama?

[Bakustra]

This requires something that lacks evidence: That Democrats will react to lose by going in any direction but further right. Furthurmore, do you honestly think these relatively low-looney fuckers would not make things worse, just because they aren't as enthusiasticly against women's rights and for the conservative Jesus?

So your position depends on the Democratic party remaining eternally in power to keep it from sliding any further right, and you ignored what I posted earlier about the question of whether there is any real difference between the two parties in screwing the nation. Yet it is the people who think that the system needs to change who are the impractical dreamers and the irrational fanatics. Madness.

I suppose if you spin it like that, it would sound crazy. Of course, since reaction to the stick is bad, use the carrot and attempt to reprogram.

As for 'any real difference'. I think the GBL's would disagree, having gotten rights the past three years.

What does your first sentence even mean? There is no 'carrot' in this scenario- the entire reason we are having this conversation is because Democratic leadership counts on perpetual support from progressives and social democrats. There is nothing progressives can hold out to encourage them even further- they believe that they have largely unconditional support anyways! All that you can do is threaten through protest votes and other subversive acts, acquiesce to the losing battle, or attempt to break out of the system and change it.

GLBT groups got Matthew Shepard and the end of DADT. That's great, but if those are progressive stances, then some 70% of Americans are progressive, as that is the percentage supporting hate-crimes legislation being expanded to include queer groups, and it is the smaller of the two percentages. 80% of Americans supported the repeal of DADT. This included two-thirds of self-identified conservatives. The majority of Republican candidates have said nothing about DADT one way or the other. They also haven't said much about the Matthew Shepard Act either. Not to mention that Democratic leadership hasn't done all that much for racial minorities, class minorities, or sexual minorities, and in several cases has been actively regressive towards those groups.

Its for exactly that reason that I keep trying to dispell the notion of a "protest vote" for a liberal third party candidate being any good whatsoever. All it will do is make the damage done by a Republican that much harder to reverse. The only prudent course of action is to dig in, hold the line, and hope Obama does more with a second term. If he doesn't, then at least you aren't digging yourself out of such a large hole when you put together candidates for the next election.

What, exactly, is the damage that you think Republicans will cause given four to eight years? Without a September 11th to rally people behind the party, they will probably be a minority government from 2014 on, too, so they probably will not have cloture past 2014. Explain what specifically you think will happen.

[SirNitram]

So your position depends on the Democratic party remaining eternally in power to keep it from sliding any further right, and you ignored what I posted earlier about the question of whether there is any real difference between the two parties in screwing the nation. Yet it is the people who think that the system needs to change who are the impractical dreamers and the irrational fanatics. Madness.

I suppose if you spin it like that, it would sound crazy. Of course, since reaction to the stick is bad, use the carrot and attempt to reprogram.

As for 'any real difference'. I think the GBL's would disagree, having gotten rights the past three years.

What does your first sentence even mean? There is no 'carrot' in this scenario- the entire reason we are having this conversation is because Democratic leadership counts on perpetual support from progressives and social democrats. There is nothing progressives can hold out to encourage them even further- they believe that they have largely unconditional support anyways! All that you can do is threaten through protest votes and other subversive acts, acquiesce to the losing battle, or attempt to break out of the system and change it.

GLBT groups got Matthew Shepard and the end of DADT. That's great, but if those are progressive stances, then some 70% of Americans are progressive, as that is the percentage supporting hate-crimes legislation being expanded to include queer groups, and it is the smaller of the two percentages. 80% of Americans supported the repeal of DADT. This included two-thirds of self-identified conservatives. The majority of Republican candidates have said nothing about DADT one way or the other. They also haven't said much about the Matthew Shepard Act either. Not to mention that Democratic leadership hasn't done all that much for racial minorities, class minorities, or sexual minorities, and in several cases has been actively regressive towards those groups.

'There's no carrot!'. Because of course, Democratic politicians are inhuman robots who don't respond to getting what they desire. Of course there are sticks in the arsenal, if you stop and think. Primary from the Left. Become major donors and thus become influential. But 'protest votes' are fucking stupid in this enviroment.

Wow. You HONESTLY beleive the Republican candidates don't care about DADT? Time for a dip into reality. Four would re-instate it(Sanotorum, Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann). Rick perry opposes it's end, gay marriage, or protection against workplace discrimination for having TEH GAY. So you're flat out lying or so uninformed that it's hardly worth listening to. 'Democrats haven't done much'. Yea, and GOP has done plenty to restrict women's healthcare access, disenfranchising voters under the tried and false 'voter fraud' scares, and, well, one can read this forum for the full list.

What's your real argument, Bakrustra? It's bad to prevent the GOP back into power when they've gone more insane since the last time they had it? You've even your failed 'These guys are (relatively) sane!' nonsense.

[Uraniun235]

'There's no carrot!'. Because of course, Democratic politicians are inhuman robots who don't respond to getting what they desire. Of course there are sticks in the arsenal, if you stop and think. Primary from the Left. Become major donors and thus become influential. But 'protest votes' are fucking stupid in this enviroment.

"Get rich and throw money at the Dems!"

The actual response to this is that no, Nitram, nobody here is arguing that Democrats are robots. They're corrupt. Sold out. Not every one of them, but enough of them. They'll throw bones on social issues but neither party will actually stand up to the financial sector, or to the grotesque military pork barrel, or to the tremendous expansion of executive authority and police power, or even just to stop fucking torturing human beings.

[SirNitram]

'There's no carrot!'. Because of course, Democratic politicians are inhuman robots who don't respond to getting what they desire. Of course there are sticks in the arsenal, if you stop and think. Primary from the Left. Become major donors and thus become influential. But 'protest votes' are fucking stupid in this enviroment.

"Get rich and throw money at the Dems!"

The actual response to this is that no, Nitram, nobody here is arguing that Democrats are robots. They're corrupt. Sold out. Not every one of them, but enough of them. They'll throw bones on social issues but neither party will actually stand up to the financial sector, or to the grotesque military pork barrel, or to the tremendous expansion of executive authority and police power, or even just to stop fucking torturing human beings.

Hence the bit about primary from the Left. Also, 'get rich' is not needed. A large liberal group gathers small donations can still wield power. That relies on the corruption.

[Bakustra]

'There's no carrot!'. Because of course, Democratic politicians are inhuman robots who don't respond to getting what they desire. Of course there are sticks in the arsenal, if you stop and think. Primary from the Left. Become major donors and thus become influential. But 'protest votes' are fucking stupid in this enviroment.

Wow. You HONESTLY beleive the Republican candidates don't care about DADT? Time for a dip into reality. Four would re-instate it(Sanotorum, Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann). Rick perry opposes it's end, gay marriage, or protection against workplace discrimination for having TEH GAY. So you're flat out lying or so uninformed that it's hardly worth listening to. 'Democrats haven't done much'. Yea, and GOP has done plenty to restrict women's healthcare access, disenfranchising voters under the tried and false 'voter fraud' scares, and, well, one can read this forum for the full list.

What's your real argument, Bakrustra? It's bad to prevent the GOP back into power when they've gone more insane since the last time they had it? You've even your failed 'These guys are (relatively) sane!' nonsense.

None of those candidates are willing to put it on their websites that they oppose it! None of them are willing to spew forth their hatred of the Matthew Shepard Act! Regardless of what they personally believe, they will not actually act against DADT, because their handlers and staff know how unpopular it was amongst the general population and know that it has lost its effectiveness as a wedge issue. The same with the Matthew Shepard Act. The only two candidates who throw out anything against gay marriage are Bachmann and Santorum. One is a marginal candidate along the lines of Jon Huntsman. I didn't bring him up because he's unlikely to wield power. You should probably do the same, but it's likely that you actually believe that Santorum has a chance in this race. The other, meanwhile, presents herself as the most conservative of all the candidates in place but is unwilling to go further than dog-whistle homophobia! They may oppose it in on-the-spot interviews or in small fundraisers, but when it comes to broadcasting what their platform is, they will not mention it! So your contention is that we can be guaranteed of what candidates will do based on their personal beliefs rather than their crafted platforms. Well, Barack Obama personally holds opinions well to the left of what his administration is doing. Yet they have tried to suppress the publicizing of the views he held when he worked as a volunteer in Chicago! And he's certainly not doing any of them now.

Republicans dismantled ACORN, and Democrats went along. Republicans attempted to kill Planned Parenthood, and the NEA, and the NEH, and NPR, and cripple the NSF- and Democrats did nothing to publicize these things! They haven't done shit for organized labor on the national level. They've fucking colluded with Republicans on things like the Bush tax cuts remaining in effect. It was a member of the Democratic Party who successfully barred abortions from gaining any federal funding. They are currently gearing up to cut Social Security and Medicare under the guise of "austerity". They cut funding for heating assistance, too. Certainly none of them have dared to act to cut executive power. The Democratic Party is hardly any different from the Republican Party on so many issues because both of them, as U pointed out, are corrupt.

As for the rest of your post, there is nothing that the Democratic party desires that I can give to them without compromising what integrity I have. I already, by benefit of the positions I hold, am assumed to vote unconditionally for them. I am already assumed to support whatever they do, or at least to do nothing more than grumble. I am thought to be held in line by propaganda about how scary the Republicans are. What more can I give, without compromising my ideals and earnestly agreeing to the idea that abortions should not be federally protected, or that unions are outmoded and should be dismantled through "right-to-work" states? Nothing, save perhaps whoring myself out to politicians. All I can do is start fighting back. But the way to do that should not be built upon corporate donations or through being willing to work with Democratic leadership. Because the Tea Party has been largely coopted because it was willing to get in bed with Republican leadership. Not a one of them will get what they want, and they will be exploited further. Just primarying will get the same thing happening; we will be coopted, and then we will be used to frighten Republicans and keep them in line.

Any successful attempt at changing things cannot stop with getting into Congress. It can only stop when the corrupt leaders are thrown out of office and replaced. It can only stop when the system is reformed to slow the reinstatement of our current system. And it can only stop with work from both sides of the aisle, though that is probably the most difficult part of it all.

PS: Individual non-rich donors, even collected through PACs, have less influence through their donations than corporations or the rich because they cannot express what they want in return so easily.

[SirNitram]

'There's no carrot!'. Because of course, Democratic politicians are inhuman robots who don't respond to getting what they desire. Of course there are sticks in the arsenal, if you stop and think. Primary from the Left. Become major donors and thus become influential. But 'protest votes' are fucking stupid in this enviroment.

Wow. You HONESTLY beleive the Republican candidates don't care about DADT? Time for a dip into reality. Four would re-instate it(Sanotorum, Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann). Rick perry opposes it's end, gay marriage, or protection against workplace discrimination for having TEH GAY. So you're flat out lying or so uninformed that it's hardly worth listening to. 'Democrats haven't done much'. Yea, and GOP has done plenty to restrict women's healthcare access, disenfranchising voters under the tried and false 'voter fraud' scares, and, well, one can read this forum for the full list.

What's your real argument, Bakrustra? It's bad to prevent the GOP back into power when they've gone more insane since the last time they had it? You've even your failed 'These guys are (relatively) sane!' nonsense.

None of those candidates are willing to put it on their websites that they oppose it! None of them are willing to spew forth their hatred of the Matthew Shepard Act! Regardless of what they personally believe, they will not actually act against DADT, because their handlers and staff know how unpopular it was amongst the general population and know that it has lost its effectiveness as a wedge issue. The same with the Matthew Shepard Act. The only two candidates who throw out anything against gay marriage are Bachmann and Santorum. One is a marginal candidate along the lines of Jon Huntsman. I didn't bring him up because he's unlikely to wield power. You should probably do the same, but it's likely that you actually believe that Santorum has a chance in this race. The other, meanwhile, presents herself as the most conservative of all the candidates in place but is unwilling to go further than dog-whistle homophobia! They may oppose it in on-the-spot interviews or in small fundraisers, but when it comes to broadcasting what their platform is, they will not mention it! So your contention is that we can be guaranteed of what candidates will do based on their personal beliefs rather than their crafted platforms. Well, Barack Obama personally holds opinions well to the left of what his administration is doing. Yet they have tried to suppress the publicizing of the views he held when he worked as a volunteer in Chicago! And he's certainly not doing any of them now.

This is resembling a paranoid rant. They're on the record as against these things, yet this isn't good enough, and you make up claims of 'they'd do nothing' because it doesn't suit your hypothesis. No further than dog-whistle homophobia? This is like arguing that Lee Atwater wasn't actually racist from his famous 'You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."' Because it's dog-whistle.

Republicans dismantled ACORN, and Democrats went along. Republicans attempted to kill Planned Parenthood, and the NEA, and the NEH, and NPR, and cripple the NSF- and Democrats did nothing to publicize these things! They haven't done shit for organized labor on the national level. They've fucking colluded with Republicans on things like the Bush tax cuts remaining in effect. It was a member of the Democratic Party who successfully barred abortions from gaining any federal funding. They are currently gearing up to cut Social Security and Medicare under the guise of "austerity". They cut funding for heating assistance, too. Certainly none of them have dared to act to cut executive power. The Democratic Party is hardly any different from the Republican Party on so many issues because both of them, as U pointed out, are corrupt.

If the Democrats did nothing, Planned Parenthood would be dead. Of course, since it's not, since it's still here. 'Haven't done shit' on organized labour, despite introducing Card Check in 2005, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011.. Abortions get no federal funding because of a DEM? Henry Hyde was a Republican, out of Illinois. Or are you dumb enough to beleive the GOP propaganda that the new additions had to prevent federal money to going to abortion. Meanwhile, gays get more rights to the shrieking of the GOP, and despite what you'd like to make up, that is a difference. Regulations for banks, against the GOP's desires. I mean, I can go on, but you're just flailing with oddities.

As for the rest of your post, there is nothing that the Democratic party desires that I can give to them without compromising what integrity I have. I already, by benefit of the positions I hold, am assumed to vote unconditionally for them. I am already assumed to support whatever they do, or at least to do nothing more than grumble. I am thought to be held in line by propaganda about how scary the Republicans are. What more can I give, without compromising my ideals and earnestly agreeing to the idea that abortions should not be federally protected, or that unions are outmoded and should be dismantled through "right-to-work" states? Nothing, save perhaps whoring myself out to politicians. All I can do is start fighting back. But the way to do that should not be built upon corporate donations or through being willing to work with Democratic leadership. Because the Tea Party has been largely coopted because it was willing to get in bed with Republican leadership. Not a one of them will get what they want, and they will be exploited further. Just primarying will get the same thing happening; we will be coopted, and then we will be used to frighten Republicans and keep them in line.

Any successful attempt at changing things cannot stop with getting into Congress. It can only stop when the corrupt leaders are thrown out of office and replaced. It can only stop when the system is reformed to slow the reinstatement of our current system. And it can only stop with work from both sides of the aisle, though that is probably the most difficult part of it all.

PS: Individual non-rich donors, even collected through PACs, have less influence through their donations than corporations or the rich because they cannot express what they want in return so easily.

What integrity? You've been making things up. Lying. Or are just so stupid you bob your head loyally to the GOP propaganda. So go on. Tell yourself all your made-up bits are true, and pretend you're a courageous fighter for democracy, while you look like a fucking retard.

[Bakustra]

So if they're willing to do it, then why aren't they publicizing that fact? Why aren't they putting that in the public eye? Why isn't Michele Bachmann's web site filled with pages about how homosexuals are corrupting our children? Because her handlers realize that that doesn't win you votes in the popular sphere. And it would be her handlers that would be doing their utmost to control her if she entered office, or Perry's handlers, et cetera. Amendments banning gay marriage never seriously got off the ground even during the six years of Bush where he was in absolute control. Why do you think that is, if the Republican leadership is as outwardly homophobic as you suggest?

Instead, you freak out and refuse to understand what I am saying- that Bachmann, who is willing to spew hatred in interviews, nevertheless does not incorporate that on her website beyond the use of code phrases to assure her bigoted supporters. That is extremely telling about the extent to which she's willing to advocate her views. And Bachmann is legitimately the furthest right of all the candidates in the election. But even she, or more likely her staff, recognizes that blatant homophobia hurts you when it's public.

Atwater's famous quote you grasp only superficially- the point is that he was willing to use racism to his own ends regardless of his actual opinions! Think about how that might apply to people like Mitt Romney.

Nitram, you are a fucking ignoramus. It was Bart Stupak who successfully amended the PPACA in the House to bar federal funding for abortions, and it was him threatening to vote against it after it was reconciled out that got an executive order barring it signed by Obama. Bart Stupak is a Democrat from my goddamn home state of Michigan. But put your hands over your ears, Nitram. And when you fuckin' take 'em off again, bang! There went Social Security! And there went Medicare! 'Cause you still voted for the Democratic Party unconditionally until it was too late. The Democratic Party has done little to nothing to oppose Right-to-Work laws at the national level. They supported Card Check until the Republicans threatened a filibuster, and the 2009 bill is lying dead in a subcommittee right now. They let ACORN be dismantled because of lies. They cut heating assistance to the poor. They are poising to cut Social Security and Medicare because not one of them is willing to fight the lie that is austerity. But they acquiesced to overwhelming public opinion finally on gay rights so we should all cheer them for being forward thinking and never oppose them.

Finally, Nitram, the fact that you think that Republican propaganda focuses on how the two parties are essentially similar and corrupted by Big Business suggests that you parted ways with reality long ago. So when you step out from the looking-glass again, you might see things a little differently.

[General Mung Beans]

Nitram, you are a fucking ignoramus. It was Bart Stupak who successfully amended the PPACA in the House to bar federal funding for abortions, and it was him threatening to vote against it after it was reconciled out that got an executive order barring it signed by Obama. Bart Stupak is a Democrat from my goddamn home state of Michigan. But put your hands over your ears, Nitram. And when you fuckin' take 'em off again, bang!

The problem is, most of these ideas will not be supported by the American people. I mean federal funding for abortion -good luck selling that! And it destroys the whole "its a personal matter" argument.

There went Social Security! And there went Medicare! 'Cause you still voted for the Democratic Party unconditionally until it was too late. The Democratic Party has done little to nothing to oppose Right-to-Work laws at the national level.

Right to work laws just give workers the right to choose to belong in a union-what's so wrong with that?

[SirNitram]

So if they're willing to do it, then why aren't they publicizing that fact? Why aren't they putting that in the public eye? Why isn't Michele Bachmann's web site filled with pages about how homosexuals are corrupting our children? Because her handlers realize that that doesn't win you votes in the popular sphere. And it would be her handlers that would be doing their utmost to control her if she entered office, or Perry's handlers, et cetera. Amendments banning gay marriage never seriously got off the ground even during the six years of Bush where he was in absolute control. Why do you think that is, if the Republican leadership is as outwardly homophobic as you suggest?

So we're gonna continue the paranoid conspiracy from yoou?

Instead, you freak out and refuse to understand what I am saying- that Bachmann, who is willing to spew hatred in interviews, nevertheless does not incorporate that on her website beyond the use of code phrases to assure her bigoted supporters. That is extremely telling about the extent to which she's willing to advocate her views. And Bachmann is legitimately the furthest right of all the candidates in the election. But even she, or more likely her staff, recognizes that blatant homophobia hurts you when it's public.

Atwater's famous quote you grasp only superficially- the point is that he was willing to use racism to his own ends regardless of his actual opinions! Think about how that might apply to people like Mitt Romney.

So instead of listening to a damn thing, everything somehow supports your deranged idea that, really really really the GOP doesn't care about one of their most useful wedge issues and won't exercise it in power. Despite their own words, because.. It's not on their own website!

Nitram, you are a fucking ignoramus. It was Bart Stupak who successfully amended the PPACA in the House to bar federal funding for abortions, and it was him threatening to vote against it after it was reconciled out that got an executive order barring it signed by Obama. Bart Stupak is a Democrat from my goddamn home state of Michigan. But put your hands over your ears, Nitram.

Sorry, kiddo. Henry Hyde wrote the Hyde Amendment. The only thing Stupak did was make a few empty headlines, it changed nada of abortion's federal funding status. You can scream about how it's me ignoring facts or whatever deranged fantasy keeps you going, but hey. Your the one raving idiotically.

And when you fuckin' take 'em off again, bang! There went Social Security! And there went Medicare! 'Cause you still voted for the Democratic Party unconditionally until it was too late.

'Cuz protests votes got Perry 'My bestselling book says Social Security and Medicare and unconstitutional, and I'm gonna gut them!' elected. Oh wait, you honestly beleive the largest House caucus of the Dems would go along with it.

The Democratic Party has done little to nothing to oppose Right-to-Work laws at the national level. They supported Card Check until the Republicans threatened a filibuster, and the 2009 bill is lying dead in a subcommittee right now. They let ACORN be dismantled because of lies. They cut heating assistance to the poor. They are poising to cut Social Security and Medicare because not one of them is willing to fight the lie that is austerity. But they acquiesced to overwhelming public opinion finally on gay rights so we should all cheer them for being forward thinking and never oppose them.

Finally, Nitram, the fact that you think that Republican propaganda focuses on how the two parties are essentially similar and corrupted by Big Business suggests that you parted ways with reality long ago. So when you step out from the looking-glass again, you might see things a little differently.

'GOvernment isn't the solution, government is the problem.' 'to make Washington, D.C., as insignificant in our lives as possible' 'I think we need to reform the system currently that we have in Washington because it is absolutely vile and corrupt. It has no connection with where we need to spend the money. It has everything to do with political connections.'. Exactly one of those was from a previous election. Yes, the GOP propaganda is about the government being corrupt, both parties. This is because they are fundamentally anti-government.

You keep raging about looking glasses and further. I'm not the one claiming a website is the only possible source of information on a candidate.

[Bakustra]

Nitram, you are a fucking ignoramus. It was Bart Stupak who successfully amended the PPACA in the House to bar federal funding for abortions, and it was him threatening to vote against it after it was reconciled out that got an executive order barring it signed by Obama. Bart Stupak is a Democrat from my goddamn home state of Michigan. But put your hands over your ears, Nitram. And when you fuckin' take 'em off again, bang!

The problem is, most of these ideas will not be supported by the American people. I mean federal funding for abortion -good luck selling that! And it destroys the whole "its a personal matter" argument.

What about people who need abortions performed for medical reasons? That has had clear support for years and it is something that should be available who needs one. That's something that could easily be used to sell the argument. But they don't. They're unwilling to fight for it, and instead they're willing to throw in symbolic opposition to abortions.

There went Social Security! And there went Medicare! 'Cause you still voted for the Democratic Party unconditionally until it was too late. The Democratic Party has done little to nothing to oppose Right-to-Work laws at the national level.

Right to work laws just give workers the right to choose to belong in a union-what's so wrong with that?

Okay. So you've got a workplace that's unionized, and the union negotiates contracts that are fairly favorable. Not too much, since this is an American union after all, and they're concerned mainly with survival rather than asking for anything. They are supported by requiring employees that they represent to pay dues to the union. This allows them to operate. But suddenly the state is a right-to-work one! Now, employees don't have to pay dues if they don't want to. Some of them take that, hurting the union and its ability to represent them. If enough of them do that, the union will be destroyed through lack of money. Then, all the protections the employees have will wither away until it's at the bare minimum necessary to keep them in the company. This is also a self-reinforcing process; new employees, unless they come from a union family, are less likely to actively choose to deduct dues out of their paycheck, as the union's source of funding shrivels so too will its ability to inform employees of their rights...

Ultimately, a union represents all the employees doing a particular job. Shouldn't those employees then contribute to their representation? Right-to-work laws damage that and kill unions. And without the few unions left, employment in the US would become a whole lot worse with nobody to fight for the workers.

---------------

Nitram, your argument can be boiled down to three statements: 1) I believe that whatever a politician says is what they will do, 2) I don't understand what symbols are or what symbolic importance is, and 3) I believe that corporations buying elections is a good thing. I find myself unable to respond at the moment except with shrieks of contemptuous laughter. I see that I will have to wind my brain down and pretend that I'm speaking to a middle-schooler when dealing with you. By the way, explain how a proposition (reinstating DADT) which 70+% of the population opposes is a useful wedge issue, Nitram.

[SirNitram]

No, child. My argument is: 1) The website is not the sole source of gospel. 2) Reality fails to match your overreaction, as noted by your abandoning of all actual points and just skipping to 'I'll be dumber for you'. 3) The corporation bit is simply made up, because you've got no legs to stand on. Whine all you want, but I'm not the one claiming only the website is truthful.

[Bakustra]

No, child. My argument is: 1) The website is not the sole source of gospel. 2) Reality fails to match your overreaction, as noted by your abandoning of all actual points and just skipping to 'I'll be dumber for you'. 3) The corporation bit is simply made up, because you've got no legs to stand on. Whine all you want, but I'm not the one claiming only the website is truthful.

That's not what I'm saying. Lying about what other people have said is frankly a disgusting habit you should rid yourself of. But hey! You missed my points altogether. Since you're not willing to address even the questions that I've asked you directly, I don't expect any real response, but let's take this back to kindergarten for your benefit.
So, my positions:
1) If their website, which is the public face of the candidate for most people, apart from the debates, omits opinions that they express, then that tells us that whoever made that website deliberately censored those opinions. They have a reason for doing so. Therefore, my contention is that the reason they are not willing to trumpet their opposition to the DADT repeal is because they either realize that it is no longer an effective wedge issue now that it's not the status quo, or they have handlers who realize that.

Your response has been to say that since they express it in personal interviews, they will definitely make progress on that while in office, much like how the Twenty-Sixth and Twenty-Seventh Amendments, banning gay marriage and damaging the American flag, were passed under the administration of George Walker Bush. That final clause was sarcastic mockery, pointing out that George W. Bush never endorsed amendments that his campaign promises and expressed opinions suggests he would support. I suspect that had I not written these two sentences, you would have declared victory again because I was wrong about how many amendments there were.

2) Bart Stupak, a member of the Democratic Party and former Representative from Michigan, successfully amended the PPACA to ban any indirect funding of abortion through the federal governments. He then threatened to not vote for the bill when this amendment was reconciled out, and was only mollified by an executive order. This is important symbolically because the Democratic Party, which has little problem enforcing party discipline to vote for extending tax cuts, did not enforce party discipline in this case. They showed that they were willing to bend rightwards but not leftwards when people complained.

Your response? An inability to understand anything other than in literal terms.

3)I stated my belief that reform is necessary because of corruption endemic to the system and to both parties. The undue influence of corporations on the voting process is usually considered corruption. You responded by declaring that I was falling for Republican propaganda because they used the term corruption. Logically, this means that you feel that there is no corruption and that corporate influence on elections is A-OK! But even if you didn't mean that, your enthusiastic cunnilingus of the status quo means that you do support it through your endorsement of inaction or minimum possible action.

Your response is to demonstrate that you don't get how things lead to one another within the principles of logic.

[SirNitram]

No, child. My argument is: 1) The website is not the sole source of gospel. 2) Reality fails to match your overreaction, as noted by your abandoning of all actual points and just skipping to 'I'll be dumber for you'. 3) The corporation bit is simply made up, because you've got no legs to stand on. Whine all you want, but I'm not the one claiming only the website is truthful.

That's not what I'm saying. Lying about what other people have said is frankly a disgusting habit you should rid yourself of. But hey! You missed my points altogether. Since you're not willing to address even the questions that I've asked you directly, I don't expect any real response, but let's take this back to kindergarten for your benefit.
So, my positions:

The irony of you of all people talking like this is not lost. But fine. We'll take it to your level since you proposed kindergarten.

1) If their website, which is the public face of the candidate for most people, apart from the debates, omits opinions that they express, then that tells us that whoever made that website deliberately censored those opinions. They have a reason for doing so. Therefore, my contention is that the reason they are not willing to trumpet their opposition to the DADT repeal is because they either realize that it is no longer an effective wedge issue now that it's not the status quo, or they have handlers who realize that.

Your response has been to say that since they express it in personal interviews, they will definitely make progress on that while in office, much like how the Twenty-Sixth and Twenty-Seventh Amendments, banning gay marriage and damaging the American flag, were passed under the administration of George Walker Bush. That final clause was sarcastic mockery, pointing out that George W. Bush never endorsed amendments that his campaign promises and expressed opinions suggests he would support. I suspect that had I not written these two sentences, you would have declared victory again because I was wrong about how many amendments there were.

'The websites are the public faces and omits stuff because they're not longer useful.' At least you finally hobbled your pathetic ass to recignizing there's more than the website. Sadly, you forget to even consider the debates in your ongoing quest to making a GOP administration an OK place for GBLTs, as they still support the banning gay marriage, as does a number of states putting it on the ballot. Or are you so out of touch you don't get that the GOP base.. The bit which lets the GOP win.. Still HATE gays, and most people don't vote.

) Bart Stupak, a member of the Democratic Party and former Representative from Michigan, successfully amended the PPACA to ban any indirect funding of abortion through the federal governments. He then threatened to not vote for the bill when this amendment was reconciled out, and was only mollified by an executive order. This is important symbolically because the Democratic Party, which has little problem enforcing party discipline to vote for extending tax cuts, did not enforce party discipline in this case. They showed that they were willing to bend rightwards but not leftwards when people complained.

Your response? An inability to understand anything other than in literal terms.

Except this entire bit is extraneous, as the issue was settled in the 70s by the Hyde Amendment, which also applied to indirect funding. The Stupak circus was him trying to get some brownine points, and then he found what happened to trying to be right-wing: It aids you not.

3)I stated my belief that reform is necessary because of corruption endemic to the system and to both parties. The undue influence of corporations on the voting process is usually considered corruption. You responded by declaring that I was falling for Republican propaganda because they used the term corruption. Logically, this means that you feel that there is no corruption and that corporate influence on elections is A-OK! But even if you didn't mean that, your enthusiastic cunnilingus of the status quo means that you do support it through your endorsement of inaction or minimum possible action.

No. Mocking you for engaging in the Golden Mean of two parties must be equally corrupt(One the GOP has been promoting for a while, as I demonstrated with quotes), does not 'logically' follow that I am fine with corporations and their current role. Straw-manning my arguments do not make you look smart, reasonable, or even clever.

Your response is to demonstrate that you don't get how things lead to one another within the principles of logic.

Ironic from the man who won't even consider a Presidential Candidates best-selling book and actual debate comments, to say nothing of everything on the record, to be relevent to what the candidate's views and agenda might be.

[Bakustra]

Oh Nitram. You're either deliberately moving the goalposts or too stupid to recognize that I was talking solely about DADT and the Matthew Shepard Act initially, because you brought up how the Democratic Party was good for the gays in acquiescing to massive public opposition to DADT and support for hate crimes legislation. Now you've started talking about gay marriage. Has your decaying brain concluded that you're not winning? Has your shadow of an intellect recognized the problem with insisting that politicians can generally be assumed to fulfill campaign promises, particularly unpopular ones?

But you still don't get the importance of Stupak doing what he did. They bent over backward for him, but not for Bernie Sanders and Mary Landrieu when he protested extending the Bush tax cuts. Why do you think that is?

PS: Stupak was voted out for supporting the healthcare bill, so I don't see where him being too right-wing had anything to- oh, wait, you're still in your magical fantasyland

Finally, "both parties are corrupt" is not a statement that is equivalent to "both parties are equally corrupt." If you're going to do something as stupid as solely calling fallacies (most of which have no bearing on the truth value) it would avail you to not commit others of your own while doing it.

[SirNitram]

Oh god. You're a moron. Those two were examples, you looney tune, because I happen to care about gays, and it was an argument against 'GOP can't be that bad!' that you were spouting. You're just lying blatantly, as especially demonstrated by your Stupak 'PS'. He decided not to run in 2010. That's different from 'was voted out'.

But whatever. I made a clear argument for least of many evils. You just made shit up. I'm comfortable walking away.

[Lord Zentei]

Just want to comment quickly on the underlined bit:

Finally, "both parties are corrupt" is not a statement that is equivalent to "both parties are equally corrupt." If you're going to do something as stupid as solely calling fallacies (most of which have no bearing on the truth value) it would avail you to not commit others of your own while doing it.

While it is true that it is possible to present a fallacious argument for a true statement, that's not something that helps your case. As I'm sure we all know, the onus of proof is on the one who claims something. Pointing out that you are committing a fallacy negates the support you are presenting for your claim. Besides which, SirNitram didn't solely call fallacies.

[Bakustra]

Just want to comment quickly on the underlined bit:

Finally, "both parties are corrupt" is not a statement that is equivalent to "both parties are equally corrupt." If you're going to do something as stupid as solely calling fallacies (most of which have no bearing on the truth value) it would avail you to not commit others of your own while doing it.

While it is true that it is possible to present a fallacious argument for a true statement, that's not something that helps your case. As I'm sure we all know, the onus of proof is on the one who claims something. Pointing out that you are committing a fallacy negates the support you are presenting for your claim. Besides which, SirNitram didn't solely call fallacies.

Oh for fuck's sake. A fallacy is not always a negating factor. The black/white fallacy is meaningless if there are legitimately only two options. The Golden Mean cannot automatically be applied if someone presents a third position that lies "between" two others. Declaring that someone who rejects the divinity of Jesus Christ is not a Catholic is a "no true Scotsman", but since that is part of the conditions necessary to be a Catholic, then guess what? It doesn't invalidate the argument. All of these are informal fallacies. They are predicated on the content of the argument rather than the structure.

But Nitram may, in fact, have committed a formal, that is to say, structural fallacy in his argument, which is usually negating- the argument from fallacy, where a conclusion is presumed to be false because of perceived fallacious reasoning. But there is no purpose in bringing that up, because it turns discussion into a parade of semantics, with no pleasure and no thought to be found in any of it. Not to mention that I dispute that my argument falls under the argument from the mean, which has specific criteria to be applied.

[Lord Zentei]

So, in other words, inappropriately calling a fallacy does not negate an argument. Wow, congratulations, give yourself a gold medal and all. Except I said that pointing out that you're committing a fallacy (except merely accusing you of such) is enough to show that you have yet to support your claims. I would have thought that the added criteria that the call needs to be appropriate should have been pretty obvious and indeed implicit. Apparently not.

Incidentally, as far as I can see, SirNitram didn't assume that your argument was false simply because it was fallacious - but because of the counterarguments he presented which you didn't address properly. As I have already pointed out. He presented arguments for his case AND pointed out that your arguments don't hold water.

[Bakustra]

So, in other words, inappropriately calling a fallacy does not negate an argument. Wow, congratulations, give yourself a gold medal and all. Except I said that pointing out that you're committing a fallacy (except merely accusing you of such) is enough to show that you have yet to support your claims. I would have thought that the added criteria that the call needs to be appropriate should have been pretty obvious and indeed implicit. Apparently not.

Incidentally, as far as I can see, SirNitram didn't assume that your argument was false simply because it was fallacious - but because of the counterarguments he presented which you didn't address properly. As I have already pointed out. He presented arguments for his case AND pointed out that your arguments don't hold water.

Strawman fallacy; you are responding to an argument that I did not make. You have yet to back up your claims, and my original argument (that the Golden Mean requires an examination of fact to negate an argument, and my argument does not fall under the Golden Mean at all) still stands.

The entire argument about the Golden Mean fallacy stems from him declaring that (bolding mine)

What integrity? You've been making things up. Lying. Or are just so stupid you bob your head loyally to the GOP propaganda. So go on. Tell yourself all your made-up bits are true, and pretend you're a courageous fighter for democracy, while you look like a fucking retard.

So, no, he dismissed it through a fallacy of his own, namely the argumentum ad hominem. He also ignored Uraniun235's post about corruption altogether, suggesting that he either has serious tunnel vision or is a blubbering coward. However, though that would make him a horrible waste of flesh, it does not have anything to do with his arguments.

No. Mocking you for engaging in the Golden Mean of two parties must be equally corrupt(One the GOP has been promoting for a while, as I demonstrated with quotes), does not 'logically' follow that I am fine with corporations and their current role. Straw-manning my arguments do not make you look smart, reasonable, or even clever.

This was what it came down to, and is where the calls of fallacy entered the picture. Now, my argument that this was a response to is, simply "Both parties are corrupt because of fundamental flaws in the system of American government. Therefore, in order to make real changes, the system itself will have to be changed."

Nitram committed a strawman fallacy by characterizing it as "Both parties are equally corrupt, therefore we should destroy government." He also called that a Golden Mean. The fallacy often called the Golden Mean, aka the argument to moderation, requires that the argument presented follow the form that if there are two positions, a position between the two must be correct. Not even Nitram's lie follows that form. In order to twist a Golden Mean out of that, it would have to be like "Democrats claim Republicans are corrupt. Republicans claim Democrats are corrupt. Therefore, both parties must be corrupt."

My full reasoning behind the claim of corruption is that:
A. Universal Healthcare has consistent support from the American public on both sides of the aisle, less so from the right than the left.
B. Neither party is willing to support it, despite its popularity.
C. Both parties receive a great deal of money from private insurers who would be hurt by universal healthcare.
D. The Obama Administration, at the very least, actively assured private insurers that universal healthcare would not be included in efforts at healthcare reform.
Therefore, the most likely reason for opposition from both parties is that they are more willing to represent the interests of private insurance corporations rather than their constituents. This is corruption. Therefore, both parties are likely to be corrupt.

Meanwhile, my reasoning behind the necessity of changing the system is that:
A. The conjunction of presidential government and winner-take-all voting requires politicians to band together in as few parties as possible.
B. This has resulted in a two-party system.
C. These two parties are important for financing election campaigns.
D. US Election Law makes election campaigns expensive.
E. The majority of campaign financing comes from private donations.
F. The upper class and corporations are better able to donate money because of their greater access to capital.
G. In order to be elected or reelected, candidates without a nationally prominent office they're running for are largely dependent, with few exceptions, on the political party to fund and support them.
H. The interests of the upper class and corporate leadership are largely at odds with the interests of the working classes and destitute class.
Therefore, the system makes candidates beholden either to the upper class or to a party that is itself beholden to the upper class, which allows political parties to enforce party discipline by threats of withholding funding. This is effective at keeping most representatives and senators in line. Their beholden status means that they are encouraged to represent the interests of the upper class, which are largely at odds with the interests of the working and destitute classes. The upper class is a small minority of the population that is largely white. The majority of corporations are also run by men, and men within the upper class are likely to have better access to capital. So this creates an undemocratic system that discourages representation of racial, sexual, and class minorities (in the sense of access to power, for the benefit of pedantic buffoons). Therefore, in order to make real changes, the system itself has to be changed. That means working outside the party structure and dethroning the party leadership which has a vested interest in not changing the system, because once in the party structure, you're dependent on their flow of cash, or else they may sponsor primary challenges.

So, then, do you care to respond to some of my actual arguments, carefully laid out for your benefit?

[Lord Zentei]

So, in other words, inappropriately calling a fallacy does not negate an argument. Wow, congratulations, give yourself a gold medal and all. Except I said that pointing out that you're committing a fallacy (except merely accusing you of such) is enough to show that you have yet to support your claims. I would have thought that the added criteria that the call needs to be appropriate should have been pretty obvious and indeed implicit. Apparently not.

Incidentally, as far as I can see, SirNitram didn't assume that your argument was false simply because it was fallacious - but because of the counterarguments he presented which you didn't address properly. As I have already pointed out. He presented arguments for his case AND pointed out that your arguments don't hold water.

Strawman fallacy; you are responding to an argument that I did not make.

That is incorrect: I am not responding to an argument you made at all. I am saying that pointing out that you are committing a fallacy does in fact undermine your position. That is all.

You have yet to back up your claims,

What clams do you refer to? The claim that when someone points out that you are committing a fallacy negates the support you are presenting for your own claim? Or that SirNitram did not base his own argument on exclusively accusing you of making fallacies? Because as I write this, I have made no other claims than these in this thread.

and my original argument (that the Golden Mean requires an examination of fact to negate an argument, and my argument does not fall under the Golden Mean at all) still stands. The entire argument about the Golden Mean fallacy stems from him declaring that (bolding mine)

What integrity? You've been making things up. Lying. Or are just so stupid you bob your head loyally to the GOP propaganda. So go on. Tell yourself all your made-up bits are true, and pretend you're a courageous fighter for democracy, while you look like a fucking retard.

So, no, he dismissed it through a fallacy of his own, namely the argumentum ad hominem. He also ignored Uraniun235's post about corruption altogether, suggesting that he either has serious tunnel vision or is a blubbering coward. However, though that would make him a horrible waste of flesh, it does not have anything to do with his arguments.

You are confusing mockery made after he's basically given up on you on the one hand with the basis for his arguments on the other. When he's saying that you're "bobbing your head to GOP propaganda" he's ridiculing you for buying into the idea that both parties are equally corrupt, as he's also shown that the GOP has been pushing the idea that both parties are equally corrupt as part of their "government is part of the problem" meme. It's a hyperbole, but not an Ad Hominem.

BTW: you neglect to mention the rest of his posts where he outlines why he's dismissing your claims. He's accusing you of making shit up. That is the issue.

No. Mocking you for engaging in the Golden Mean of two parties must be equally corrupt(One the GOP has been promoting for a while, as I demonstrated with quotes), does not 'logically' follow that I am fine with corporations and their current role. Straw-manning my arguments do not make you look smart, reasonable, or even clever.

This was what it came down to, and is where the calls of fallacy entered the picture. Now, my argument that this was a response to is, simply "Both parties are corrupt because of fundamental flaws in the system of American government. Therefore, in order to make real changes, the system itself will have to be changed."

Nitram committed a strawman fallacy by characterizing it as "Both parties are equally corrupt, therefore we should destroy government." He also called that a Golden Mean. The fallacy often called the Golden Mean, aka the argument to moderation, requires that the argument presented follow the form that if there are two positions, a position between the two must be correct. Not even Nitram's lie follows that form. In order to twist a Golden Mean out of that, it would have to be like "Democrats claim Republicans are corrupt. Republicans claim Democrats are corrupt. Therefore, both parties must be corrupt."

Did he say that your argument boiled down a statement which included the phrase "we should destroy government"? Where does he say that?

Incidentally, the point of the Golden Mean fallacy is that you dismiss two options as equally far from the optimal simply because neither is seen as optimal. Of course, it is usually understood to advocate a compromise (so a centrist would be guilty of the Golden Mean), but less formally is sometimes called when people say that two options must be equally invalid. Strictly speaking, it's not the correct classification, but it can still be a fallacy.

My full reasoning behind the claim of corruption is that:
A. Universal Healthcare has consistent support from the American public on both sides of the aisle, less so from the right than the left.
B. Neither party is willing to support it, despite its popularity.
C. Both parties receive a great deal of money from private insurers who would be hurt by universal healthcare.
D. The Obama Administration, at the very least, actively assured private insurers that universal healthcare would not be included in efforts at healthcare reform.
Therefore, the most likely reason for opposition from both parties is that they are more willing to represent the interests of private insurance corporations rather than their constituents. This is corruption. Therefore, both parties are likely to be corrupt.

I don't think anyone here doubts that both parties are corrupt. SirNitram is claiming that it is illogical to simply dismiss the Democrats merely because they are corrupt, on account of the fact that they're less corrupt than the Republicans. He's saying that they're the least of evils.

Meanwhile, my reasoning behind the necessity of changing the system is that:
A. The conjunction of presidential government and winner-take-all voting requires politicians to band together in as few parties as possible.
B. This has resulted in a two-party system.
C. These two parties are important for financing election campaigns.
D. US Election Law makes election campaigns expensive.
E. The majority of campaign financing comes from private donations.
F. The upper class and corporations are better able to donate money because of their greater access to capital.
G. In order to be elected or reelected, candidates without a nationally prominent office they're running for are largely dependent, with few exceptions, on the political party to fund and support them.
H. The interests of the upper class and corporate leadership are largely at odds with the interests of the working classes and destitute class.
Therefore, the system makes candidates beholden either to the upper class or to a party that is itself beholden to the upper class, which allows political parties to enforce party discipline by threats of withholding funding. This is effective at keeping most representatives and senators in line. Their beholden status means that they are encouraged to represent the interests of the upper class, which are largely at odds with the interests of the working and destitute classes. The upper class is a small minority of the population that is largely white. The majority of corporations are also run by men, and men within the upper class are likely to have better access to capital. So this creates an undemocratic system that discourages representation of racial, sexual, and class minorities (in the sense of access to power, for the benefit of pedantic buffoons). Therefore, in order to make real changes, the system itself has to be changed. That means working outside the party structure and dethroning the party leadership which has a vested interest in not changing the system, because once in the party structure, you're dependent on their flow of cash, or else they may sponsor primary challenges.

So you want to change the system from outside the system. How?

So, then, do you care to respond to some of my actual arguments, carefully laid out for your benefit?

Honestly, this debate is one that I merely skimmed out of interest, and I had little inclination of participating in it. The only thing that caused me to post here was your reaction to the accusation of having made fallacious arguments.

[Bakustra]

Strawman fallacy; you are responding to an argument that I did not make.

That is incorrect:

Isn't

I am not responding to an argument you made at all.

this

I am saying that pointing out that you are committing a fallacy does in fact undermine your position. That is all.

annoying?

You have yet to back up your claims,

What clams do you refer to?

Then

The claim that when someone points out that you are committing a fallacy negates the support you are presenting for your own claim?

why

Or that SirNitram did not base his own argument on exclusively

butcher

accusing you of making fallacies?

paragraphs?

Because as I write this, I have made no other claims than these in this thread.

My response was exactly as appropriate as was Nitram claiming that my argument was an argument from moderation. Think about that and how it applies, and avoid things as terrible to read as line-by-line butchery.

and my original argument (that the Golden Mean requires an examination of fact to negate an argument, and my argument does not fall under the Golden Mean at all) still stands. The entire argument about the Golden Mean fallacy stems from him declaring that (bolding mine)

What integrity? You've been making things up. Lying. Or are just so stupid you bob your head loyally to the GOP propaganda. So go on. Tell yourself all your made-up bits are true, and pretend you're a courageous fighter for democracy, while you look like a fucking retard.

So, no, he dismissed it through a fallacy of his own, namely the argumentum ad hominem. He also ignored Uraniun235's post about corruption altogether, suggesting that he either has serious tunnel vision or is a blubbering coward. However, though that would make him a horrible waste of flesh, it does not have anything to do with his arguments.

You are confusing mockery made after he's basically given up on you on the one hand with the basis for his arguments on the other. When he's saying that you're "bobbing your head to GOP propaganda" he's ridiculing you for buying into the idea that both parties are equally corrupt, as he's also shown that the GOP has been pushing the idea that both parties are equally corrupt as part of their "government is part of the problem" meme. It's a hyperbole, but not an Ad Hominem.

BTW: you neglect to mention the rest of his posts where he outlines why he's dismissing your claims. He's accusing you of making shit up. That is the issue.

This is actually dismissing my argument by saying that it is similar to Republican propaganda. That is a variant of the argumentum ad hominem- dismissing an argument because it resembles another one! You're also lying about my position by saying that it's "both parties are equally corrupt". I will explain it to you again: "Both parties are corrupt because of institutional factors. In order to get a representative government, you will need to eliminate these factors from consideration." It does not matter to my argument whether the parties are equally corrupt, just that they are both sufficiently corrupt that they work against the interests of the working and destitute classes. The Republicans or Democrats could be noticeably worse or better, but if neither party is willing to advocate for things that clear majorities of the public support, then it only matters to the pedantic, the academic, and the fanatic.

No. Mocking you for engaging in the Golden Mean of two parties must be equally corrupt(One the GOP has been promoting for a while, as I demonstrated with quotes), does not 'logically' follow that I am fine with corporations and their current role. Straw-manning my arguments do not make you look smart, reasonable, or even clever.

This was what it came down to, and is where the calls of fallacy entered the picture. Now, my argument that this was a response to is, simply "Both parties are corrupt because of fundamental flaws in the system of American government. Therefore, in order to make real changes, the system itself will have to be changed."

Nitram committed a strawman fallacy by characterizing it as "Both parties are equally corrupt, therefore we should destroy government." He also called that a Golden Mean. The fallacy often called the Golden Mean, aka the argument to moderation, requires that the argument presented follow the form that if there are two positions, a position between the two must be correct. Not even Nitram's lie follows that form. In order to twist a Golden Mean out of that, it would have to be like "Democrats claim Republicans are corrupt. Republicans claim Democrats are corrupt. Therefore, both parties must be corrupt."

Did he say that your argument boiled down a statement which included the phrase "we should destroy government"? Where does he say that?

Incidentally, the point of the Golden Mean fallacy is that you dismiss two options as equally far from the optimal simply because neither is seen as optimal. Of course, it is usually understood to advocate a compromise (so a centrist would be guilty of the Golden Mean), but less formally is sometimes called when people say that two options must be equally invalid. Strictly speaking, it's not the correct classification, but it can still be a fallacy.

'GOvernment isn't the solution, government is the problem.' 'to make Washington, D.C., as insignificant in our lives as possible' 'I think we need to reform the system currently that we have in Washington because it is absolutely vile and corrupt. It has no connection with where we need to spend the money. It has everything to do with political connections.'. Exactly one of those was from a previous election. Yes, the GOP propaganda is about the government being corrupt, both parties. This is because they are fundamentally anti-government.

What integrity? You've been making things up. Lying. Or are just so stupid you bob your head loyally to the GOP propaganda. So go on. Tell yourself all your made-up bits are true, and pretend you're a courageous fighter for democracy, while you look like a fucking retard.

You tell me, motherfucker. You're also insisting on appeasing incorrect usages as though that were meaningful in this instance. If you wish to insist that my argument is a Golden Mean, then say so plainly. If you don't, then save your mind-numbing pedantry for another time.

*snip*

I don't think anyone here doubts that both parties are corrupt. SirNitram is claiming that it is illogical to simply dismiss the Democrats merely because they are corrupt, on account of the fact that they're less corrupt than the Republicans. He's saying that they're the least of evils.

It does not matter to my argument whether the parties are equally corrupt, just that they are both sufficiently corrupt that they work against the interests of the working and destitute classes. The Republicans or Democrats could be noticeably worse or better, but if neither party is willing to advocate for things that clear majorities of the public support, then it only matters to the pedantic, the academic, and the fanatic.

Got to make sure this sinks in!

*snip*

So you want to change the system from outside the system. How?

Didn't your mother ever teach you to snip lengthy quotes? My belief is that the best way would be to form a popular movement and fortify it against being coopted. Educating people about the roots of major corruption and the problems in Washington, convincing them that these things need to be changed, and ultimately providing them with a viable alternative party. Convincing them to take part in protests and mass subversive efforts (e.g. bring the Donald Duck Party to the United States as a write-in candidate) would also help, but ultimately what would be necessary is doing an end-run around both of the parties. Then, in the final stages, the new party (let's call it the Kick-the-Bums-Out Party) would focus on disrupting Congress until it forced through legislation. This would require a filibuster-capable minority in the Senate, but there would be people on both sides willing to break with their parties for honesty in government, which would help.

In short, 1) tapping into the dissatisfaction that most people feel, 2) showing them a major cause of it, 3) providing them with a way to fight that cause that is not too inconvenient for them to do, and 4) using the built-up momentum to change things for the better.

[Lord Zentei]

Isn't

this

annoying?

Then

why

butcher

paragraphs?

Not as annoying as your failure to acknowledge what I wrote.

My response was exactly as appropriate as was Nitram claiming that my argument was an argument from moderation. Think about that and how it applies, and avoid things as terrible to read as line-by-line butchery.

This has nothing to do with the point you ignored. You made an accusation of strawman fallacy, and claimed that I have not backed up my claims. What were you talking about?

This is actually dismissing my argument by saying that it is similar to Republican propaganda. That is a variant of the argumentum ad hominem- dismissing an argument because it resembles another one! You're also lying about my position by saying that it's "both parties are equally corrupt". I will explain it to you again: "Both parties are corrupt because of institutional factors. In order to get a representative government, you will need to eliminate these factors from consideration." It does not matter to my argument whether the parties are equally corrupt, just that they are both sufficiently corrupt that they work against the interests of the working and destitute classes. The Republicans or Democrats could be noticeably worse or better, but if neither party is willing to advocate for things that clear majorities of the public support, then it only matters to the pedantic, the academic, and the fanatic.

That's not the Ad Hominem fallacy. An Ad Hominem fallacy is of the type "you are an ignorant twat, therefore your argument is invalid", or "you accept the words of the GOP, therefore your argument is invalid". No one - neither SirNitram nor I - have done that. He concluded that you're a twat and that you have bought into the lie that the parties are equally corrupt based on what you say.

Neither does picking nits about "sufficiently corrupt" versus "equally corrupt" change that. You certainly seem to think of them as equally unpalatable and unrepresentative of the common man's interests in any meaningful sense (since you dismiss both as viable options), and argue that this is due to their corruption. So you can quit whining that you have been lied about already.

You tell me, motherfucker. You're also insisting on appeasing incorrect usages as though that were meaningful in this instance. If you wish to insist that my argument is a Golden Mean, then say so plainly. If you don't, then save your mind-numbing pedantry for another time.

Were you going to address my question where I ask you where SirNitram misrepresented your position as "destroy government"?

Neither have I insisted that your argument was the Golden Mean - SirNitram insisted that your argument was the Golden Mean. Not that the specific classification is going to help your position, as was the conclusion of my quote you were responding to.

It does not matter to my argument whether the parties are equally corrupt, just that they are both sufficiently corrupt that they work against the interests of the working and destitute classes. The Republicans or Democrats could be noticeably worse or better, but if neither party is willing to advocate for things that clear majorities of the public support, then it only matters to the pedantic, the academic, and the fanatic.

Got to make sure this sinks in!

Too bad then that a noticeable difference is what makes your argument invalid, especially if alternatives are less than feasible.

*snip*

So you want to change the system from outside the system. How?

Didn't your mother ever teach you to snip lengthy quotes? My belief is that the best way would be to form a popular movement and fortify it against being coopted. Educating people about the roots of major corruption and the problems in Washington, convincing them that these things need to be changed, and ultimately providing them with a viable alternative party. Convincing them to take part in protests and mass subversive efforts (e.g. bring the Donald Duck Party to the United States as a write-in candidate) would also help, but ultimately what would be necessary is doing an end-run around both of the parties. Then, in the final stages, the new party (let's call it the Kick-the-Bums-Out Party) would focus on disrupting Congress until it forced through legislation. This would require a filibuster-capable minority in the Senate, but there would be people on both sides willing to break with their parties for honesty in government, which would help.

In short, 1) tapping into the dissatisfaction that most people feel, 2) showing them a major cause of it, 3) providing them with a way to fight that cause that is not too inconvenient for them to do, and 4) using the built-up momentum to change things for the better.

This appears to be a load of non-specific drivel. Create a popular movement and fortify it against being co-opted? Convince people of your point of view? Provide an alternative party? Shit, and for a moment there I thought that you were going to advocate politics or something.

[Surlethe]

Sorry this is kind of late.

You need power, obviously, but that power should come from convincing the public that reform is necessary. Asking that the people who benefit from the current system the most simply abandon it is ridiculous. Working within the system does you little good unless you achieve unrealistic levels of control over it.

You're kind of idealistic. Instead of grassroots primarying the Democratic leadership to pull the party left, you propose taking your case straight to the public. What makes you think that this has a reasonable chance of succeeding? Oh, and it's just not true that working within the system "does you little good": look at how working within the system has benefited the Right.

The Republican and Democratic parties are not currently so different that the Republicans changing up their message to be slightly more welcoming would mean a major shift in the party platforms. I mean, how do you think the Republican party would shift in its positions if it incorporated centrist Democrats into its party? They would probably be less accommodating to the Tea Party, but they're not exactly lining up for Tea Party positions right now.

I'm not talking about a major, quick shift. I'm talking about a series of small, marginal shifts over decades that will add up to a large shift over time. In other words, exactly the same way the conservatives used to pull the entire political spectrum rightward. This is why I'm drawing that analogy, and it's why I originally pointed out that primarying Obama isn't going to do anything meaningful on its own.

[Surlethe]

This blog post presents a useful analogy relevant to grassroots primarying:

http://www.interfluidity.com/v2/1049.html

Rather than treating ideology as fixed and given, we should treat it as dynamic, as a consequence rather than a constraint of policy choices. Choosing the apparent best available policy in 2008, given prevailing views of mainstream technocrats, helped generate an ideological environment much more challenging to those who support activist government than might otherwise have ensued, because the “least-bad” policies involved deploying taxpayer resources in a manner widely viewed as corrupt and illegitimate. At the margin, people (like me) who had previously accepted that the beneficial actions of government more than justify the costs and coercion of taxation shifted towards viewing taxation as theft on behalf of well-connected insiders.

...

Let’s play a game. There are two players, a space of hypothetical moves, and a set of constraints that limits acceptable moves in each round. The two players in general have different objectives: high payoff states for Player 1 are sometimes (though not always) low payoff states for Player 2. Player 1 assumes the constraint set is exogenous. Player 1 knows that the constraint set is not fixed — she has observed changes over time — but her working hypothesis is that the constraints form a martingale, which is a fancy way of saying that her best guess with respect to the shape of future constraints are present constraints. Importantly, Player 1 does not believe that future constraints are a function of present moves. Player 2, on the other hand, correctly understands the distribution of future constraints to be a function of present moves, and is also aware that Player 1 erroneously believes constraints to be exogenous. Both players choose strategies to optimize an intertemporal payoff function. How will this game work out? The answer is obvious: Given any initial conditions, Player 2 always performs better than Player 1 would have under the same conditions (in expectation). Further, Player 1 may frequently observe Player 2 acting in ways that seem irrational, sometimes mutually destructive, when Player 2 chooses a strategy that yields jointly low payoffs when strategies with jointly high payoffs are available, holding the constraint set fixed in expectation. Player 1 will compute strategies that yield an acceptable Nash equilibrium, only to watch that equilibrium fail to hold as Player 2 makes choices that are apparently suboptimal given Player 1’s available responses. Meanwhile, Player 2 will not be surprised by Player 1’s choices and will correctly optimize her unilateral welfare in a manner that is potentially costly to Player 1.

So this is a dumb example, right? We have allowed Player 2 rational expectations (unconditional and conditional), but left Player 1 ill-informed. We have stacked the deck. And so we have, in my example and in the real world. It does only a little injustice christen Player 1 “Team Obama” and Player 2 “Team Bush”. The technocratic team, the people who are constantly exasperated about the perfidy and sheer irrationality of the other side, is the team that is in fact ill-informed. Team Obama diligently and correctly optimizes at each point in time, making use of the best expertise available subject to existing political constraints, not interested “scoring points” but instead focused on “getting things done”. Meanwhile Team Bush makes choices that seem bizarre and blatantly ill-conceived, if we take the constraint set as given. Yet the ecosystem of constraints, the ideology, moves ineluctably in Team Bush’s favor.

...

In the course of my lifetime, we have gone from a polity in which President Nixon publicly flirted with guaranteed income proposals to a polity in which there is a bipartisan tidal wave to bail out bankers but redistribution is beyond the pale. Throughout the period, every Democratic presidency has been technocratically superior to any Republican presidency, in terms of its reliance on expertise rather than, um, ideology in policymaking. Yet both parties have moved inexorably rightward, so that the center right of 1970 would be viewed as Communist today. The empirical evidence is clear. Ideology is malleable, over years and decades rather than generations and centuries. If you have to choose one — smart policy and indifference to ideology or sloppy policy and careful ideological work — you are better off choosing the latter.

[Bakustra]

This appears to be a load of non-specific drivel. Create a popular movement and fortify it against being co-opted? Convince people of your point of view? Provide an alternative party? Shit, and for a moment there I thought that you were going to advocate politics or something.

I'm sorry that I'm not advocating insinuating oneself into the corridors of power and then ruling via bamboozling and misleading the public for as long as you can. After all, that is what the current system effectively is, and what you are suggesting should be done (as opposed to Nitram, who suggests simply voting for Democratic candidates regardless). Or perhaps you will only be satisfied with names, dates, a specific timetable, and a mission statement, in which case I kindly invite you to jump in front of a bus.

PS: This is Nitram's actual position:

This requires something that lacks evidence: That Democrats will react to lose by going in any direction but further right. Furthurmore, do you honestly think these relatively low-looney fuckers would not make things worse, just because they aren't as enthusiasticly against women's rights and for the conservative Jesus?

Sorry this is kind of late.

You need power, obviously, but that power should come from convincing the public that reform is necessary. Asking that the people who benefit from the current system the most simply abandon it is ridiculous. Working within the system does you little good unless you achieve unrealistic levels of control over it.

You're kind of idealistic. Instead of grassroots primarying the Democratic leadership to pull the party left, you propose taking your case straight to the public. What makes you think that this has a reasonable chance of succeeding? Oh, and it's just not true that working within the system "does you little good": look at how working within the system has benefited the Right.

The goal is not to shift left so much as to rework systems that are undemocratic and kill the voices of substantial sections of the population. The right wing in the US did not manage to alter the very framework of the system of government while gaining their successes. They have only managed to do so with major shifts of the Overton Window through fortuitous coincidence, and that did not threaten the dominance of the upper class. The current system makes candidates largely dependent on their party for election financing, unless they are running in/for a prominent enough area or position to be able to raise lots of private money. Both types of donation speak loudest when coming from the upper class or the corporate sector. Do you really think that this has no effect on candidates and the positions they are willing to advocate for? Do you really think that primarying alone will fix this over the course of decades? A hint; refusing to take corporate money and refusing to advocate positions that are corporatist will see a candidate's income from their party dry up, even assuming they don't kick him/her out and sponsor a primary challenger.

The Republican and Democratic parties are not currently so different that the Republicans changing up their message to be slightly more welcoming would mean a major shift in the party platforms. I mean, how do you think the Republican party would shift in its positions if it incorporated centrist Democrats into its party? They would probably be less accommodating to the Tea Party, but they're not exactly lining up for Tea Party positions right now.

I'm not talking about a major, quick shift. I'm talking about a series of small, marginal shifts over decades that will add up to a large shift over time. In other words, exactly the same way the conservatives used to pull the entire political spectrum rightward. This is why I'm drawing that analogy, and it's why I originally pointed out that primarying Obama isn't going to do anything meaningful on its own.

So while this is going on, nobody in the Democratic Party is going to do anything to counter it, especially since leftists are far more anti-corporate than rightists and both parties are largely beholden to corporate and upper-class interests. This presumes that the Democratic Party is willing to go along like the Republicans did with things like the "southern strategy". I don't see why they would do that after spending years spitting in the face of liberals and progressives. The Republican Party specifically pandered to and courted racists and other actively regressive types, but the Democratic Party is currently assured that the left will do what they say.