Author Topic: AOC thread  (Read 4839 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16468
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #245 on: May 21, 2019, 11:39:50 AM »
Since we all agree that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is all a construct of right-wing hype, should I even bother to print the quote from the recent issue of Rolling Stone where Tim Dickinson - who wouldn't piss on a Republican if they were on fire - referred to her as "freshman superstar" in his recent overview of the Green New Deal?

("The Green New Deal is suddenly on everyoneís lips. Freshman superstar Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is championing it..."  https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/green-new-deal-explained-775827/)

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22062
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #246 on: May 21, 2019, 12:07:18 PM »
Not sure about anybody else, but I never called her a republican construct. I said the republicans are doing everything they can, and more than the liberal media, to keep her in the spotlight.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #247 on: May 21, 2019, 03:58:39 PM »
I also think she is very much a product of the new left, as one of the most vocal and visible people advocating policies that are much closer to the european vision of left wing politics than the historical and typical democratic position.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 29992
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #248 on: May 21, 2019, 07:58:08 PM »
I fear she is going to run her yap a ton and hurt the Democrats chances of taking back the White House next year.  If Biden or another candidate who doesn't subscribe to her...views gets the nomination, I could see her pitching a fit and inadvertently getting some to stay home who otherwise would have voted for the Democrat.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6679
  • I like terrible things
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #249 on: May 21, 2019, 08:02:34 PM »
In light of her overtly sexist comments today, I wonder how long before we start the expulsion and removal process.  Deplorable!
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22062
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #250 on: May 21, 2019, 08:28:26 PM »
I fear she is going to run her yap a ton and hurt the Democrats chances of taking back the White House next year.  If Biden or another candidate who doesn't subscribe to her...views gets the nomination, I could see her pitching a fit and inadvertently getting some to stay home who otherwise would have voted for the Democrat.
A. I think you really overestimate the amount of clout she has. She's no Bernie.
B. It'll happen to a small extent whether she's involved or not. Bernie is Bernie. 
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 29992
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #251 on: May 21, 2019, 09:09:34 PM »
In light of her overtly sexist comments today, I wonder how long before we start the expulsion and removal process.  Deplorable!

I had to look up what you meant, and assuming you are talking about the Game of Thrones thing, it is typical of those nowadays who are so far up their asses with their ideology that they can't even enjoy a TV show without working some type of social or political angle into it. 

GAME OF THRONES SPOILER BELOW







"Oh no, a man got the crown, not a woman!!"  Give me a freaking break.  It's a fantasy show that has dragons and undead people. :lol :lol

I fear she is going to run her yap a ton and hurt the Democrats chances of taking back the White House next year.  If Biden or another candidate who doesn't subscribe to her...views gets the nomination, I could see her pitching a fit and inadvertently getting some to stay home who otherwise would have voted for the Democrat.
A. I think you really overestimate the amount of clout she has. She's no Bernie.
B. It'll happen to a small extent whether she's involved or not. Bernie is Bernie.

Clout among politicians is not what I am worried about; a percentage of Americans listening to her does worry me. You really don't think she could have an influence in the 2020 election if she spouts off too much about Biden (for example)? 
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 09:02:00 AM by KevShmev »

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22062
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #252 on: May 21, 2019, 09:21:40 PM »
I fear she is going to run her yap a ton and hurt the Democrats chances of taking back the White House next year.  If Biden or another candidate who doesn't subscribe to her...views gets the nomination, I could see her pitching a fit and inadvertently getting some to stay home who otherwise would have voted for the Democrat.
A. I think you really overestimate the amount of clout she has. She's no Bernie.
B. It'll happen to a small extent whether she's involved or not. Bernie is Bernie.

Clout among politicians is not what I am worried about; a percentage of Americans listening to her does worry me. You really don't think she could have an influence in the 2020 election if she spouts off too much about Biden (for example)?
People on the far left are going to refuse to vote for him anyway. No different than 2016. If AOC spends the next two years actively campaigning against him it won't make any difference. The only way she might be able effect the election would be to encourage her voters to support Biden for the greater good, and I seriously doubt many of them would listen to her.

Also, once again the only reason I know anything about what AOC said today is because a conservative made light of it.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 561
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #253 on: May 21, 2019, 10:10:19 PM »
In light of her overtly sexist comments today, I wonder how long before we start the expulsion and removal process.  Deplorable!

I had to look up what you meant, and assuming you are talking about the Game of Thrones thing, it is typical of those nowadays who are so far up their asses with their ideology that they can't even enjoy a TV show without working some type of social or political angle into it.  "Oh no, a man got the crown, not a woman!!"  Give me a freaking break.  It's a fantasy show that has dragons and undead people. :lol :lol


Looking at art and culture through a critical lens is a perfectly legitimate thing, I've learned a heck of a lot through the work of youtube channels like Sarah Z, Lindsay Ellis, MovieBob, Hbomberguy, Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints and others.   No need to be so shitty about it.

edit: upon reflection that last sentence was needlessly confrontational and I apologize, but Iíll leave it there to own the mistake. 
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 06:33:37 AM by XeRocks81 »

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7443
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #254 on: May 21, 2019, 10:37:03 PM »
Did Kev just spoil GoT in the AOC thread?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #255 on: May 22, 2019, 01:57:54 AM »
In light of her overtly sexist comments today, I wonder how long before we start the expulsion and removal process.  Deplorable!

I had to look up what you meant, and assuming you are talking about the Game of Thrones thing, it is typical of those nowadays who are so far up their asses with their ideology that they can't even enjoy a TV show without working some type of social or political angle into it.  "Oh no, a man got the crown, not a woman!!"  Give me a freaking break.  It's a fantasy show that has dragons and undead people. :lol :lol


Looking at art and culture through a critical lens is a perfectly legitimate thing, I've learned a heck of a lot through the work of youtube channels like Sarah Z, Lindsay Ellis, MovieBob, Hbomberguy, Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints and others.   No need to be so shitty about it.

Indeed. Enjoying something does not require that you stop thinking about it. If it does, that is probably a good indicator that there may be some elements that present unfortunate implications.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1092
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #256 on: May 22, 2019, 07:32:08 AM »
Biden's pitching a "Relax, everything will return to normal" message, and that's what's going to napalm his election chances. Not AOC or her lack of an endorsement. If the 2016 election of a political novice taught us anything it's that the 2020 election is unlikely to be won by a 50-year veteran of the Washington establishment who only now is promising to "fix things". That's exactly the kind of political battle Trump is most comfortable fighting - the insurgent taking on the status quo restorationist. That's a narrative Trump is a master at creating and controlling. While Biden's singing bland lullabies about being the most qualified candidate to save the soul of America through unity (sound familiar?), Trump is once again going to position himself as the 'change' candidate and mobilise his base with an 'anger' message (Coup! Treason! Lock 'em up!). Which, assuming he's doing all this against the backdrop of a healthy economy, is probable victory in 2020.
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, September 26th 2018.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16468
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #257 on: May 22, 2019, 08:36:06 AM »
In light of her overtly sexist comments today, I wonder how long before we start the expulsion and removal process.  Deplorable!

I had to look up what you meant, and assuming you are talking about the Game of Thrones thing, it is typical of those nowadays who are so far up their asses with their ideology that they can't even enjoy a TV show without working some type of social or political angle into it.  "Oh no, a man got the crown, not a woman!!"  Give me a freaking break.  It's a fantasy show that has dragons and undead people. :lol :lol


Looking at art and culture through a critical lens is a perfectly legitimate thing, I've learned a heck of a lot through the work of youtube channels like Sarah Z, Lindsay Ellis, MovieBob, Hbomberguy, Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints and others.   No need to be so shitty about it.

edit: upon reflection that last sentence was needlessly confrontational and I apologize, but Iíll leave it there to own the mistake.

It CAN be a perfectly legitimate thing.   In context, and as a general critique.  But when you (not you, Xe, but you collective) analyze every single outcome, and weigh that outcome based on what you think ought to be, it's not helpful.   We are exceedingly - in the identity politics realm - becoming an "outcome" based culture.   TV show cast has no token gay friend?  UH OH!  BIGOTRY, unless proven otherwise (impossible to do).  Cop pulls over a driver that happens to be black?  RACIAL PROFILING, unless proven otherwise (impossible to do).  I am truly, exceedingly blessed, in that I have a pretty decent size network of friends and acquaitances, and relatively speaking, I've burned few bridges.  But in my IMMEDIATE circle, my "hey, let's get some beers and watch the Super Bowl" circle, there are no openly gay members.  That does not make me a bigot.  I didn't plan that, I didn't orchestrate that, and if one of my friends "came out", I'd say the same thing I'd say if one of my straight friends started talking about their sex life: "good for you, but I'm eating, I don't want to hear about your sex life". 

To those of us who aren't "outcome" based, and aren't hung up on the identity politics ramifications of every last creative decision, there is a 49.55% chance of that throne being occupied by a woman (using global estimates from 2017 - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.pop.totl.fe.zs - assuming Game of Thrones world matches ours, how the hell do I know, I don't watch the f***** show) and 50.45% chance of a male.   

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 29992
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #258 on: May 22, 2019, 09:02:39 AM »
Did Kev just spoil GoT in the AOC thread?

I didn't think about that, but I edited my post to be courteous to those who might still want to watch it, but have not yet. :)

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 29992
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #259 on: May 22, 2019, 09:04:57 AM »

It CAN be a perfectly legitimate thing.   In context, and as a general critique.  But when you (not you, Xe, but you collective) analyze every single outcome, and weigh that outcome based on what you think ought to be, it's not helpful.   We are exceedingly - in the identity politics realm - becoming an "outcome" based culture.   TV show cast has no token gay friend?  UH OH!  BIGOTRY, unless proven otherwise (impossible to do).  Cop pulls over a driver that happens to be black?  RACIAL PROFILING, unless proven otherwise (impossible to do).  I am truly, exceedingly blessed, in that I have a pretty decent size network of friends and acquaitances, and relatively speaking, I've burned few bridges.  But in my IMMEDIATE circle, my "hey, let's get some beers and watch the Super Bowl" circle, there are no openly gay members.  That does not make me a bigot.  I didn't plan that, I didn't orchestrate that, and if one of my friends "came out", I'd say the same thing I'd say if one of my straight friends started talking about their sex life: "good for you, but I'm eating, I don't want to hear about your sex life". 

To those of us who aren't "outcome" based, and aren't hung up on the identity politics ramifications of every last creative decision, there is a 49.55% chance of that throne being occupied by a woman (using global estimates from 2017 - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.pop.totl.fe.zs - assuming Game of Thrones world matches ours, how the hell do I know, I don't watch the f***** show) and 50.45% chance of a male.

Well said.  Legit criticism of art is fair, of course, but nit picking a television show (that appears to have been set in the middle ages, based on the look and feel) for not being diverse enough or whatever, is just stupid, and as I said before, just shows that someone is so far up their own ass with their ideology that they have to find someone to bitch about in everything, which is becoming far too commonplace nowadays.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 29992
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #260 on: May 22, 2019, 09:06:33 AM »


Also, once again the only reason I know anything about what AOC said today is because a conservative made light of it.

Rewind four years and you could argue that the only reason we knew about most of the stupid crap Trump said was because a liberal made light of it. 

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22062
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #261 on: May 22, 2019, 09:50:12 AM »


Also, once again the only reason I know anything about what AOC said today is because a conservative made light of it.

Rewind four years and you could argue that the only reason we knew about most of the stupid crap Trump said was because a liberal made light of it.
Trump was running for president, FFS. Every single thing he did was subject to scrutiny, and rightly so. Every news outlet was going to report on every dipshit tweet he makes. AOC is a frickin freshman congresswoman.

Now, in the interest of fairness, I might actually be on your side here.
Quote
Well said.  Legit criticism of art is fair, of course, but nit picking a television show (that appears to have been set in the middle ages, based on the look and feel) for not being diverse enough or whatever, is just stupid, and as I said before, just shows that someone is so far up their own ass with their ideology that they have to find someone to bitch about in everything, which is becoming far too commonplace nowadays.
I have no idea what she actually said. My knowledge of it is from Bosk's scoffing mention and your plot-spoiling summation. However, in the abstract bashing period pieces for being non-inclusive is fucking stupid. I was playing a very good game based on a 6 month stretch of Czechoslovakian history in the 1300s (the reign of Wenceslas the Idle) and people were slamming the Czechoslovakian game designer because all of the NPCs were white. In fairness there actually were plenty of black people making contributions in that time period, but in a tiny setting of 6 villages, a few hundred people total, there probably weren't any around. I'm no fan at all of forced diversity, although merely saying such a thing no doubt makes me a biggot.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 561
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #262 on: May 22, 2019, 10:10:52 AM »
In light of her overtly sexist comments today, I wonder how long before we start the expulsion and removal process.  Deplorable!

I had to look up what you meant, and assuming you are talking about the Game of Thrones thing, it is typical of those nowadays who are so far up their asses with their ideology that they can't even enjoy a TV show without working some type of social or political angle into it.  "Oh no, a man got the crown, not a woman!!"  Give me a freaking break.  It's a fantasy show that has dragons and undead people. :lol :lol


Looking at art and culture through a critical lens is a perfectly legitimate thing, I've learned a heck of a lot through the work of youtube channels like Sarah Z, Lindsay Ellis, MovieBob, Hbomberguy, Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints and others.   No need to be so shitty about it.

edit: upon reflection that last sentence was needlessly confrontational and I apologize, but Iíll leave it there to own the mistake.

It CAN be a perfectly legitimate thing.   In context, and as a general critique.  But when you (not you, Xe, but you collective) analyze every single outcome, and weigh that outcome based on what you think ought to be, it's not helpful.   We are exceedingly - in the identity politics realm - becoming an "outcome" based culture.   TV show cast has no token gay friend?  UH OH!  BIGOTRY, unless proven otherwise (impossible to do).  Cop pulls over a driver that happens to be black?  RACIAL PROFILING, unless proven otherwise (impossible to do).  I am truly, exceedingly blessed, in that I have a pretty decent size network of friends and acquaitances, and relatively speaking, I've burned few bridges.  But in my IMMEDIATE circle, my "hey, let's get some beers and watch the Super Bowl" circle, there are no openly gay members.  That does not make me a bigot.  I didn't plan that, I didn't orchestrate that, and if one of my friends "came out", I'd say the same thing I'd say if one of my straight friends started talking about their sex life: "good for you, but I'm eating, I don't want to hear about your sex life". 

To those of us who aren't "outcome" based, and aren't hung up on the identity politics ramifications of every last creative decision, there is a 49.55% chance of that throne being occupied by a woman (using global estimates from 2017 - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.pop.totl.fe.zs - assuming Game of Thrones world matches ours, how the hell do I know, I don't watch the f***** show) and 50.45% chance of a male.

I don't know how to get into this but your constant harping on "outcomes" is also a form of accusation and one of the reasons why I have trouble discussing with you.  It's like we don'T speak the same language.  But it's fine we're never going to understand each other on these things.   I think it's more on you than you care to admit and you probable think the same about me so... it's ok it doesn't make us bad people or anyting,  I just have to let things go.

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #263 on: May 22, 2019, 10:26:21 AM »
I will be discussing the Game of Thones last season here, so avoid this post if you wish to avoid spoilers

Well said.  Legit criticism of art is fair, of course, but nit picking a television show (that appears to have been set in the middle ages, based on the look and feel) for not being diverse enough or whatever, is just stupid

"Oh no, a man got the crown, not a woman!!"  Give me a freaking break.  It's a fantasy show that has dragons and undead people. :lol :lol

So is it a fantasy show which includes dragons and undead and therefore does not need to be bound by reality, or is it a show that is grounded in middle ages look and feel which requires grounding in reality? You seem to be coming to the same conclusion from two polar opposites in the approach to world building.

Also the reduction of what AOC and Warren were actually talking about to "Oh no, a man got the crown, not a woman!!" is disingenous at best. Even in the 50 second video I managed to google discussed the fact that the Dany's story arc basically fell back on cliched "hysterical woman" tropes and the fact the switch in Dany's character essentially happened in 2-3 epsiodes, which reading online in the GOT community forums, are neither uncommon complaints nor particularly require a feminist viewpoint to agree with. I also understand their frustration at having the rare opportunity for a strong female lead be the one to succeed and obtain power snatched away at the last minute (which, regardless of how well "forshadowed Dany's fall was in earlier seasons, was certainly how it felt with the rushed way in which seasons 7-8 were handled.) I found it very easy to not give too much of a crap about how GOT ended, because if I wanted a good story about a decent man winning and gaining power I have plenty of them to choose from. Women have comparatively few protagonists and strong, nuanced lead characters to draw from the media landscape, and, ergo, have much more reason to feel pissed off about how the character is handled.

Also, you say that people are nipicking every single thing in media nowadays. An alternate way to view the same data (ie. people voicing displeasure at things in media on a regular basis) is that they are complaining constantly BECAUSE these same tropes and ideas come up, time and time again, and people are simply getting tired of seeing them. A single instance can be dismissed as a single choice, but when a large proportion of popular media is doing the same thing, that suggests a systemic problem, and I don't think it is unreasonable for underrepresented groups to express their displeasure at that, nor offer critique of said media. I mean, Ant-man of all characters got a feature film before a single female led or minority led marvel film was released. Just food for thought.

The fantastical and unrealistic elements of a show need not mean that you divorce yourself completely from the real, nor that the text should only be considered as "fantasy". Far from it. Science fiction is not necessarily meant to be "realistic" but good sci-fi uses the speculative or futuristic elements to examine their possible impact on humanity and also view the current nature of humanity through a different lens. The same is true of this type of "grounded" fantasy. Hell, fairy tales were originally used to impart moral lessons to children. GOT is very much about the human condition and propensity for self-interest even in the face of existential threat as it is about the typical fantasy elements. Hence it is not unreasonable to discuss how people are portrayed and the morals that might be gained from media.

EDIT: Also, if people want to continue this discussion I think it might be worth spinning it off to its own thread, since while I think it is an interesting topic, it is a bit divorced from the discussion of AOC.


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16468
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #264 on: May 22, 2019, 12:25:15 PM »
Biden's pitching a "Relax, everything will return to normal" message, and that's what's going to napalm his election chances. Not AOC or her lack of an endorsement. If the 2016 election of a political novice taught us anything it's that the 2020 election is unlikely to be won by a 50-year veteran of the Washington establishment who only now is promising to "fix things". That's exactly the kind of political battle Trump is most comfortable fighting - the insurgent taking on the status quo restorationist. That's a narrative Trump is a master at creating and controlling. While Biden's singing bland lullabies about being the most qualified candidate to save the soul of America through unity (sound familiar?), Trump is once again going to position himself as the 'change' candidate and mobilise his base with an 'anger' message (Coup! Treason! Lock 'em up!). Which, assuming he's doing all this against the backdrop of a healthy economy, is probable victory in 2020.

Not an argument, just spit-balling ideas here:  maybe Biden is on to something.   What's Trump's one "victory"?  The economy.  Biden's not correct on this, but his narrative is that the economy we see now is based heavily if not entirely on that which "Obama-Biden" accomplished.   Think about it:  the extreme left, the identity politics people, will vote Biden over Trump, just because.   The extreme right, the "Obama is a Kenyan" people, will vote Trump over Biden, just because.   So who is he targeting?  Those that see merit in Trump but aren't thrilled with all the nonsense.   And Biden is shilling the "same economy but without all the noise!" position.   It's compelling, because as you well know, I'm of the opinion that we didn't get Trump because the country woke up and realized it was a pack of racist bigots, we got him because many of us had a slightly different prioritization.  Identity politics were and always will be important, but not as a silver bullet, at the expense of all else (and there's some socio-political science rationale for this).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16468
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #265 on: May 22, 2019, 12:36:49 PM »
In light of her overtly sexist comments today, I wonder how long before we start the expulsion and removal process.  Deplorable!

I had to look up what you meant, and assuming you are talking about the Game of Thrones thing, it is typical of those nowadays who are so far up their asses with their ideology that they can't even enjoy a TV show without working some type of social or political angle into it.  "Oh no, a man got the crown, not a woman!!"  Give me a freaking break.  It's a fantasy show that has dragons and undead people. :lol :lol


Looking at art and culture through a critical lens is a perfectly legitimate thing, I've learned a heck of a lot through the work of youtube channels like Sarah Z, Lindsay Ellis, MovieBob, Hbomberguy, Philosophy Tube, Contrapoints and others.   No need to be so shitty about it.

edit: upon reflection that last sentence was needlessly confrontational and I apologize, but Iíll leave it there to own the mistake.

It CAN be a perfectly legitimate thing.   In context, and as a general critique.  But when you (not you, Xe, but you collective) analyze every single outcome, and weigh that outcome based on what you think ought to be, it's not helpful.   We are exceedingly - in the identity politics realm - becoming an "outcome" based culture.   TV show cast has no token gay friend?  UH OH!  BIGOTRY, unless proven otherwise (impossible to do).  Cop pulls over a driver that happens to be black?  RACIAL PROFILING, unless proven otherwise (impossible to do).  I am truly, exceedingly blessed, in that I have a pretty decent size network of friends and acquaitances, and relatively speaking, I've burned few bridges.  But in my IMMEDIATE circle, my "hey, let's get some beers and watch the Super Bowl" circle, there are no openly gay members.  That does not make me a bigot.  I didn't plan that, I didn't orchestrate that, and if one of my friends "came out", I'd say the same thing I'd say if one of my straight friends started talking about their sex life: "good for you, but I'm eating, I don't want to hear about your sex life". 

To those of us who aren't "outcome" based, and aren't hung up on the identity politics ramifications of every last creative decision, there is a 49.55% chance of that throne being occupied by a woman (using global estimates from 2017 - https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/sp.pop.totl.fe.zs - assuming Game of Thrones world matches ours, how the hell do I know, I don't watch the f***** show) and 50.45% chance of a male.

I don't know how to get into this but your constant harping on "outcomes" is also a form of accusation and one of the reasons why I have trouble discussing with you.  It's like we don'T speak the same language.  But it's fine we're never going to understand each other on these things.   I think it's more on you than you care to admit and you probable think the same about me so... it's ok it doesn't make us bad people or anyting,  I just have to let things go.

Well, help me so I can get rid of whatever part IS on me.  I'm not sure how to look at it any other way than "outcome".  I'm at a disadvantage here, because I don't watch Game Of Thrones.    But was there some sexist reason why the conclusion was wrong?  Was it forced?  Was it contrived?   Or was it simply because it WAS?   

There is a great article - I'll try to find it EDIT:  found it:  https://nypost.com/2019/05/10/why-we-dont-need-a-gay-marvel-superhero/ - about the first openly gay Marvel character, and the writer - openly gay himself - wanted distance from that.  He was almost resentful of the marketing that hyped that outcome, but when the actual movies came out, it was either token or nonsensical to the story.   It became distracting to be "spotting the equity" so to speak (my words), but the box was checked.  The OUTCOME was achieved.       

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22062
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #266 on: May 22, 2019, 12:46:07 PM »
Biden's pitching a "Relax, everything will return to normal" message, and that's what's going to napalm his election chances. Not AOC or her lack of an endorsement. If the 2016 election of a political novice taught us anything it's that the 2020 election is unlikely to be won by a 50-year veteran of the Washington establishment who only now is promising to "fix things". That's exactly the kind of political battle Trump is most comfortable fighting - the insurgent taking on the status quo restorationist. That's a narrative Trump is a master at creating and controlling. While Biden's singing bland lullabies about being the most qualified candidate to save the soul of America through unity (sound familiar?), Trump is once again going to position himself as the 'change' candidate and mobilise his base with an 'anger' message (Coup! Treason! Lock 'em up!). Which, assuming he's doing all this against the backdrop of a healthy economy, is probable victory in 2020.

Not an argument, just spit-balling ideas here:  maybe Biden is on to something.   What's Trump's one "victory"?  The economy.  Biden's not correct on this, but his narrative is that the economy we see now is based heavily if not entirely on that which "Obama-Biden" accomplished.   Think about it:  the extreme left, the identity politics people, will vote Biden over Trump, just because.   The extreme right, the "Obama is a Kenyan" people, will vote Trump over Biden, just because.   So who is he targeting?  Those that see merit in Trump but aren't thrilled with all the nonsense.   And Biden is shilling the "same economy but without all the noise!" position.   It's compelling, because as you well know, I'm of the opinion that we didn't get Trump because the country woke up and realized it was a pack of racist bigots, we got him because many of us had a slightly different prioritization.  Identity politics were and always will be important, but not as a silver bullet, at the expense of all else (and there's some socio-political science rationale for this).
I'm just spitballing off of your spitball here, but Trump's had more victories than any other person in human history. And I'm not saying that to make fun of his nonsense, but because everything he does is victory. He wins when he allies us with Eurasia to defeat those tyrannical Eastasians. He wins when the Eastasians beat the stuffing out of those awful Eurasians. He wins when the Eurasians and Eastasians team up to bomb the bejeesus our of a disloyal Ocianian city. I see the economy as the same sort of victory. There are a whole lot of people, myself included, that when asked can positively say that they're not better off than they were five years ago, and in many cases are far worse off. Selling the economy is a lot like selling the tax cuts. Sounds great and all, but the people who took a hit when their taxes were "cut" are probably going to be pretty pissed off when it's presented to them as a victory. This is just a hunch, but sorghum farmers and lobster fishermen probably don't give a shit about Dow Jones or growth factors that only a select few fully understand.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 16468
  • Gender: Male
  • Pointing out the "unfunny" since 2017!
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #267 on: May 22, 2019, 01:54:35 PM »
I go both ways on that, in the sense that for everyone that feels they got f***** by the tax cuts recently, there are people that felt they got f***** by the way the economy went from 2010 to 2016.  And all that is always colored by other things.  I was far better off financially before 2010, and I've been trending up since about 2015 or so, but I'd be baldfaced lying if I told you it was only because of the "President" (notwithstanding my position on the real estate crash).  I think the President impacts the economy in very few ways, but the ways in which the President does impact it happen to be in play (regulations; a President that sees the Federal government as a check and balance on commerce - as Obama did - would tend to chill economic risk-taking, whereas a President that see the Federal government as being extraneous to commerce - as Trump does - would tend to fuel economic risk-taking.)

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22062
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #268 on: May 22, 2019, 02:15:06 PM »
I go both ways on that, in the sense that for everyone that feels they got f***** by the tax cuts recently, there are people that felt they got f***** by the way the economy went from 2010 to 2016.  And all that is always colored by other things.  I was far better off financially before 2010, and I've been trending up since about 2015 or so, but I'd be baldfaced lying if I told you it was only because of the "President" (notwithstanding my position on the real estate crash).  I think the President impacts the economy in very few ways, but the ways in which the President does impact it happen to be in play (regulations; a President that sees the Federal government as a check and balance on commerce - as Obama did - would tend to chill economic risk-taking, whereas a President that see the Federal government as being extraneous to commerce - as Trump does - would tend to fuel economic risk-taking.)
I have to be brief here, but my point was that selling the economy as Trump's big victory is probably Coke vs Pepsi. If the argument gets framed as "are you better off now than you were in 2016" I'd say it winds up being pretty close to a wash. That's a no-gain for the boy king. The risk to framing it that way are the people whose families were blown up in a giant Diet Coke bottling plant explosion and are understandably pissed off that he even makes the point.
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 03:37:59 PM by El Barto »
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 29992
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #269 on: May 22, 2019, 03:37:05 PM »
Trump was running for president, FFS. Every single thing he did was subject to scrutiny, and rightly so. Every news outlet was going to report on every dipshit tweet he makes. AOC is a frickin freshman congresswoman.

Why does it matter that she is a freshman congresswoman? 



Continuation of the GoT ending below (SPOILERS):


Also the reduction of what AOC and Warren were actually talking about to "Oh no, a man got the crown, not a woman!!" is disingenous at best. Even in the 50 second video I managed to google discussed the fact that the Dany's story arc basically fell back on cliched "hysterical woman" tropes and the fact the switch in Dany's character essentially happened in 2-3 epsiodes, which reading online in the GOT community forums, are neither uncommon complaints nor particularly require a feminist viewpoint to agree with. I also understand their frustration at having the rare opportunity for a strong female lead be the one to succeed and obtain power snatched away at the last minute (which, regardless of how well "forshadowed Dany's fall was in earlier seasons, was certainly how it felt with the rushed way in which seasons 7-8 were handled.) I found it very easy to not give too much of a crap about how GOT ended, because if I wanted a good story about a decent man winning and gaining power I have plenty of them to choose from. Women have comparatively few protagonists and strong, nuanced lead characters to draw from the media landscape, and, ergo, have much more reason to feel pissed off about how the character is handled.

Game of Thrones was a show where the men were considered far more important than women in everyday life, yet women really thrived.  Dany and Cersei were both told whom to marry, yet both thrived and achieved great power in spite of that.  The Stark women (Catelyn, Sansa, Arya) all kicked ass at various points.  Olenna Tyrell had tons of power during her tenure as well.  A show like that should have been empowering for women, like "wow, did the many female leads do well despite always being considered 3rd class citizens."  But, no, just because a man got the crown at the end, which seemed like a mere formality anyway since the real story was about the others, it was somehow a fail for women?  No way.  See my posts about how the Stark family were really the overall winners of the Game of Thrones, with the final sequence focusing on three people, two women and a man.  To pitch a fit because a male got the crown, while ignoring how much many women overcame incredible odds at many points in the show in getting from a to z, is to ignore the story itself. 

Offline XJDenton

  • What a shame
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4713
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #270 on: May 22, 2019, 03:50:52 PM »
I would hardly call calmly expressing a view concerning a television show in a humourous 50 second twitter video "pitching a fit".

Why does it matter that she is a freshman congresswoman? 

Presumably he believes that the level of scrutiny and attention one receives should be at least somewhat proportional to their actual power in government.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22062
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #271 on: May 22, 2019, 03:56:47 PM »
Trump was running for president, FFS. Every single thing he did was subject to scrutiny, and rightly so. Every news outlet was going to report on every dipshit tweet he makes. AOC is a frickin freshman congresswoman.

Why does it matter that she is a freshman congresswoman? 
Shirley you understand that there's a major difference between the amount of coverage a presidential candidate and a junior congressman get. Do you think the media should cover Trump to the same extent it covers the mayor of Poughkeepsie? One is newsworthy to every single citizen in the united states. AOC matters to 400k Queens residents. Robert G. Rolison will remain unknown no matter how much foolishness he tweets to his 25 (seriously) followers. Their dipshit opinions are normally going to see coverage commensurate to their standing.

Quote
Game of Thrones was a show where the men were considered far more important than women in everyday life, yet women really thrived.  Dany and Cersei were both told whom to marry, yet both thrived and achieved great power in spite of that.  The Stark women (Catelyn, Sansa, Arya) all kicked ass at various points.  Olenna Tyrell had tons of power during her tenure as well.  A show like that should have been empowering for women, like "wow, did the many female leads do well despite always being considered 3rd class citizens."  But, no, just because a man got the crown at the end, which seemed like a mere formality anyway since the real story was about the others, it was somehow a fail for women?  No way.  See my posts about how the Stark family were really the overall winners of the Game of Thrones, with the final sequence focusing on three people, two women and a man.  To pitch a fit because a male got the crown, while ignoring how much many women overcame incredible odds at many points in the show in getting from a to z, is to ignore the story itself. 
So I really don't have a horse in the race. I'm generally on your side about forced inclusion, and I've only seen two scenes ever of GoT, ever. This does not help your cause, though, buddy.  I'll let one of our more liberal neighbors write a treatise on it, but even I thought it came off as pretty sexist.  :lol
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Online portnoy311

  • Posts: 1035
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #272 on: May 22, 2019, 04:05:24 PM »
I'm way behind on the show, but a lot of people are upset Daenerys went full mad queen. She was raped by her husband in season 1 (not in the book) that she was married to by her brother as an arranged marriage. She was marginalized throughout and her coming into her own was a major plot of the entire series. In the final 2 episodes she became a murderous lunatic, burning down the capital - mirroring her father before the series started, who was killed as king for wanting to burn everything down. The real story was that she went full Targaryen, but I can see how people might be upset if it was portrayed as her cracking.


I read all the books and I really thought Sansa was going to sit on the Throne at the end. She got screwed as much as anyone. I guess Queen of the North is a nice consolation, but I have no idea how her little crippled tree bro deserved it over her, but whatever. I hadn't seen the sexism angle until now but most of my friends just thought it was stupid.

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1092
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #273 on: May 22, 2019, 05:07:30 PM »
Biden's pitching a "Relax, everything will return to normal" message, and that's what's going to napalm his election chances. Not AOC or her lack of an endorsement. If the 2016 election of a political novice taught us anything it's that the 2020 election is unlikely to be won by a 50-year veteran of the Washington establishment who only now is promising to "fix things". That's exactly the kind of political battle Trump is most comfortable fighting - the insurgent taking on the status quo restorationist. That's a narrative Trump is a master at creating and controlling. While Biden's singing bland lullabies about being the most qualified candidate to save the soul of America through unity (sound familiar?), Trump is once again going to position himself as the 'change' candidate and mobilise his base with an 'anger' message (Coup! Treason! Lock 'em up!). Which, assuming he's doing all this against the backdrop of a healthy economy, is probable victory in 2020.

Not an argument, just spit-balling ideas here:  maybe Biden is on to something.   What's Trump's one "victory"?  The economy.  Biden's not correct on this, but his narrative is that the economy we see now is based heavily if not entirely on that which "Obama-Biden" accomplished.   Think about it:  the extreme left, the identity politics people, will vote Biden over Trump, just because.   The extreme right, the "Obama is a Kenyan" people, will vote Trump over Biden, just because.   So who is he targeting?  Those that see merit in Trump but aren't thrilled with all the nonsense.   And Biden is shilling the "same economy but without all the noise!" position.   It's compelling, because as you well know, I'm of the opinion that we didn't get Trump because the country woke up and realized it was a pack of racist bigots, we got him because many of us had a slightly different prioritization.  Identity politics were and always will be important, but not as a silver bullet, at the expense of all else (and there's some socio-political science rationale for this).

Perhaps, but is the social climate that existed in America in 2015 better or worse now in 2019? From the point of view of divisiveness and anger I mean. A few hours ago President Trump tweeted out, regarding the 'Angry Dem Witch Hunt' (what else?) "...it was the other side that caused the problem, not us!" "The other side". It's become that basic now; that purely tribal.

Granted I'm not there in America, I only see and read things online, but it seems to me there's a lot of anger swirling around and it's an anger that people naturally want to channel through political organisation. Biden speaks like he's oblivious to it. While Bernie has been invited to speak on behalf of Walmart workers at the Walmart shareholder meeting in a few weeks (and before that he's been speaking on behalf of Amazon workers), Biden's doing...what, exactly? At his speech in Philadelphia last Saturday, Biden said "People say the Democrats are angry. Well I don't believe it". Believe it Joe, because it seems to be a fact and you ignoring it isn't going to help. There are people on the left who are - right or wrong, not the point here - genuinely pissed at the Trump years (the Warren/Harris vote), and there are people on the left who are pissed at what came before the Trump years (the Bernie vote). Harris, Warren, Bernie, O'Rourke, Buttigieg, they at least acknowledge this anger and frustration, whereas Biden sounds like the archetypal career politician who has been insulated from real-world problems by decades of top-level government work. All that's missing is a bouffant hair-do and an I'm With Him t-shirt.

Read or watch the speeches Biden's made since he announced his candidacy (speeches which by the way have received next to zero coverage, because they're just so insipid). He is pushing a "things are fine, this is just a blip" message (didn't he even call Trumpism an aberration when he announced his candidacy?). And I think that's risky. Perhaps a calculated risk, maybe as you say he's hoping that enough people will be content to vote for someone who'll turn Trump's noise down a little. But from where I'm sitting and observing, I don't think that's the situation we have. I've been open from the start about being very biased against Biden but that's not why I have this opinion. I honestly think it's a losing strategy for the Dems to put forward the poster boy for the very Establishment that Trump beat one by one in the Republican primaries and then in the General Election.

Someone I 'follow' summed up a potential Biden nomination in a way I like very much, using a line from W.B.Yeats' poem 'Second Coming':

Yeats: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst/ Are full of passionate intensity"

Democratic Party: "Let's get lacking all conviction to run against passionate intensity"

It's a tricky task the Dems have. How to fight Trump without becoming Trump (the insults and the pandering to anger). I don't know how they do it, but they need to find a way and I don't think that way is Joe. Me, I'm rootin' for Bernie or Kamala (ideally Tulsi Gabbard but she hasn't a hope because she tells far too much truth about how the Washington war machine works).
« Last Edit: May 22, 2019, 05:34:10 PM by Dave_Manchester »
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, September 26th 2018.

Offline KevShmev

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 29992
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #274 on: May 22, 2019, 05:44:38 PM »

Shirley you understand that there's a major difference between the amount of coverage a presidential candidate and a junior congressman get. Do you think the media should cover Trump to the same extent it covers the mayor of Poughkeepsie? One is newsworthy to every single citizen in the united states. AOC matters to 400k Queens residents. Robert G. Rolison will remain unknown no matter how much foolishness he tweets to his 25 (seriously) followers. Their dipshit opinions are normally going to see coverage commensurate to their standing.

Of course, but as has been said more than a few times now, when you put yourself out there as much AOC does, you are inviting more criticism (from those who disagree with you), as well as more praise (from those who agree with you).  It's part of the game.  I don't buy the "no one would care what she says if Fox News didn't report every single thing she says" narrative.

As a moderate, I like seeing someone new and young and full of energy, but I am tired of divisive politicians.  Based on everything she says, she seems like a divider, not an uniter.   Her attitude is basically "my way or the highway," and that is not how you get things done.

So I really don't have a horse in the race. I'm generally on your side about forced inclusion, and I've only seen two scenes ever of GoT, ever. This does not help your cause, though, buddy.  I'll let one of our more liberal neighbors write a treatise on it, but even I thought it came off as pretty sexist.  :lol

Not sure why, but I am sure one of the hardcore liberals will write a short story as to why they think so. :lol :lol

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 561
  • Gender: Male
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #275 on: May 22, 2019, 08:26:41 PM »
To bring this somewhat back on topic, I know Ben Carson is pretty low hanging fruit since he never seems more than half awake but still I thought she was impressive here: https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1130877315980906498

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22062
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #276 on: May 22, 2019, 09:09:32 PM »

Shirley you understand that there's a major difference between the amount of coverage a presidential candidate and a junior congressman get. Do you think the media should cover Trump to the same extent it covers the mayor of Poughkeepsie? One is newsworthy to every single citizen in the united states. AOC matters to 400k Queens residents. Robert G. Rolison will remain unknown no matter how much foolishness he tweets to his 25 (seriously) followers. Their dipshit opinions are normally going to see coverage commensurate to their standing.

Of course, but as has been said more than a few times now, when you put yourself out there as much AOC does, you are inviting more criticism (from those who disagree with you), as well as more praise (from those who agree with you).  It's part of the game.  I don't buy the "no one would care what she says if Fox News didn't report every single thing she says" narrative.
Which is cool because I'm not selling it. Some people would certainly care. Some of what she says would even be newsworthy. I'm just saying that she's jerkoff fodder for conservatives who want to rag on the silly liberal, and that's the reason we hear about her as much as we do. That wouldn't bother me so much if they'd just own up to it. You might well be right that she invites it herself, but as I keep saying, who's worse, the loudmouth or the people who hang on to the loudmouth's every word? She's like the god damned rock and roll hall of fame.

Quote
As a moderate, I like seeing someone new and young and full of energy, but I am tired of divisive politicians.  Based on everything she says, she seems like a divider, not an uniter.   Her attitude is basically "my way or the highway," and that is not how you get things done.
I think that's partly right. She's certainly destructive, but she's not the typical divider, per se. You take somebody like Trump and his objective is to exploit the divide for the benefit of his own side. Liberals will be the ruin of all. Vote Trump. Democrats do the same thing. In the meantime people don't notice that both sides are fucking them. The far left gets it. I don't see who she's looking to divide, honestly. I do see two parties she's looking to burn down, though, and that's not such a bad thing. If somebody you liked were doing it you'd probably agree, wouldn't you?

And here's something you might consider. The people on the far left think they have nothing left to lose. I don't think we're there yet, but I see why they do, and I think that point will definitely come. They're seeing a system that is fucking them and their kids will have it worse. Why shouldn't they want to burn the thing to the ground?
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 7443
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #277 on: May 22, 2019, 09:42:03 PM »
Philosophically you are right, but you get legislation passed by either just proclaiming you are right without doing anything to convince the majority of your associates that you are, or by working with them and *gasp* compromising. She thinks Biden is an ass for wanting to take the "middle ground" but who would be more likely to turn their ideas in to reality?
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Offline Dave_Manchester

  • Posts: 1092
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #278 on: May 23, 2019, 07:10:41 AM »
Philosophically you are right, but you get legislation passed by either just proclaiming you are right without doing anything to convince the majority of your associates that you are, or by working with them and *gasp* compromising. She thinks Biden is an ass for wanting to take the "middle ground" but who would be more likely to turn their ideas in to reality?

Biden, and that's why those on the extreme far radical American left (or as Europeans call it, the centre) oppose him and his promises to 'take the middle ground' (or "compromise" as Joe likes to say. A compromise between Joe Biden and the GOP looks like this - Joe: "Corporate interests first?" Mitch: "Yup"). As far as they're concerned his ideas becoming reality are not much different to the GOP's ideas becoming reality, because in many ways there is absolutely no policy difference between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. The DNC are going to do everything in their power to nominate Biden (as they did with Hillary) because even if he loses, the Democrat bosses (big corporations) will be almost as happy with Trump as with Biden. He'll look out for their interests, but with more genteel language (Trump has his "Great Patriotic Farmers and Steel Workers", Biden has his "friends in the energy sector"). He'll start just as many wars, if not more, than Trump would, but whereas Trump has the honesty to say "We're going to arm the Saudis to the teeth and stand back while they bomb Yemeni schoolchildren because it's profitable to us", Biden will use the standard language of 'proper' American presidents: "Our intelligence agencies have classified evidence that those Yemeni schoolchildren were preparing to launch a chemical attack on the American mainland".

Personally I've found the Bernie crowd to be the most informed in America about the direction the country is going and what (I feel) is inevitable over the next couple of decades. They're sick and tired of having to accept mediocrity and the 'lesser evil' (any status quo corporate candidate). They know Biden will be as bad as Trump from the standpoint of their interests and ideology so they oppose him and his bullshit "compromises".

People are free to criticise the finer details and practicalities of Bernie and AOC's ideology but I don't blame them for not wanting someone like Biden in the White House. From their (and my) point of view he's just another war-mongering corporate shill. It's a credit to AOC's principles that she's not taken in by his 'middle ground' bullshit because she, like me, has probably looked at his political record and seen what that 'middle ground' amounts to. She'll (hopefully) know who Biden speaks for and who props him up.


p.s: I hope I've made it clear that I'm absolutely not criticising the idea of compromise here, it's the lifeblood of a healthy society and political system. I'm saying that a 'compromise' is not a compromise when it's what both sides want all along.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2019, 07:21:56 AM by Dave_Manchester »
"As democracy is perfected, the office of President represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts' desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron" - H.L.Mencken, 26th July 1920.

"China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very very large brain" - American President Donald Trump, September 26th 2018.

Offline El Barto

  • Rascal Atheistic Pig
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 22062
  • Bad Craziness
Re: AOC thread
« Reply #279 on: May 23, 2019, 08:12:56 AM »
Philosophically you are right, but you get legislation passed by either just proclaiming you are right without doing anything to convince the majority of your associates that you are, or by working with them and *gasp* compromising. She thinks Biden is an ass for wanting to take the "middle ground" but who would be more likely to turn their ideas in to reality?
When two burglars are arguing over whether to beat you first or rape you first, compromise is not what you want. From the perspective of the far left that she represents Biden's middle ground is their own undoing. As I said, from the perspective of many they have absolutely nothing to lose.


edit: And Dave hit on something I was thinking about yesterday. The paradigm of two parties bickering while we ignore the ass raping taking place is hardly old news. We've all known how the system works for ages. For better or for worse the far left does seem to be the one group who's finally fed up enough to raise hell about it in a damn the torpedoes sort of way. I don't agree with much of their ideology, but I do have to appreciate their hardline approach.
Argument, the presentation of reasonable views, never makes headway against conviction, and conviction takes no part in argument because it knows.
E.F. Benson