Quo Vadis, Democrats?

[Razgovory]

I don't think Democrats need to out-right the right.  I think they just need to realize that the extremes on the right often have a root in legitimate grievance, and take positions that acknowledge rather than inflame them.

I don't think we are even talking about extremes here.  If the majority of people in the country believe there are too many illegal immigrants I don't think it qualifies as an extreme view.  The idea that we should take extreme positions because we will never win over fascists is stupid.

[Razgovory]

They do. But this grievance usually isn't what it surfaces as. It's clear to be seen that paranoia about immigrants tends to be stronger in economically struggling areas rather than in areas with higher immigration.

Yeah, we saw that with the grooming gang scandal in your country.

"Help!  There are people gangs of men raping women and the police will do nothing"

"This person is clearly suffering from economic anxiety."

[Josquius]

They do. But this grievance usually isn't what it surfaces as. It's clear to be seen that paranoia about immigrants tends to be stronger in economically struggling areas rather than in areas with higher immigration.

Yeah, we saw that with the grooming gang scandal in your country.

"Help!  There are people gangs of men raping women and the police will do nothing"

"This person is clearly suffering from economic anxiety."

A weird non-sequitur but its roots nonetheless were socio-economic rather than racial or religious as your guys claimed.

[Razgovory]

Who are my guys?  The problem Josq, is that you refuse to take what people say at face value and try to twist it in a way that suits your purpose.  Instead of trying to find a way to interpret what other people say as already agreeing with you, try listening.

[Josquius]

Who are my guys?  The problem Josq, is that you refuse to take what people say at face value and try to twist it in a way that suits your purpose.  Instead of trying to find a way to interpret what other people say as already agreeing with you, try listening.

The problem with you Raz. Is that you insist on always taking what people say at face value when it suits your purpose. Rather than realising people often look for simple answers to complex problems and seeking to dig deeper into what you see on the surface you just accept the explanation that we live in a simple world.

Eg if I say to you "let's go have a beer?" what's your take away from that? What possible explanations are there?
Is it just "this guy loves beer"?

[crazy canuck]

Who are my guys?  The problem Josq, is that you refuse to take what people say at face value and try to twist it in a way that suits your purpose.  Instead of trying to find a way to interpret what other people say as already agreeing with you, try listening.

Now apply that wisdom to the war in Gaza thread

[Razgovory]

Who are my guys?  The problem Josq, is that you refuse to take what people say at face value and try to twist it in a way that suits your purpose.  Instead of trying to find a way to interpret what other people say as already agreeing with you, try listening.

Now apply that wisdom to the war in Gaza thread

Sure.  When Hamas members call on people to kill Jews where ever you find them, I believe them.  I do not dismiss it as rhetoric or some sort of cultural difference.

[Razgovory]

Who are my guys?  The problem Josq, is that you refuse to take what people say at face value and try to twist it in a way that suits your purpose.  Instead of trying to find a way to interpret what other people say as already agreeing with you, try listening.

The problem with you Raz. Is that you insist on always taking what people say at face value when it suits your purpose. Rather than realising people often look for simple answers to complex problems and seeking to dig deeper into what you see on the surface you just accept the explanation that we live in a simple world.

Eg if I say to you "let's go have a beer?" what's your take away from that? What possible explanations are there?
Is it just "this guy loves beer"?

My first interpretation is "This person wants to have a beer with me".  I wouldn't come to some sort of weird conclusion about socio-economic conditions.  When people complain that gangs are raping women it doesn't necessarily mean that they are irredeemable racists, or that they are really concerned about housing, or that they are uncertain about their economic situation, or that they want to nationalize the rail roads.  Sometimes they are actually concerned about actual gangs that rape people.

[Valmy]

You say that Republicans are white nationalist, but I don't think that black people are joining the Republican party to become White nationalists.

No. black people are not joining the Republican Party to become white nationalists. Well except weirdos like Kanye West. Look I don't know if it is possible to enact more white nationalist policies than Donald Trump, I am sure it is possible in some theoretical way, like bringing back the citizenship laws of the 19th century, but he is a white nationalist to a rather absurd degree. But that is just my understanding. You clearly have some other consideration of what white nationalism is and I am really not interested in some semantic discussion.

Donald Trump, and his policies, are just about the most extreme example of this I have seen in my lifetime. If he and his policies aren't white nationalist then I am not sure what is.

We do put our beliefs into policy and laws.

Ok you might have me here. I was talking about national politics. Things the Democrats have done in Congress and with the Presidency. I am not familiar with thousands of local and municipal and state jurisdictions across the country. Some of them have done some things.

After the George Floyd protests did cut police funding.

No it didn't. Police funding went way up afterwards. I think it was cut temporarily in some local areas but that is not the norm.

Many cities are sanctuary cities,

Sanctuary cities, at least here in Texas, is a Republican construction and not a real thing. There is no "sanctuary city" set of policies. But again I am not familiar with all 50 states and hundreds of cities and hundreds of county governments. The last time this was really an issue in Texas was way back during the 2010 Governor's race where Rick Perry called Democrat Mayor Bill White, his Democratic challenger, for running a sanctuary city in Houston. Of course the policies of Houston were basically the same as the State of Texas law enforcement at the time. Nothing particularly sanctuary-ish about Houston. Link: https://www.texastribune.org/2010/05/04/houston-state-cops-have-similar-immigrant-policy/

And it still sticks. People still say Houston is a "sanctuary city" despite never doing anything that would distinguish it from any other city in Texas. So as a smear it works. Substance wise? Not so much. At least not that I can see in Texas. Maybe in Missouri it is different.

Democrats do have policies that celebrate Trans individuals.

Policies? Such as? Though these days simply claiming they are human beings with rights and not brainwashed evil child molesters celebrates I guess.   

It's not just vibes.  We actually do things sometimes.

Please be specific then. Because all I see is vibes.

I think you hold a double standard here, Republicans haven't passed laws that endorse white Nationalism, but you still ascribe that belief to them.

Virtually every policy Donald Trump has enacted about immigration and foreigners is white nationalism. I am not sure what a law that endorses something looks like. Only to the extent fugitive slave laws endorsed slavery. So I don't know what you are talking about here. Some semantic nonsense I have no time for.

Look, we lost the last election.  We lost to a felon and a racist.  We are losing black and Hispanics voters to a racist.  Maybe we need to take a look at what we are doing wrong.

Sure. I agree we need to change course. I am just a little tired of the same old proscription being suggested.

And to your point, the national democratic party cannot change course on most of these issues. If somebody on the internet saying or some local jurisdiction the national party has no control over passing some kind of pro-trans resolution is going to stick to the national party, then simply changing to a more centrist or conservative position on transness will simply fail. Nobody will buy it because of what that county/state/municipal government did or what that person on social media said. It feels fake and disingenuous.

So it has to be managed a different way.

[Valmy]

I don't think Democrats need to out-right the right.  I think they just need to realize that the extremes on the right often have a root in legitimate grievance, and take positions that acknowledge rather than inflame them.

Sure. It seems like the national policy is as meek and cautious and conciliatory to those issues as it can be. And what is the legitimate grievance? Are these economic issues? Because I am all for taking more strident course on those. That is very concrete and direct.

The sort of wishy-washy "such and such demographic feels sad" stuff is harder to address. Especially for demographics where the Democrats are just always going to be at a disadvantage.

[Razgovory]

I would have thought that "white nationalism" would be things like segregation or laws that put white people first in all consideration, or stuff like that.  It's clear that we live in separate worlds, after the election I tried to move out of my comfort zone and take a critical look at the things we believe in and say.

[Valmy]

I would have thought that "white nationalism" would be things like segregation or laws that put white people first in all consideration, or stuff like that.

Ok. Are Trump's anti-diversity and anti-DEI and doing weird stuff like that not pointing in that direction? And all the other things I mentioned? I agree that obviously re-enforcing hard segregation would be something that is white nationalism as well of course. But it doesn't really matter.

Just whatever all those things I mentioned are, that was what I meant. I don't have to call it white nationalism. Tell me what term I should be using. I don't really care about the semantics. I am just trying to communicate.

It's clear that we live in separate worlds, after the election I tried to move out of my comfort zone and take a critical look at the things we believe in and say.

We live in separate worlds? Because we have a slight semantic difference? Ok. Sorry for using different words. Tell me the words. I do not care.

Anyway I just was skeptical of the position that article took. But hey I would accept it if the Democrats took a strong stand, any stand, about anything in opposition to this Republican Party. And I pretty much have. So if that Atlantic article leads to the big winning strategy I will support it...you know to some extent. I am not really interested in doing horrible things to people like Sophie.

[Admiral Yi]

It's like genocide and ethnic cleansing.  Either you can measure it or it's just blah blah blah.

[Josquius]

Who are my guys?  The problem Josq, is that you refuse to take what people say at face value and try to twist it in a way that suits your purpose.  Instead of trying to find a way to interpret what other people say as already agreeing with you, try listening.

The problem with you Raz. Is that you insist on always taking what people say at face value when it suits your purpose. Rather than realising people often look for simple answers to complex problems and seeking to dig deeper into what you see on the surface you just accept the explanation that we live in a simple world.

Eg if I say to you "let's go have a beer?" what's your take away from that? What possible explanations are there?
Is it just "this guy loves beer"?

My first interpretation is "This person wants to have a beer with me". 

Yes. And why do I want to have a beer with you?

[Oexmelin]

It's like genocide and ethnic cleansing.  Either you can measure it or it's just blah blah blah.

What would be the appropriate metrics?