Coreece

To the right, to the left - Patriots in control. . .

It's nice that our bipartisan votes in the purple states decides the elections. Our history has been fair enough. I see no reason to change.

And why not? They apparently approve of his realpolitik style so much that they're actually thinking of adopting it themselves. His ads are only highlighting those two points to help him get the democrat nomination - after that I doubt we'll hear much about them. Same way they treat minorities after they garner their votes. . .

Liar. Everyone has told you eactly what they meant. You're just choosing not to believe it. And just so you see how full of shit your your post is, here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about:

See, I like you cwood, but this shit is beneath you. It's just so vague with too much weasel room. What does it mean to do the "right thing?" What do you mean by the "good" party? Compared to Trump? Nice standard. What does it mean to play the "same game," to do the "wrong thing?" If I posted what I really think you meant, I'd be met my multiple posters saying, nah you're misinterpreting that! That's not what I meant! We're just talking about being bombastic! Whatabout Redmap?!! We're not talking about really sinking down to Trump's level, just a little harsh verbiage to shake him up bit - maybe a negative political attack ad would be nice. See we're not doing just like he does, so you can't call us hypocrites, you liar!

Ya, after they've been called out on it and realized how hypocritical they'd be. And cool it with the "liar" shit. . .as well with your deliberate and deceptive/selective quoting. . . and do I get any apology for any of that? No, of course not, because that's just the type of fucking guy that you are.

The whole thing about giving Reps a taste of their own medicine has proven to be too vague for meaningful discussion - there's just too much weasel room to pin them down on anything, so I'll just let it go. As for "doing the right thing," fine. It's just interesting that it only seems to comes up when the Dems are getting their asses handed to them. Take the EC for example, they were bitching about it 20 years ago, but did they actually do anything bout it? No. They just bitch about it, bitch about Bush and bitch bitch bitch til they bitch enough to garner enough votes to get back in the game. And then once in power, do they do anything about it? No, they hardly even mentioned the EC while Obama was in office, until he wasn't. And now we're back to bitch bitch bitch, moan moan moan, woe is us, we're just too good of a people to make it in this dog eat dog realpolitik world. And I know I give Dems a hard time, but it's only because I come from a working class family from Detroit, and am myself a Democrat at heart. But have you been to Detroit? Were you raised there? It's still like a shithole 3rd world country. 50 years and the Dems haven't done anything - and I'm sick and tired of their fucking moral facade of liberal equality, hope and fairness just to garner votes from these people while remaining absolutely unbeholden to them. Big surprise given most Dems don't even identify as liberal, eh? I mean the best thing to happen for middle class blacks during the Obama admin was the housing crisis that created a void of cheap housing in the suburbs for them to fill, while the poor were left behind with nothing - they even took away their unemployment benefits. And even today any improvement is just the result of gentrification - nobody gives a shit. Michigan is the demonstrably the most politically corrupt state in the country, most of which can be attributed to democrats - so when they say they want to play dirty, I fucking believe them.

Liar. I applauded the ideas you listed which I think are the right thing to do. Apologies. . .my bad.

Principles and virtue that are meaningless IF you just abandon them when they're needed the most. Maybe not yet, but apparently there are a hellava lot of people on the left that Identify as democrats trying to nudge the party in that direction. Ya, a schmoe whose ideas about obstructionism and procedural warfare you've just applauded - the very things that have contributed to the current state of a divisive and dysfunctional government. And I don't know why you keep talking about these people being outside the party structure. These are people on the left that the party is listening too. I mean you just went on comparing "right wing" philosophy to all the warm and fuzzies of virtue and fairness within liberal philosophy, but most democrats don't even identify as being liberal.

No that doesn't sound about right to me, lol - wtf is wrong with you? I mean are you due for vacation or something to get out and make a few jumps, because I hate it when you get like this with your unnecessary nitpicking and bullshit selective quoting that clearly ignores my criticism of the right, along with quotes from multiple posters other than just "one random guy on this web forum," aka Yoink. The bottom line is that I just don't agree with compromising certain principles just to win - and I was trying to find out what compromises these guys were talking about. Apparently they were just talking about bombast and going low in public - but what's so new and compromising about that? Either they're just being disingenuous now that they've been called out, or they were simply talking out of their arse to begin with. This whole idea of the dems fighting dirty is nothing new, it's just been re-introduced since the state of the union address and a recent tweet/news feed of a Bill Maher video. But again, it's Bill Maher humor, so I'll give it a pass - though I do take seriously the idea of deep fakes being the future of sleazy political attack ads, not to mention the source of other disinformation, fraud, etc., which is why I think it's important for people to familiarize themselves with crypto technology and blockchain time-stamping. It's not just about cryptocurrency anymore. But that's another discussion (BTW the crypto market in on a run right now) Anyway, there was a book from 2018 that made it's rounds through various liberal media sites called "It's Time to Fight Dirty:" "Fighting dirty though obstructionism and procedural warfare: establishing statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico; breaking California into several states; creating a larger House of Representatives; passing a new voting rights act; and expanding the Supreme Court." But like I said, the republicans are just better at playing dirty. They didn't need some joe schmoe to write a realpolitik playbook for them and then sell it to the opposition on Amazon for $9.99. Is It Time for Democrats to Fight Dirty? Hey Democrats, Fighting Fair Is for Suckers. Why this political scientist thinks the Democrats have to fight dirty Battle hymn of the Democrats: why it's time for liberals to fight dirty.

Alls good, no need for apologies. I understand people are frustrated and probably just venting their angst. We all tend to get a bit hyperbolic at times. I'm probably making these comments to be a little bit more than what they are anyway.

While you may not have been referring to questionable or unethical methods to gain an edge in the elections, it doesn't appear that you were talking about ripping stacks of paper either. You were talking about voting for an old, rich white man. Either way, I don't see how either could really be considered as compromising one's principles, so why even bring it up then?

OK, so just to make sure I've gt this straight - you do think that the Democrats are more principled and virtuous than the Republicans When it comes to individuals or even groups of citizens, I think we're all relatively the same - but the point here is how the democrats have merely been using their "principles" just for show to keep up appearances, which is why it's so easy for them to just suggest abandoning that strategy now that it's not working out for them anymore. Post #126 is talking about how the Republicans fight dirty to rig the system and how the Dems can't get anything done even when they win fair and square, so therefore they can't continue to just be the "good guy." So given that, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume it's in the realm or nature of that context. I mean when yoink talks about compromising one's principles in order to win and how the Dems need to change in order to compete against the philosophy of winning at ANY cost, what do you think he's talking about, ripping up a stacks of paper?

But that simply doesn’t make sense. Things like Redmap, voter ID laws, even changing the rules to make incoming dem governors lame ducks - how many times do you need to say “the Dems would have done it if...” before you have to start thinking about why they haven’t been doing it? See that's my point - given the comments over the last several days, it's clear that it's those on the left who are the ones questioning why they haven't been doing it. Which is why I brought it up in the first place. I'm referring to comments about how decorum and principles on the left are irrelevant, and how the Dems suddenly need to stop being politically correct and keeping up appearances. Another poster summed it up quite nicely: "Is it better to stick to your principles and lose, or to compromise and win? The Republican Party have shown that they’re about winning at ANY cost and the Democrats will have to change to compete with that philosophy." We just talked about this not too long ago, so I know you don't agree with those comments - so why are you going out of your way and pretending to ignore it? Which is why the comments about abandoning one's "principles" in some vain attempt at beating the Republicans at their own game is one of the most foolish things ever posted here - and you know that.

It'd be neat to have an app like that where you could run multiple sets of contingencies to see which candidate you'd end up with the most. Maybe even add filters to account for social bias.

Ok, as long as that's not construed somehow to mean that Democrats are more principled and virtuous, because given some of the comments from the left over the last several days, it's apparent that their only problem with all that is not thinking of it first. Checkers vs. Chess Intellectual elite or intellectually elusive?

There's no law against police discretion. How many times have the cops given you a break?

Ya, blame me for the divisiveness, ha. If you want someone to blame for that, you can start with Gingrich and his goons with their wedge politics and deliberately playing on people's emotions to pit the country against itself. Listen, all I'm saying is that the the Rs are simply better at playing dirty politics, that much is so clearly obvious, and if you can't see that, then you really have no business calling others out for being shortsighted. The sad thing is that the Ds apparently see that as a virtue that they want to emulate. Billvon already said that there comes a point when the Ds have to stop keeping up appearances and being politically correct. It just shows that they really weren't ever serious about their supposedly strong held "beliefs/principles." Big surprise, eh? It just seems to demonstrate the semblance of some type of moral facade surrounding secular humanity. So ya, while I think that the Rs are much better at playing dirty politics, I think both sides are equally pathetic, if that makes you feel better. . .

Perhaps disappointed is the better word to use there. You don't seriously believe the Rs are bad and the Ds are angels do you? No, just that the Rs are better at playing dirty politics which is why the Ds are jealous and apparently want to emulate their style now. Reminds me of Shooter McGavin trying to steal Gilmore's golf swing.

I still miss Pops. It's nice to see him "immortalized" in this place even if it is the boobies thread. Every once in a while I go through some of my old posts for shits and giggles and to take inventory on how my perspective has changed from posts written in my 20s till now in my 40s. It always makes me smile when I hear from Pops again when stumbling upon one of his posts unexpectedly. . .

Because it's up to the Dems to reclaim the swing voters in the purple Midwest that they lost because of people losing their jobs, houses and having to pay more for lower quality health insurance. What's the point in having principles if you're just going to abandon them when it really counts?

Hi Robert, I just do not think that he is a 'cheap shot' kind of guy. I wish him well with his efforts. I agree, but he kinda did take a cheap shot if you watch the video - but it's Real Time with BM, so I'll give him a pass. There's just something about the guy that I like. I think it was when he opposed O'Rourke about taxing Churches.

In the series "The Good Place" Michael Schur goes after several aspects of society - including Northwest liberals. They run heaven and can't get anything meaningful done cause they are so respectful and accommodating of everyone. At one point the characters are trying to fix a broken system that sends everyone to hell. One character, Chidi, proposes a change that gives people more of a chance at heaven. The head demon from hell, of course, is not happy. ================== Demon: How about this instead? Everyone who dies go to the Bad Place and I get to torture all of you. NW liberals: Sounds good to us! Chidi: No, dummies. That's already how it works, except we're also tortured. Demon: Look, I put forward a proposal. Are you not even going to negotiate? NW liberals: He's got a point. The fair thing for us to do is just keep on giving up more and more stuff we want unilaterally until the demons are finally happy. ================== Cool to see that changing just a bit. I don't know - looks like they may've already stepped forward one too many times into hell and found themselves playing the devil's game. Good luck with that. . .

I mean, don't you think we're divided enough without tempting me to quote Picasso and the musings of his love life?