PseudoSABR
-
Posts
6,120 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis
Minnesota Twins Videos
2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings
2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors
Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources
2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
The Minnesota Twins Players Project
2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses
Forums
Blogs
Events
Store
Downloads
Gallery
Everything posted by PseudoSABR
-
And I think ashbury's post took the phrase out of context. But carry on.
-
https://twitter.com/TopherSpiro/status/1012722860941602816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1012722860941602816&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.balloon-juice.com%2F
-
No, the civility narrative is the crux. You're ignoring that and focusing on semantics.
-
Craig used the term "freedom fighter," not me; there may be some connotation of the use of the phrase that I am unaware (i guess there is given your push back, and ashbury's response that I couldn't tell was sarcastic or not), but given the context of the discussion, I'm pretty sure Craigh wasn't referring to ANTIFA, but rather pushing back against the civility narrative. I'll be sure to define my terms prior to any posts, as not to give you strawmen to knock down (though, really, you hardly need my help in that endeavor).
-
Just stop this. You keep construing things I'm saying as somehow emblematic of people on the left. You've always had a perverse interest in discrediting the left, but there's just no need for it to appear in so many posts, and in such a personal manner. Quit gaslighting me (i.e. quit saying "I've always suspected the likes of you were crazy, but if you really believe this thing, I guess you really are crazy.").
-
Is this sarcasm? There are vigilantes on the right, who might also term themselves freedom fighters....yet Dems don't gain any traction with middle america by calling out such vigilantes. There's a difference to being empathetic to the needs of middle america/rural whites, and coddling them.
-
I feel like the thread got to some positive places recently, but this really got my goard: Trump has been romancing Kennedy to retire early. If this is true, well, I don't know what to say really.
-
Finally caught the Expanse season finale; just excellent. And it could have acted as the series finale, but I'm very glad it is not.
-
Some thoughtful political analysis about why the Dems should resist dying on the hill of this SCOTUS appointment.
-
I actually think the left can make the economic and healthcare argument pretty convincingly to rural, white Americans. And I also agree, that largely, the Dems should not run on identity politics, but they shouldn't run away from it either (like Obama kind of seemed to do on gay marriage). I actually think Ocasio-Cortez's platform should have a lot of appeal to poor rural whites (with some clear exceptions, e.g. guns, immigration).
-
So much this. As hard as it is to admit, Obama, and the Democrats, have little to show for their power in Washington.
-
No one's trying to find a scapegoat, Levi. Some are advocating for using procedural tomfoolery to block the SCOTUS nominee -- your response to that has been to say: well it's your own fault, Democrats, so you should still play by the rules or something. The notion that the more left you go the more toxic your methods is a baseless accusation. Pretty sure Mike has argued that he is moderate for years. Both Bernie and people like Schumer are arguing for civility. The problem isn't the left; the problem is Clinton/Gore/Kerry trying to appeal to everyone and taking no authentic positions on policy, so they appeal to no-one. The Dems will continue to lose by appealing to the centrist. Clinton lost because of a lack of enthusiasm and risk-aversion, not because she was too far left.
-
I didn't lose anything. Again, I've hounded at the reasons why Democrats failed to motivate people to vote for them, and continue to advocate for authentic voices to lead us, and a platform that fits with that authenticity. Clinton did lose--in part--because of her Hubris. But we can't simply ignore the fact that she won the popular vote, that the Russian's meddled in the election, and that Republicans seek repress the vote of the disenfranchised every where. I'm not sure if you like the taste of liberal tears; but your penchant for identifying the root cause of Trumpism as somehow the Democrats' fault is, well, non-rational.
-
"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of goodwill is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." -Dr Martin Luther King, Jr
-
Indeed. Stonewalling is bad, but it's the new normal. It's a tactic that's been employed to derail the Democrats time and again; and if they are the only one's willing to avoid stonewalling; we end up here with more right-wing policy and right-wing elected officials. Elections do have consequences, but let's not be naive that elections are fair; and the danger exists that they can be outright rigged. Trump is autocrat, who perhaps will stop at nothing to maintain power--he'll go far beyond procedural ploys; he believes he's above the law so he won't operate within it. Again, what is sanctity of the Senate procedure worth if only the (perpetually) minority party honors it?
-
I'm fine with owning that the Democrats have been politically ineffective, and I've championed the idea that Gore/Kerry/HRC are horribly vanilla (civility) candidates. But that is not the CAUSE of the predicament we are in; it's certainly part of the narrative, but it's not the main, or even major cause. I want your opinion, but I'm not going to agree with it. And I'm not saying Woe is Democrats; I'm asking them to do whatever they can to gum up the process short of violence and illegality. Your solution sounds like trying to win rural whites back--which I think is a horrible strategy destined to fail. Trump supporters aren't rational actors--but there is a persuadable middle. Honestly, your opinion seems like a bunch of things we shouldn't be doing, and your not offering any real solutions or any strategy at all. (I see in a response to Mike that you do offer some ideas; which are fine, but not nearly enough IMO). I mean it's these same arguments that somehow suggest HRC was a horrible candidate, but also Bernie couldn't have won either. As if there's some fictional candidate that would somehow please everyone and be perfectly civil, motivate the base yet draw rural whites, etc. etc. We can hope for someone like that, but I imagine whoever the 2020 Dem nominee will be will be imperfect, and we should nonetheless rally around them because of the stakes.
-
And your path to appeasement seems totally viable! And will probably work out in favor in the long run!
-
This isn't quite correct. The Dems changed the rule for federal judges, but preserved it for supreme court justices, and they did it because---the Republicans were stonewalling Obama's nominations. I suppose the right thing would have been to let those just go unfilled for years? Bleh. I don't know why we need to source the reason we are here to some tactic the Democrats made years ago, or who their nominee was. The reason we are here is Trump, his supporters, and the near-rigged (if not totally rigged) election mechanisms that enabled them.
-
It's not just the self-pardoning; it's the rule of law. We keep thinking that elections will be fair, that turn out somehow will matter. We're literally doing nothing to stop any kind of election interference. When the blue wave doesn't happen, we'll continue to blame Democrats even if the election was stolen. And really, no one is talking about cheating, or using illegal tactics or stealing an election; I'm talking about using procedural tactics to stop Trump from nominating the next supreme court justice. There's a lot of moral hand-wringing going on about something that's totally legal, and has been used by the political party in power (among, likely, illegal tactics). Yes, there are lines we shouldn't cross, but let's not die on the sanctity of Senate procedure.
-
No, it's not the Democrats fault. Let's just stop with that. It's our fault, if we want to blame someone. We should rally around a potato if it gets Trump out of office. In the words of a recent president, let's stop giving up the good, for hope of the perfect.
-
And when SCOTUS announces that Trump can indeed pardon himself, we'll at least know we didn't escalate the procedural tactics any further. At least we'll have that.
-
/late night rant I understand the notion to protect our public institutions, our way of governance, but there may be nothing left by the time we--what stay the tide, survive Trump, gerrymandering, Russia voter rigging, and god knows what else? This is an awful situation--sure, some of the Democrats own making; but not my making, and not your making, probably (oh, those cynics, who chose not to vote...). It sucks when life present you with a zero-win game. But not playing means your very dangerous opponent wins (can you hear Trump's rally in North Dakota?). I particularly don't care how well anyone sleeps at night or with what dignity they might claim to hold onto when the stakes are this high. Yes, perhaps, we can be the righteous in the sea of ashes, but what our sense of morality leaves us is just that: ashes. What do we really mean by integrity? What is the right thing? These aren't easy questions; and our own personal reservations, perhaps, are the least important given the stakes. This isn't some game over taxes or union rights (there is that too), but this is about whether we endorse forced birth, whether we continue to allow monogamous same-sex couples to marry; and really who knows what else is at stake. Sure, there's an order here: we wait for who is announced, we try to turn a sith to the light side, and then we play hard ball. Obama's great mistake was not pressing his Garland appointment. Let's not cow to people who don't play by the rules. How naive are we? /regret post (maybe)
-
If not Austin, Tucson is pretty liberal, er non-crazy right wing; come on down. Arizona is primed to flip colors one of these days. (Though we keep saying this). In a similar vein how sweet would it be if Beto beat Cruz in Texas. So Fing sweet.
-
But the mechanism of the elections are harmed by this very conduct. The erosion of the Voting Rights act, gerrymandering etc. all implicate the capacity to win elections. Throwing the court further right for decades will greatly impact the ability of the non-right to get elected.
-
If you allow one party to shutdown the government or procedurally manipulate the normal conduct of business, but don't want your party to do the same, you may as well concede your beliefs. I agree, it's ugly; but the sanctity of the Senate as an institution is long since dead; and the high road is the path to subjugation not righteousness.
