Obama vs. Activists

[PyramidHead]

The capitalist class understand that they are arrayed against the working class, and act in every instance to cement their advantage in that conflict, even when they are forced to make concessions. If you are unwilling to come to the same conclusion, and to treat the conflict as such, then your calls for civility and compromise are no less than capitulations, no less foolhardy than starting the haggling process on a used car with an offer 25% higher than the car's value.

The salesperson knows the relationship between you is adversarial, and will use every means available to come out on top. This includes things that seem to be beneficial to consumers but are actually just enticements to buy in one place rather than another. In the end, if you take everything a salesperson says at face value and strive to compromise rather than challenge whatever is put forward, you will always give free money to the dealership. Always.

In this analogy, our system of government is a car dealership whose prices are so high and so entrenched, no amount of negotiation will bring them to acceptable levels. But the only way to initiate the process of changing that system is, at least initially, through negotiation. If you show up with a smile and a handshake and try to find common ground with the salesperson, you will once again be screwed even if you manage to get free wiper blades. If you show up with four million people and a list of demands, there's a chance to actually fix the root of the problem.

 

[Politesse]

Compromise, Compromise, Compromise. How come no one ever suggests that Bonespurs or the right compromise?

Because everyone knows that they don't.

 

[laughing dog]

(Democrats' losing some 1000 seats during the Obama years... out of a total of 8000 seats...)

And why did these fellow Democrats fail to get re-elected?

Here is what seems like a good reason:

Compromise is when you abandon your grassroots coalition entirely, squander two years of government supermajority control by trying to satisfy Mitch McConnell, and drop tens of thousands of bombs on sovereign countries, then berate the next generation of voters for being too lefty on Twitter. It truly is an art.

It is delusional to think that Obama is solely to blame for their failure. It is even more delusional to think the USA is ready even more progressive solutions.

Like it or not, in the real world, politics is the art of compromise.

 

[PyramidHead]

(Democrats' losing some 1000 seats during the Obama years... out of a total of 8000 seats...)

Here is what seems like a good reason:

It is delusional to think that Obama is solely to blame for their failure. It is even more delusional to think the USA is ready even more progressive solutions.

Like it or not, in the real world, politics is the art of compromise.

When did vapid apologetics for war criminals become the go-to tactic for The Resistance?

 

[laughing dog]

(Democrats' losing some 1000 seats during the Obama years... out of a total of 8000 seats...)

Here is what seems like a good reason:

It is delusional to think that Obama is solely to blame for their failure. It is even more delusional to think the USA is ready even more progressive solutions.

Like it or not, in the real world, politics is the art of compromise.

When did vapid apologetics for war criminals become the go-to tactic for The Resistance?

About the same time puerile ignorance became the go-to tactic for leftists.

 

[lpetrich]

When I saw Obama slam “certain left-leaning twitter feeds” I guessed very quickly who he might have in mind. There is only one other person here who seems to have done so.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Compromise, Compromise, Compromise. How come no one ever suggests that Bonespurs or the right compromise?

The issue whether the progressives should compromise with the moderates. It's the very fact that His Flatulence won't compromise that means the Democrats should be able to pick up the White House. If the progressives are going to be as pigheaded as His Flatulence we might end up with His Flatulence having another 4 years to subvert democracy.

 

[Harry Bosch]

(Democrats' losing some 1000 seats during the Obama years... out of a total of 8000 seats...)

Here is what seems like a good reason:

Well, I still think that the moderates in the democratic party should find a way to compromise with the left in order to come together and beat Trump. We need to compromise some.

I agree, but it's mostly the more progressive branch of the Democratic Party that doesn't want to compromise. They seem to forget that the majority of those who won in the midterms, flipped Republican seats. They didn't do that by being extremely progressive. They did it by being reasonable, but their constituents may not support them in 2020 if they go too far left. For some strange reason, some people who live in a very progressive bubble don't seem to understand that they don't own the country, and in fact, many of their views aren't mainstream.

Plus, every president must compromise. They can promise any crazy thing they want but in the end, none of them get most of what they want. In contemporary America, they are fortunately if they can pass one big thing.

Totally agree! My post above was an attempt to be ironic! Yea, I'm for a larger tent. I think that it will take a very large tent to beat Trump. But for some reason, some on far left want to limit the field. They are threatened by moderates. I don't understand it. I like their passion. However, we can't allow another four years of Trump just so that the left can have a moral victory.

 

[Politesse]

We must beat Trump.

We must best him by doing exactly as he did: seeking the middle ground, and avoiding any radical or surprising statements. The swing states just hate ambitious plans with no clear explanation as to how they might be accomplished. Or when politicians say mean things about each other. That really puts the purple states off. That's why they voted for that nice old man in 2016. For his moderation. His spirit of compromise and conversation, mending bridges to get things done. Truly a man for "both sides".

"Like an adult", he is often described. And only another mild-mannered uncontroversial policy wonk can beat him. If only Hillary had been even less specific and less radical and more willing to "tolerate" conservative policy ideas, she'd have had him! If she'd just made a few more concessions to the fucking Nazis, she could be president today.

 

[Harry Bosch]

We must beat Trump.

We must best him by doing exactly as he did: seeking the middle ground, and avoiding any radical or surprising statements. The swing states just hate ambitious plans with no clear explanation as to how they might be accomplished. Or when politicians say mean things about each other. That really puts the purple states off. That's why they voted for that nice old man in 2016. For his moderation. His spirit of compromise and conversation, mending bridges to get things done. Truly a man for "both sides".

"Like an adult", he is often described. And only another mild-mannered uncontroversial policy wonk can beat him. If only Hillary had been even less specific and less radical and more willing to "tolerate" conservative policy ideas, she'd have had him! If she'd just made a few more concessions to the fucking Nazis, she could be president today.

So is it your opinion that the moderates in the democratic party should comprise and support the far left; but that the far left shouldn't compromise with the moderates? Is that what you'd like?

 

[PyramidHead]

We must beat Trump.

We must best him by doing exactly as he did: seeking the middle ground, and avoiding any radical or surprising statements. The swing states just hate ambitious plans with no clear explanation as to how they might be accomplished. Or when politicians say mean things about each other. That really puts the purple states off. That's why they voted for that nice old man in 2016. For his moderation. His spirit of compromise and conversation, mending bridges to get things done. Truly a man for "both sides".

"Like an adult", he is often described. And only another mild-mannered uncontroversial policy wonk can beat him. If only Hillary had been even less specific and less radical and more willing to "tolerate" conservative policy ideas, she'd have had him! If she'd just made a few more concessions to the fucking Nazis, she could be president today.

So is it your opinion that the moderates in the democratic party should comprise and support the far left; but that the far left shouldn't compromise with the moderates? Is that what you'd like?

That would be nice for once.

 

[Elixir]

That would be nice for once.

So would being able to fly, but the airlines would hate it.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[Politesse]

We must beat Trump.

We must best him by doing exactly as he did: seeking the middle ground, and avoiding any radical or surprising statements. The swing states just hate ambitious plans with no clear explanation as to how they might be accomplished. Or when politicians say mean things about each other. That really puts the purple states off. That's why they voted for that nice old man in 2016. For his moderation. His spirit of compromise and conversation, mending bridges to get things done. Truly a man for "both sides".

"Like an adult", he is often described. And only another mild-mannered uncontroversial policy wonk can beat him. If only Hillary had been even less specific and less radical and more willing to "tolerate" conservative policy ideas, she'd have had him! If she'd just made a few more concessions to the fucking Nazis, she could be president today.

So is it your opinion that the moderates in the democratic party should comprise and support the far left; but that the far left shouldn't compromise with the moderates? Is that what you'd like?

Depends what we're talking about, a bit. There are of course occasions when compromise is necesssry, but basing your campaign on the promise of being a spineless milquetoast is not the electoral college panacea "moderates" seem to think it is, against the evidence of most historical presidential elections and their outcomes.

 

[Harry Bosch]

View attachment 24941

It's so cute that your side is against compromising. So that really means that you don't care about other people's opinions. And yet you want to save the people from the "corporate overlords meanies". You are against what you describe as dictatorship. However, you would replace our system with your dictatorship!

 

[PyramidHead]

It's so cute that your side is against compromising. So that really means that you don't care about other people's opinions. And yet you want to save the people from the "corporate overlords meanies". You are against what you describe as dictatorship. However, you would replace our system with your dictatorship!

I don't describe it as dictatorship, and I don't mean the same thing by that word as you. But you're correct, I don't care about other people's opinions when they go against the interests of the working class.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It's so cute that your side is against compromising. So that really means that you don't care about other people's opinions. And yet you want to save the people from the "corporate overlords meanies". You are against what you describe as dictatorship. However, you would replace our system with your dictatorship!

I don't describe it as dictatorship, and I don't mean the same thing by that word as you. But you're correct, I don't care about other people's opinions when they go against the interests of the working class.

So you are the sole arbitrator and decision maker for the interests of the working class? Are you open to the idea that perhaps not all "working class" people will agree with you and want to cede this much power to you? (I don't mean to make it personal. Maybe I should use the people you represent rather than "you")

 

[PyramidHead]

It's so cute that your side is against compromising. So that really means that you don't care about other people's opinions. And yet you want to save the people from the "corporate overlords meanies". You are against what you describe as dictatorship. However, you would replace our system with your dictatorship!

I don't describe it as dictatorship, and I don't mean the same thing by that word as you. But you're correct, I don't care about other people's opinions when they go against the interests of the working class.

So you are the sole arbitrator and decision maker for the interests of the working class? Are you open to the idea that perhaps not all "working class" people will agree with you and want to cede this much power to you?

I'm not running for office, so I don't want any power over anybody. And I'm not the sole arbitrator, I'm just one person with a perspective, trying to convince others of its merits. I'm not different from anybody else with another perspective doing the same thing. What I am different from is someone like you, with no perspective other than take whatever perspective the most people will find agreeable. I actually have a point of view for reasons independent of how well it polls and how many others agree with it. This is not abnormal; people who feel strongly about immigration, abortion, gay marriage, or gun control sometimes display the same quirk. And they have no reason to accommodate the opinions of racists, pro-lifers, homophobes, or libertarians in selecting the candidate who best represents their interests. And they can do so without being accused of wanting to rule over everyone else.

 

[Elixir]

We must beat Trump.

We must best him by doing exactly as he did: seeking the middle ground, and avoiding any radical or surprising statements. The swing states just hate ambitious plans with no clear explanation as to how they might be accomplished. Or when politicians say mean things about each other. That really puts the purple states off. That's why they voted for that nice old man in 2016. For his moderation. His spirit of compromise and conversation, mending bridges to get things done. Truly a man for "both sides".

"Like an adult", he is often described. And only another mild-mannered uncontroversial policy wonk can beat him. If only Hillary had been even less specific and less radical and more willing to "tolerate" conservative policy ideas, she'd have had him! If she'd just made a few more concessions to the fucking Nazis, she could be president today.

So is it your opinion that the moderates in the democratic party should comprise and support the far left; but that the far left shouldn't compromise with the moderates? Is that what you'd like?

The calculation for most Dems is "how far left can we go without losing again".
I fear false confidence coming from these impeachment proceedings - most trumpsuckers don't even know they're going on.

 

[Patooka]

It's so cute that your side is against compromising.

Pretty certain no one here is a Mitch McConnell supporter or Tea Party advocate so what are you talking about?