!agree

!agree

Well, anyone can send me messages so this bot is probably malfunctioning and should be considered a danger to all humanity. *gets water buckets and magnets ready*

The problem thus far has been that the republicans and democrats have been playing the game very differently for some time... and there has been a misunderstanding especially amongst republicans that this is the case.

What we saw with this USSC nom was another reminder that they don't play the same way and that the republicans are frequently surprised by it.

This endless Alinskism is just another aspect of it.

They're going to use whatever advantage they have in the media or any other institution they have some control over. They're going to say anything. They're going to try and stir up racial, gender, religious, and ethic hatred against anyone that stands against them and then conflate that with obtaining their own power and conflate all issues with their ideology.

It will not stop until the Republicans stop acting like "reactionaries" which is to say, dealing with every issue in isolation as if there is no precedence for it. Every time one of these things happens, the republicans act surprised. Various political allies of the republicans are engaging in little defensive moves against DNC aggression and there is very little coordination between the Republicans. They frequently fight alone. And whilst that is happening, the DNC is coordinated, their groups all work together, they have a plan, they attack... they often lose but you can't win if you only defend. You can win if you attack. And if the GOP always sits on the defensive, then losing is unavoidable.

This is why the Democrats hated Reagan and Trump so much. Whatever you think of their differences, they share one thing in common. They attack their political opposition directly at their ideological base. They go after strategic goals.

They try to win. That is why these men are hated. Because they try to win. Once the opposition to the Democrats TRIES to win... plays strategically... coordinates... plots to bait their rivals as their rivals plot to bait them....

Only then will the DNC behave themselves a bit more. Because nothing gets a rival to respect you like the knowledge that they can defend themselves. Right now, the RNC looks weak to the DNC. It doesn't defend itself effectively and it doesn't play strategically. It just reacts most of the time. You can't win if you're just reactive.

@oprahsminge That's War Games and nuclear weapons.

Not applicable to politics in a republic.

well, doing these things doesn't flatten cities or cause the extinction of species...

One is not sustainable and the other is

so, I would respectfully argue that they are not the same.

Your position is in my opinion fatally hyperbolic.

Please make a less extreme analogy that more crediably fits this argument.

I personally can't take the argument seriously in this form.

I could respond with something equally hyperbolic in the other direction that you also wouldn't accept?

I offered a reason why the position was not credible.

That reason was not rebutted.

Well, the price of not being effective is losing.

If you're willing to pay that price then... basically concede your end of the game and accept your loss. Those that wish to keep playing can do so on whatever terms they choose. But your part in the game is done if you choose to lose.

The high road option lead to 60ish years of DNC domination, the largely uncontended loss of most of our core civic institutions, and a network of controlled information that has basically created this situation.

We tried your concept... it empirically failed.

*uncontested

Idealism is fine when tempered with pragmatism. It is a hazard otherwise.

That is my answer.

If you are in competition with someone for anything... Love, Business, War, Ideas... you can't merely be idealistic about it.

Their weapon is more like a poison if you want to use analogies than it is a nuclear weapon.

It is most effective when used sparingly... it loses power the more frequently they use it. Resistance to the toxin happens.

As I said above, I did not like your analogy.

I don't like it because it doesn't describe the subject.

It is contextually unsupportable. Nuclear weapons don't lose effectiveness the more you use them. They also annhilate everything leaving nothing.

A smear campaign relies upon belief which is not as reliable as the physical laws which govern a fission bomb.

A better analogy is one that describes the strengths and weaknesses of the subject you're analogizing... in this case a smear campaign.

My objection is not pedantry.

Given that your analogy suggested a judgment and informed the rest of your argument, by removing that analogy... we leave your argument without a foundation.

I suggested a poison or toxin for which a biological resistance can be built up.

Again, the more frequently they use it, the less well it works.

nuclear weapons don't work that way.

The analogy doesn't work because if they do it... I build up a resistance. I don't build up a resistance to nuking.

No, you're the one making hyperbolic argument suggesting that using effective political tactics = nuclear MAD annhilation.

All respect, Beemann, if you don't play... you concede in politics.

As to mutual destruction, that actually will do more to increase scrutny which will profit the republicans more.

The listen and believe stuff is a serious problem. Cynicism at least gets people to check and not be so gullible.

You came to the debate section of an internet discord server.

and now you're virtue signaling on how you're above discussion.

@Beemann Wait a minute, I didn't make bad faith arguments.

that is not accurate.

I'd like to also point out, that Beeman has strated to ad hominem me.

Attacking me instead of my argument.

Ironic really

No, you attacked my character.

Please go over the problem with my argument with quotes in this discussion.

Oprapsminge, you immediately analogized the discussion to the movie War Games with MAD. You haven't a leg to stand on. I explained it in detail.

@Beemann He accepted the point... Do you want me to cite the bit where he accepted the nuclear weapons analogy as his own?

Sure

Then I'll just pretend to go along with your argument and that won't matter either.

Any rule you make will be applied to you. If that isn't acceptable, choose your tactics more carefully.

You strawmanned me, beemann.

You made a character attack.

First foul was yours.

But attacking a person instead of the argument is an ad hom

Sure... beemann, you know what you did. I'm not convinced. If you have anything to contribute to a discussion then have a discussion. I'm not interested in your sidewise insults.

@oprahsminge Have a nice day.

I had that long post above

I'd restate it but that might be considered spamming. 😃

Well, that was an element, but a bigger part of it is that the DNC does what they do because they feel invulnerable in those tactics. They don't see negative consequences because they don't get punished for bad behavior.

What is more, I had a big bit in there about coordinated and strategic thinking. Where instead of everyone fighting individually against the latest thing people are helping allies out and some people at least are seeing the grand picture so they can make longer term moves.

they don't respect the RNC because the RNC generally plays defensively, doesn't punish the DNC, doesn't think strategically, and doesn't coordinate well.

There was a reason that post was long. I said many things.

I stated in that long post that the Republicans are out of touch with the way their opposition plays the game.

The DNC is involved in a lot of dirty tricks. That whole bird dogging thing at campaign rallies during the primaries and election is a perfect example.

We will see, Farscryer... this problem is about 90 years old. That is roughly how long the RNC has been out of touch on this issue. The argument by some in the RNC has been made every generation... and yet here we are.

They were out of touch at least since FDR.

the RNC lost their old northern territory which was their base for a reason. They got out manuvered all over the place.

We'll see. I remain skeptical on the power of the internet to cure cancer, baldness, skin rashes, and your marriage. 😛

Beemann, Ideally I agree... but in conflicts, ideals often take a back seat to pragmaticism. As much as that might gall some... it is writ into the history of every every major conflict.

The founding fathers did some nasty things during the revolution.

the war between the union and the confederacy had neither side pulling punches at the end.

if you don't like war

Look, brass tacks... if the DNC doesn't respect your ability to defend yourself, they have no reason to not attack constantly and be as absurdly degenerate about it as possible. To make them behave themselves, they have to respect your ability to return the favor.

And in that is respect born.

beeman, you're strawmanning me. I didn't say war metaphors were wrong. I criticized nuclear weapons metaphors.

Now, I thought we were past this? Do you really want to drag the discussion back to your really very rude character attacks? Because I'm really tired of it.

I was willing to let bygones be bygone. I'm not even asking for an apology even though you owe me two now... I'm simply asking you to stop. IF that's too much to ask then I'm going to assume you're just a troll.

Just stop with the character attacks. That's all I'm asking.

Okay, Beemann is going to be ignored by me until I get two apologies from him then. I gave him the opportunity to defuse the situation and simply stop. But he deliberately pulled the discussion back to a point of bickering for no reason. So I'm not talking to you anymore until you PM me an apology.

You and I are done.

@Farscryer happy enough to continue the discussion with you if you want.

As regards mutual agreements, that isn't why a bankrobber respects the police. There's no mutual agreement. It isn't why the wolf respects the bear.

the DNC does what they do because they see no risk. You create that risk and that gives predators pause.

What they're doing is in direct contradiction of agreed ethics.

They don't hold their oaths because they see no reprisal for violating their oaths.

They lost. That was their problem. Look back into time and see the democrats 100 years ago when this stuff started. They were a lot weaker and were not in a position that would lead to their party doing well into the future. They shifted their ideology and tactics at that time.

these tactics gave them the political territory of their RNC rivals... the american industrial north... it gave them the cities... it gave them the media... it gave them academia...

They held the US congress for 60 years just about straight.

You can't argue with the effectiveness.

You ask why they do this... this is why they do it. They lost, changed their perspective, and have been doing well for a long time using these tactics.

They won't stop until it stops working.

I understand this "the internet will make lying not work anymore" argument... I just don't believe it can over come the concept of deceit itself. I have a lot of respect for the internet's healing powers... but its not THAT powerful.

Idealism is geat... I'm not saying having them is bad. But see things from the perspective of the father and grand father... you're trying to protect those you love from the harsh insanity of the world. Would you sacrifice your children for an ideal? Or would you do the bad thing, save your family, and then teach your children as best as possible to be good people?

Pragmaticism tempers idealism. You need both. I'm not arguing for pragmaticism without idealism. I'm saying the one is temperered by the other.

the line between the ideologies is controversial... every subset of either faction is likely to have their own perspective on it.

My own, for what that is worth, is that it a conflict between quasi religious marxism on the left vs everything that opposes it... which is all relegated to the "right" even though there is much less in common between the non-left groups as they're a grab bag of not-marxism.

Many people don't like the "m" word getting dropped... But if the "m" word isn't their core then why is the extreme left always marxist? It is logically pretty hard to get around that.

And that is a pretty uniform bunch really. Looking at the extreme "right" you find a zillion very different moral and ideological positions.

That said, I don't like the left/right dichotomy... I don't think it is productive. But it is hard to discuss political tribalism without talking about that because everyone is so familiar with that paradigm.

My two cents.

It is money and control over institutions as well... if you control the schools you can indoctrinate the children... if you control the welfare then you can get poor people to roll over and do tricks like pets... it is really pretty gross.

It took a long time for it to get this bad.

Generations of losing is what led a tiny ideological minority to take over. And it happened because we let them in. We didn't respond to their games. We took the high road... for about a hundred years. And this is what it has gotten us.

I'm tired of losing. I want to give a better world to the next generation than the one given to me.

We either have to start winning or accept ultimate assimilation by the what I believe is brave new worldish religious marxism.

So long as you can win... I'm fine with whatever you're doing. If you're losing and happy to lose then I'm not interested in a suicide pact.

@Undead Mockingbird "I wonder if new technology can claw back some government control." We're already seeing software come on line that makes bureaucracy easier to manage for the individual. A lot of government power relies on governments intimidating people with their opaque procedure. Traditionally this required experts... often specialized lawyers to be able to interface with these institutions in a productive manner. This makes doing so expensive for anyone that doesn't just have a legal team on retainer or hasn't contracted a company that does.

However, technology can through a series of multiple choice questions navigate your situation and determine the solution.

You already see this with tax programs, similar software exists for parking ticket appeals. There isn't any reason for software that does this to address every government bureaucracy. You key in your situation, and the system fills 50 different forms in triplicate and then emails/faxes/mails them at the relevant departments.

hello