The issue is that fighting back increasingly appears to be "adopt the same battleground", which is a shit tactic. There's no point in defending a country with no principles
I would argue that a wholly different tactic is in order- one that doesnt see Republicans frequently fall back on idpol to "fight back" against idpol

@Beemann This I agree with. Practicality has its place (as it does in most thing), but there is a "spirit" of sorts that the RNC needs to cultivate.

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.

you dont win against idpol by adopting idpol. Its power is derived from orthodoxy

The founding fathers did some nasty things during the revolution.

"Pragmatism" rings hollow

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

if you don't like war

And yet, isn't history taught with a lens of idealism over the truths inherent within it? Every country does that, especially during primary school years. Consider the American Revolution and how its taught in both the USA and GB.

remember when comparing politics to war games was hyperbolic and silly?

Yep. Brave new world.

I mean like 1h-ish ago

Yep.

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.

Human beings are never 100% rational, even at the best of times. And especially in groups. So why is it that people think that a nation's worth of people will be influenced by truth as opposed to a spirit of idealism?

Sorry, we need the respect of the "absurdly degenerate"?

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.

@TheDogOfSinope They will not respect you for doing this. At all.

Respect implies mutual agreement concerning whatever. About the only thing that the DNC agrees with the RNC is that Americans need to pick a side.

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.

It didn't used to be that way either. There was more of a blending between the two parties.

you criticized comparison between political discussion and nuclear weapons on the basis of scale. Apparently you set the terms fo what scale is hyperbolic

Back to the original argument, gents?

that's not a character attack, that's pointing out that the parameters under which you are operating are less than honest

the notion as well, that this wont hit the republicans, when the solution seems to be to adopt the same tactics in kind frankly doesnt make sense

the idea that "we defeat an idea by giving it more legitimacy" is illogical, not pragmatic

and that's all adopting idpol does

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.

I'm down

My points?

cowardice will sure win the political "war"*
*not a nuclear war, that's hyperbolic lol

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.

But somewhere along the line, something had to have occurred to warrant such a radical shift in perspective. Because they were originally two POVs looking at the same problem, not teams.

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.

DNC used to be the party of Southern slave holders and non integrationists.

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.