@oprahsminge That's War Games and nuclear weapons.

Not applicable to politics in a republic.

Sure seems to be applicable

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.

I only hold this opinion when one side is playing as though it IS a nuclear conflict

a proverbial one of course

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

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

That's unfortunate

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

accept or be willing to debate?

accept is a bit of a loaded term

I don't honestly expect anyone to accept my arguments

I offered a reason why the position was not credible.

That reason was not rebutted.

I think the Republicans are scared of what they could become if they start, en mass, acting proactively like the Democrats have been.

Or rather, of what the perception others will have of them if they should start acting differently.

Well, the price of not being effective is losing.

And the price for winning could very well be an arguable case for civil war.

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.

And that includes changing the rules to spite your opposition. Which is why the moderates among the population have no idea who they should be throwing their weight behind.

It's about perception at this point. Optics, not necessarily policy.

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

It did. But no one has had to deal with the twin beasts of the internet and social media, hence my point.

The big war is control of information, yes?

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

I agree. But my question?

That is my answer.

I didn't argue with you the point that you supposedly rebutted. But look fine. Let's assume we just take everything here as read and move on.

This is the state of things to my mind. Democrats are clearly willing to speak out of both sides of their mouths. First, they will make a claim of being the moral arbiters because either they supposedly don't do what they accuse their opposition of doing or they apologized for it. Second, they will accuse their opposition of virtually anything to tarnish them. While neither of those positions are exclusive to one side, they have been utilized in a way I don't really think I've seen in recent memory.

Where we get into the point of what I was saying in not nearly enough words was that the Democrats have something Republicans simply don't have. A veritable nuclear arsenal of reputational destruction that can with an almost lightspeed rapidity destroy people. Between conventional media outlets and celebrity endorsements, the democrats have managed to maintain their popular culture stranglehold that is shockingly resilient. Republicans have no large scale popular culture or celebrity endorsements. This is a consequence of not playing the game decades ago when the need was urgent to do so.

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

However, this has resulted in a strange current day dichotomy that hinges at least in part on Trump himself. Democrats consistently overreact to the situation at hand. As a result, people watch and think "That isn't actually happening. Why are they lying and/or being hyperbolic regarding this?" Brett Kavanaugh being the preeminent example of this. Worse yet, Democrats are simply proving they are a reflection of the worst qualities of Trump which aren't the reason he got elected anyway.

The fact is, you don't have to "take the high road". You can still be realistic about what the dems are doing and keep handing them the rope to hang themselves with. The democrats are flailing and being incredibly silly in a way I haven't seen before. Republicans maintaining a sense of calm, decorum, and general discipline makes them look competent while Democrats look increasingly incompetent. Call out the opposition when you can hurt them. Ignore them when you can't. There isn't another strategy here at all.

Fact: Republicans don't have cultural control. They don't have the method to be able to dish out hits the way Democrats can and do.

Pragmatism here demands that Republicans effectively make strategic decisions about when to strike the dems but at the same time have the recognition they don't have the structural popular culture outlets to do it. Strike when and where you can but be clear when you do it and make sure you're not going to screw yourself when you do 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.

ok

you don't like the analogy

anything else?