dagblog - Comments for "Breaking: White man from Vermont dismisses claims of racism, sexism, homophobia, slams Democrats. "

Yes, I've written on voter

ocean-kat — Tue, 02 May 2017 03:49:00 +0000

In reply to I haven't been here for quite

Yes, I've written on voter ids before. I'm surprised anyone remembered. Mostly in this post I was responding to your choice of the word compromise to describe what's currently happening.

The voter id issue is all politics. There's no appreciable voter fraud but you'll never convince enough voters it doesn't exist. By accepting voter id legislation democrats might be able to defuse that issue and push to include a robust program to help people get a voter id. If republicans don't cooperate democrats might be able to turn the issue against them. They might be able to depict republicans as attempting to restrict voter rights instead of fighting voter fraud. I don't think the public that supports voter id wants to restrict voter rights of legal voters. Even if we don't have the votes to force a compromise sometimes if we play the politics well enough we can get enough public support to get republicans to compromise.

Sometimes it's possible to come up with a creative breakthrough. But I've looked at the abortion issue enough that I doubt a discussion with anti-abortion groups would be fruitful, no matter how liberal or feminist they might be on other issues. Their end goal is to ban all abortions and any compromise they might make would be like a treaty the US made with the American Indians. Only valid until they have the power to take more ground.

I haven't been here for quite

Peter Schwartz — Mon, 01 May 2017 18:00:55 +0000

In reply to compromise: a settlement of

I haven't been here for quite a while, but if you're the person who plays or played trumpet, I seem to remember your saying quite strongly that Democrats would be unable to defeat the common sense notion that one should have an ID to vote. IDs are required in many other situations, why not voting?

You weren't arguing for Voter IDs, as I'm not here. It was more that Democrats needed to recognize the common sense power of the argument and not try to defeat it head on. So maybe you were thinking about the "robust program" you mention above.

You can't demand compromise except from a position of strength. If we're just losing, then the other side has no need to compromise. The only time Obama got the Republicans to move was when he held a card they wanted.

Abortion is a much tougher issue, and I don't have any answers for you. I'd be interested in listening to those liberal, pro-life women's groups that wanted to co-sponsor the march just to see what might be possible based on their views.

Where we have policy logjams, the side that comes up with a creative breakthrough that cuts through the old lines of debate has a big electoral advantage. You steal the other side's issues, which is like stealing their ammo. On some of these issues, people are tired of slinging the same old pile of mud; a breakthrough would be a relief and thus very attractive.

What often happens is the

PeraclesPlease — Mon, 01 May 2017 06:03:29 +0000

In reply to I believe in "improvement." I

What often happens is the Republicans trick us (or we trick ourselves) into pushing the most outrageous life issue to the fore, so in 2004 they were able to rally the troops over gay marriage and in 2016 North Carolina it was transgender bathrooms. We never accept these issues as a challenge, adapting to a new worldviews - instead it's an obvious right that has to be met right now and to be against is to be a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal. So Kerry loses and Hillary loses, but we push that social agenda forward a little bit. They of course try it on abortion with faked planned parenthood videos, but the "gays are raping our young boys" or some racial freakout always get more mileage for them.

compromise: a settlement of

ocean-kat — Mon, 01 May 2017 05:32:39 +0000

In reply to I believe in "improvement." I

compromise: a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

What are the mutual concessions made, the reciprocal modification of demands that resulted in a compromise on abortion or voter id? I don't see that happening. We're not compromising. Stop pretending we are. We're losing. Battle after battle. The question is how much will we lose? Will we lose totally, stop it at some point before total loss, or begin winning again?

eta: Here's what could happen if democrats got together with republicans to reach a compromise on voter id. One possibility might be that democrats accept a voter id requirement along with a robust program that makes it easy for people to get an acceptable id. But that's not what's happening. Republicans are not just passing voter id laws they are making it increasingly difficult for minorities to get an id. They're reducing the number of DMV offices especially in minority areas. What exactly is the compromise in that? That's a loss for the democrats.

I believe in "improvement." I

Peter Schwartz — Mon, 01 May 2017 01:43:35 +0000

In reply to Breaking: White man from Vermont dismisses claims of racism, sexism, homophobia, slams Democrats.

I believe in "improvement." I believe Democrats will improve our lives on all the issues I care about...to one degree or another. So I pull the D, and that's it.

It's trickier at the primary level, but then, so much is going to change between the primary and the time someone takes office, how can anyone get THAT worked up about anything someone says in the primary?

Plus, the country is moving on many of these issues in ways that have little to do with who wins in November. The left pushed inequality as an issue into the mainstream to the point where Republicans felt they couldn't ignore it and had to adopt it to a degree, and Trump won parodying it. No Democrat won.

The identity and social justice issues are tougher to give ground on because people rightly see these issues having a direct impact on their lives at a basic level. Will I be able to get an abortion? Will I be able to vote? So, it's harder to compromise on these issues than on, say, the minimum wage.

Nonetheless, the country is compromising on these issues. Abortion is, in fact, a lot harder to get these days in many states. I'm sure some Voter ID laws will hold up.

At the woman's march post inauguration, I understand there was an interesting argument over which groups got to be sponsors. Apparently, there were some liberal, pro-life feminists groups who wanted to sponsor it, but they were rejected. I think this was a mistake; an interesting dialogue could've ensued that might have moved the issue forward and created a space in the Democratic party for a certain kind of pro life position.

As I walk around Donald World

moat — Sun, 30 Apr 2017 20:00:44 +0000

In reply to I can get as wrapped up as

As I walk around Donald World, waiting for the drugs to wear off, I see this amusement park has one unifying narrative, a single moment of inertia that precipitates the motion sickness experienced on every ride: The accumulation of Debt.

The first and most obvious meaning of this is financial. All the tax and deregulation schemes under consideration transfer the costs of today's production to the taxpayers of tomorrow.

The degradation of environmental protection transfers the cost of today's production to the next generation. Additional interest will be charged for stopping efforts underway to pay for yesterdays' costs.

The cessation from efforts to expand the sphere of equal protection of law for all citizens will make the future resumption of that work more difficult, expensive, and dangerous.

The decline of the State Department at a time when it needs to be made stronger and more effective will make the future resumption of Foreign Policy a gargantuan effort requiring years to simply return to the weak condition it is in now.

In light of the impending darkness, it behooves the Democratic Party to prepare for its inheritance. Whatever could have been the best policy to improve the Republic in 2016 is not going to be enough to address what is coming.

I've personally communicated

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 30 Apr 2017 02:53:36 +0000

In reply to the debate would go easier if

I've personally communicated with dagbloggers on both sides who questioned the rationality and ulterior motives of folks on the other side, so no I don't think everyone has acknowledged it. This conversation went fairly well. Others not so much. But we're getting better I think.

the debate would go easier if

ocean-kat — Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:15:58 +0000

In reply to Thanks for the thoughtful

the debate would go easier if we acknowledged that everyone here (and Bernie and Hillary) values both economic and social equality and if we recognized that people have genuine heartfelt reasons for leading with one or the other at this time.

Thanks for weighing in and stating the obvious but who in this thread has not acknowledged that?

This thread began when I disagreed with Hal's comment, "Some Clinton supporters...contend that Bernie's populism masks an antipathy towards racial/sexual/gender justice." To which I replied, " Perhaps some argue Sanders has some antipathy towards social justice issues. I don't believe that. I think he supports all the social issues democrats support, they just have a low priority for him." It certainly seemed to me that all subsequent comments accepted that we all value both economic and social issues. So how is it that you think this debate went hard when we've already acknowledged what you think we need to to make it go easier? You're weighing in at the end of this conversation but it doesn't appear to me that you've actually taken the time to follow the conversation.

Thanks for the thoughtful

Michael Wolraich — Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:58:00 +0000

In reply to Nicely put Michael. To some

Thanks for the thoughtful response, Obey. Hypocrisy may be too strong a word. The point is that it's rhetorically inconsistent to denounce purity while defending litmus tests or vice versa. And that such accusations distract from the real debate, which is not about idealism vs pragmatism but how to prioritize economic equality vs social equality. And yes you're right, the debate would go easier if we acknowledged that everyone here (and Bernie and Hillary) values both economic and social equality and if we recognized that people have genuine heartfelt reasons for leading with one or the other at this time. It's when we get hung up on who has ulterior motives or behaves badly or acts irrationally that the discussion breaks down.

PS Awesome cartoon. My wife will appreciate it. I'll send it to her right now, I mean, after I finish setting people straight on the internet.

Can you trust a corporation

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 29 Apr 2017 17:29:51 +0000

In reply to Nicely put Michael. To some

Can you trust a corporation to improve trust?