What are they Hiding?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,499
6,122
126
Ah moonbeam! The great purveyor of all things moral!

I'm sorry I pointed out how ridiculous your choice was (sorry, I didn't mean your choice because you obviously can't make decisions yourself because your moral superiority prevents you from thinking intellectually/eyeroll).

Meanwhile, schummer chose the path that addresses the "traditional" Democrat weakness and chose to give his members a fighting chance to, you know, win elections.

So yeah, I guess if the options are to delay the inevitable or win elections, I guess there is some debate to be had/eyeroll


Btw, morals got you trump. Morals get you Republican administrations with a 50 year history of corruption.

Fuck your morals!

Look, I know that you can only be as rational as your liberal brain defect will allow you to be and that it was likely if I mentioned your lack of moral dimension you would lose your shit, but Bro, try to calm down. You were just being silly, trying to define reactions to Schumer's decision to allow McConnell to mount him as logically inevitable and proper for the sake of the team. All I tried to do was to remind you that how you frame the question lead to your own preferred result but that your way of framing the question was logically bigoted and morally obscene. Please read the links below. They repeat much but generally each will broaden the perspective that many on the progressive side of the party have. Your view of reality, that it is a matter of either or, to win senate races by taking inevitable losses is not the only way the issue can be framed. There are another perspectives and some of them include the notion that people like you and Chuck Schumer have the moral fortitude of worms.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/17797770/chuck-schumer-trump-judicial-nominees

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/schumer-cuts-deal-with-mcconnell-to-fast-track-7-trump-judges/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chuck...on-their-leader-over-trumps-judicial-nominees

https://www.salon.com/2018/08/31/ch...-cutting-deal-with-mitch-mcconnell-on-judges/


PS: Wrote this a while back and forgot to hit POST
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,499
6,122
126
Well there's a thing, leaders are doing just that talking without action, or many are. Let's talk about how bad Trump's Tweets are. How about Kavanaugh! Oh those 100k hidden files. On second thought there's no passion just lamenting about how things can't be done. Ok I'm Joe Citizen who has seen what is going on. Trump pushes, maybe his staff or Republicans can reel him back a little. The Dems as usual are useless, they won't even try. I've heard that time and again from many IRL.

Sometimes it's better to fight and be seen. The talk of "picking your battles" seems to something which can never happen because there's no battle that can be won. Just sit back and wait for the day which may never come and then perhaps not rock the boat.

Now it's been said that these people get what they deserve, the implication being that they didn't run to support this candidate or that, but that's not how things ever worked. The party needs people more than the reverse. They will always be here but all parties can fall whether from decadence or hubris.

If a party cannot multitask and figure out how to get among the people which is needed and plan to do that while throwing whatever roadblocks in the Reps works. I have seen no real resistance on the part of too many, but I'll vote for Dems because they are the alternative. Others with fewer political sensibilities than we here may note the same old same old, and just stay home.

People are persuaded by what they see more than anything else.

Edit- words
We are not alone Hay.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,499
6,122
126
I suspect fighting on them will be noticed more than local campaign events. I just don’t see much value in them.

As Matthew Rozsa , a breaking news writer for Salon, who holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and is ABD in his PhD program in History at Lehigh University and whose work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC said in the fourth link I posted above says, "Sometimes symbolic battles are important too."

I believe that how importance gets defined in any strategic planning is based on the moral value one imputes to each position, an imputation that can't happen unless one has the moral qualities to assign a meaningful rank. With that in mind I want to salute you and woolfe as having moral values I respect.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,259
15,008
136
Who exactly do you think goes to candidate events? The base wants to see Democrats fight and the non-aligned are best swayed through events that garner media attention - ie: not campaign stops.

Republican policies related to judicial appointments are insanely unpopular. The more you can highlight that the better.

You didn't answer my question.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,259
15,008
136
Look, I know that you can only be as rational as your liberal brain defect will allow you to be and that it was likely if I mentioned your lack of moral dimension you would lose your shit, but Bro, try to calm down. You were just being silly, trying to define reactions to Schumer's decision to allow McConnell to mount him as logically inevitable and proper for the sake of the team. All I tried to do was to remind you that how you frame the question lead to your own preferred result but that your way of framing the question was logically bigoted and morally obscene. Please read the links below. They repeat much but generally each will broaden the perspective that many on the progressive side of the party have. Your view of reality, that it is a matter of either or, to win senate races by taking inevitable losses is not the only way the issue can be framed. There are another perspectives and some of them include the notion that people like you and Chuck Schumer have the moral fortitude of worms.

https://www.vox.com/2018/8/30/17797770/chuck-schumer-trump-judicial-nominees

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/schumer-cuts-deal-with-mcconnell-to-fast-track-7-trump-judges/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chuck...on-their-leader-over-trumps-judicial-nominees

https://www.salon.com/2018/08/31/ch...-cutting-deal-with-mitch-mcconnell-on-judges/


PS: Wrote this a while back and forgot to hit POST

I took the choices to their logical conclusion.

How many Democrat activists do you think there are? This election season has shown that the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic party is hit or miss. Can you give me a good reason why Democrats should be catering to something that's a hit or miss and would have the same results even if they didn't cater to the far left side of the party?

I get it, you are an emotional guy and you aren't mad that we have someone like trump in office, you are mad because you don't have someone like trump in office that represents you.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
You didn't answer my question.

He ignores the absolute necessity of politicians getting out there, pressing the flesh & getting local media coverage. It was a huge part of Trump's winning strategy. Meet the candidate! It inspires GOTV efforts & local Party activism. It makes the local news. It helps a candidate when they employ the help of the local party to be able to talk about local issues, as well.

He also ignores the effect attendees have when they disseminate pics & commentary on social media among their largely local friends.

Or just stay in Washington to fight an abstract battle you can't win for people who can't vote for you anyway.

Yeh, that'll show 'em, for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ivwshane

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,499
6,122
126
I took the choices to their logical conclusion.

How many Democrat activists do you think there are? This election season has shown that the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic party is hit or miss. Can you give me a good reason why Democrats should be catering to something that's a hit or miss and would have the same results even if they didn't cater to the far left side of the party?

I get it, you are an emotional guy and you aren't mad that we have someone like trump in office, you are mad because you don't have someone like trump in office that represents you.
You don't get to decide what conclusions are logical and which are not. My only point was to express the non-universality of your point of view, how you shoe horned your interpretation of the logic of your position by manipulating and manufacturing the data you chose to consider. And you did this because you're the emotional guy, not me. You say that Democrats should this and shouldn't that based on your own, may I say, very selective conditions, ones that do not represent a universal agreement among liberals as I think, this thread has come to reveal. I'm not mad at anything other than you trying to stick your bullshit in my ear. Look at you. I did nothing but suggest that Schumer looks to me like he made a mistake, and as you see, I am not alone in that judgement. You went out on a limb and sawed it off and now it's my fault. Take it up with those who have told you you're absolutely correct interpretation of reality is a crock of shit. I'm just watching and trying to keep an open mind. My gift, if you will, is that knowing nothing myself makes it obvious to me who thinks he knows what I know can't be known at all. You are a believer and I think you are full of shit. Sorry.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,516
756
146
You didn't answer my question.

Gorsuch wasn't near an election, and Gorsuch wasn't going to be the divisive pick. The "liberal" media didn't help either with the heaps of praising.they gave him. Kavanaugh is coming across as more toxic, which the Democrats can jump on.

In addition, I disagree that Democrats can't be energized by SC picks. Garland was characterized as a moderate, and it wasn't something that Hillary put much focus on (we weren't even sure if she would ask Obama to withdraw Garland).

I get it, you are an emotional guy and you aren't mad that we have someone like trump in office, you are mad because you don't have someone like trump in office that represents you.

How is Bernie or insert ______ progressive like Trump? Huh?

He ignores the absolute necessity of politicians getting out there, pressing the flesh & getting local media coverage. It was a huge part of Trump's winning strategy. Meet the candidate! It inspires GOTV efforts & local Party activism. It makes the local news. It helps a candidate when they employ the help of the local party to be able to talk about local issues, as well.

Clinton campaign spent twice as much as Donnie, and many praised her ground game as being much better. What did it do? Did not save her from EC loss. You can't really blame lack of presence in the states she lost, since she lost Pennsylvania where she did campaign a lot.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,259
15,008
136
You don't get to decide what conclusions are logical and which are not. My only point was to express the non-universality of your point of view, how you shoe horned your interpretation of the logic of your position by manipulating and manufacturing the data you chose to consider. And you did this because you're the emotional guy, not me. You say that Democrats should this and shouldn't that based on your own, may I say, very selective conditions, ones that do not represent a universal agreement among liberals as I think, this thread has come to reveal. I'm not mad at anything other than you trying to stick your bullshit in my ear. Look at you. I did nothing but suggest that Schumer looks to me like he made a mistake, and as you see, I am not alone in that judgement. You went out on a limb and sawed it off and now it's my fault. Take it up with those who have told you you're absolutely correct interpretation of reality is a crock of shit. I'm just watching and trying to keep an open mind. My gift, if you will, is that knowing nothing myself makes it obvious to me who thinks he knows what I know can't be known at all. You are a believer and I think you are full of shit. Sorry.

Oh really? Then by all means explain to us, exactly what moves Democrats have to stop Republicans from confirming trumps nominee.

How long shall we wait for you and others to tell us exactly what Democrats can do to stop Republicans? Because it's been asked already a while ago and everyone seems intent on ignoring the question.

If you can't do that then your illusion of choice, is exactly that, an illusion.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,259
15,008
136
Gorsuch wasn't near an election, and Gorsuch wasn't going to be the divisive pick. The "liberal" media didn't help either with the heaps of praising.they gave him. Kavanaugh is coming across as more toxic, which the Democrats can jump on.

He wasn't near an election? Of course he fucking was because Republicans made it that way. Of course the 2016 election was all about the supreme court, Republicans knew this, how the fuck did you not now this?

In addition, I disagree that Democrats can't be energized by SC picks. Garland was characterized as a moderate, and it wasn't something that Hillary put much focus on (we weren't even sure if she would ask Obama to withdraw Garland).

So your example of Democrats being energized by the possibility of the next president picking the next and possibly more supreme court picks, is pointing to an election where that was a very real and immediate thing on the table? Lol!



How is Bernie or insert ______ progressive like Trump? Huh?

I don't know, I never made such a claim. In case you missed it, my point was that moonbeam and others are complaining about Democrats, essentially, not being like Republicans where the norms and the rule of law can be ignored so long as it benefits Republicans. I'll pass on the "both sides", should be corrupt, thanks.

Clinton campaign spent twice as much as Donnie, and many praised her ground game as being much better. What did it do? Did not save her from EC loss. You can't really blame lack of presence in the states she lost, since she lost Pennsylvania where she did campaign a lot.

See my other responses in bold.

As to your last point. Yes she did campaign a lot in Pennsylvania but you can see her final month's strategy wasn't as robust as trumps. Of course that also ignores comeys ridiculous unprecedented moves during her campaign and in the last week's of her campaign.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-campaigns-numbers/story?id=43356783
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,499
6,122
126
Oh really? Then by all means explain to us, exactly what moves Democrats have to stop Republicans from confirming trumps nominee.

How long shall we wait for you and others to tell us exactly what Democrats can do to stop Republicans? Because it's been asked already a while ago and everyone seems intent on ignoring the question.

If you can't do that then your illusion of choice, is exactly that, an illusion.
This again? I'm supposed to buy into how you frame the issue when I just told you that you frame the issue to serve the conclusion(s) you which to make. It's not about stopping Republicans from confirming Trump's nominees. It's about the difference in optics between spending every resource you can muster to keep your shoulders off the mat as opposed to sticking a white flag up your ass and waving it about to announce your surrender. You don't get optics because you don't have the right moral center. You don't get the optics when you have a bespectacled political wonk addressing you as party leader from Mount Olympus in quiet measured tones reading some carefully crafted statement lacking all passion as he peeks over the rims. Give me somebody, please, who looks like he knows how to kill somebody besides a fucking Zombie with a New Your accent. Anybody but that wimp. please anybody but the National Car Rental guy who thinks he belongs at the front of the line. EEW! Just EEW!
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,221
136
Shumer had to choose between mere dilatory action on GOP judicial nominees vs time for incumbent Dem Senators to campaign. McConnell has deliberately held the Senate in session to cripple Dems' campaigns because there are a lot more incumbent Dems than Repubs this cycle. All the nominees in question (other than perhaps Kavanaugh) will inevitably be confirmed, anyway. Shumer has to pick his battles.


Sounds like prevent defence to me.
Ugh
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
32,259
15,008
136
This again? I'm supposed to buy into how you frame the issue when I just told you that you frame the issue to serve the conclusion(s) you which to make. It's not about stopping Republicans from confirming Trump's nominees. It's about the difference in optics between spending every resource you can muster to keep your shoulders off the mat as opposed to sticking a white flag up your ass and waving it about to announce your surrender. You don't get optics because you don't have the right moral center. You don't get the optics when you have a bespectacled political wonk addressing you as party leader from Mount Olympus in quiet measured tones reading some carefully crafted statement lacking all passion as he peeks over the rims. Give me somebody, please, who looks like he knows how to kill somebody besides a fucking Zombie with a New Your accent. Anybody but that wimp. please anybody but the National Car Rental guy who thinks he belongs at the front of the line. EEW! Just EEW!

Optics?! Gotch ya, so it's not about actually making America great again, its the optics about making America great again, results be damned! Its not about whether or not trickle down economics works, its about the optics of top down tax cuts being great! Its not about getting Americans better access to health care, its the optics of making that happen look like socialism/communism.

Basically, you want politicians to lie to you, you want the song and dance. You want to be wined and dined before you are screwed. You want your feels tickled before policies fuck you over.
Like I said you want your own version of trump, apparently it's because you are the left's version of a trump supporter.

Shit guy! You had a certified political killer on your side who was actually capable of the things you wanted and instead of supporting her, you talked the most shit out of everyone and supported a guy with a new York accent, who never had any political kills in his entire political career (which was, of course, his only career). But damn! He knew how to tickle your feels didn't he?!

You are your own worst enemy and you are too stupid to see it (sorry, if I'm being too real for you but the truth will set you free).

Meanwhile as you continue to complain about the white flag waving in an un winnable battle, I'm supporting the generals who are making moves to win the war.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darkswordsman17

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,516
756
146
He wasn't near an election? Of course he fucking was because Republicans made it that way. Of course the 2016 election was all about the supreme court, Republicans knew this, how the *** did you not now this?

So your example of Democrats being energized by the possibility of the next president picking the next and possibly more supreme court picks, is pointing to an election where that was a very real and immediate thing on the table? Lol!

It wasn't really a focus of her campaign like it was with Trump and his list he boasted about. Why would people be enthused about Garland who was characterized as moderate? She waffled on whether she would stick with him or not. A lot of the stuff the liberal leaning justices would do is popular, while a lot of the things the conservative justices would do are very unpopular. It's a messaging problem.

I don't know, I never made such a claim. In case you missed it, my point was that moonbeam and others are complaining about Democrats, essentially, not being like Republicans where the norms and the rule of law can be ignored so long as it benefits Republicans. I'll pass on the "both sides", should be corrupt, thanks.

If Republicans don't go by the norms and are ignoring the rule of law, I don't want feckless Democrats that will just sit idly while the country goes to shit. There needs to be a shake up. Hell, I've seen some of the liberal elite start considering adding to the SC to rein in the BS.

As to your last point. Yes she did campaign a lot in Pennsylvania but you can see her final month's strategy wasn't as robust as trumps. Of course that also ignores comeys ridiculous unprecedented moves during her campaign and in the last week's of her campaign.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trumps-campaigns-numbers/story?id=43356783

Comey's crap maybe gives her ~1% and maybe +_ in individual states. She lost Pennsylvania which shouldn't have been as close as it was. It had shit to do with the ground game.
 
Mar 11, 2004
23,099
5,578
146
Its a messaging problem but people hate the "liberal media" because insert crazy random stupid reason. Or people, somehow, expected they were going to win people over with rational messaging against the tidal wave of fuck your feelings? The problem is you're ignoring that people didn't give a shit about the message much, they just wanted someone up there shouting about shit, and blaming someone else for their problems and promising to fix them, while everyone else was stuck with the insanity of it all. The media was just like "WTF, like everything around Turmp is insane, right?" And tried to point it out. But apparently they didn't do that enough? Or they did it too much and didn't focus on the issues, but you can't even figure out what they are (and that's their fault, not yours, obviously).

You guys want them to appeal to emotion more, because somehow simply going "I want people to have health care so they don't die, I want them to have welfare so they don't starve or go homeless, I want them to be able to earn a living wage so they can provide for their kids, I want their kids to have good education, and I would like people of all races/genders/sexuality to not have to fear hate" somehow isn't emotionally appealing enough.

Hell you guys are fucking saying you explicitly want politicians that just spout whatever bullshit you want to hear to you and are mad that the Democrats don't do that, while you fucking criticize the Republicans for doing that. But damnit you have to respect the Republicans, they'll say they aren't going to fuck you over but then gloat that they're fucking you over, so they're half honest, right? Its like you can't make up your mind. You guys want Schroedinger's Donkey, where it'll slap you in the face with its donkey dick but you hate when the elephant does it, so according to you the donkey is alive and dead, but you refuse to find out because it won't open the damn box for you to look at, so you'll just sit there stewing in your ignorance while Republicans jam an elephant dick up your asses.

If they resort to ignoring the rule of law, how the fuck does that make things any better? I keep seeing some people spout this "the Democrats aren't doing enough! I don't even know what their "platform" is, I don't know what they care about" which sounds like its your fucking problem. I've said it multiple times already, look at what these parties do in office. That's the only fucking thing that actually matters, not what they say, what they fucking do. And then we get people like Hayabusa Rider saying he can't support Democrats because he doesn't know. He's bitching that they don't show initiative because he can't be fucking bothered to have any of his own. Its fucking ridiculous hypocrisy.

Or, I don't know, hey, how about you guys go fucking learn about it? Seriously, its like you haven't even fucking bothered to look at their fucking website.
https://www.democrats.org/
I bet they didn't break it down point by point with a quick synopsis of their point of view. Well fuck me, they did...
https://www.democrats.org/party-platform?source=homepage

Goddamn that was difficult. Gee I can't figure out what Democrats' platform is. The internet? Nah, that's just for russian trolling and ignorant dickhead posting on forums, why would I possibly use that to educate myself on what Democrat's platform is? Instead I'll bitch endlessly that they're not tattooing it on their dicks while they slap me in the face with it. But jokes on them, I'll just bitch any which way because I'd rather be a dumbfuck than actually take any time to support my point or know what the fuck I'm talking about. But damnit why won't everyone else fix all these problems. Not me, no of course not, someone else. Democrats, why aren't you stopping the Republicans?!? Well fuck you then Democrats, give us the Republicans. Waaaah the Republicans are fucking everything up!
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,113
925
126
Kavanaugh will be confirmed. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The rats in power get the cheese. Right now, the two major political parties should be ashamed of themselves, but there is no honor among them, so the only ones who can possibly be ashamed of them, are us. I'm way past the days of voting partisan down the ballot. Yeah, both sides! Both sides suck!
 

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,221
136
It's a prevent defense from McConnell- prevent incumbent Dems from hitting the campaign trail, that is. The rest is bullshit.

How many people have actually attended an event for their senators for the purpose of deciding on how to vote? How about attending an event for someone you plan on voting for anyway?

My guess is a tiny number, unless you are of the donor class, so it's about money not votes.

People can barely show up for primary day as it is.


What does get people to the polls is issues, specifically being pissed off about issues.

Dems are conceding ground on the PR battle. Why show up to vote for a Dem when they won't fight anyway?

Look what the news is today. They get stiff armed on Garland, get stiff armed on getting Kavenaughs documents, yet they are just going to show up to the beginnings of the confirmation hearings without a fuss.

Oh, they'll make some digs about process and decorum, and grumble, but they are getting rolled without even fighting back.

But perhaps I'll see they came by my town on the local news blurb and that will inflame my passion to but in Nov.

o_O
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,243
48,431
136
He ignores the absolute necessity of politicians getting out there, pressing the flesh & getting local media coverage. It was a huge part of Trump's winning strategy. Meet the candidate! It inspires GOTV efforts & local Party activism. It makes the local news. It helps a candidate when they employ the help of the local party to be able to talk about local issues, as well.

He also ignores the effect attendees have when they disseminate pics & commentary on social media among their largely local friends.

Or just stay in Washington to fight an abstract battle you can't win for people who can't vote for you anyway.

Yeh, that'll show 'em, for sure.

I didn’t ignore any of that, I think you are just saying that campaigning is an effective way to win elections. I’m saying it matters very little so their time is best spent on actual policy stuff.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3042867

Significant theories of democratic accountability hinge on how political campaigns affect Americans’ candidate choices. We argue that the best estimate of the effects of campaign contact and advertising on Americans’ candidates choices in general elections is zero.

Abandoning fighting and hopefully delaying judicial nominations in order to engage in useless activity. That will show em.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bitek

Bitek

Lifer
Aug 2, 2001
10,647
5,221
136
Oh look, were bickering on live Tv about process and decorum.

Ds ask to adjurn?

Will Grassly? No way.

So will they walk?
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
14,645
10,053
136
He ignores the absolute necessity of politicians getting out there, pressing the flesh & getting local media coverage. It was a huge part of Trump's winning strategy. Meet the candidate! It inspires GOTV efforts & local Party activism. It makes the local news. It helps a candidate when they employ the help of the local party to be able to talk about local issues, as well.

He also ignores the effect attendees have when they disseminate pics & commentary on social media among their largely local friends.

Or just stay in Washington to fight an abstract battle you can't win for people who can't vote for you anyway.

Yeh, that'll show 'em, for sure.
Something people are forgetting too, is that many of the at rush Democrats are from states where the majority a support Trump's judge picks. So if they are seen trying to harm every pick, it'll hurt them in November.
 

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,828
9,059
136
Oh look, the Confirmation Express just hit a speed bump. Might ease up on the throttle, but this was already going straight down hill with surety and has no chance coming off the rails. Too little, too late.

Happy at least a few Dems finally spoke up though.
 

VRAMdemon

Diamond Member
Aug 16, 2012
6,504
7,708
136
At present, Democrats can't stop the nomination. Republicans put party above all, even fake moderates like Susan Collins will say "golly gee I hope he doesn't vote to overturn Roe" and hold their nose and vote for him.

The hearings are essentially political posturing. As long as Kavanaugh doesn't screw up and say something stupid, he'll be confirmed. The Senators on both sides are just signalling to their base.