We are all Slave now.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You can say that now, but that's not when and why people called him shrill. And, please find me just one example of Paul Krugman "screaming about the 2000 election" from after November 2004. Just one.

This took about 30 seconds. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/o...last-fall.html

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I don't see any progressives here. Nobody here wants to compel people to do anything except maybe pay more in taxes.

They generally just want people to be tolerant of others. I'd say this place is full of liberals.

Progressives think they know how society ought to be arranged. They'll take care of your health care, they'll tell you what you can and can't say, they'll enforce fairness, and if you're unwilling* to care for yourself, they've got an administrative architecture of programs and incentives that will nanny you properly. (And if you're willing to care for yourself in a way they don't like, they'll fix that.)

Progressives know we're not wise enough to manage ourselves alone. But don't worry. They're benevolent. Handicappers General, "nudging" us in the right direction.

______
* Not "unable." Unwilling.

You should talk to the progressives you know to figure out what they think - there are many of us here, I count myself one - and rely less on Fox news characterizations of us.

You sound like a 14 year old white boy who has never left his suburb but just discovered Ayn Rand for the first time.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Maybe he means I keep suggesting he find a different cocktail party set?

He really does need to get out more.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Marco Rubio describes Sebby's swing voters, the one who are actually conservatives:

Many Republicans won’t criticize Trump even when they don’t agree with him b/c it means siding with a media that nevers cuts him a break,turns even little things he does into an act of evil,are also unfair to them & in the end will still attack you anyway

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This took about 30 seconds. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/19/o...last-fall.html

OK, nicely done. I admit that Paul Krugman wrote a column in 2005 in which he referred to the 2000 election.

Did you read what I linked to? Do you see that your recollection of when and why he was called "shrill" was off?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Are you kidding me? Maxine Waters' defenders and detractors have been filling up the news feed (she's not progressive, but her fans sure seem to be). The unseating of a moderate D in NY by a progressive is everywhere.

Quite literally, any given day, half of Twitter will be progressives battling with Trump, and the endless litany of stories about these exchanges.

Sebby, none of what you say in this post has anything to do with what you were just saying, that the ideas that you think of as "progressive"* are "eating all of the media coverage". Maxine Waters said something that no one would have noticed if the White House hadn't highlighted it to play the victim. Moreover, what she actually said** doesn't have anything to do with what you call progressive. And today you have horse race coverage about the Democratic primary in NY because a high-ranking D congressman unexpectedly lost, but I don't see any coverage focusing on what Ocasio-Cortez wants to do.

This loopy idea that progressives who want to run your life are on the march -- it says a lot more about you.


* "Progressives think they know how society ought to be arranged. They'll take care of your health care, they'll tell you what you can and can't say, they'll enforce fairness, and if you're unwilling* to care for yourself, they've got an administrative architecture of programs and incentives that will nanny you properly. (And if you're willing to care for yourself in a way they don't like, they'll fix that.)"

** ""Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere. We've got to get the children connected to their parents," Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building, according to video of the event.

"We don't know what damage has been done to these children. All that we know is they're in cages. They're in prisons. They're in jails. I don't care what they call it, that's where they are and Mr. President, we will see you every day, every hour of the day, everywhere that we are to let you know you cannot get away with this," she added."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Let's talk about all the Freedom Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore is going to give Sebby!!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Let's talk about all the Freedom Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore is going to give Sebby!!

While Sebby frets about progressives who want to run his life, Trump is going to appoint a justice who would overturn Roe.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, nicely done. I admit that Paul Krugman wrote a column in 2005 in which he referred to the 2000 election.

Did you read what I linked to? Do you see that your recollection of when and why he was called "shrill" was off?

I did, and I understand it. It differs from my definition.

You can vote Trump out. You can impeach him out. You can’t scream him out.

You can speak truth to power. But it rarely goes anywhere. Repeating yourself and becoming more and more incensed doesn’t work. It’s cathartic at best, and when it becomes extreme and repetitive, it’s shrill.

If you think shrill commentary gets out voters, then the ends here justify the means. But on it’s own, it’s just bleating.

I can’t find the quote, but Buckley once warned about wielding too hot a pen, as it desensitized even readers who agreed with you. Through history, shrill has rarely won. Except in 2016. Trump is the definition of shrill. Perhaps fighting fire with fire works. But I suspect a boots on the ground voter turnout is much better effort. And turning up the shrillness more is counterproductive, as it could depress turnout and enhance opposition turnout.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

While Sebby frets about progressives who want to run his life, Trump is going to appoint a justice who would overturn Roe.

We’d have a real civil war. It’d be the end of the GOP forever.

Not even Trump does something that insane.

I think it’s best to do a grand bargain. Agree to drop Mueller probe in exchange for a moderate justice.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I can’t find the quote, but Buckley once warned about wielding too hot a pen, as it desensitized even readers who agreed with you. Through history, shrill has rarely won. Except in 2016. Trump is the definition of shrill. Perhaps fighting fire with fire works. But I suspect a boots on the ground voter turnout is much better effort. And turning up the shrillness more is counterproductive, as it could depress turnout and enhance opposition turnout.

Buckley never did need to worry about a hot pen.

Did you ever wonder how anyone got to be so stiff while lacking a spine?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Buckley never did need to worry about a hot pen.

Did you ever wonder how anyone got to be so stiff while lacking a spine?

I assumed Churchillian alcohol consumption and a very rich diet.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I think it’s best to do a grand bargain. Agree to drop Mueller probe in exchange for a moderate justice.

You don't understand who has the chips at the moment.

I think the likely proposal that will make it to Trump is "McConnell gets the Justice he wants, and he kills the Mueller investigation."

Kennedy had surrendered his swing vote role for the most part in the last few sessions, but he was still pivotal to both Roe and Obergefell. They are both on the chopping block.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Where I diverge is in regard to the progressive notions that we have to counter bad old rules with bad new rules.

This is what everything you wrote (and a lot of it is just garbage) boils down to, and it's the crux of the problem with your false equivalency. (I'm not going to touch the race stuff because it's annoying and frustrating to talk about that stuff with you. You're gonna see what you want to see and that's that.)

You can "diverge" all you want. The problem with you is that you are equating institutional power (legislative, executive, and judicial, not to mention educational, economic, prosecutorial, law enforcement, etc.) which is actually shaping the laws and every single de jure application of that power [the right wing] with opinion, collective pressure, shaming, protest [the left wing]. You weep about how a couple of powerful people are being overly harmed after centuries of the powerful taking what they want from the less powerful. The minute that dynamic shifts an ounce and you're talking about how we no longer have a First Amendment or Due Process. You should be embarrassed to make those arguments.

The two sides I laid out are not fucking equivalent no matter how much you say progressives are trying to "change the law." It's ridiculous and stupid.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I assumed Churchillian alcohol consumption and a very rich diet.

In my experience, he had no taste in wine, drinking mostly cheap sherry, and went for the New England Boiled Dinner whenever available. He could not carry a conversation on food, though he could tell you who his neighbors' second cousin was, what schools he or she attended, and from whom he or she inherited. The man was basically out of a Jane Austen novel.