Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The Strategic Incompetence of Democrats

1111214161720

Posts

  • LynxLynx Registered User
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    When it stops working, I'll stop advocating for it. I want results, and losing because you're afraid to get dirty isn't a good result.

    Well, we've got Grayson down by 7 points (Maybe a bit skewed due to the poll) as of today, right as his controversial ad came out. And, again, I gave an example of Sink and Scott running for Governor where the one running a clean campaign is winning by the exact same margin that Grayson is losing. So, how, exactly, is it working?

    As someone who scrutinizes the person that is running, and not their party, I am extremely turned off by mudslinging, especially when people manipulate the facts. I imagine a lot of swing voters are.

    Lynx on
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    SammyF wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    I'm sorry that your idealism doesn't match up with reality, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want to or should pretend along with you. There is this big, rose-tinted lie about politics being civil in "the past", when the truth is that politics has always been this way because it fucking works. I'm tired of our side hamstringing itself and putting our issues on the backburner so that we can lose with a good conscience.

    Maybe it's easier to be an idealist when it comes to political civility if you're independent. I have voted against candidates in general elections in large part because of their attempts to lie and manipulate through their campaigns. This usually works in favor of the democrats, but you're advocating a strategy that would alienate me from the candidates you want me to vote for.

    You know what also probably helps? Not being gay.

    Or any other racial, ethnic or religious minority, for that matter. But if you're just sort of hanging out in America and aren't exactly happy with the state of the economy but would generally rather see Democrats remain in control, I can totally see how you'd like to maintain the moral high ground. If, on the other hand, you have a personal stake in what happens if the people who agitated for a national Defense of Marriage Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and filibustered a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell regain control of Congress, I think the rest of us can personally find it in ourselves to forgive you for thinking that winning dirty is better than losing clean.

    Just as an example.

    If you're willing to deliberately misrepresent your opponent to get votes, you're probably willing to misrepresent your positions for the same goal. There are types for whom power is a goal unto itself, and this type of behavior is a strong indicator. Trust is an important asset for someone asking for power, and replacing that with faith in the letter next to their name is a mistake in my opinion.

    But if you don't have any better options, well I guess you just have to hold your nose. Like you said, you already know Webster is in favor of DOMA.

    lazegamer on
    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Its not running a clean campaign that kills us, its letting the other side control the narrative. Obama ran a pretty damn clean campaign against McCain and obviously won handily. We can control the dialog without turning to their tactics.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited September 2010
    This thread is indicative of Democrat incompetence, the recent derailing is a prime example.

    Now, I'm anti-affirmative action. I'm pretty sure it cost me admission to my top two choices of college way back when, but that's beside the point. The leftists in this group, when trying to explain the Democratic reasoning for supporting AA, framed it in a completely incompetent way. How?

    1) Hey minorities, you're fucked. I bet you don't know this, but the reason you suck is that your mom's vagina put you on the wrong side of the railroad tracks. Our solution for you is to advocate loudly for reverse discrimination against individuals that might have had nothing to do with your mom's vagina.

    2) Hey white people, you have a privilege you aren't aware of, we can't quantify, and makes us sound like race-baiters when we're explaining it to you. Just shut up and accept that you are only a success because your mom's vagina made you one, and it had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with your own hard work. Trust us.

    3) Hey Independents, we are for all that is good in this world and we don't take any incorrect or difficult positions, because the other side are racist, misogynist, homophobic child rapists who only succeed because we take the high road.

    Yeah, that's convincing to the masses.

    mrdobalina on
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fortunately for us, we have a lot of excellent data as to the effectiveness of negative campaigning. It's quite effective, if soul sucking.

    Does someone have a link to one of these studies?

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. 5386-8443-8937Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    This thread is indicative of Democrat incompetence, the recent derailing is a prime example.

    Now, I'm anti-affirmative action. I'm pretty sure it cost me admission to my top two choices of college way back when, but that's beside the point. The leftists in this group, when trying to explain the Democratic reasoning for supporting AA, framed it in a completely incompetent way. How?

    1) Hey minorities, you're fucked. I bet you don't know this, but the reason you suck is that your mom's vagina put you on the wrong side of the railroad tracks. Our solution for you is to advocate loudly for reverse discrimination against individuals that might have had nothing to do with your mom's vagina.

    2) Hey white people, you have a privilege you aren't aware of, we can't quantify, and makes us sound like race-baiters when we're explaining it to you. Just shut up and accept that you are only a success because your mom's vagina made you one, and it had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with your own hard work. Trust us.

    3) Hey Independents, we are for all that is good in this world and we don't take any incorrect or difficult positions, because the other side are racist, misogynist, homophobic child rapists who only succeed because we take the high road.

    Yeah, that's convincing to the masses.

    oz_scarecrow_1.jpg This image sums up your post on many levels.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    This thread is indicative of Democrat incompetence, the recent derailing is a prime example.

    Now, I'm anti-affirmative action. I'm pretty sure it cost me admission to my top two choices of college way back when, but that's beside the point. The leftists in this group, when trying to explain the Democratic reasoning for supporting AA, framed it in a completely incompetent way. How?

    1) Hey minorities, you're fucked. I bet you don't know this, but the reason you suck is that your mom's vagina put you on the wrong side of the railroad tracks. Our solution for you is to advocate loudly for reverse discrimination against individuals that might have had nothing to do with your mom's vagina.

    2) Hey white people, you have a privilege you aren't aware of, we can't quantify, and makes us sound like race-baiters when we're explaining it to you. Just shut up and accept that you are only a success because your mom's vagina made you one, and it had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with your own hard work. Trust us.

    3) Hey Independents, we are for all that is good in this world and we don't take any incorrect or difficult positions, because the other side are racist, misogynist, homophobic child rapists who only succeed because we take the high road.

    Yeah, that's convincing to the masses.

    This post is actually a pretty good example of the what I mean about the high road. Notice that Dobalina mischaracterizes pretty much everything in this one post.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • YodaTunaYodaTuna Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Maybe not playing dirty during campaigning is a good idea as that seems to have mixed results. After all Obama won and he did little negative campaigning. However playing dirty in the actual political arena to get policy passed is what needs to be done. Democrats should have done a full court press on the media for health care. They should have been on every show that would have let them on saying that Death Panels were a blatent lie.

    They should be out there talking about how Republicans want to raise taxes on the middle class. Just keep saying that over and over again. Barely any need to say anything else. Hammer it home.

    YodaTuna on
  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    Fartacus, you're seemingly a smart dude and I think you've mentioned you work in some Democratic operation. Do you ever, like, tell your bosses these things? If so, what's their reaction?

    actually most people in places like the DNC, DSCC, DCCC, AFL-CIO, SEIU, etc, tend to believe this shit. I tend to think it's usually not very well articulated, but in these places, most of the people (especially the younger folks) get that there's a need to really go to bat and fuck people up. That is to say, campaign-oriented political groups seem to get it.

    That wasn't always true, but I think it helped a lot when Obama won and a bunch of passionate young progressives flooded DC.

    But, the main problem is the two years in between, where orgs like the DNC don't matter that much, and the actual politicians and their staffs bear the burden of the message machine. And they seem to still be filled with the same bullshit old ideas. You see it less actually in a lot of newer folks like Claire McCaskill, Franken, Grayson, etc. It's the old fucks who are the worst about it.

    Maybe this cycle will serve as a wake-up call, but who knows. The electoral apparatus of the Dems is actually in good shape, I believe. I think it's staffed by smart people who are passionate and know how to run good campaigns. The problem is with the caucus. The actual party leaders are lagging behind.

    But I'm sure it wouldn't hurt if we had a more codified, properly-articulated understanding of these things.

    Fartacus on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    This thread is indicative of Democrat incompetence, the recent derailing is a prime example.

    Now, I'm anti-affirmative action. I'm pretty sure it cost me admission to my top two choices of college way back when, but that's beside the point. The leftists in this group, when trying to explain the Democratic reasoning for supporting AA, framed it in a completely incompetent way. How?

    1) Hey minorities, you're fucked. I bet you don't know this, but the reason you suck is that your mom's vagina put you on the wrong side of the railroad tracks. Our solution for you is to advocate loudly for reverse discrimination against individuals that might have had nothing to do with your mom's vagina.

    2) Hey white people, you have a privilege you aren't aware of, we can't quantify, and makes us sound like race-baiters when we're explaining it to you. Just shut up and accept that you are only a success because your mom's vagina made you one, and it had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with your own hard work. Trust us.

    3) Hey Independents, we are for all that is good in this world and we don't take any incorrect or difficult positions, because the other side are racist, misogynist, homophobic child rapists who only succeed because we take the high road.

    Yeah, that's convincing to the masses.

    This post is actually a pretty good example of the what I mean about the high road. Notice that Dobalina mischaracterizes pretty much everything in this one post.

    No, that's what you guys sound like to someone who isn't part of your groupthink. You can blow it off as a mis-characterization if you like, but then you're just perpetuating the cycle of incompetence.

    mrdobalina on
  • JacobkoshJacobkosh Gamble a stamp. I can show you how to be a real man!Moderator mod
    edited September 2010
    This is not the AA thread.

    Jacobkosh on
  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    Lynx wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    When it stops working, I'll stop advocating for it. I want results, and losing because you're afraid to get dirty isn't a good result.

    Well, we've got Grayson down by 7 points (Maybe a bit skewed due to the poll) as of today, right as his controversial ad came out. And, again, I gave an example of Sink and Scott running for Governor where the one running a clean campaign is winning by the exact same margin that Grayson is losing. So, how, exactly, is it working?

    As someone who scrutinizes the person that is running, and not their party, I am extremely turned off by mudslinging, especially when people manipulate the facts. I imagine a lot of swing voters are.

    Eh, this isn't really debatable. Negative campaigning is highly effective.

    But I also do think you can campaign effectively without it.

    I think the problems of the Dems go a lot deeper than not going negative enough.

    edit: yes can we please stop talking about AA. I would prefer that this thread not get locked

    Fartacus on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fortunately for us, we have a lot of excellent data as to the effectiveness of negative campaigning. It's quite effective, if soul sucking.

    Does someone have a link to one of these studies?

    I can't find a link-able copy; most seem to be copyrighted by various university presses or the journals in which they were originally published. I was hoping to find a copy of "The Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-analytic Review" (Richard Lau et al, American Political Science Review, Volume 93, Number 4, December 1999). The only internet copy I found is on JSTOR.

    Here's one from a couple poli sci profs at Temple and Nortre Dame, though. I haven't actually read it, I just checked to make sure it had an annotated bibliography; anyone who wants to study the topic can use it as a jumping-off point.

    (edit: Okay so I just actually looked at the methods and the study I cited itself focuses on tone of direct voter contact. I'm looking to see if I can find one focused exclusively on negative broadcast media to replace that link. Do still check out the bibliography, though)

    SammyF on
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    Fartacus wrote: »
    Lynx wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    When it stops working, I'll stop advocating for it. I want results, and losing because you're afraid to get dirty isn't a good result.

    Well, we've got Grayson down by 7 points (Maybe a bit skewed due to the poll) as of today, right as his controversial ad came out. And, again, I gave an example of Sink and Scott running for Governor where the one running a clean campaign is winning by the exact same margin that Grayson is losing. So, how, exactly, is it working?

    As someone who scrutinizes the person that is running, and not their party, I am extremely turned off by mudslinging, especially when people manipulate the facts. I imagine a lot of swing voters are.

    Eh, this isn't really debatable. Negative campaigning is highly effective.

    But I also do think you can campaign effectively without it.

    I think the problems of the Dems go a lot deeper than not going negative enough.

    The Dems need to master quick sound bites and stop acting wonkish every time a camera shows up. Not being afraid to go down in a giant flaming wreck for saying something that just might piss people off would help as well.

    nstf on
  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    Lynx wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    When it stops working, I'll stop advocating for it. I want results, and losing because you're afraid to get dirty isn't a good result.

    Well, we've got Grayson down by 7 points (Maybe a bit skewed due to the poll) as of today, right as his controversial ad came out. And, again, I gave an example of Sink and Scott running for Governor where the one running a clean campaign is winning by the exact same margin that Grayson is losing. So, how, exactly, is it working?

    As someone who scrutinizes the person that is running, and not their party, I am extremely turned off by mudslinging, especially when people manipulate the facts. I imagine a lot of swing voters are.

    Eh, this isn't really debatable. Negative campaigning is highly effective.

    But I also do think you can campaign effectively without it.

    I think the problems of the Dems go a lot deeper than not going negative enough.

    The Dems need to master quick sound bites and stop acting wonkish every time a camera shows up. Not being afraid to go down in a giant flaming wreck for saying something that just might piss people off would help as well.

    Yes, but not just because sound-bytes are effective.

    This is sort of a symptom of the core problem -- if you try to win arguments in good faith within some else's framework, you end up doing a lot of rhetorical and analytical legwork. It takes longer, and ultimately it's not compelling.

    The reason the GOP uses soundbytes, in other words, is because they're already focusing on doing the more important work of framing debates. Framing takes a lot fewer words than arguing.

    Fartacus on
  • nstfnstf __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    Fartacus wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    Lynx wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    When it stops working, I'll stop advocating for it. I want results, and losing because you're afraid to get dirty isn't a good result.

    Well, we've got Grayson down by 7 points (Maybe a bit skewed due to the poll) as of today, right as his controversial ad came out. And, again, I gave an example of Sink and Scott running for Governor where the one running a clean campaign is winning by the exact same margin that Grayson is losing. So, how, exactly, is it working?

    As someone who scrutinizes the person that is running, and not their party, I am extremely turned off by mudslinging, especially when people manipulate the facts. I imagine a lot of swing voters are.

    Eh, this isn't really debatable. Negative campaigning is highly effective.

    But I also do think you can campaign effectively without it.

    I think the problems of the Dems go a lot deeper than not going negative enough.

    The Dems need to master quick sound bites and stop acting wonkish every time a camera shows up. Not being afraid to go down in a giant flaming wreck for saying something that just might piss people off would help as well.

    Yes, but not just because sound-bytes are effective.

    This is sort of a symptom of the core problem -- if you try to win arguments in good faith within some else's framework, you end up doing a lot of rhetorical and analytical legwork. It takes longer, and ultimately it's not compelling.

    The reason the GOP uses soundbytes, in other words, is because they're already focusing on doing the more important work of framing debates. Framing takes a lot fewer words than arguing.

    Well yes, but the dems seem to screw up everything.

    IE, they should have framed "healthcare reform" as "the initiative to save business" and gone on and on about this will create jobs, make us more competitive, toss in some shit about kicking the crap out of silly Euro's and competition.

    Because that involves making money and ass kicking, that shit sells. Talking about some poor lady that nobody knows, or cares about, losing her house because of medical bills doesn't.

    And then when every anybody complained about it, accuse them of hating business and trying to make America weak.

    Good faith isn't worth much on the talking box.

    nstf on
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fartacus wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    Lynx wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    When it stops working, I'll stop advocating for it. I want results, and losing because you're afraid to get dirty isn't a good result.

    Well, we've got Grayson down by 7 points (Maybe a bit skewed due to the poll) as of today, right as his controversial ad came out. And, again, I gave an example of Sink and Scott running for Governor where the one running a clean campaign is winning by the exact same margin that Grayson is losing. So, how, exactly, is it working?

    As someone who scrutinizes the person that is running, and not their party, I am extremely turned off by mudslinging, especially when people manipulate the facts. I imagine a lot of swing voters are.

    Eh, this isn't really debatable. Negative campaigning is highly effective.

    But I also do think you can campaign effectively without it.

    I think the problems of the Dems go a lot deeper than not going negative enough.

    The Dems need to master quick sound bites and stop acting wonkish every time a camera shows up. Not being afraid to go down in a giant flaming wreck for saying something that just might piss people off would help as well.

    Yes, but not just because sound-bytes are effective.

    This is sort of a symptom of the core problem -- if you try to win arguments in good faith within some else's framework, you end up doing a lot of rhetorical and analytical legwork. It takes longer, and ultimately it's not compelling.

    The reason the GOP uses soundbytes, in other words, is because they're already focusing on doing the more important work of framing debates. Framing takes a lot fewer words than arguing.

    Using Greyson's video as an example, "She should submit to me" requires a thousand words of background information and context to not make him sound like what Greyson makes him sound like.

    The effort required to get mud off of you is a fuck ton more difficult than getting mud onto somebody, and that's unfortunate.

    override367 on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    This thread is indicative of Democrat incompetence, the recent derailing is a prime example.

    Now, I'm anti-affirmative action. I'm pretty sure it cost me admission to my top two choices of college way back when, but that's beside the point. The leftists in this group, when trying to explain the Democratic reasoning for supporting AA, framed it in a completely incompetent way. How?

    1) Hey minorities, you're fucked. I bet you don't know this, but the reason you suck is that your mom's vagina put you on the wrong side of the railroad tracks. Our solution for you is to advocate loudly for reverse discrimination against individuals that might have had nothing to do with your mom's vagina.

    2) Hey white people, you have a privilege you aren't aware of, we can't quantify, and makes us sound like race-baiters when we're explaining it to you. Just shut up and accept that you are only a success because your mom's vagina made you one, and it had NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with your own hard work. Trust us.

    3) Hey Independents, we are for all that is good in this world and we don't take any incorrect or difficult positions, because the other side are racist, misogynist, homophobic child rapists who only succeed because we take the high road.

    Yeah, that's convincing to the masses.

    This post is actually a pretty good example of the what I mean about the high road. Notice that Dobalina mischaracterizes pretty much everything in this one post.

    No, that's what you guys sound like to someone who isn't part of your groupthink. You can blow it off as a mis-characterization if you like, but then you're just perpetuating the cycle of incompetence.

    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    SammyF wrote: »
    Fortunately for us, we have a lot of excellent data as to the effectiveness of negative campaigning. It's quite effective, if soul sucking.

    Does someone have a link to one of these studies?

    I can't find a link-able copy; most seem to be copyrighted by various university presses or the journals in which they were originally published. I was hoping to find a copy of "The Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-analytic Review" (Richard Lau et al, American Political Science Review, Volume 93, Number 4, December 1999). The only internet copy I found is on JSTOR.

    Here's one from a couple poli sci profs at Temple and Nortre Dame, though. I haven't actually read it, I just checked to make sure it had an annotated bibliography; anyone who wants to study the topic can use it as a jumping-off point.

    Thanks I found a preview on google books that lets me see at least some of the book version of it:
    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=OzONzuQOSskC&oi=fnd&pg=PA10&dq=The+Effectiveness+of+Negative+Political+Advertisements:+A+Meta-analytic+Review&ots=D3SB-Xl9XK&sig=VN4u5OiELEHG8VKfZgnNF9CjYXY#v=onepage&q=The%20Effectiveness%20of%20Negative%20Political%20Advertisements%3A%20A%20Meta-analytic%20Review&f=false

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • DoctorArchDoctorArch Curmudgeon Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fartacus wrote: »
    nstf wrote: »
    Fartacus wrote: »
    Lynx wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    When it stops working, I'll stop advocating for it. I want results, and losing because you're afraid to get dirty isn't a good result.

    Well, we've got Grayson down by 7 points (Maybe a bit skewed due to the poll) as of today, right as his controversial ad came out. And, again, I gave an example of Sink and Scott running for Governor where the one running a clean campaign is winning by the exact same margin that Grayson is losing. So, how, exactly, is it working?

    As someone who scrutinizes the person that is running, and not their party, I am extremely turned off by mudslinging, especially when people manipulate the facts. I imagine a lot of swing voters are.

    Eh, this isn't really debatable. Negative campaigning is highly effective.

    But I also do think you can campaign effectively without it.

    I think the problems of the Dems go a lot deeper than not going negative enough.

    The Dems need to master quick sound bites and stop acting wonkish every time a camera shows up. Not being afraid to go down in a giant flaming wreck for saying something that just might piss people off would help as well.

    Yes, but not just because sound-bytes are effective.

    This is sort of a symptom of the core problem -- if you try to win arguments in good faith within some else's framework, you end up doing a lot of rhetorical and analytical legwork. It takes longer, and ultimately it's not compelling.

    The reason the GOP uses soundbytes, in other words, is because they're already focusing on doing the more important work of framing debates. Framing takes a lot fewer words than arguing.

    While I will fully admit that Democrats need to work better to figure out some soundbytes, it is inherently difficult because of our positions.

    The Republican/Conservative worldview is predominantly black and white, thus enabling them to easily boil down their messages into an us vs. them context. Now, that isn't to say you can't easily simplify some issues into black and white views, there are a few, but the majority of problems do not exist in binary paradigms.

    Which is the problem Democrats face. I remember when Obs was complaining because Obama doesn't speak in soundbytes or simple declarative sentences. It's because the world is fucking complicated and exists primarily in shades of gray. While we want to elevate this country's discourse, we are hamstrung by the fact that a lot of people simply don't want to either take the time to or are willfully attempting to dumb it down.

    DoctorArch on
    Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
  • BarcardiBarcardi All the Wizards Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    honestly, dems just need to take this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19GjqKu_4cs&feature=player_embedded

    and insert the republican running for senate, then say it is brought to you by "moralists for america." Or even better "christians for american values."

    Barcardi on
  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    What the fuck.

    I look at my Florida absentee ballot and my dipshit weasel lawyer of an uncle who owes me money is running for Soil and Water Conservation Director Guy (TM). How the fuck did he make that happen?

    He'll poison us all. I should run against him.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    mrdobalina on
  • FartacusFartacus __BANNED USERS
    edited September 2010
    nstf wrote: »
    Well yes, but the dems seem to screw up everything.

    IE, they should have framed "healthcare reform" as "the initiative to save business" and gone on and on about this will create jobs, make us more competitive, toss in some shit about kicking the crap out of silly Euro's and competition.

    Actually, no. That would be debating within the Republican framework, where we've already decided to measure the success of healthcare reform in terms of money and business.

    Because the Republicans own that one -- they're the ones coming out saying that THIS BILL WILL KILL JOBS etc etc. And that's not at all true, but it makes sense to people because it fits into their moral framework (in which they can believe in general that anything government does will kill jobs, because they see government as the hand of a meddling unwanted parent interfering in the perfect and impartial reward/punishment system that is the market).

    In fact, Dems did try to frame the bill this way. They spent way more time talking about how the bill will decrease the deficit and make things easier for small business than any kind of moral selling point.

    You're giving exactly the wrong advice, which makes sense because you admit you don't ascribe at all to progressive morality. You don't understand it, you don't agree with it. Of course you're offering the wrong advice -- you're someone who buys into the conservative moral framework.
    Because that involves making money and ass kicking, that shit sells. Talking about some poor lady that nobody knows, or cares about, losing her house because of medical bills doesn't.

    Actually that does sell. Again, look at the progressive era from the end of the 19th century through the early post-war era.
    And then when every anybody complained about it, accuse them of hating business and trying to make America weak.

    The problem is that's what the Republicans say. So you're just shouting the same shit back at them. And if you're saying the same stuff, who wins that argument? In this case, the GOP will, because the argument is couched in values that are their moral home turf. People will say "well they both say the other side hates business and will make America weak, so which is lying?" and they'll end up thinking that the Democrats are, because the conservative moral framework is such that government intervention is fundamentally distrustful. You need to propose an alternative moral framework of helping people.
    Good faith isn't worth much on the talking box.

    It is. I mean you should absolutely outline the self-interest that the vast majority of people (especially middle- and lower- income people) have in such a bill, but it should be couched in moral terms too.

    Every day Republicans blocked a cloture vote, there should have been a big sign outside of the Capitol, put up by the Democrats, that had a ticker on it that showed how many people had died so far that since the Republicans started filibustering due to lack of insurance.

    The narrative should have been really simple. It should have been basically these things:

    (1) No one should go broke or die just because they got sick.
    (2) You're gonna get healthcare.
    (3) The GOP doesn't care if poor people die so long as their buddies get rich
    (4) Why would you trust your healthcare to a corporation that would rather see you die than receive expensive care?
    (5) We're a country that stands together, and we need to look out for each other, and care for the less fortunate.

    But especially number 1.

    Fartacus on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    Says the guy that is demonstrably lying. You project more than an IMAX movie theater. I note that you're not denying that you're lying, you're just saying that we suck because we call you on your shit. Again, this is SOP for people like you.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    LOL..Pot..meet kettle.

    Seriously? Yeah, Republicans never ever say that the opposition are all lying. Cry me a fucking river. But what can we expect from Dobalina other than his generic WHARGARBLE retoric? He complains about this being a "Leftist forum full o Socialist". Well duh, no shit the majority are leftist. There are an overwhelming majority of other message boards on websites that are whelming conservative. If you want to cry about that and can't take a beating here when a poster challenges you to present facts supporting your arguments, then there is the door.

    And the Democrats have no spine and have basically left Obama to literally be Hung by a Noose when the Pubs regurgitate Newt's dumbshit policies "aka Tha Pledge to America" over again. Yeah, you had four years under W with total control of everything and what do they do...give more government.
    John Bahner, you are HILARIOUS!! I look forward to more Daily Show/Colbert Report entertainment for the next four years.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • CommunistCowCommunistCow Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fartacus wrote: »
    The narrative should have been really simple. It should have been basically these things:

    (1) No one should go broke or die just because they got sick.
    (2) You're gonna get healthcare.
    (3) The GOP doesn't care if poor people die so long as their buddies get rich
    (4) Why would you trust your healthcare to a corporation that would rather see you die than receive expensive care?
    (5) We're a country that stands together, and we need to look out for each other, and care for the less fortunate.

    But especially number 1.

    I'm pretty sure Grayson covered at least 1-4 during the health care debate. This is why I love that man.

    CommunistCow on
    No, I am not really communist. Yes, it is weird that I use this name.
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    Says the guy that is demonstrably lying. You project more than an IMAX movie theater. I note that you're not denying that you're lying, you're just saying that we suck because we call you on your shit. Again, this is SOP for people like you.

    My OP, the one regarding AA, was clearly filled with ravaging invective. It was full of nasty, spite filled, 3/4 truths and done so purposefully. Because that's how you guys come off to someone outside your circles.

    Can you point to a specific lie I'm telling that isn't part of my purposefully crafted AA summary?

    mrdobalina on
  • PeccaviPeccavi Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fartacus wrote: »
    (5) We're a country that stands together, and we need to look out for each other, and care for the less fortunate.

    Socialist.

    We care for each other by staying out of each other's way, and relying only upon ourselves. Move to Europe if you want to be a commie.

    Bootstraps.

    Peccavi on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    LOL..Pot..meet kettle.

    Seriously? Yeah, Republicans never ever say that the opposition are all lying. Cry me a fucking river. But what can we expect from Dobalina other than his generic WHARGARBLE retoric? He complains about this being a "Leftist forum full o Socialist". Well duh, no shit the majority are leftist. There are an overwhelming majority of other message boards on websites that are whelming conservative. If you want to cry about that and can't take a beating here when a poster challenges you to present facts supporting your arguments, then there is the door.

    And the Democrats have no spine and have basically left Obama to literally be Hung by a Noose when the Pubs regurgitate Newt's dumbshit policies "aka Tha Pledge to America" over again. Yeah, you had four years under W with total control of everything and what do they do...give more government.
    John Bahner, you are HILARIOUS!! I look forward to more Daily Show/Colbert Report entertainment for the next four years.

    Considering this isn't the "Which party is more incompetent thread?", your comment is meaningless. I make no claims that the Republican party is anything more than a hair's width more competent in this arena, if that. Their messaging is at times worse than then Dems, and they suffer at the polls because of it.

    mrdobalina on
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    Says the guy that is demonstrably lying. You project more than an IMAX movie theater. I note that you're not denying that you're lying, you're just saying that we suck because we call you on your shit. Again, this is SOP for people like you.

    My OP, the one regarding AA, was clearly filled with ravaging invective. It was full of nasty, spite filled, 3/4 truths and done so purposefully. Because that's how you guys come off to someone outside your circles.

    Can you point to a specific lie I'm telling that isn't part of my purposefully crafted AA summary?

    Once again...POT...meet KETTLE.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited September 2010
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    Says the guy that is demonstrably lying. You project more than an IMAX movie theater. I note that you're not denying that you're lying, you're just saying that we suck because we call you on your shit. Again, this is SOP for people like you.

    My OP, the one regarding AA, was clearly filled with ravaging invective. It was full of nasty, spite filled, 3/4 truths and done so purposefully. Because that's how you guys come off to someone outside your circles.

    Can you point to a specific lie I'm telling that isn't part of my purposefully crafted AA summary?

    Once again...POT...meet KETTLE.

    Come back after you've read my other post.

    mrdobalina on
  • sidhaethesidhaethe Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    Says the guy that is demonstrably lying. You project more than an IMAX movie theater. I note that you're not denying that you're lying, you're just saying that we suck because we call you on your shit. Again, this is SOP for people like you.

    My OP, the one regarding AA, was clearly filled with ravaging invective. It was full of nasty, spite filled, 3/4 truths and done so purposefully. Because that's how you guys come off to someone outside your circles.

    Can you point to a specific lie I'm telling that isn't part of my purposefully crafted AA summary?

    Take it to the Affirmative Action thread, please. Let's not get this thread locked.

    sidhaethe on
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    Says the guy that is demonstrably lying. You project more than an IMAX movie theater. I note that you're not denying that you're lying, you're just saying that we suck because we call you on your shit. Again, this is SOP for people like you.

    My OP, the one regarding AA, was clearly filled with ravaging invective. It was full of nasty, spite filled, 3/4 truths and done so purposefully. Because that's how you guys come off to someone outside your circles.

    Can you point to a specific lie I'm telling that isn't part of my purposefully crafted AA summary?

    Once again...POT...meet KETTLE.

    Come back after you've read my other post.

    Maybe you should take your own advice on "Reading Other's Post". Might wanna give that a try.

    Ticaldfjam on
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    Fartacus wrote: »
    The narrative should have been really simple. It should have been basically these things:

    (1) No one should go broke or die just because they got sick.
    (2) You're gonna get healthcare.
    (3) The GOP doesn't care if poor people die so long as their buddies get rich
    (4) Why would you trust your healthcare to a corporation that would rather see you die than receive expensive care?
    (5) We're a country that stands together, and we need to look out for each other, and care for the less fortunate.

    But especially number 1.

    It needs a slight tweaking -- "No one should [...] die just because they got sick." That made me cock my head -- on a long enough timeline, everyone who doesn't perish in an untimely catastrophe gets sick and dies, right? Your options are basically either that or some variation of "hit by a bus."

    But generally I don't disagree with the larger point.

    I would also posit the notion that we probably need to stop focusing so much animosity on how many lobbyists are involved in the process on a specific issue (what I tend to call "shooting the messenger"). We spent a lot of time bitching and moaning about all of the lobbyists that the health care industry sent up to the Hill, but that's not a persuasive argument -- it only wins us sympathy from voters who already agree with us on a specific issue, but it doesn't change the minds of anyone who doesn't. No one's going to say "Gosh, you're right, now I can't hate health care reform" anymore just because you tell them that a lobbyist is paid to convince them to think that way.

    Kind of like how you can't convince a tea bagger to go away by telling him he's essentially astroturf. Even if it's true, in that tea bagger's mind he's a completely independent thinker (as we all want to believe ourselves to be).

    SammyF on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    mrdobalina wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    No, the fact is that you're just straight up lying to make your position seem reasonable. That's what you guys do well; lie about our position, constantly shift the debate, and pretend that context doesn't matter. It's hard to argue that hlit doesn't work.

    And once again you prove my point. Democrats are incompetent as messaging because your default position is that the opposition are all lying. You sound like a bunch of three-year-olds.

    Says the guy that is demonstrably lying. You project more than an IMAX movie theater. I note that you're not denying that you're lying, you're just saying that we suck because we call you on your shit. Again, this is SOP for people like you.

    My OP, the one regarding AA, was clearly filled with ravaging invective. It was full of nasty, spite filled, 3/4 truths and done so purposefully. Because that's how you guys come off to someone outside your circles.

    Can you point to a specific lie I'm telling that isn't part of my purposefully crafted AA summary?

    What part of "the whole post" don't you understand?

    EDIT: Seriously, aside from the fact that your post was full of shit, the point related to the thread is that the tactic you employed is common on the right and that hearing people bitch about Grayson's ad is bullshit when you take that into account.

    wwtMask on
    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm having trouble seeing how it's so terribly unfair to quote a guy saying "she should submit to me" when he clearly believes that. So fucking what if it was in the context of describing what someone shouldn't put in a prayer journal; clearly he does believe it, as it's enshrined in his holy text and he makes reference to the wife praying to that particular segment, he just didn't think it was appropriate for the husband to select that particular quote for a prayer journal.

    The whole "Taliban Dan" thing strikes me as pretty insane though. I mean, like it or not America is a predominantly-Christian nation and that just seems like a pretty transparent attack against Christianity as much as this particular politician. That seems like the last thing that the party getting creamed by "God and Guns" voters should be doing.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    I'm having trouble seeing how it's so terribly unfair to quote a guy saying "she should submit to me" when he clearly believes that. So fucking what if it was in the context of describing what someone shouldn't put in a prayer journal; clearly he does believe it, as it's enshrined in his holy text and he makes reference to the wife praying to that particular segment, he just didn't think it was appropriate for the husband to select that particular quote for a prayer journal.

    The whole "Taliban Dan" thing strikes me as pretty insane though. I mean, like it or not America is a predominantly-Christian nation and that just seems like a pretty transparent attack against Christianity as much as this particular politician. That seems like the last thing that the party getting creamed by "God and Guns" voters should be doing.

    How is it an attack on Christianity? He's linking this guys way of thinking to the Taliban (who, fyi, aren't Christian).

    And, regardless of the edits or the like, Grayson is right. His opponent supports oppressive social conditions for women.

    shryke on
  • mrdobalinamrdobalina Registered User
    edited September 2010
    wwtMask wrote: »
    EDIT: Seriously, aside from the fact that your post was full of shit, the point related to the thread is that the tactic you employed is common on the right and that hearing people bitch about Grayson's ad is bullshit when you take that into account.

    Whether I agree with you on this is immaterial. Assume you are right, and Republican party is masterful at spreading lies and doing all these bad, horrible, no-good things.

    That doesn't change the fact that the Democrats are horribly incompetent at framing their arguments in a way that are even remotely appealing to a large amount of people outside their base. The fervor that erupts around here about fundies, Beck, taxation, EEO, you name it, is your problem. This thread is its own example of the piss-poor framing of arguments. Rail on about how the right does the same, that's beside the point, irrespective of whether you are correct in your assertion.

    mrdobalina on
  • nescientistnescientist Registered User regular
    edited September 2010
    shryke wrote: »
    I'm having trouble seeing how it's so terribly unfair to quote a guy saying "she should submit to me" when he clearly believes that. So fucking what if it was in the context of describing what someone shouldn't put in a prayer journal; clearly he does believe it, as it's enshrined in his holy text and he makes reference to the wife praying to that particular segment, he just didn't think it was appropriate for the husband to select that particular quote for a prayer journal.

    The whole "Taliban Dan" thing strikes me as pretty insane though. I mean, like it or not America is a predominantly-Christian nation and that just seems like a pretty transparent attack against Christianity as much as this particular politician. That seems like the last thing that the party getting creamed by "God and Guns" voters should be doing.

    How is it an attack on Christianity? He's linking this guys way of thinking to the Taliban (who, fyi, aren't Christian).

    And, regardless of the edits or the like, Grayson is right. His opponent supports oppressive social conditions for women.

    ...

    ......


    I am... aware that the Taliban aren't Christian. But the passage regarding women submitting to their husbands is right out of the KJV. It's easy to miss if you've grown up around in-name-only Christians who take pains to ignore the fact, but Christianity is a patriarchal religion. That's why the "Taliban Dan" attack works, because Dan is unabashedly pro-patriarchy. The problem with it is that I suspect that a pretty significant quotient of the voting population is also unabashedly pro-patriarchy. Yes, even the ones who might conceivably vote democrat.

    nescientist on
    Carl Sagan wrote:
    The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.
This discussion has been closed.