Forward Party

[seayakin]

It is always good to have goals, the questions are, how likely are these goals to be achieved in the timeframes indicated, and what is the likelihood that this party won't be subject to capture and manipulation by Capital?

I think much of this is yet to be seen and they have much to prove at this point. I haven't read a lot of detail about the Forward Party to know if they have tried to respond to questions like these but it would be good questions for them.

I don't see any way a party can ignore the financial realities of running for office in the United States. I'm assuming that is what you meant by the "manipulation of Capital."

 

[shemp]

Why would any big money donors give them anything? They give to the two big parties to gain influence with those in D.C. who gets things done. The Forward Party has no reason for these donors to give them anything, and without that they can't mount any kind of serious campaign. I don't like this, it's just the reality of it.

 

[Trakar]

...I don't see any way a party can ignore the financial realities of running for office in the United States. I'm assuming that is what you meant by the "manipulation of Capital."

I would have considered the direct funding/support of candidates more to be in the arena of "captured by Capital" manipulated is probably more in the realm of privately funded super PACs and party controlled but candidate distinct political groups (AKA DSCC, RSCC, DHCC, RHCC, state parties, various lobbyist/legislative policy groups etc.)

 

[Trakar]

Why would any big money donors give them anything? They give to the two big parties to gain influence with those in D.C. who gets things done. The Forward Party has no reason for these donors to give them anything, and without that they can't mount any kind of serious campaign. I don't like this, it's just the reality of it.

These actors aren't strapped for cash and influence is their primary resource. It is cheap for them to addict/corrupt 3rd party candidates, you don't think they'll wait until after these candidates start getting re-elected before they do what they do, do you?

 

[I Am The Scum]

The recent raid on Trump's Florida residence has Yang yearning to establish his centrist creds

It looks increasingly like the FBI raid was to find mishandled classified documents and not some other DOJ investigation which was my first thought. Mishandling documents doesn’t seem like raid material. It does however seem like excellent campaign material for Trump.

I’m no Trump fan. I want him as far away from the White House as possible. But a fundamental part of his appeal has been that it’s him against a corrupt government establishment. This raid strengthens that case for millions of Americans who will see this as unjust persecution.

Unfortunately I fear we will look back on this as a day that activated extremism and not the opposite.

That last one is particularly out of touch. By day he means today, August 9, 2022. The man is somehow tweeting from inside a decade-long coma.

 

[Venom]

Yang and Gabbard always do this very concerned routine whenever a Republican is the target. If a Democrat experienced this after inciting an insurrection a year earlier no doubt they'd be all about Law and Order. Slimeballs.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Yup, classic concern trolling.

Also a way to seem to be both endorsing and denouncing the obviously opportunistic/irrational take at the same time.

Also another reminder that so many Americans have taken being upset about the reaction to a bad thing while ignoring the bad thing itself to a high art.

 

[Suddenly]

Active centrism is a cowardly amoral philosophy

Centrism as a description is fine. People have opinions and sometimes these labels can be useful shorthand. That's different.


But when you pursue centrism you are merely rationalizing avoiding all conflict. People like Yang are abject cowards who are literally not wanting to confront evil because if they do evil will act evil in response.

 

[Brainster]

Active centrism is a cowardly amoral philosophy

Centrism as a description is fine. People have opinions and sometimes these labels can be useful shorthand. That's different.


But when you pursue centrism you are merely rationalizing avoiding all conflict. People like Yang are abject cowards who are literally not wanting to confront evil because if they do evil will act evil in response.

You sound positively (Ayn) Randian:

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromise is the transmitting rubber tube.”

 

[dudalb]

I have noted that right and left wing militants often hate each other a lot less then they both hate the moderates.

 

[dudalb]

Active centrism is a cowardly amoral philosophy

Centrism as a description is fine. People have opinions and sometimes these labels can be useful shorthand. That's different.


But when you pursue centrism you are merely rationalizing avoiding all conflict. People like Yang are abject cowards who are literally not wanting to confront evil because if they do evil will act evil in response.

What total B.S.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I mean if you just go outside, touch grass, and remember that the political spectrum doesn't actually exist as a real thing then.... what are we doing?

 

[Suddenly]

You sound positively (Ayn) Randian:

Anyone who cannot process that having compromise as a moral goal in and of itself makes one extremely exploitable is a fool.

Those that see it as unacceptable in any situation are no less fools.

Compromise is a very necessary evil in a complex world.

 

[Venom]

Active centrism is a cowardly amoral philosophy

Centrism as a description is fine. People have opinions and sometimes these labels can be useful shorthand. That's different.


But when you pursue centrism you are merely rationalizing avoiding all conflict. People like Yang are abject cowards who are literally not wanting to confront evil because if they do evil will act evil in response.

I see self styled moderates pushing back. I would modify your post a bit and use "neutrality" in place of centrism. Being neutral is the coward's way under the political conditions we see today. An objective observer I think would have to admit the Andrew Yang type neutrality on the divisive issues is cowardly or naive at best.

 

[Brainster]

Anyone who cannot process that having compromise as a moral goal in and of itself makes one extremely exploitable is a fool.

Those that see it as unacceptable in any situation are no less fools.

Compromise is a very necessary evil in a complex world.

Not that complex apparently, if you know the good and evil side of each issue so well that compromise would be immoral.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I see self styled moderates pushing back. I would modify your post a bit and use "neutrality" in place of centrism. Being neutral is the coward's way under the political conditions we see today. An objective observer I think would have to admit the Andrew Yang type neutrality on the divisive issues is cowardly or naive at best.

Nah, **** that. Why does appeasement always need to lean right? If they don't like what it says about them where they are, unable to choose between a party of howling sentient klan hoods snorting horse paste vs a party just trying to fix things, that's on them.

And that is where they are. If every current politician got hit in the hypotheticals and couldn't run such that choice was Andrew Yang or AOC (who triggers dudalb in particular), they'd vote Yang in a heartbeat. Cowardly, naive at best Yang. Because standing betwixt and not rocking the boat is more important to their egos than striving to make anything better.

 

[acbytesla]

Anyone who cannot process that having compromise as a moral goal in and of itself makes one extremely exploitable is a fool.

Those that see it as unacceptable in any situation are no less fools.

Compromise is a very necessary evil in a complex world.

Yes, Yes, Yes.

I'm a realist and am often just as mad at my liberal no compromise compatriots as I am at right wing mad as a hatter Republican nutters.

There are times to hold your ground and there are times you know you are going to have to negotiate and compromise. The smart man knows the difference.

 

[Delvo]

That scenario of asking politicians to choose Yang or AOC is a perfect illustration of what's really wrong with this project. AOC actually does sometimes distinguish herself from both parties and resist what they're doing and try to get changes made to make things better. Yang & Gang are putting on a show pretending to go against the grain while actually falling thoroughly in line.

 

[acbytesla]

Not that complex apparently, if you know the good and evil side of each issue so well that compromise would be immoral.

Taxes = good and evil?
Social Safety Net = good and evil?
How about being fair to our LBGT brethren?

What issues are good and evil and black and white?

And even if you think something is immoral, isn't war and battle sometimes more evil? I've seen and read about many terrible awful wars whereas both sides thought Gott Mit Uns. Often IMV they were dead wrong.

Remember the lesson of Robespierre.

 

[Random]

Not that complex apparently, if you know the good and evil side of each issue so well that compromise would be immoral.

Compromise as a tactic is fine. Compromise as a strategy, not so much...