Forward Party

[TragicMonkey]

Who coulda thunk it? Turns out Americans actually do need more than "I'm not those other guys!"

 

[Delvo]

All he could do is repeat "Not left or right but forward"... defer to whatever the majority opinion is.

So, when the majority opinion happens to actually be what the left thinks, or when it happens to actually be what the right thinks...

 

[wareyin]

I don't as things sit today hate Biden more. I'm going to criticize him more because when you take a side that's what happens. It's like in a basketball game I take as read the other team is trying to beat my team. If a member of my team is jacking up bad shots and not trying to defend that's the person I need to address if I want my team to win. Maybe that gives the impression that I dislike Biden more, but that's an illusion caused by not considering context.

To keep this as a sports analogy, if you are upset with the performance of one of your team mates and you air out that grievance in a public statement or interview then you are causing more damage to your own team's chances of winning than if you worked with the player you felt wasn't living up to his potential. You're causing problems in the locker room, you're pissing off your team mates, and you're causing unnecesary drama that all make it easier for the other team to beat your team.

The GOP idealizes ideology. The party has been in the same purity purge for a generation and pursues highly unpopular policies and get away with it because they market it so well.

The GOP also has a lot of help pursuing highly unpolular policies by those who spend all their time and effort criticizing the only group who could possibly stop the GOP.

 

[Random]

To keep this as a sports analogy, if you are upset with the performance of one of your team mates and you air out that grievance in a public statement or interview then you are causing more damage to your own team's chances of winning than if you worked with the player you felt wasn't living up to his potential. You're causing problems in the locker room, you're pissing off your team mates, and you're causing unnecesary drama that all make it easier for the other team to beat your team.

On the other hand, if your "team-mate" is deliberately blocking shots made by your team and passing the ball to the other team whenever they have a chance, saying nothing is unlikely to solve the problem.

 

[wareyin]

On the other hand, if your "team-mate" is deliberately blocking shots made by your team and passing the ball to the other team whenever they have a chance, saying nothing is unlikely to solve the problem.

True as that may be, but attacking team mate Biden in the middle of the game because team mate Manchin and/or Sinema deliberately blocked those shots and passed the ball to the other team will only make the problem far worse.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

True as that may be, but attacking team mate Biden in the middle of the game because team mate Manchin and/or Sinema deliberately blocked those shots and passed the ball to the other team will only make the problem far worse.

Isn't deliberately throwing the game just about the worst thing one might do on a sports team? Why are you getting mad at the guy on the sidelines for pointing it out? The other team is cheating, your team actively wants to lose, and you're fretting about morale.

 

[wareyin]

Isn't deliberately throwing the game just about the worst thing one might do on a sports team? Why are you getting mad at the guy on the sidelines for pointing it out? The other team is cheating, your team actively wants to lose, and you're fretting about morale.

I get mad at the guy on the sidelines wearing all Cavaliers gear constantly attacking the Warriors while claiming to be actually a Warriors fan. Sue me. Especially when he attacks the wrong players, and makes demonstrably untrue claims like "your team actively wants to lose".

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I get mad at the guy on the sidelines wearing all Cavaliers gear constantly attacking the Warriors while claiming to be actually a Warriors fan. Sue me. Especially when he attacks the wrong players, and makes demonstrably untrue claims like "your team actively wants to lose".

This is still Manchin we're talking about, yes? The guy who singlehandedly slapped down federal abortion protections a few months ago and not a damn person said "boo" to him for it? You're going to have to demonstrate that untruth, there. There's a whole thread here called "how is Manchin a Democrat?"

In fact, there's a funny post there from some guy named "wareyin"

Manchin is a Democrat because he registered as such. That's it. Democrats aren't like Republicans, there aren't any ideological purity tests or requirements to blindly follow dear leader. It's why RINO is a term in use by politicos and the average public but DINO isn't.

Well, my goodness. It seems there are ideological purity tests and requirements to blindly follow dear leader, after all. Just not applied to the centrists.

 

[wareyin]

This is still Manchin we're talking about, yes?

What? No. Why would we be referring to Manchin as a guy on the sidelines pointing "it" out?

The guy who singlehandedly slapped down federal abortion protections a few months ago? You're going to have to demonstrate that untruth, there. There's a whole thread here called "how is Manchin a Democrat?"

In fact, there's a funny post there from some guy named "wareyin"

Well, my goodness. It seems there are ideological purity tests and requirements to blindly follow dear leader, after all. Just not applied to the centrists.

Yeah, I think in your attempt at a "gotcha" you might have just jumped too quick and gotten confused.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

What? No. Why would we be referring to Manchin as a guy on the sidelines pointing "it" out?

Yeah, I think in your attempt at a "gotcha" you might have just jumped too quick and gotten confused.

You seem to be the confused one. You said it's a demonstrably untrue claim that Manchin wants to lose the political ballgame. I think that needs some demonstrablin'.

 

[wareyin]

You seem to be the confused one. You said it's a demonstrably untrue claim that Manchin wants to lose the political ballgame. I think that needs some demonstrablin'.

No, I said it's demonstrably untrue that "your team" wants to lose. Manchin ain't the whole Dem party, in case that escapes you. He's just in the lucky (for him) position of being able to hold up everyone else.

Hell, it actually is demonstrably untrue that Manchin wants to lose, as well. He obviously wants to win his political ballgame, but just like the whiny progressives (who might as well be wearing MAGA hats), he's happy to tank the entire team, hell the entire sport, for the temporary satisfaction of being the center of attention and in control.

 

[Suddenly]

The GOP also has a lot of help pursuing highly unpolular policies by those who spend all their time and effort criticizing the only group who could possibly stop the GOP.

Maybe switch "all" to "any." Which is more accurate and exposes it for the purity test it is.

The analogy breaks down here as there are no private channels. I mean, this site almost qualifies as it's obscurity makes it kinda private.

 

[wareyin]

Maybe switch "all" to "any." Which is more accurate and exposes it for the purity test it is.

The analogy breaks down here as there are no private channels. I mean, this site almost qualifies as it's obscurity makes it kinda private.

"Any", "all", or even "most", it ain't a purity test to say quit biting off your own nose, shooting yourself in the foot, attacking your own team, etc, then saying "but no, I really hate the other guys more, I just can't be bothered to utter the slightest criticism of them when 'my team' is so corrupt!"

Or, quit wearing all that Cavaliers gear and only attacking the Warriors while expecting anyone at all to believe you're really a Warriors fan.

 

[Suddenly]

Or, quit wearing all that Cavaliers gear and only attacking the Warriors while expecting anyone at all to believe you're really a Warriors fan.

You've managed to torture the analogy to the point where it both misses the point and assumes facts that aren't the case. This isn't about fandom. It's about who I need to address to make things better, and preaching to the choir about the righteousness of the cause is masturbatory.

My core allegiance is to what I think is best, not to a party. As long as a party lines up with that, great.

I think that, currently, not voting for the candidate most likely to defeat a GOP candidate (almost always a Democrat) is basically treason against humanity. You'd think that point would be enough to sum up my feelings about the matter, but an awful lot of Democrats aren't satisfied with my vote and also want my soul and undying allegiance.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This isn't about fandom.

No it's exactly about that.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

You still ain't demonstrated a thing, just asserted it again.

Manchin ain't the whole Dem party, in case that escapes you.

Isn't he, though? That gets back to JoeMorgue's point from earlier, that whether or not Progressive candidates and voters make up a sizable fraction or even majority of the party, they are still a political minority. The dissonance between the flak Manchin/Sinema receive for being contrarian and the flak Progressives receive for being contrarian says more about where the party's policy priorities lie than their stated positions on the internets. He might be the guy taking the heat, but he speaks for a sizable fraction, possibly even most Democrats.

Like, take the abortion rights vote. It failed by one senator: Joe Manchin. If he was really SUCH a lone wolf, don't you think there could have been some way to get him on board? Some combination of horse trading, bribes, carrots and sticks that's pretty much Chuck Schumer's entire job as Senate Majority Leader? As important as that vote was, as much of a win as it would have been for the Democrats to turn right around and protect the rights of women as they came under fire, that didn't happen. Why not? It makes me wonder if Manchin had cooperated, some other senator would have found the conviction to stand by their long-held policy of punishing women, or as you put it, their political ballgame.

Strike that, I don't wonder if, I wonder how many would have done so. Because whatever that number was, it was enough to make the battle unwinnable. So unwinnable that it's better to attack anyone who criticizes it than try to force the issue. So either the Democratic Party that exists outside of Manchin are cowards more afraid of looking undignified than not doing the right thing, or they're complicit and on this issue as with so many others they prefer to get nothing done because they desire the current outcome regardless of how they beg for $10 campaign donations. Either way that's a hell of a vote of confidence and adds up to "actively wanting to lose" in my book. Which excuse do you think it is?

Bringing it all back around to the OP, we don't need a spineless Centrist party. We already have the Democrats. And I say that as a registered Democrat who already votes blue no matter who and still gets accused of being a DINO for pointing out that we are losing, and the strategy of just pretending that everything is perfectly normal and we aren't losing isn't likely to turn that around all on its own.

 

[wareyin]

You've managed to torture the analogy to the point where it both misses the point and assumes facts that aren't the case. This isn't about fandom. It's about who I need to address to make things better, and preaching to the choir about the righteousness of the cause is masturbatory.

My core allegiance is to what I think is best, not to a party. As long as a party lines up with that, great.

I think that, currently, not voting for the candidate most likely to defeat a GOP candidate (almost always a Democrat) is basically treason against humanity. You'd think that point would be enough to sum up my feelings about the matter, but an awful lot of Democrats aren't satisfied with my vote and also want my soul and undying allegiance.

No, Dems don't want your soul, and they obviously don't have and aren't going to get your undying allegiance. It's more of a polite request to stop spending so much time helping the side that you yourself say helping is basically treason against humanity.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

No, Dems don't want your soul, and they obviously don't have and aren't going to get your undying allegiance. It's more of a polite request to stop spending so much time helping the side that you yourself say helping is basically treason against humanity.

And if they were half so demanding of the representatives within their party who actively work against them they wouldn't have as much criticism to object to. The Emperor has no clothes but it's the kid's fault for being so impolite as to point it out.

 

[wareyin]

You still ain't demonstrated a thing, just asserted it again.

When something is this obvious, demands for a demonstration aren't being made in good faith.

Isn't he, though? That gets back to JoeMorgue's point from earlier, that whether or not Progressive candidates and voters make up a sizable fraction or even majority of the party, they are still a political minority. The dissonance between the flak Manchin/Sinema receive for being contrarian and the flak Progressives receive for being contrarian says more about where the party's policy priorities lie than their stated positions on the internets. He might be the guy taking the heat, but he speaks for a sizable fraction, possibly even most Democrats.

Wait, you seriously want to assert that, all evidence to the contrary, Manchin speaks for "possibly" most Democrats? Frankly, that's ludicrous and demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of political realities.

Like, take the abortion rights vote. It failed by one senator: Joe Manchin. If he was really SUCH a lone wolf, don't you think there could have been some way to get him on board? Some combination of horse trading, bribes, carrots and sticks that's pretty much Chuck Schumer's entire job as Senate Majority Leader? As important as that vote was, as much of a win as it would have been for the Democrats to turn right around and protect the rights of women as they came under fire, that didn't happen. Why not? It makes me wonder if Manchin had cooperated, some other senator would have found the conviction to stand by their long-held policy of punishing women, or as you put it, their political ballgame.

Of course you want to ignore the actual way people voted, and pretend that they totally would have voted opposite of what they actually did, all the while blaming everyone else for failing to get Manchin on board rather than blaming Manchin for holding out. Don't blame Manchin or the GOP for being intransigent, blame the Dems for...not having the votes to overcome that intransigence. Because people like you have been shouting to the rooftops about how bad the Dems are so the "meh" voters either stay home, throw away their votes on a third party, or actually vote the GOP in.

Strike that, I don't wonder if, I wonder how many would have done so. Because whatever that number was, it was enough to make the battle unwinnable.

And yet, here in reality, that number was actually zero. But don't let that stop you.

So unwinnable that it's better to attack anyone who criticizes it than try to force the issue. So either the Democratic Party that exists outside of Manchin are cowards more afraid of looking undignified than not doing the right thing, or they're complicit and on this issue as with so many others they prefer to get nothing done because they desire the current outcome regardless of how they beg for $10 campaign donations. Either way that's a hell of a vote of confidence and adds up to "actively wanting to lose" in my book. Which excuse do you think it is?

Bringing it all back around to the OP, we don't need a spineless Centrist party. We already have the Democrats. And I say that as a registered Democrat who already votes blue no matter who and still gets accused of being a DINO for pointing out that we are losing, and the strategy of just pretending that everything is perfectly normal and we aren't losing isn't likely to turn that around all on its own.

Look, I myself claim to vote blue no matter who (in the privacy of the voting booth that can't be demonstrated), but how dare you criticise me for spending all my time and energy telling everyone else to not vote blue because they're so corrupt and so what that they all voted yes on abortion rights except Manchin, I'm imagining that they secretly wanted to vote no because they're all so awful!

 

[Delvo]

You've managed to torture the analogy to the point where it both misses the point and assumes facts that aren't the case.

It didn't need torture to make it worthless. It was an invalid non-analogous non-analogy from the start.

For one thing, in sports, there's no role within the system for talking about each other (or each other's performance) to play, but in politics, talking about each other and each other's policies is exactly how the whole thing's supposed to work; it's the whole point. A better analogy for that in basketball would be not players talking but players shooting, passing, blocking, and dribbling.

Also, the way the analogy was given here reverses the positions of the people doing the talking. In real life in the DP, all of the internal attackery is not perpetrated by the few good players and aimed at the majority bad players to tell them to do better. It's coming from the majority bad players and aimed at the few good ones to tell them to do worse. Part of the attack method just happens to also include false accusations that it's going in the opposite direction. Thus, the whole idea of "the only team that can beat the other team" is obvious nonsense because the ones doing the internal attacks on their own team aren't doing anything to beat the other team; they keep throwing the games and then blaming the good players for the sin of actually wanting to win.

(One thing about this analogy that is good is that it brings up the subject of why one team keeps throwing games: because there's an outside person or group of people, not on either team, who pays them to do so.)