Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Cyrus

  • Rank
    Stands to Reason

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cyrus

    Why didn’t the DNC turn over their server!?!?

    Ummm. But wouldn’t there still be forensics in the tubes? (The Internet). Or fingerprints on the hard drive. You never know what they might have left a trail of. That’s why you need the SERVER.
  2. Cyrus

    Trump job review with Putin running long

    France was essentially the center of Western Civilization many years ago. With the US retreating from the world, along with the U.K. retreating from the EU, it’s likely that France could be the new center of international power and Western influence. The French rejected their worst tendencies unlike America and the British. Macron is not afraid. He’s taking names right now and reforming the French economy.
  3. Well you could reference the support for defined marriage laws (or civil unions) in Congress. There's also the bathroom bill that was overturned in North Carolina. Broadly speaking you can talk about a variety of federal minimums and criminal justice laws being a detriment to minority communities. (I'd argue that while they disproportionately affect people of color, that they're not necessarily racist - but many are unjust nonetheless). However, these are issues that the right are divided on as well - even though they have broad support (in terms of civil unions) in the Republican party. By the way, I don't think "trans" issues are remotely comparable to the Civil Rights movement, or segregation, or institutional racism. It's not the same.
  4. @Starkiller You may find this interesting, and this is actually a bit more what I was alluding to. I don't think the Republican party is prepared for this, but if the Democratic party were will to cast a broader net, it could incorporate many of these ideas. (particularly since in some ways I think the Democratic party, especially under Clinton was quite a bit more pluralistic). Tim Keller and Redeemer had a nice conversation with Inazu and Nicholas Kristof (of the NYT) regarding some of these ideas as well, along with civility in politics:
  5. No one said Trump's rhetoric is more appealing to centrists. (I certainly never did) One election does not amount to an enduring coalition of voters that can last decades or more. Democrats, if they choose to, can lose the battle but win the war... but they're fighting a lot of battles in ways that they don't need to.
  6. If you're looking at polls only, with simplified questions and multiple choice, you may believe this. But is this what we gather when we talk to people? People's views are rarely so black and white - they exist on a spectrum. And when parties allow for a spectrum of certain beliefs, I think they can be more effective and durable over the long term.
  7. That's hardly my definition of centrism - we're also discussing what amounts to maybe 0.3% of the population and a fraction of may apply to children or teenagers of which the principle of universally treating people with dignity and decency seems sufficient (at least to me) rather than trying to message that the a six year old, who may only have temporary gender dysphoria, is a heartwarming story to be celebrated. These are controversial issues, that animates a very progressive wing because they view it as the "triumph of the individual over social norms", but flattens and oversimplifies what's actually happening. This is, in itself, a very small element of the Democratic party, but it often serves as a litmus test. If someone may have mixed views over these types of cases, they may feel like the Democratic party may not be for them. (and of course, Republicans have their own litmus tests too)
  8. Are you suggesting that these are mainstream issues? Or that we have consensus on these topics as a society? I think you're being a bit obtuse here.
  9. I'm responding to the idea that: A). Centrism doesn't actually exist. B). A more moderate or centrist platform is a losing strategy. I disagree on both points, and I think that long-term the Democratic party could make substantial gains by bringing together a more "left of center" party. That could be a more hawkish than dovish foreign policy, and an actual fiscally responsible budget (unlike the both the current Democrats or Republicans). Expanding the middle class, restoring social mobility and being engaged with civic responsibility are all winning positions because they appeal to a core of the American public (the center). However, focused messaging on trans rights, abolishing ICE and populist messaging (like Sanders) will not make the Democratic more palatable and durable long-term as a winning coalition. Many of the LBGTQ issues can be resolved just by messaging about general civic decency and kindness - along with a pluralistic society - rather than signaling that a six year old trans boy is a triumph of society. Even if you agree with that sentiment, it's not one that reverberates across America and asking your members or party to celebrate that, not just accept it, is a very tough sell.
  10. I totally disagree with his sentiment that centrism doesn't exist, and never really did. Clearly there's a lot of unsubstantiated claims in this article and those of his that are referenced as well. This reminds me of the Tea Party movement - "we're not winning because we're putting too moderate of candidates out there like Romney and McCain, we need stronger convictions and less weakness, which will lead to victory". Fast forward to now and because of a variety of circumstances we have Donald Trump. Nevermind the fact that the Republicans had the executive and plenty of Congressional support during W. Bush's two terms - and they had only to endure two terms of a Democrat. Generally speaking, many political scientists feel like the oscillation is normal - and it's hard to keep a party in office for three or more consecutive terms. Let's also remember the point that the objective is good governance. It's hard to achieve that while working from the extremes. My greatest concern is that Democrats will feel like they need to double-down on their strongest or most extreme positions. I do think that there's a strong middle in the United States. The problem is that the Democrats often get caught up in things like "abolishing ICE", supporting transgendered children or a number of seemingly progressive but ultimately divisive fringe issues that push people away. Meanwhile they don't have much of an articulate message on normal middle class issues, and endlessly get buffered about by social issues and consistently take the bait on every piece of red meat the Republican fringe gives them. So Taibbi's point, Elizabeth Warrens and Bernie Sanders won't move the Democratic party forward, but people like Lamb and Seth Moulton will.
  11. The make up of political supporters, or nuance of executing policy objectives (technocratic), tells me nothing about the reasons for supporting this or that idea. (Which is what I’m looking for specifically). Its difficult sometimes to disentangle political ideas from the people who support those ideas (parties, coalitions, etc) or the people who execute them, but ultimately we must have reasons for doing one thing over another. I can easily find very academic, dense support on the conservative side, but I’m not sure who’s doing that on the progressive side. Because I don’t want to fill my head with just one view (even if they’re fair or even handed), I’m looking for more perspectives.
  12. I think that’s a better distinction for modern Republicans and Democrats than conservative and liberal philosophies (although liberal is a term that might be interchangeable with conservative a century ago). To me that’s politics rather than political theory if you’d grant me that distinction. You could argue that on the left that plenty of people organized around Sanders as a personality, and did with Obama too. I think the kind of institutional conservatism has very clear roots in a variety of 18th century enlightenment ideas. There are also a number of conservative thinkers who have studied and teach law who are able to synthesize and articulate that history. But I’m not sure if the modern liberal movement has the same characteristics, unless I assume (inaccurately) that they’re communists and socialists. Instead I think of the last few decades of Democratic positions to be mostly some of the same enlightenment philosophies with a healthy amount of American transcendentalism and some big society, FDR values. But I havent found anyone yet articulating those ideas clearly in that type of way (like conservative thinkers). I’d like to so I can hear a more nuanced and grounded case for other types of opinions.
  13. @OILERMAN I thought Clinton articulated it pretty well in the debates. There are some really difficult discussions to be had with doctors, without having the government be involved. We also live in a pluralistic society where we have many of the same values, but some differing ones too on complicated issues. I think abortions are generally a tragedy for everyone involved. I think there is definitely a gray area, and that’s where I think the individuals and doctors need to make the hard decisions without the state being intimately involved. As for abortion as a form of birth control for unwanted pregnancies, I think it’s the worst method. If we can find a way to support single mothers or make adoption far easier (currently very expensive and complicated) we may be able to dramatically drop these types of abortions without pushing people into far riskier or dangerous options. So in sum, I’m not in the fight for overturning Roe vs. Wade, I’m for dealing with the more fundamental issues at the heart that lead to abortion, and letting the gray areas be dealt with by individuals, their healthcare provider and their own conscience.
  14. There are some on the economic side to some extent, Krugman was mentioned, but Larry Summers was that at some point in the past for Democrats (not so much anymore). Obviously economics delve into political rights, the social order/good and so forth, but I was hoping to find some individuals who might present a coherent vision or idea for the "progressive good". I'm hoping to find some more modern or contemporary figure dialogue about some of these ideas. Chomsky is certainly that, but not quite part of the political establishment in any sense to put those ideas into some real policy vis-a-vis politics. Obviously Democrats are not devoid of values and agendas, but who out there is articulating it with some type of substantive argument or reasoning?
  15. Watching Graeber at a Google Talk on Debt right now. Has anyone read or listened to Joseph Stiglitz? (a recommended Google Talk).