The big problem, of course, is that history contains a lot of diversity. Sadly, it's got a lot less inclusion (though it does have some) and almost no equity.
Alas.
In any case, I think that a policy of removing too much and then putting back some of the stuff that shouldn't have been removed is an acceptable price to pay.
It's good that the Tuskegee Airmen video has been reinstated, don't you think?
Good news. The Republicans have abandoned Neocons to the point where the Neocons seem to find themselves more welcome among the Democrats than among the Republicans.
Where I'm going with this is: "If compromise is possible, where would you compromise?"
And if the answer always comes "I shouldn't have to compromise with those jerkfaces, even if not compromising means that I have to live for four years under Literally Voldemort", then we get to live under Voldemort for four years, then under Umbridge for four years, then Voldemort again...
"Here's the compromise choice."
"I decline the compromise choice."
"Here's Literally Voldemort."
I mean, it could be argued that Biden was a compromise choice for Literally Voldemort. A guy from Scranton, New Jersey. Capable of standing up to Corn Pop. The most entertaining guy at the poker table. Someone you could work with, right?
Well... as it turns out, Biden may not, in fact, have been running the show.
And so we're at Literally Voldemort again.
I just keep wondering if *ANY* compromise was possible.
"No, no compromise was possible" is a straight answer.
An awesome thread right here that talks about how "there are ~five~ different factions in the Democratic Party vying for power. None of them are dominant, all of them are unsure how to move forward."
He goes on to talk about the:
Establishment Democrats (Woke Capitalism)
Moderates (New Democrats... Neolibs who want Capitalism to fuel social programs, but not woke ones)
Progressives
DSA Democrats
Blue Dog Democrats
When it comes to Republicans, I think that "Iraq" is probably the answer that would get most of them on board. If you'd be willing to accept "we should have left about a day and a half after they caught Saddam", we could get almost all of them that don't have "Cheney" in their name somewhere.
Ah, "Heteronormative".
In some ways the whole "kink at pride" debate is still playing out.
Trump is one hell of a compromise, it seems. On that, at least.
Well, the main thing that I run into over and over again is the question of whether there was a particular victory that maybe could have been avoided.
Like, what W would you trade for an L in the last decade or two that might have kept us from getting here.
I think that there's a very *OBVIOUS* one that is under everybody's nose (and tied to a prominent assassination mere weeks ago).
the right never did any “We were wrong about SSM” self examinations; they never overtly reversed their positions or pulled out their policy planks or did any of the repentance self flagellating self-examination stuff you think the left needs to do about DEI
That's true. They never did.
And two weird things happened. One was Trump holding up one of the White Supremacist rainbow flags with "LGBT for Trump" scribbled on it and the other was a push against Target having rainbow t-shirts.
Gay Marriage? There never was a reckoning about it. The two camps are "we've never had a problem with monogamous pairings that make property values go up" and "nope, still mad, but back burnered, and I'm going to stop drinking Bud Light."
For what it's worth, I think that there does need to be a reckoning on SSM.
(I will say that I have seen a handful of LGB terfy types who have expressed regret about winning Obergefell. The Ioz types who explain that gay sex used to mean "furtive and exciting" and now it means "missionary position" and the JK Rowling types who are irritated that the front has moved to the whole Trans thing which, for whatever reason, pisses them off.)
I'm pretty sure that Obergefell would have happened no matter what... but if we are in the best of all possible worlds, we sure seem to be kicking and screaming a lot.
And whether Trump would have been prevented, I have no idea. Let's give Clinton two terms.
It's 2024. Does Trump get elected?
Maybe. He's just, you know, unprepared. No Project 2025 (not that he ran on it), no DOGE, no nothin'. Maybe some light immigration reform.
Maybe what happened to Liberals over the last couple of decades is the best that Liberals could have hoped for.
LIkewise are you suggesting it’d have been better for liberals if Romney had won in 2012?
What does that timeline look like?
2012 - Romney
What happens in 2016? Hillary? Might Hillary have beaten Romney in 2016 as the strongest Democratic nominee the Democratic machine had yet been able to put together?
What happens in 2019? Does that same bowl of bat soup get eaten in the wet market?
Does George Floyd try to pass a counterfeit $20 only to get choked out by his nightclub co-worker?
Does 2021-2024 go nuts just like last time?
There are a *LOT* of little linchpins on that wheel.
But I'm mostly struck by the whole "is there *ANYTHING* that you'd have been willing to trade in the last decade?" question always getting the answer of "why are Democrats the only ones who have to give things up?"
Huh. I thought that the Romney thing would be preferable to Literally Voldemort.
If we're in a place where Trump is doing something that we agree should be done (though we kinda wish that someone else were doing it), we're in a strange new territory.
On “The USAID Fight Is About Power, Not Spending”
The "bad vibes" experienced by the people who were most upset about the video leaving for a week.
"who": the people feeling the bad vibes
"what": the bad vibes in question
"
The big problem, of course, is that history contains a lot of diversity. Sadly, it's got a lot less inclusion (though it does have some) and almost no equity.
Alas.
In any case, I think that a policy of removing too much and then putting back some of the stuff that shouldn't have been removed is an acceptable price to pay.
It's good that the Tuskegee Airmen video has been reinstated, don't you think?
On “Deficits, Debt, and DOGE”
Fair enough!
Good news. The Republicans have abandoned Neocons to the point where the Neocons seem to find themselves more welcome among the Democrats than among the Republicans.
"
Wait, Romney was horrible? The former governor of Massachusetts? That Romney?
Is there *ANY* Republican that isn't horrible?
(Is the answer "Liz Cheney"?)
"
No compromise it is, then!
If, at some point, you think "maybe I could have won a bit less at some point, maybe here, maybe there", please let me know what you come up with.
"
Where I'm going with this is: "If compromise is possible, where would you compromise?"
And if the answer always comes "I shouldn't have to compromise with those jerkfaces, even if not compromising means that I have to live for four years under Literally Voldemort", then we get to live under Voldemort for four years, then under Umbridge for four years, then Voldemort again...
"
Injustice, man. Sometimes you experience injustice and you just want to set things on fire.
"
"Here's the compromise choice."
"I decline the compromise choice."
"Here's Literally Voldemort."
I mean, it could be argued that Biden was a compromise choice for Literally Voldemort. A guy from Scranton, New Jersey. Capable of standing up to Corn Pop. The most entertaining guy at the poker table. Someone you could work with, right?
Well... as it turns out, Biden may not, in fact, have been running the show.
And so we're at Literally Voldemort again.
I just keep wondering if *ANY* compromise was possible.
"No, no compromise was possible" is a straight answer.
And now here we are with Literally Voldemort.
New Polls!
"
An answer you'd accept or an answer they'd give?
Because "the US should have left Iraq in 2006" could, seriously, get everybody but the Cheneys on board.
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
An awesome thread right here that talks about how "there are ~five~ different factions in the Democratic Party vying for power. None of them are dominant, all of them are unsure how to move forward."
He goes on to talk about the:
Establishment Democrats (Woke Capitalism)
Moderates (New Democrats... Neolibs who want Capitalism to fuel social programs, but not woke ones)
Progressives
DSA Democrats
Blue Dog Democrats
On “Deficits, Debt, and DOGE”
So the status quo?
I submit: The status quo is an unstable equilibrium.
"
He *DID* go on to say "But some tax increases are likely necessary at this juncture."
So he's not saying "NEVER NEVER NEVER".
He's saying "I'm against it but things have gotten so bad that I am willing to accept it as part of turning this dang thing around".
It's the downsides of compromising, I guess.
(Is there anything you're personally opposed to that you think we should probably have to stomach for a while before things turn around?)
"
I think that there's room for "Congressmen/Senators are corrupt and only imperfectly represent their constituents".
There's no shortage of anecdotes about how the sausage *REALLY* gets made, after all.
"
As a registered Democrat, I agree with you.
I prefer voting third party, though.
You?
"
When it comes to Republicans, I think that "Iraq" is probably the answer that would get most of them on board. If you'd be willing to accept "we should have left about a day and a half after they caught Saddam", we could get almost all of them that don't have "Cheney" in their name somewhere.
Ah, "Heteronormative".
In some ways the whole "kink at pride" debate is still playing out.
Trump is one hell of a compromise, it seems. On that, at least.
"
Well, the main thing that I run into over and over again is the question of whether there was a particular victory that maybe could have been avoided.
Like, what W would you trade for an L in the last decade or two that might have kept us from getting here.
I think that there's a very *OBVIOUS* one that is under everybody's nose (and tied to a prominent assassination mere weeks ago).
the right never did any “We were wrong about SSM” self examinations; they never overtly reversed their positions or pulled out their policy planks or did any of the repentance self flagellating self-examination stuff you think the left needs to do about DEI
That's true. They never did.
And two weird things happened. One was Trump holding up one of the White Supremacist rainbow flags with "LGBT for Trump" scribbled on it and the other was a push against Target having rainbow t-shirts.
Gay Marriage? There never was a reckoning about it. The two camps are "we've never had a problem with monogamous pairings that make property values go up" and "nope, still mad, but back burnered, and I'm going to stop drinking Bud Light."
For what it's worth, I think that there does need to be a reckoning on SSM.
(I will say that I have seen a handful of LGB terfy types who have expressed regret about winning Obergefell. The Ioz types who explain that gay sex used to mean "furtive and exciting" and now it means "missionary position" and the JK Rowling types who are irritated that the front has moved to the whole Trans thing which, for whatever reason, pisses them off.)
"
Would you then agree that the Democrats were the party of Jim Crow?
On “Open Mic for the week of 2/10/2025”
The Dept. of Homeland Security's Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin has tweeted out:
On “Deficits, Debt, and DOGE”
For what it's worth, I think Trump is inevitable not because of the whole left v. right thing, but because of the whole populist v. elitist thing.
Swapping out Romney literally does *NOTHING* to fight against Trump's inevitability. Take out Romney, put in Clinton. Take out Clinton put in Jeb.
It's 2024.
We have Trump.
And *NOT* because he's Republican. Let's face it, he's a piss-poor Republican.
(If you want a good Republican, you have to go to the Cheney family.)
"
I'm pretty sure that Obergefell would have happened no matter what... but if we are in the best of all possible worlds, we sure seem to be kicking and screaming a lot.
And whether Trump would have been prevented, I have no idea. Let's give Clinton two terms.
It's 2024. Does Trump get elected?
Maybe. He's just, you know, unprepared. No Project 2025 (not that he ran on it), no DOGE, no nothin'. Maybe some light immigration reform.
Maybe what happened to Liberals over the last couple of decades is the best that Liberals could have hoped for.
And it brought us Trump anyway.
"
LIkewise are you suggesting it’d have been better for liberals if Romney had won in 2012?
What does that timeline look like?
2012 - Romney
What happens in 2016? Hillary? Might Hillary have beaten Romney in 2016 as the strongest Democratic nominee the Democratic machine had yet been able to put together?
What happens in 2019? Does that same bowl of bat soup get eaten in the wet market?
Does George Floyd try to pass a counterfeit $20 only to get choked out by his nightclub co-worker?
Does 2021-2024 go nuts just like last time?
There are a *LOT* of little linchpins on that wheel.
But I'm mostly struck by the whole "is there *ANYTHING* that you'd have been willing to trade in the last decade?" question always getting the answer of "why are Democrats the only ones who have to give things up?"
"
Not any more. Looks like Trump does.
That's one of the main reasons you wish for better opposition, remember?
"
While this cure could easily be worse than the disease... we're not even done diagnosing it yet.
The last thing we need is a cancer cure if we, instead, have explosive cell death.
On “From Politico: Voters Were Right About the Economy. The Data Was Wrong.”
I would *LOVE* to read a full debunking.
I wouldn't mind reading a loosey-goosey one-cheeked debunking.
On “Deficits, Debt, and DOGE”
Huh. I thought that the Romney thing would be preferable to Literally Voldemort.
If we're in a place where Trump is doing something that we agree should be done (though we kinda wish that someone else were doing it), we're in a strange new territory.