Spearthrower wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:But Ball's analysis typically talks up the threat of the Democratic Establishment and downplays the threat of the GOP. Shady as fuck and a nice pipeline from progressivism into Trumpism.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
She's a real progressive doing insightful political analysis, so yeah, probably of no interest to you and other right-leaning people here.

Now, I wonder which description's the most credible here.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:But Ball's analysis typically talks up the threat of the Democratic Establishment and downplays the threat of the GOP. Shady as fuck and a nice pipeline from progressivism into Trumpism.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
She's a real progressive doing insightful political analysis, so yeah, probably of no interest to you and other right-leaning people here.

Now, I wonder which description's the most credible here.

LifeIsWeird.jpg

Cito di Pense wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:He is stil a shitty candidate.

Well, there's an effective message. You could also say Trump is a shitty candidate. Did you? What the fuck would you have the rest of the world do for you? How does your assessment show you're not just another right-wing troll? Talk is cheap. Think about how far you'd get here, supporting Trump instead of just badmouthing Biden. If you understand how Biden is not as bad as Trump (given your choices), how do you think your venom looks to me? How should I care about the difference between you and some right-wing troll?

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
Not preferring Biden? It's not just that I don't prefer him. It's that I actively oppose him. He is everything I despise.

And Trump isn't, in spades? Yes, I see where you're coming from.

AP Interview: Sanders says opposing Biden is ‘irresponsible’

Bernie Sanders said Tuesday that it would be “irresponsible” for his loyalists not to support Joe Biden, warning that progressives who “sit on their hands” in the months ahead would simply enable President Donald Trump’s reelection.

And lest there be any question, the 78-year-old Vermont senator confirmed that “it’s probably a very fair assumption” that he would not run for president again. He added, with a laugh: “One can’t predict the future.”

Sanders, who suspended his presidential bid last week, spoke at length about his decision to endorse Biden, his political future and the urgent need to unify the Democratic Party during an interview with The Associated Press. He railed against the Republican president but also offered pointed criticism at his own supporters who have so far resisted his vow to do whatever it takes to help Biden win the presidency.

OlivierK wrote:If Trump's re-elected, then every single American adult who didn't vote for Biden will share responsibility for that, not just the Trump voters who'd willingly accept it.

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:But Ball's analysis typically talks up the threat of the Democratic Establishment and downplays the threat of the GOP. Shady as fuck and a nice pipeline from progressivism into Trumpism.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
She's a real progressive doing insightful political analysis, so yeah, probably of no interest to you and other right-leaning people here.

Now, I wonder which description's the most credible here.

LifeIsWeird.jpg

Spinozasgalt wrote:...I noted recently he was even defending that "Chinese virus" language on Twitter...

They platform a lot of populist personalities, whether they be left wing or of the "I don't identify as right wing, I just happen to line up with right wingers politically but I'm a moderate" types. But Ball's analysis typically talks up the threat of the Democratic Establishment and downplays the threat of the GOP.

...Shady as fuck and a nice pipeline from progressivism into Trumpism.

OlivierK wrote:Arugula, are you aware of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact? I think it's got a reasonable chance of getting up if the Dems do well this year, and would be almost a certainty if Trump won the EC but not the popular vote.

Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) was coming down the steps on the east side of the Capitol on Monday, having just voted, when he approached Ocasio-Cortez, who was ascending into the building to cast a vote of her own.

In a brief but heated exchange, which was overheard by a reporter, Yoho told Ocasio-Cortez she was "disgusting" for recently suggesting that poverty and unemployment are driving a spike in crime in New York City during the coronavirus pandemic.

"You are out of your freaking mind," Yoho told her.

Ocasio-Cortez shot back, telling Yoho he was being "rude."

The two then parted ways. Ocasio-Cortez headed into the building, while Yoho, joined by Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), began descending toward the House office buildings. A few steps down, Yoho offered a parting thought to no one in particular.

"Fucking bitch," he said.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/508259-ocaasio-cortez-accosted-by-gop-lawmaker-over-remarks-that-kind-of

arugula2 wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:But Ball's analysis typically talks up the threat of the Democratic Establishment and downplays the threat of the GOP. Shady as fuck and a nice pipeline from progressivism into Trumpism.

WayOfTheDodo wrote:
She's a real progressive doing insightful political analysis, so yeah, probably of no interest to you and other right-leaning people here.

Now, I wonder which description's the most credible here.

LifeIsWeird.jpg

The cross-pollination should be desired... this widely accepted notion of networks as cheerleaders for one or another political party, should die an embarrassing death. In that sense, both the business model of Krystal's brand (The Hill) and the fact that she's invited by race-baiting dilettantes to criticize neo-liberals, are better than the status quo of media as corporate shills.

Still, she's a hack. Unfortunately, The Hill's business model isn't strictly driven by serious journalism, and they're perfectly willing to burn that ethos to feed their own (mini)corporate maw. This is only sad because The Hill is still far better political journalism than almost anything else out there. For all I know, she's sincerely trying, and it's just that difficult to break through all the layers of Washington bs.

Spinozasgalt wrote:I have no interest in a left that's cross-pollinated by that section of the right. I want that section of the right totally destroyed. Smashed. I have no interest in a pipeline from them into socialist idealism either, because Ball and people like her don't ask those coming over to give up their worst tendencies. Having virulently racist conservatives turned into virulently racist socialists doesn't help me.

arugula2 wrote:

Spinozasgalt wrote:I have no interest in a left that's cross-pollinated by that section of the right. I want that section of the right totally destroyed. Smashed. I have no interest in a pipeline from them into socialist idealism either, because Ball and people like her don't ask those coming over to give up their worst tendencies. Having virulently racist conservatives turned into virulently racist socialists doesn't help me.

Idk what the purple part means - do you mean they're not censored? And then does she get to attack their ideas if she disagrees? That seems like an ideal situation - in theory anyway. The part in orange: I should think not!

That's a scary thought though... virulent racist socialism. Do you see it trending in this country? Please point me to it.

No, the "cross pollination" isn't whatever one makes it to be. In this case, if "racism" is your concern, you'd be heartened by the fact that Krystal is pretty much consistent on that issue, as far as I've seen. So I guess anti-racist pollen is getting scattered in "enemy" territory, if the topic comes up & there's an anti-racist in the conversation. "That section" of the right punditry (ie, Carlson's) in addition to white nationalism, hits neoliberal policy-making on issues of trade and taxation, if not sometimes also on political corruption. In the event that some portion of Carlson's listeners is drawn to that particular message and couldn't care less about white nationalist rhetoric, there isn't much else for them on the right, and there isn't anything for them on CNN/MSNBC/networks. Yet if they gather @Carlson or @Wallace as a matter of routine, there isn't anything better or more logical or more ethical even than to physically go where they are, and open one's mouth - the way Bernard did a few times, for example.

The "pipeline" metaphor is pretty irrelevant - I used it as a counterfactual in a later post, to illustrate that a GOP-er could argue the exact same thing from the other direction. Hence, the two imaginary "pipelines" cancel each other out, and the anxiety was for naught. But if you do discover the actual pipeline in action, I would like to spectate... along with the wave of racist American socialists.

Spinozasgalt wrote:I'm not going to ignore my actual experiences with leftists and in leftists spaces because your analysis doesn't make room for them, sorry. If you want to spectate, go into leftist spaces and see what the class-first and anti-identity politics socialists are like.