NationStates

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 7:51 pm**

San Lumen wrote:Lets also not forget the 38 governorships up next year along with many other statewide offices and most state legislatures.

I will make a separate megathread for that down the line.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 7:52 pm**

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Abraxim wrote:
Thanks. To this, I can reply.

I can agree there, the lumping of people together is bad for parties. A moderate Dem doesn't want to be lumped in with SJWs, any more than a Trump supporter wants to be lumped in with David Duke. Someone once told me a few months back, when trying to explain why I support Trump on some policies (Not all), they said I support Rape. I'm just like WTF?

Sadly, the more extreme elements of a party is what is televised, or you tubed about. Its easy to do, but really galvanizing. It is insane, really. And we all know these midterms are going to be hyped up too.

As my neighbor put it, Its time to pick your side. I've picked mine, but I disagree with that sentiment, there seems to be no middle ground left to stand on anymore, because then your disavowed by both sides.

Yes, I can agree with that.

Lumping people should not happen. I have no idea what that guy was talking about.

As for picking a side, I choose to remain center left. The disintegration of the center and other moderates drifting right or left is a bad thing beacuse extremism is bad.

Question, if you care to share. On that Congresswoman from Hawaii, Gabbard, what is your stance on her? She would be an example, of a Democrat I would support (if she were in my state and all Republican options were neocons). I dislike her issues on abortion and some other things, but overall, I don't think she is too out there.

Interestingly, another Trump supporting friend of mine mentioned her and we went down the positions she has. For a majority, we agreed, almost as much as we would agree or disagree with your average Republican senator or governer

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:03 pm**

Abraxim wrote:
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:

Yes, I can agree with that.

Lumping people should not happen. I have no idea what that guy was talking about.

As for picking a side, I choose to remain center left. The disintegration of the center and other moderates drifting right or left is a bad thing beacuse extremism is bad.

Question, if you care to share. On that Congresswoman from Hawaii, Gabbard, what is your stance on her? She would be an example, of a Democrat I would support (if she were in my state and all Republican options were neocons). I dislike her issues on abortion and some other things, but overall, I don't think she is too out there.

Interestingly, another Trump supporting friend of mine mentioned her and we went down the positions she has. For a majority, we agreed, almost as much as we would agree or disagree with your average Republican senator or governer

Reading up on her a bit, yeah, I can agree that Gabbard sounds great.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:05 pm**

So all you really want is leftist nationalists? Nice.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:16 pm**

Bakery Hill wrote:So all you really want is leftist nationalists? Nice.

If their was no better option, sure. A Leftist Nationalist is better than, say an Elizabeth Warren or Feinstein type. Tulsa, at least makes some effort to be more well rounded, and not afraid, to challenge her party when it drifts down the rabbit hole on some issues. In it's own right, that is admirable, and admirable on the right too, when a politician doesn't just tow the platform, but rules by what they genuinely believe.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:49 pm**

Bakery Hill wrote:So all you really want is leftist nationalists? Nice.

It'd be a fresh breath of air from the revolting right-wing pseudo-nationalism we've been seeing from the GOP. Nationalism doesn't necessarily mean giving up multiculturalism or racial equality.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:54 pm**

Nouveau Yathrib wrote:
Bakery Hill wrote:So all you really want is leftist nationalists? Nice.

It'd be a fresh breath of air from the revolting right-wing pseudo-nationalism we've been seeing from the GOP. Nationalism doesn't necessarily mean giving up multiculturalism or racial equality.

I definitely agree.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 8:55 pm**

Shofercia wrote:
Major-Tom wrote:Despite all the speculation that the Senate might flip, I think that it will not. I would be elated if it did, but even with anti-Republican sentiment almost nationwide, the map is just not looking good for the Dems (See MO, IN, ND).

As for the House, I expect a wave and a potential Democratic takeover of the house. But these midterms are just a little less than a year away, so I could be totally and absolutely proven wrong in many ways.

A lot of people in California are unhappy about the nerfing of the Local Tax Exemption. I wonder how long it'll take Republicans to get the memo.

They'll actually care about what Commiefornia has to say?

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:01 pm**

Abraxim wrote:Saw you all say Math is white privilege.

Lol who says math is white privilege?

Also when I registered to vote, I ended up registering independent. I was so sick of both sides going at each other like crazy. In fact I didn’t even vote in the 2016 election because I was completely burnt out by all the insanity.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:01 pm**

Xmara wrote:
Abraxim wrote:Saw you all say Math is white privilege.

Lol who says math is white privilege?

Also when I registered to vote, I ended up registering independent. I was so sick of both sides going at each other like crazy. In fact I didn’t even vote in the 2016 election because I was completely burnt out by all the insanity.

Anyone left of Mussolini has said it apparently.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:03 pm**

All factors being considered (mainly, Trump breaking impopularity records and the Congressional GOP repeatedly ramming through deeply unpopular legislation under the cover of metaphorical darkness), the Democrats have a golden opportunity to retake the House, probably make large gains on the state and local levels, and maybe even maintain or gain seats in the Senate.

The Democratic Party being the Democratic Party, however, I'm keeping my expectations moderated. If one party can squander a potential landslide, it's them.

Abraxim wrote:After all the liberal hissy fits this year, I wont be voting anyone Democratic.

This year I saw people dressed as vaginas.
Dressed as penises.
Block more traffic.
Suddenly care about statues.
Vandalize said statues.
Saw you all say Math is white privilege.
Scream at the sky.
I listened to every possible way Trump could be removed.
I read more biased articles than I can count.
I saw Trump attempt to keep his promises.

If Trump did nothing else, your ridiculous outrage is enough to gain my support this time around, and for Republican senators too.

So sorry Democrats, you all galvanized us republicans into supporting Trump through all the ridiculousness this past year. This time, it's a straight Republican ticket for me. Your party didn't stand for reason, but for outrage. Those of us on the fence were forced to move right because the left is flat out embarrassing at this point.

Even your humor is stale. The small hands joke was funny, once, 2 years ago.

Imagine desperately making that many bullshit excuses to avoid taking responsibility for your own radicalization into the Trumpist cult of personality.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:05 pm**

Bakery Hill wrote:So all you really want is leftist nationalists? Nice.

From a practical point of view, left-wing populist nationalism could be a huge winner electorally. And I say that as an internationalist.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:07 pm**

Abraxim wrote:I went from blue dog democrat to alt right Republican without even changing any position or stance.

So you're the living confirmation of the theory that, when push comes to shove, centrists will always embrace fascism?

Yikes.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:07 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Bakery Hill wrote:So all you really want is leftist nationalists? Nice.

From a practical point of view, left-wing populist nationalism could be a huge winner electorally. And I say that as an internationalist.

I don't know how you define internationalist, but I probably am one as well.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:09 pm**

Bakery Hill wrote:
Liriena wrote:From a practical point of view, left-wing populist nationalism could be a huge winner electorally. And I say that as an internationalist.

I don't know how you define internationalist, but I probably am one as well.

Put simply, I think nationalism is silly at best and an existential peril to human progress at worst. We should seek to trascend nationality and petty nationalist squabbles.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:12 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Bakery Hill wrote:I don't know how you define internationalist, but I probably am one as well.

Put simply, I think nationalism is silly at best and an existential peril to human progress at worst. We should seek to trascend nationality and petty nationalist squabbles.

Certain national thinkers liked Tito differentiated between national spirit and national chauvinism on those grounds. His policy was to try and construct a Yugoslav patriotism to combat all the destructive ethnic nationalisms within his borders. I feel that's a good way to go, and it worked well til he passed on.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:14 pm**

Nouveau Yathrib wrote:
Bakery Hill wrote:So all you really want is leftist nationalists? Nice.

It'd be a fresh breath of air from the revolting right-wing pseudo-nationalism we've been seeing from the GOP. Nationalism doesn't necessarily mean giving up multiculturalism or racial equality.

Perhaps.

I would associate nationalism more so with the right than left. Saying that, I'll say I think the right has less of a problem with racial equality (legalistically) but more of a problem with racial prejudice generally. Contrastly I think the left, if left to it's own devices, takes multiculturalism too far sometimes, to the point where it strikes a nerve with more nationalist people. I kind of like that the right sort of 'checks' that, a bit and advocates for more integration.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:23 pm**

Bakery Hill wrote:
Liriena wrote:Put simply, I think nationalism is silly at best and an existential peril to human progress at worst. We should seek to trascend nationality and petty nationalist squabbles.

Certain national thinkers liked Tito differentiated between national spirit and national chauvinism on those grounds. His policy was to try and construct a Yugoslav patriotism to combat all the destructive ethnic nationalisms within his borders. I feel that's a good way to go, and it worked well til he passed on.

I think it's a good way to go as a short term, patchwork solution, but as you said, it worked until Tito passed on. And I get the feeling that that might be a general problem with that sort of model: the loss of its foundational leadership bringing an end to its stability.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:42 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Bakery Hill wrote:Certain national thinkers liked Tito differentiated between national spirit and national chauvinism on those grounds. His policy was to try and construct a Yugoslav patriotism to combat all the destructive ethnic nationalisms within his borders. I feel that's a good way to go, and it worked well til he passed on.

I think it's a good way to go as a short term, patchwork solution, but as you said, it worked until Tito passed on. And I get the feeling that that might be a general problem with that sort of model: the loss of its foundational leadership bringing an end to its stability.

Well I think that's more of a structural problem with autocrats and the centralisation of power in general really.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:52 pm**

Bakery Hill wrote:
Liriena wrote:I think it's a good way to go as a short term, patchwork solution, but as you said, it worked until Tito passed on. And I get the feeling that that might be a general problem with that sort of model: the loss of its foundational leadership bringing an end to its stability.

Well I think that's more of a structural problem with autocrats and the centralisation of power in general really.

Yeah, good point.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:18 pm**

I think its a little to early to predict anything in my opinion, and also anything can happen. After the Alabama Senate race I remain uncertain on how things will move along in the upcoming year.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:38 pm**

Spainard wrote:I think its a little to early to predict anything in my opinion, and also anything can happen. After the Alabama Senate race I remain uncertain on how things will move along in the upcoming year.

The signs of a likely "blue wave" are there, but yes, things could change over the course of the next year.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 10:40 pm**

Liriena wrote:
Spainard wrote:I think its a little to early to predict anything in my opinion, and also anything can happen. After the Alabama Senate race I remain uncertain on how things will move along in the upcoming year.

The signs of a likely "blue wave" are there, but yes, things could change over the course of the next year.

and polls from this time of year are usually quite predictive but yes a lot can change in year. But in all honesty unless something completely drastic happens or Republicans cheat massively I dont see how there isn't a blue tsunami next year.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:23 pm**

Xmara wrote:
Major-Tom wrote:Despite all the speculation that the Senate might flip, I think that it will not. I would be elated if it did, but even with anti-Republican sentiment almost nationwide, the map is just not looking good for the Dems (See MO, IN, ND).

And that sentiment is why I think the Republicans will keep the majority, but will still lose seats.

Lose some, they'll win some. They can flip NV and AZ easily if they put in a morsel of effort, but they'll have a tough time retaining Donnelly's seat and McCaskill's seat.

Posted: **Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:27 pm**

Abraxim wrote:
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:
Yeah, I don't remember saying that.

Of course a liberal would resort to minor grammatical points over a substantive reply about the state of liberal outrage this past year and it's effects on moderate republicans. I went from blue dog democrat to alt right Republican without even changing any position or stance.

Well, that's silly. You're mad at the Dems because some Dems do stupid, petty shit and attention whore. I'm mad at that too. But is that really worse than any impacting legislative changes the GOP is making that will certainly do us all detriment?

Abraxim wrote:
Bakery Hill wrote:So all you really want is leftist nationalists? Nice.

If their was no better option, sure. A Leftist Nationalist is better than, say an Elizabeth Warren or Feinstein type. Tulsa, at least makes some effort to be more well rounded, and not afraid, to challenge her party when it drifts down the rabbit hole on some issues. In it's own right, that is admirable, and admirable on the right too, when a politician doesn't just tow the platform, but rules by what they genuinely believe.

As for Ms Gabbard, I never understood why the right embraced her. She is critical of Bush/Obama foreign policy and expressed minor skepticism towards refugees. That's it. Other than that, a progressive. I personally like her very much, I just don't see why the right also likes her so much.

NationStates

US Midterm Election 2018 Megathread- It's Kavanaugh