2018 Midterm Election Thread

[onejayhawk]

Also comical is the "but both sides are to blame" response to everything.

Just 90% of things. Politicians being political it might run higher, but I'm comfortable with 90%.

J

[Sour Masher]

Just 90% of things. Politicians being political it might run higher, but I'm comfortable with 90%.

J

My best guess is 68.3267%.

The problem with taking this stance in response of a specific example of corruption or fraud or wrongdoing, etc, rather than acknowledging and addressing and fixing that specific case of wrongdoing, is that nothing ever gets done. Nothing changes, because instead of addressing the wrong, when it is our side, we deflect and say it is a systemic problem, and why should we fix this one thing, when it is just one thing in a sea of other things?

In terms of this small community, I don't see the whataboutism defense from people on the left here like I do from people on the right. Maybe that is because I didn't participate much before the rise of Trump. Maybe every time anyone made a valid criticism of Obama or other dems in the past, lefties here deflected from the obvious wrongdoing to talk about Bush or whoever. I'd hope lefties, when faced with a Dem who is doing something we can all agree is bad, we would just say, yep, that dude is bad, his action is bad, it needs to stop, he needs to go. End of story. That hardly ever seems to happen when we bring up Repub bad stuff. It is always, well sure, but whatabout when this Dem did it, where were you then?! My retort to that, is point it out then and see who says what. If it happens in the future, point it out then too. But if we constantly bring up the past when talking about the present, we will never get to a better future .

[Judge Jude]

there is one specific comment that sent everything off the rails:

"Why does it always seem it’s the GOP pulling this kind of sore loser nonsense?"

I'm not even a right-winger nor a Republican - but that was such an outlandish, unproductive comment that I called it out, as did others. there is no chance of getting anywhere with such partisan bleating.

well, the other one that sent the car toward the ditch was claiming that an accusation in North Carolina was proof - which also is unproductive, and distracting.

I accept your premise that you would want to acknowledge when someone on "your team" makes unproductive, distracting comments that torpedo the conversation......

[frae]

well, the other one that sent the car toward the ditch was claiming that an accusation in North Carolina was proof - which also is unproductive, and distracting.

We aren't a court though, I think they have pretty clearly proved it happened. We have witnesses making quotes to the papers and we have enough proof that something happened. Does it rise to the level of changed the outcome of the election I don't know? We in the public can know something happened that can't be proven in court to get a conviction but it still happened. Nate Silver is smarter than me and as the information and the numbers on where the votes came from said this...

"The other thing about the alleged (do I have to keep saying "alleged" when it isn't in much doubt?) election fraud in NC-9 is just how obvious and sloppy it is. Or at least, obvious and sloppy given that NC keeps really detailed records on absentee ballots and other stuff"

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1069756987053932546?s=21

[Judge Jude]

well, I think linking to that comment would have worked a lot better than the Wa Post link, frankly. the latter story didn't live up to the sales pitch here - though clearly there are reasons to be suspicious.

I guess the issue here tends to be "overbidding." updating on the status of that race is fine and actually helpful, and noting that there are accusations of shenanigans is as well. but outkicking the coverage, so to speak, doesn't work for anybody here.

the left and the right seem to have different ways of ticking people off

[nots]

My best guess is 68.3267%.

The problem with taking this stance in response of a specific example of corruption or fraud or wrongdoing, etc, rather than acknowledging and addressing and fixing that specific case of wrongdoing, is that nothing ever gets done. Nothing changes, because instead of addressing the wrong, when it is our side, we deflect and say it is a systemic problem, and why should we fix this one thing, when it is just one thing in a sea of other things? I don't see the whataboutism defense from people on the left here like I do from people on the right. Maybe that is because I didn't participate much before the rise of Trump. I'd hope lefties, when faced with a Dem bad actor would just say, yep, that dude is bad, his action is bad, it needs to stop, he needs to go. End of story. That hardly ever seems to happen when we bring up Repub bad stuff. It is always, well sure, but whatabout when this Dem did it, where were you then?! My retort to that, is point it out then and see who says what. If it happens in the future, point it out then too. But if we constantly bring up the past when talking about the present, we will never get to a better future .

I think the term ‘whataboutism’ was invented by people not wanting to confront their own hypocrisy so they attempt to dismiss it. For one example, We have posters who rail about the debt and the deficit under Trump, but didn’t say a word about it under Obama. To me, it’s not ‘whataboutism’ to wonder why folks think it’s a big problem now, but didn’t seem to give a rats ass 5 years ago. I can confidently say that as soon as a righty in here bashes the next Democratic President for something, a lefty in here is going to cite Trump doing the same thing. And I guess I don’t see the problem in that.

[DMT]

I think the term ‘whataboutism’ was invented by people not wanting to confront their own hypocrisy so they attempt to dismiss it. For one example, We have posters who rail about the debt and the deficit under Trump, but didn’t say a word about it under Obama. To me, it’s not ‘whataboutism’ to wonder why folks think it’s a big problem now, but didn’t seem to give a rats ass 5 years ago. I can confidently say that as soon as a righty in here bashes the next Democratic President for something, a lefty in here is going to cite Trump doing the same thing. And I guess I don’t see the problem in that.

You've got to be joking right? The only time we the public hear about deficits are when Democrats are in power or Republicans want to cut social programs (even the term "entitlements" is specifically used to further that agenda).

Republicans supposedly used to stand for fiscal restraint but their hypocrisy has been fully exposed with their trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich.

[Sour Masher]

I think the term ‘whataboutism’ was invented by people not wanting to confront their own hypocrisy so they attempt to dismiss it. For one example, We have posters who rail about the debt and the deficit under Trump, but didn’t say a word about it under Obama. To me, it’s not ‘whataboutism’ to wonder why folks think it’s a big problem now, but didn’t seem to give a rats ass 5 years ago. I can confidently say that as soon as a righty in here bashes the next Democratic President for something, a lefty in here is going to cite Trump doing the same thing. And I guess I don’t see the problem in that.

I gotta agree with DMT that the deficit isn't the best example for what you are talking about. traditionally, conservatism is the side that is better about caring about fiscal responsibility, but lately, that has only mattered to them when Dems are in charge. Progressives and conservatives care more or less about different things, which is why I think having both in government is important. Philosophically, fiscal conservatism should be something conservatives push no matter who is in charge. They certainly do that when a Dem is in charge, which is good--someone needs to do it. But when a Repub is in charge, no one is doing it. that, I think, is why you hear Dems bring it up more when Repubs are in charge. They are filling the vacuum. Also, and this is a problem about whataboutism in general, no two situations are exactly the same. The economy is different now than it was 5 years ago. So, I think it is fair to think we should be addressing the debt now in a different way than when we were in a recession.

Personally, I think the debt is increasingly becoming a serious issue. I think for a long time, how serious it was was overblown by fiscal conservatives, because as big as it used to be, it was still tiny compared to our economy. That has been changing for awhile now. I began to worry about it a little under Bush, then more under Obama. I gave Obama a pass on dealing with it, because of the recession. Now times are good, the economy is good. But that won't last forever. Now is the time to address the debt. When you have money in the bank, pay off the credit cards! Instead, trump chose to give a massive tax cut to the rich and massively expand military spending. It makes no sense to me.

[nots]

You've got to be joking right? The only time we the public hear about deficits are when Democrats are in power or Republicans want to cut social programs (even the term "entitlements" is specifically used to further that agenda).

Republicans supposedly used to stand for fiscal restraint but their hypocrisy has been fully exposed with their trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich.

Here you go:

https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151

Pay special attention to what Obama’s 2010 tax cut did to the debt.
BTW, my tax cut was $1900 last year (crumbs, I know). I am not rich. I would be willing to guess you got a tax cut too. Just another HuffPost/Slate talking point.

[Sour Masher]

Here you go:

https://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151

BTW, my tax cut was $1900 last year (crumbs, I know). I am not rich. I would be willing to guess you got a tax cut too. Just another HuffPost/Slate talking point.

Yes, you got a tax cut, and I got a tax cut, and that is income we can now spend and stimulate the economy further. But that isn't the part DMT is talking about. It is also true that richer folks got way more of a tax cut. They threw some money our way, but most of it went to corporations and the elite. Doesn't it make sense to address the debt when times are really good, though? Isn't that the only time we can really do it? The economy is going well, and instead of paying down the "credit cards" when we have money in the bank, we are giving billions to the very rich, and adding billions to the MIC budget. That doesn't seem like a fiscally responsible thing to me.

[nots]

Yes, you got a tax cut, and I got a tax cut, and that is income we can now spend and stimulate the economy further. But that isn't the part DMT is talking about. It is also true that richer folks got way more of a tax cut. They threw some money our way, but most of it went to corporations and the elite. Doesn't it make sense to address the debt when times are really good, though? Isn't that the only time we can really do it? The economy is going well, and instead of paying down the "credit cards" when we have money in the bank, we are giving billions to the very rich, and adding billions to the MIC budget. That doesn't seem like a fiscally responsible thing to me.

FWIW, I think the more prudent thing would have been for the economy to start to falter or at least slow downand then have the tax cut that was passed. Try and prolong the good times. But that’s another argument.

[chancellor]

You've got to be joking right? The only time we the public hear about deficits are when Democrats are in power or Republicans want to cut social programs (even the term "entitlements" is specifically used to further that agenda).

Republicans supposedly used to stand for fiscal restraint but their hypocrisy has been fully exposed with their trillion dollar tax cuts for the rich.

Hmmm...I'll have to disagree, at least on this board, with the last sentence. Bernie Brewer certainly agrees with the premise that this administration didn't cut it on fiscal restraint, and I've pointed out more than once in different threads that the great GOP budget cutter, Ronald Reagan, actually increased non-defense spending as a percentage of GDP through every year of his administration. If you're talking in general, I'd agree that the GOP has run on a fiscal restraint platform, but the real data indicates both parties make drunken sailors spending habits look wise by comparison.

[DMT]

Hmmm...I'll have to disagree, at least on this board, with the last sentence. Bernie Brewer certainly agrees with the premise that this administration didn't cut it on fiscal restraint, and I've pointed out more than once in different threads that the great GOP budget cutter, Ronald Reagan, actually increased non-defense spending as a percentage of GDP through every year of his administration. If you're talking in general, I'd agree that the GOP has run on a fiscal restraint platform, but the real data indicates both parties make drunken sailors spending habits look wise by comparison.

Yep, I meant Republicans in general, not on RJ specifically.

[Bernie Brewer]

Sorry—What I posted I thought it was relevant to the conversation. Perhaps I will let you pre-screen my future responses so you can determine if they have merit.

Now this made me laugh!

[Bernie Brewer]

In terms of this small community, I don't see the whataboutism defense from people on the left here like I do from people on the right. Maybe that is because I didn't participate much before the rise of Trump. Maybe every time anyone made a valid criticism of Obama or other dems in the past, lefties here deflected from the obvious wrongdoing to talk about Bush or whoever. I'd hope lefties, when faced with a Dem who is doing something we can all agree is bad, we would just say, yep, that dude is bad, his action is bad, it needs to stop, he needs to go. End of story.

In the words of Cousin Eddie, "Bingo!" But they weren't doing because, well, they weren't.