What about the GOP attracts nazis and white supremacists?

[Medic007]

Obama isn't all Democrats or all liberals, now is he?

And the real distraction is all this Alinksy junk.

Hmmmm. Interesting. Nobody said Obama is all Democrats or all liberals. But he was the president and has had influence on Democrats and liberals and their politics. Do you disagree with that?

Why is talking about Alinsky and his princies of community organizing a distraction?

 

[my_2cents]

Who has been mentioned? Elizabeth Warren? Hillary? Sorry, out on both. Biden? Maybe, if he doesn't come out campaigning as a silly progressive.

Here is a list of the most common names being mentioned. Who do you believe, off this list, is the best option for the Democrats in 2020?:

Biden, Warren, Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, Booker, Brown, Bullock, McAuliffe, Landrieu, Hickenlooper, Holder, Patrick, Garcetti, Schultz

 

[Ponca Dan]

That is exactly the status of like 99.975% of rank and file democrats. He was a counter-culture, Chicago 7 type of guy that had a following in the 60's from what I can tell. If I ever heard of him it was in context of something like that. 99.9% of what I've heard is from wingnuts. I've marveled at their obsession with him multiple times.

But for wingnut obsession with him, he is at most an obscure historical footnote that doesn't even make the initial grade as a prominent counter culture hippies from the 1960's. It's one of 1000 narratives they run with and it has zero basis in reality. One narrative is that HRC wrote about him in college, so she follows whatever he was for. I wrote about Guiseppe Garibaldi in a paper, but I never really gave a shit about Italian revolution or what he thought. One reason I think they believe it is because they think if you sit down and do lurnin' and expend the energy to write about something then you must really believe it and follow it like it's the bible, because they wrote down some bible verses one time real nice and they was real important, it's still in a drawer.

I’m pretty sure Hillary wanted to go to California (?) and work for Alinsky when she graduated. I’m foggy in the particulars, but there was an obscure reason why she didn’t.

I don’t argue that 99%+ of Democrats don’t know who he is. But to suggest left wing activists haven’t read his book is poppycock.

 

[Medic007]

I don’t recall playing the “Alinsky” card on anyone but you. That hardly is evidence that I see it everywhere, hiding behind everything.

He seems fairly bothered by something about Alinsky. I'm not sure why.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

lol. That's some funny shit right there. Why do you lefties act like Alinsky is such a bad word? It's like you have Alinskyphobia or something.

I'm still dug in on your gaslighting in the other thread. Again, I don't want to enable fact-free debate. Debate is healthy, but lying to push an agenda is not.

Here is a list of the most common names being mentioned. Who do you believe, off this list, is the best option for the Democrats in 2020?:

Biden, Warren, Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, Booker, Brown, Bullock, McAuliffe, Landrieu, Hickenlooper, Holder, Patrick, Garcetti, Schultz

Welp, he got a call.

 

[my_2cents]

That is exactly the status of like 99.975% of rank and file democrats. He was a counter-culture, Chicago 7 type of guy that had a following in the 60's from what I can tell. If I ever heard of him it was in context of something like that. 99.9% of what I've heard is from wingnuts. I've marveled at their obsession with him multiple times.

But for wingnut obsession with him, he is at most an obscure historical footnote that doesn't even make the initial grade as a prominent counter culture hippies from the 1960's. It's one of 1000 narratives they run with and it has zero basis in reality. One narrative is that HRC wrote about him in college, so she follows whatever he was for. I wrote about Guiseppe Garibaldi in a paper, but I never really gave a shit about Italian revolution or what he thought. One reason I think they believe it is because they think if you sit down and do lurnin' and expend the energy to write about something then you must really believe it and follow it like it's the bible, because they wrote down some bible verses one time real nice and they was real important, it's still in a drawer.

I know sy. Almost all the talk I hear about Alinsky is from right-wing sources and those who regularly follow those sources.

And yeah, I to have written numerous papers on people and principles that I both agreed and disagreed with at the time. It would be absurd though to take one of my college papers and claim it sums up everything I believe now.

btw, I also find it interesting they never mention how Clinton was a Republican up to 1968 and served as President of the Wellesley Young Republicans while in college too haha.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

But to suggest left wing activists haven’t read his book is poppycock.

Nope, and even if so, so? I've read lots of books and don't make them my guidepost to life. You do understand that reading a new perspective doesn't mean you're married to it?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

I know sy. Almost all the talk I hear about Alinsky is from right-wing sources and those who regularly follow those sources.

And yeah, I've written numerous papers on people and principles that I both agree and disagree with. It would be absurd to take one of my college papers and claim it sums up everything I believe now.

btw, I also find it interesting they never mention how Clinton was a Republican up to 1968 and served as President of the Wellesley Young Republicans while in college too haha.

I volunteered for Don Nichols! Once.

 

[my_2cents]

Why do you lefties act like Alinsky is such a bad word?

I don't think it is a bad word.

It is just a talking point of the right and usually is inserted as a distraction when having political discussions.

 

[Medic007]

Here is a list of the most common names being mentioned. Who do you believe, off this list, is the best option for the Democrats in 2020?:

Biden, Warren, Harris, Sanders, Gillibrand, Booker, Brown, Bullock, McAuliffe, Landrieu, Hickenlooper, Holder, Patrick, Garcetti, Schultz

I have no idea what direction the Democratic Party is going right now, so that limits me as to who I think is the best option for the Party. I'll base my opinion on the direction I'd like to see the Party go, and that's centrist.

Already a no - Warren, Sanders, Booker, McAuliffe

Can I look into the rest and get back to you?

 

[Ponca Dan]

I volunteered for Don Nichols! Once.

A good Ponca City boy! I grew up with his older brother. We used to antagonize little Donnie when he wanted to play with us.

 

[CBradSmith]

I have no idea what direction the Democratic Party is going right now, so that limits me as to who I think is the best option for the Party. I'll base my opinion on the direction I'd like to see the Party go, and that's centrist.

Already a no - Warren, Sanders, Booker, McAuliffe

Can I look into the rest and get back to you?

Unless there's a fairly strong but unseen undercurrent, I think you know exactly the direction the Dem party is currently going.

 

[Medic007]

I don't think it is a bad word.

It is just a talking point of the right and usually is inserted as a distraction when having political discussions.

Alinsky has had a major influence on politics. Ever heard of ACORN and Barack Obama? It's hardly a "distraction," so I'm not sure why you claim that, unless maybe you have almost zero knowledge of Obama, which is OK by me.

 

[my_2cents]

Katie interviews many people that were not politicians. She interviewed talking heads of every persuasion.

Yes and there is nothing wrong with her asking tough questions or asking the person she is interviewing with about the criticisms they face. That is what a good reporter does.

What, do you want all reporters to act like Hannity does when he interviews Trump? lol

 

[Medic007]

Unless there's a fairly strong but unseen undercurrent, I think you know exactly the direction the Dem party is currently going.

Well, I was relieved to see Joe Lieberman's opinion on the left's "newly" found love of socialists. It's a good thing he's not actually dead. Maybe he can talk some sense into the people the party is leading to slaughter.

There's a small glimmer of hope. Maybe more losing will alter their course back to being based in common sense.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Nope, and even if so, so? I've read lots of books and don't make them my guidepost to life. You do understand that reading a new perspective doesn't mean you're married to it?

Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals have provided left wing activists rock hard techniques for defeating political opponents, both in the debating arena and in real world street politics. It has been an invaluable source. It is pure poppycock for you to deny it. On the other hand denial of the obvious is one of the techniques suggested.

 

[my_2cents]

Nobody said Obama is all Democrats or all liberals.

Exactly. So just because Obama read Alinsky, or talked about Alinsky, or likes Alinsky doesn't mean that all Democrats do. Or that all liberals do.

But he was the president and has had influence on Democrats and liberals and their politics. Do you disagree with that?

Sure, he has had influence just like other Democrats have had influence. He isn't the only Democrat though. And just because he has influence doesn't mean that all Democrats are beholden/influenced by Alinsky or view Alinsky's book as their bible lol.

 

[CBradSmith]

Well, I was relieved to see Joe Lieberman's opinion on the left's "newly" found love of socialists. It's a good thing he's not actually dead. Maybe he can talk some sense into the people the party is leading to slaughter.

There's a small glimmer of hope. Maybe more losing will alter their course back to being based in common sense.

I definitely agree that there is a small undercurrent led by primarily non-political figures. That's promising. I always kinda liked Lieberman. Hopefully he will speak out more and embolden the more moderate plank of the Dem party.

 

[my_2cents]

I have no idea what direction the Democratic Party is going right now, so that limits me as to who I think is the best option for the Party. I'll base my opinion on the direction I'd like to see the Party go, and that's centrist.

That is what I am asking you Medic. I am not asking you what direction you think the Democratic Party will go. I am simply asking you out of the named candidates, who do you think is the best option for the Democrats?

btw, you think the party should go more centrist yet you voted for Sanders in 2016? lol, what in the world?

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

 

[my_2cents]

It's hardly a "distraction," so I'm not sure why you claim that

The manner in which he is inserted into conversations by some on the right usually is a distraction. Just look at the way Ponca brings him up. To distract.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yes and there is nothing wrong with her asking tough questions or asking the person she is interviewing with about the criticisms they face. That is what a good reporter does.

What, do you want all reporters to act like Hannity does when he interviews Trump? lol

If Katie were to ask you: “2cents, your critics say you are the spawn of a disease ridden prostitute mother and a drug addicted father, and because of that you suffer from a rare sexual/drug disease of the brain. Would you like to respond to those critics?” And smile her sweet little innocent smile at you. And knowing that to be a total lie, a lie designed to reduce any influence you might desire in the political process, a lie you know Katie knows is a lie, would you consider that to be legitimate journalism? That’s an example of some of the journalism Katie practiced. That’s an extreme example of the same cowardly technique you use so frequently. Aren’t you an OSU Cowboy? Then Cowboy up and don’t hide behind unknown anonymous critics!

 

[Medic007]

That is what I am asking you Medic. I am not asking you what direction you think the Democratic Party will go. I am simply asking you out of the named candidates, who do you think is the best option for the Democrats?

I indicated I'll take some time to review the names you posted.

btw, you think the party should go more centrist yet you voted for Sanders in 2016? lol, what in the world?

Is this the movie Groundhog Day? We've discussed this previously, even in this very thread. I voted for Trump in 2016 in the election that mattered. I voted against Hillary in the one that didn't.

 

[my_2cents]

If Katie were to ask you: “2cents, your critics say you are the spawn of a disease ridden prostitute mother and a drug addicted father, and because of that you suffer from a rare sexual/drug disease of the brain. Would you like to respond to those critics?” And smile her sweet little innocent smile at you. And knowing that to be a total lie, a lie designed to reduce any influence you might desire in the political process, a lie you know Katie knows is a lie, would you consider that to be legitimate journalism?

If she did that to me, I'd smile back at her, laugh, and then talk about how such claims are not true and clearly show desperation on the part of my critics. And yes, if my critics were making such claims, it would be legitimate journalism to ask me about them. And then when the interview was over, I'd think her for allowing me the opportunity to address my critics.

You getting upset about Katie Couric asking questions is hilarious. I wonder if she read her Alinsky bible before every interview??

 

[my_2cents]

I indicated I'll take some time to review the names you posted.

Ok, just let me know.

I voted against Hillary in the one that didn't.

Yes, you voted for the Democratic Party to go more to the left than the center when you voted for Sanders. Yet now, you want it to go to the center and away from Sanders' wing.

haha

 

[Ponca Dan]

The manner in which he is inserted into conversations by some on the right usually is a distraction. Just look at the way Ponca brings him up. To distract.

Distract hell! I’m accusing you to your face of arguing in a cowardly manner! I recognize what you are doing even if you don’t. I’m pointing out an egregious flaw in your technique.

I totally agreed with your explanation of perceived racism in the Republican Party. But you couldn’t stop there. No you had to add that last paragraph. You had to insinuate sins of the party as professed by some indefinite party. It was uncalled for and it was unnecessary. You stated YOUR understanding, but you couldn’t resist a sucker punch at the end. I’ll say it again: you’re better than that. You don’t have to do that. Your ability to argue on behalf of your beliefs is strong enough. Sucker punches are the work of cowards, and you ain’t no coward.

 

[my_2cents]

Distract hell! I’m accusing you to your face of arguing in a cowardly manner!

I know. You are distracting away from the main topic. Glad you can admit it.

And btw, you are starting to use ad homineum attacks, something you complain about others doing.

Just let Alinsky go Ponca. Like I said, it doesn't help you.

 

[Ponca Dan]

If she did that to me, I'd smile back at her, laugh, and then talk about how such claims are not true and clearly show desperation on the part of my critics. And yes, if my critics were making such claims, it would be legitimate journalism to ask me about them. And then when the interview was over, I'd think her for allowing me the opportunity to address my critics.

You getting upset about Katie Couric asking questions is hilarious. I wonder if she read her Alinsky bible before every interview??

That’s precisely how most of those in the receiving end of her insults reacted. And it only weakened them and strengthened their enemies.

I think that’s one reason so many on the left are so flummoxed by Trump. He insults them back. They aren’t used to it. They don’t know what to make of it when their techniques are being used against them.

I’ve thought the same thing about Ann Coulter. She ridicules the left. One Of Alinsky’s primary rules, by the way. They hate her for it. Ridicule is not supposed to be used against them, only by them.

I am hardly upset by Couric. She’s simply the person where I first observed the technique. She is simply the example I was using.

 

[Medic007]

Yes, you voted for the Democratic Party to go more to the left than the center when you voted for Sanders. Yet now, you want it to go to the center and away from Sanders' wing.

haha

You really struggle with simple concepts. It's really weird.

 

[Medic007]

I think that’s one reason so many on the left are so flummoxed by Trump. He insults them back. They aren’t used to it. They don’t know what to make of it when their techniques are being used against them.

Bingo. Watching Trump take Alinsky principles to the next level was fascinating. In fact, he's made them his own. "Little Rocket Man" was supposed to get us into a war with North Korea.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I know. You are distracting away from the main topic. Glad you can admit it.

And btw, you are starting to use ad homineum attacks, something you complain about others doing.

Just let Alinsky go Ponca. Like I said, it doesn't help you.

I am not attacking your character. I am attacking your technique.

I am not the one deflecting from the OP. You ascribed racism by Republicans to anonymous people and I called you for it.

 

[my_2cents]

And it only weakened them and strengthened their enemies.

I disagree. This depends on the particular interview and the context involved.

I think that’s one reason so many on the left are so flummoxed by Trump. He insults them back.

Yes and it doesn't always work for him when he does that. Sometimes it does though. Again, it depends on the particular interview.

btw, I've seen Democrats hit back in interviews. I saw Obama do it, both Clintons, etc.

 

[my_2cents]

I am attacking your technique.

i.e. distraction. This thread was not started to talk about technique or Alinsky.

I am not the one deflecting from the OP. You ascribed racism by Republicans to anonymous people and I called you for it.

Yes, you are deflecting/distracting from the OP. I was discussing the topic and I mentioned how some ascribe soft racism to the Republican Party (which is true). You then felt the need to deflect/distract and move to your Alinsky obsession. And you got called on it.

Now, if you would like to return to the original discussion, I'd be more than glad to.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

i.e. distraction. This thread was not started to talk about technique or Alinsky.



Yes, you are deflecting/distracting from the OP. I was discussing the topic and I mentioned how some ascribe soft racism to the Republican Party (which is true). You then felt the need to deflect/distract and move to your Alinsky obsession. And you got called on it.

Now, if you would like to return to the original discussion, I'd be more than glad to.

I think he may be Ken M.

 

[Medic007]

I was discussing the topic and I mentioned how some ascribe soft racism to the Republican Party (which is true).

Some ascribe soft racism to the Democratic Party. Democrats have quite the sordid history of racism.

 

[my_2cents]

Democrats have quite the sordid history of racism.

Yes and I referenced this history earlier on the thread. Thank goodness the Democratic Party moved away from that.

"My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights . . . My good friends, I ask my Party, I ask the Democratic Party, to march down the high road of progressive democracy." - Hubert H. Humphrey, 1948 Democratic National Convention

 

[Medic007]

Yes and I referenced this history earlier on the thread. Thank goodness the Democratic Party moved away from that.

"My friends, to those who say that we are rushing this issue of civil rights, I say to them we are 172 years late. To those who say that this civil-rights program is an infringement on states’ rights, I say this: The time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadow of states' rights and to walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights . . . My good friends, I ask my Party, I ask the Democratic Party, to march down the high road of progressive democracy." - Hubert H. Humphrey, 1948 Democratic National Convention

Have they moved away from it? Or have they just changed how it looks? Do you see anything wrong with the venom expressed toward black folks who don't vote Democrat?

 

[my_2cents]

Have they moved away from it?

Yes, the Democratic Party has.

Do you see anything wrong with the venom expressed toward black folks who don't vote Democrat?

Yes, I have seen this from some individuals and I disagree with it.

Have you had a chance to look at those potential candidates? Which one do you think is the best choice for the Dems in 2020?

 

[Medic007]

Yes, the Democratic Party has.

Yes, I have seen this from some individuals and I disagree with it.

Weird. Some say that the expectation that blacks must vote Democrat and get met with negative reactions when they don't is racism. If they've moved away from it, why do they still do it?

 

[my_2cents]

Some say that the expectation that blacks must vote Democrat and get met with negative reactions when they don't is racism.

Some say . . . oh goodness @Ponca Dan lol.

I don't really know if this is racism or not. I've heard African Americans criticize other African Americans for voting Republican. Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

If they've moved away from it, why do they still do it?

I said the Democratic Party has moved away from it and it has. If you disagree, please reference somewhere in the Democratic Platform where racism has been embraced.

Again though, do you have an answer for which Democratic candidate you think would be the best option in 2020?