Ah, I had read a source that characterized it this way, but the truth is more complicated. The report itself said this, but it reflected only the view of the author; the notes from Dem leadership on the report disputed this point in particular and said there was no evidence for it. Apparently they disagreed with the report’s conclusions enough to suppress the release for a while.
I misremembered this and a quick search to remind myself wasn’t adequate. Given the disagreement around the report, I don’t think it serves as a good source either way.
Digging a little into it, the research seems to indicate that there’s not adequate evidence to draw any conclusions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8. Although there’s some evidence that negativity demobilizes voters and degrades democracy, which you probably don’t want. But I don’t really care who wins anyway, I’m not sure why I’m even engaging here. I guess I just want the 2008 Democratic party back.
As I said earlier, Republicans are doing a pretty good job of dismantling the empire, and I care about that more than whatever either party is offering domestically (not much). So if they win, so be it.
2008 Dems had a large “liberaltarian” presence, which isn’t perfectly aligned with my views, but it was close enough that I was often in favor of their policies. Current Dems just want the war machine to focus more on Russia while sticking it to red states at home.
Antiwar sentiment in the party died after the entry of “CIA Democrats” like Spanberger, who now have outsized influence within the party. I don’t see much good coming out of a Dem victory until they are expelled.
"Current Dems just want our country to honor its commitments" is quite a criticism!
Maybe I'm just some war hungry lunatic, but I actually think that when the US tells a country it will defend its sovereignty in exchange for it not having nuclear weapons, it's very important that we honor those commitments.
That's probably because I prefer deterrence, and intermittent war required to assert deterrence, more than I like the idea of every nation in a race to build nuclear weapons and then every neighbor doing scrambling to prevent nuclearization. Basically a warmonger then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You also probably believe in strong regulation of the internet (including possibly ID verification), open borders, and other positions I don’t accept.
As I said, I’m not a fan of the current party, and I hope that the right continues to degrade state capacity until neither side has much left to work with.
No, I actually don't. I always find it surprising when people not only just internally start ascribing irrelevant and probably-untrue things to their interlocutors so they can dismiss their ideas, but they actually say it out loud!
I don't understand what my prior comment has to do with any party at all. It was a direct response to your implicit claim about the US's obligations to Ukraine, and therefore to the rest of its security umbrella.
Well then you wouldn’t be in alignment with the mainstream of your party, who does seem to want that, at least if you look at blue state legislation.
As to how it has to do with the party, we were discussing the Democratic Party, Russia was a brief aside. But I do find that people’s position on the Russia/Ukraine conflict typically tends to say a lot about their other positions.
Can you identify specific blue state legislation that creates or attempts to create open borders?
Are you referring to sanctuary policies which just say a locality won't expend local resources to enforce federal immigration law?
Not sure what you could possibly be referring to here.
You're aware that actual open borders is an extremely, extremely fringe position, right? The borders between US states are "open borders." Support for open international borders is unbelievably rare, across the entire political spectrum.
Actually I was referring mostly to the Internet regulation with regards to blue state legislation, but regardless, yes the sanctuary policies could be considered (in my view) as support for nonenforcement of border controls, or in other words, open borders. I guess it’s not technically open borders if your policy is that you can’t come across unless you manage to survive the dangerous illegal crossing and evade the border patrol, then you can stay. Fine. Guess you got me there.
I don’t really feel like rehashing the open borders motte and bailey that always happens on the internet, yes most Dems don’t support actual open borders but the policies they push for are equivalent. If there’s one thing Americans can agree on, it’s that they like having an underpaid slave caste, even if Republicans do pretend that they are against it.
~25 states (almost all of them red) instituted porn restrictions, including internet age verification laws, in the last few years.
Another handful of states across the red/blue gamut, but actually still red-bent, are pushing for social media restrictions.
What on earth are you talking about? Concretely what are these blue state laws that are so pervasive that you can derive the "mainstream position" from them?
Also why would Berkeley, California have any obligation or interest in enforcing border controls when those are 1) federal laws and 2) the border is 600 miles away?
California’s OS age attestation/age bracket API law, Colorado’s similar law, and the pending laws in Illinois and New York. Michigan had a law in process but pulled it because they decided it was unworkable. Virginia has a social media law that’s tied up in the courts. I’ll add to this the slew of laws targeting 3D printing, which seem to be solely a blue state phenomenon.
Yes, red states have their own age verification laws—I never said they didn’t. Hence why I’m not friendly towards either party.
Constant nitpicking and gaslighting also seem to be typical from modern Dems.
Sorry your example of overbearing suppression of Internet rights is a law that requires OS developers to collect broad age information and then to pass that information to any app developer that requests it (with user permission)?
I misremembered this and a quick search to remind myself wasn’t adequate. Given the disagreement around the report, I don’t think it serves as a good source either way.
Digging a little into it, the research seems to indicate that there’s not adequate evidence to draw any conclusions: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41253-019-00084-8. Although there’s some evidence that negativity demobilizes voters and degrades democracy, which you probably don’t want. But I don’t really care who wins anyway, I’m not sure why I’m even engaging here. I guess I just want the 2008 Democratic party back.