What should we disqus here?

[Wonderment]

We still have opportunities for community discussions here. The only ground rule, as I understand it, is that we don't start or continue comments based on the diavlogs themselves.

Any ideas on how best to develop this remnant of the old Vbulletin universe?

[look]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

We still have opportunities for community discussions here. The only ground rule, as I understand it, is that we don't start or continue comments based on the diavlogs themselves.

Any ideas on how best to develop this remnant of the old Vbulletin universe?

-take suggestions for a nick-name of the site
-ask Brenda to delete the dungeon

[handle]

Originally Posted by look

-take suggestions for a nick-name of the site
-ask Brenda to delete the dungeon

Ah hem

[look]

Originally Posted by handle

Ah hem

I saw that, that's why I suggested choosing a name. I like it.

[look]

Originally Posted by look

I saw that, that's why I suggested it. I like it.

It works both ways: take it out side and outside of disqus.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

We still have opportunities for community discussions here. The only ground rule, as I understand it, is that we don't start or continue comments based on the diavlogs themselves.

Any ideas on how best to develop this remnant of the old Vbulletin universe?

It's basically left like the old Life, the Universe, and Everything section mostly. But we can still have the kinds of discussions that have traditionally gone here. I suspect we could also spin off discussions that stem from the diavlogs but go beyond direct response to the diavloggers -- the discussion on "evil," for example.

I'm not sure about that last, nor am I dying to continue that discussion. Just an example.

The problem with talking here, of course, is that it's going to be a limited number of participants, as the diavlogs will no longer cause people to discover us. Thus, whether or not Bob pulls the plug, I suspect it's short-lived.

That said, what do you want to talk about?

I think I'm starting to better understand your POV on Paul -- the idea that he could be making converts to his foreign policy and drug war ideas -- but I suspect that topic's been done to death.

[handle]

Originally Posted by look

I saw that, that's why I suggested it. I like it.

Just checkin', thanks. Now we need to agree on a way to somehow link to the dialvlogs without linking to them. I'm going to have to review the rule on this.
My vague understanding is we are discouraged from creating threads related to the dialvlog, so we must somehow continue the deeper content or exchange levels here and still be able to find them easily. Or did I violate the spirit or intent of the restriction?

[graz]

Originally Posted by stephanie

I think I'm starting to better understand your POV on Paul -- the idea that he could be making converts to his foreign policy and drug war ideas -- but I suspect that topic's been done to death.

Me too. As long as it doesn't come with a side dish of Greenwaldian scolding about inconsistency and false equivalence -- Obama = Bush.

[handle]

Originally Posted by look

It works both ways: take it out side and outside of disqus.

Zackly

[look]

Originally Posted by handle

Just checkin', thanks. Now we need to agree on a way to somehow link to the dialvlogs without linking to them. I'm going to have to review the rule on this.
My vague understanding is we are discouraged from creating threads related to the dialvlog, so we must somehow continue the deeper content or exchange levels here and still be able to find them easily. Or did I violate the spirit or intent of the restriction?

I think because Bob is graciously leaving this up for us, we should take pains not to discuss here what is currently being discussed there. And make an effort to contribute to Bob's traffic there.

But that leaves a lot of stuff to discuss.

[handle]

Originally Posted by look

I think because Bob is graciously leaving this up for us, we should take pains not to discuss here what is currently being discussed there. And make an effort to contribute to Bob's traffic there.

But that leaves a lot of stuff to discuss.

Yeah, but the new site is much less of a discussion and more of an array of comments, some responded to, and few actually discussed at length. Maybe we could "take it outside" with a link to a generic thread title 1A, 2C, etc.. Would the powers that be consider this distracting from the main comment thread? Especially when that one is directly under the vlog? Seems most people would just stay with the main page, and only us diehard VBers would navigate away..

[look]

Originally Posted by handle

Yeah, but the new site is much less of a discussion and more of an array of comments, some responded to, and few actually discussed at length. Maybe we could "take it outside" with a link to a generic thread title 1A, 2C, etc.. Would the powers that be consider this distracting from the main comment thread? Especially when that one is directly under the vlog? Seems most people would just stay with the main page, and only us diehard VBers would navigate away..

It's very tricky, as Bob specifically beseeched us

But please, please, please don't use vBulletin threads to comment on the diavlogs

We should probably ask Brenda to ask him for specific guidelines here.

[handle]

Originally Posted by look

It's very tricky, as Bob specifically beseeched us



We should probably ask Brenda to ask him for specific guidelines here.

But what if it isn't a comment on the diavlogs, but a continuation of a divergent conversation, prompted by a comment on the diavlogs that's already up on disquis?
Right, maybe when the smoke clears from the reno we can get some input on this.

[look]

Originally Posted by handle

But what if it isn't a comment on the diavlogs, but a continuation of a divergent conversation, prompted by a comment on the diavlogs that's already up on disquis?
Right, maybe when the smoke clears from the reno we can get some input on this.

That sounds cool, but I think linking from the Disqus thread would not be kosher.

(I know it's pronounced 'discuss,' but I pronounce it 'discus' in my head.)

[look]

Originally Posted by stephanie

It's basically left like the old Life, the Universe, and Everything section mostly. But we can still have the kinds of discussions that have traditionally gone here. I suspect we could also spin off discussions that stem from the diavlogs but go beyond direct response to the diavloggers -- the discussion on "evil," for example.

I'm not sure about that last, nor am I dying to continue that discussion. Just an example.

The problem with talking here, of course, is that it's going to be a limited number of participants, as the diavlogs will no longer cause people to discover us. Thus, whether or not Bob pulls the plug, I suspect it's short-lived.

That said, what do you want to talk about?

I think I'm starting to better understand your POV on Paul -- the idea that he could be making converts to his foreign policy and drug war ideas -- but I suspect that topic's been done to death.

We could work it backward and invite people we know from other sites...and that could feed to Disqus. Not terribly feasible, I know.

[Wonderment]

I think I'm starting to better understand your POV on Paul -- the idea that he could be making converts to his foreign policy and drug war ideas -- but I suspect that topic's been done to death.

Well, that's encouraging.

I think Paul has run a brilliant campaign so far. He stays on message no matter what, and he's got the Republican establishment right where he wants them. They would love to reduce him to a laughingstock, as the Dem. establishment did with Dennis Kucinich, but it's not working.

What does Romney do with Paul? If he alienates him, Paul could run as an independent and probably hand the election to Obama. But what can Romney offer Paul to win his support? Certainly nothing tangible, like a cabinet position. But Romney can be nudged to tone down the interventionist rhetoric and defense hawkery. If the Paulist/Libertarian/non-interventionist contingent in Congress can grow, the facts on the ground will be not just rhetorical but empowering for those of us who support a different foreign policy vision.

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Well, that's encouraging.

Yeah -- I just couldn't get away from the analysis before that you were arguing that Paul's support was because of his foreign policy ideas, when it seemed that, within the Republicans, at least, it clearly was not. It finally hit me that you actually think he will convince people of his ideas, not just that they will go along with him due to them being leftwing types already or willing to accept the rest of him with his libertarianism, despite not agreeing. Thus, he could change things even if he doesn't win (which he won't).

I know you said this, but the meaning finally hit me, and I think I agree. Well, not entirely, I still think you are too optimistic, especially given the tenor of the Republican debate on foreign policy otherwise, which makes George W. Bush look like Sen. Robert Taft (kidding exaggeration, but not as much as I wish).

I think Paul has run a brilliant campaign so far. He stays on message no matter what, and he's got the Republican establishment right where he wants them. They would love to reduce him to a laughingstock, as the Dem. establishment did with Dennis Kucinich, but it's not working.

Okay, I will agree with this too. As long as we don't start with the Dr. Paul stuff. ;-)

What does Romney do with Paul? If he alienates him, Paul could run as an independent and probably hand the election to Obama. But what can Romney offer Paul to win his support? Certainly nothing tangible, like a cabinet position. But Romney can be nudged to tone down the interventionist rhetoric and defense hawkery.

This is where it sounds like wishful thinking again, as the Republicans are clearly committed to portraying Obama as weak on national defense and the Paul and Romney/Gingrich/Santorum/etc. factions are just so far apart, with Paul committed to attacking Obama as basically like Bush and the rest of them for being so horribly threatening in his unlikeness to Bush.

But I will be interested to see, because there will be a need to address the Paul supporters (the question is whether economic stuff can do that, which is where DZ and TS and all the rest of us have been worried) and I could certainly be wrong. One thing, of course, is that the Republican position here might be more similar to the US opinion than full scale Paulism would be, but the Romney-Perry-etc.-for-the-primaries seems unlikely to be popular, and Romney clearly has no problem, uh, modifying his position when he thinks it would help him. The argument against this (which I see as the winning argument, sadly) is that important elements of the establishment (including Romney's advisers) really are committed to his current positions and foreign policy, etc. is essentially part of the culture war. Thus, the Republicans could see that vast majorities of the US don't want more wars or to continue the current ones, but still see calling the Dems weak on defense a winning issue that can't be sacrificed for somewhat greater support from Paul. We'll see.

[sugarkang]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

But Romney can be nudged to tone down the interventionist rhetoric and defense hawkery.

How? For most Paul supporters, it's him or nothing. The only way I see Romney getting dovish is if the GOP itself is transformed.

[look]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

We still have opportunities for community discussions here. The only ground rule, as I understand it, is that we don't start or continue comments based on the diavlogs themselves.

Any ideas on how best to develop this remnant of the old Vbulletin universe?

We could go dumpster diving and take a second look at DVs that didn't get the attention they deserved at the time they were posted.

[Wonderment]

there will be a need to address the Paul supporters (the question is whether economic stuff can do that, which is where DZ and TS and all the rest of us have been worried) and I could certainly be wrong.

Well, we'll see how it all plays out.

But that line of economic concessions doesn't really excite Paul supporters, as far as I can tell. The Party already panders to Paul on domestic economic issues. Paul voters are not going to rally around Romney because he agrees with Rick Perry on dismantling Energy, Education and Whatchamacallit.

Paul will keep his focus on spending, but he won't be appeased by establishment figures who exempt defense spending from the conversation.

Interestingly, Paul is energized by support he's getting from veterans and active-duty military. He ought to be. It's a very good sign that the military doesn't (necessarily) support militarism.

Also, "Paulism" can grow organically as it intersects with progressive counter-militarism. The seed of skepticism in US foreign policy is now firmly planted (or the roots rediscovered) on both the right and left.

Less optimistically, this may not prevent war on/with Iran or the usual stimulus program for wars around the world, including in Mexico. But it's a step in the right direction.

[Ocean]

Just for clarity and because I've been part of this discussion before.

I think I've understood your argument from the beginning: Ron Paul serves the function of seeding his anti-war message within the ranks of the Republican Party. He validates this kind of argument and makes this kind of discussion possible in a group which otherwise would completely dismiss the possibility.

However, I still disagree about how valuable this is in the context of the totality of Paul's ideas, and who are the people receptive to his message. IMO, the vast majority of the Republican Party will ignore or reluctantly endure his anti-war message, because the only part that resonates with them is the rest, the part that we don't like, and as a matter of fact, abhor.

The second area of disagreement has been about the level of enthusiasm and almost fanaticism of some of your statements in support of Ron Paul. Plainly annoying for those of us who look at the rest of his proposed policies and underlying political philosophy which in great part contradicts some of the most fundamental liberal principles.

Lastly, you say:

Originally Posted by Wonderment

What does Romney do with Paul? If he alienates him, Paul could run as an independent and probably hand the election to Obama. But what can Romney offer Paul to win his support? Certainly nothing tangible, like a cabinet position.

Cabinet position? Hell, no! He'll close the cabinet down and will go home happy with a smaller government.

Now if you put him in charge of the Department of Defense...

[stephanie]

Originally Posted by Wonderment

Well, we'll see how it all plays out.

Yes, and I hope you are right.

But that line of economic concessions doesn't really excite Paul supporters, as far as I can tell.

This gets back to my sense that you are focusing on a segment (the minority segment) of Paul voters, probably based on who you personally know and see, who were already inclined to agree with Paul on foreign policy and who are probably more left-leaning in their other views. Those people don't scare the Republicans. The Republicans are worried that they will lose natural Republican voters (including a certain segment of independents and libertarians), and that's why they worry that a Paul third party run would hurt them more than Obama.

I think if we look at natural Paul supporters, the people he's had over the years and in '08, these are people who are excited by the economics. There's been talk about why his popularity has grown in bad economic times, and I think this too is probably due more to economic things than foreign policy or the drug war. Now, I think he gets some libertarian/left support because of the stuff you like too (as we've seen from you, Baz, ohreally), but if he has an important effect it's in convincing natural Republicans and people who gravitated to him because of economic stuff that his other ideas make sense within their ideas and world.

Like I said, I've come around on this, but I think it still means that economic concessions could excite the supporters. (Of course, concessions more than lip service are as contrary to the Republican establishment as the foreign policy changes, so like you said, we will see how it plays out.)

Paul will keep his focus on spending, but he won't be appeased by establishment figures who exempt defense spending from the conversation.

True, I wouldn't think so and hope not. He's being more conciliatory with Romney than the others, however, or so it seems to me, despite Romney's focus on not cutting defense at all and in fact doing the opposite. So powerful no one would ever think to dare to attack us or disagree with us, etc.

Interestingly, Paul is energized by support he's getting from veterans and active-duty military. He ought to be. It's a very good sign that the military doesn't (necessarily) support militarism.

Yes.

[Wonderment]

(Of course, concessions more than lip service are as contrary to the Republican establishment as the foreign policy changes, so like you said, we will see how it plays out.)

Right. In the diavlog posted today that we're not allowed to disqus here, Matt and Bill also raise the question of what does Paul really hope to attain. I think Matt pretty much covered it: short term, speak truth to power; mid-term force the GOP to pander and try to co-opt his ideas as much as possible; long term, the revolution.

[badhatharry]

Originally Posted by look

We could go dumpster diving and take a second look at DVs that didn't get the attention they deserved at the time they were posted.

I'll bring the popcorn.

[look]

Originally Posted by badhatharry

I'll bring the popcorn.

Yay!