-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
US PoliERA 2018 |OT7| Tell Me The Bad Things That Happened Since I Fell Asleep
- Thread starter Midnight Jon
- Start date
- Status
Seriously. first Philly, now St Louis w/ the Prosecutors being replaced by reformers.
Either squash or ignore them. Don't engage them like they are posting in good faith.
No, I think you're right that it's easier to just tap into their emotional cores, but basically, we'd need to run charismatic, good-looking, young men of any race almost exclusively. The sometimes-Democratic voter has a definite type in the Kennedy/Obama mold. Even Clinton, B., had this type of shine.
The problem is that doing this locks out Democratic women, effectively, from making it to that level.
I do wonder what type of Democratic woman candidate would excite those types of people and get them to vote.
I totally understand that. However, it's clearly not enough to just vote against someone. That's never really worked at all. It's best for a Dem to be a candidate someone wants to vote for. People know that the GOP is bad, but they don't see Dems doing much for black people either. That's when they just shrug and not vote.
yeah, sorry, I don't have any time or sympathy for anybody who didn't vote (or voted third-party) in 2016 of all years because they just didn't like Hillary enough. The choice between candidates, and the wildly different implications of what would happen if either of them were elected president, could not have been starker or more obvious. And it's insane to me that anyone frustrated with the quality, or total lack, of their political representation -- in not just a presidential election, but any election on any level -- would determine that the best way forward for improving their representation is to decidedly take themselves out of the equation. It drives me crazy.
Luckily I don't work on any campaigns, so it's not on me to mobilize these voters!
I want to see a play of Caesar where it's Trump and the entire third act is him getting stabbed and saying, "Et tu ___?"
Et tu, Michael Cohen?
Et tu, Rick Gates?
Et tu, Omarosa?
Et tu, Mike Flynn?
Et tu, coffee boy?
Et tu, Michael Cohen?
Et tu, Rick Gates?
Et tu, Omarosa?
Et tu, Mike Flynn?
Et tu, coffee boy?
The influx of women in office could give us a good shot at fixing that :)
What works for women might be different than what works for men, but that's hard to figure that out when there's so few examples to analyze. It's exciting to see how politics might change when politics is less of a boys club.
Last edited:
People feel like the system is against them—and it very much is—so why fight it? That's what they're thinking and it's hard to overcome that. Getting mad at them isn't going to do anything. Offering better options will.
Because nothing gets better or easier or fairer if you make no effort at changing things.
Things like mayoral, councilor, and other positions highlight the fact that a good deal of politics is local. The scale of something like city gentrification isn't controlled by a federal party, it's decided at city hall. Even though a good state or federal representative will look to improve the lives of their constituents, local politics is where direct action occurs most effectively against things like gentrification, city transport limitations, homelessness, and other marginalizing strategies against people who deserve better. "The Democratic Party" as a sweeping target doesn't fit neatly with local specificity. And so if a local councilor is a Democrat, but does not work to help people who need it, that doesn't actually say anything about a broader, general Democratic platform--it says that they, in particular, are just bad representatives.
That's true. But trying to force them to vote or getting them to understand that is a lot more difficult than having a damn good genuine candidate with some damn good policies
I can see that, but a lot of times it's not just one local rep. It's an entire political machine. It's a network.
But Civil Rights are not static. Progress is not permanent. It's not "well, we'll sit out the next two elections, and then we'll vote in someone who will finally move us a little left". There is no guarantee that the rights you have today will be there tomorrow, and sitting out in civic participation is ignoring that every day, there are thousands of people spending millions of dollars to give you less rights, opportunities, and representation than you had yesterday. The next democratic government will have to spend considerable time and resources just to bring us back to Obama-level normalcy, which is still far from where we need to be in the eyes of progressives, and it will be difficult just to pull that off because the Overton window will have shifted. Someone like AoC is only possible in districts that are already leaning blue or open or to Democratic principles in the first place.
Women have been far more reactive to the very real threat of losing Roe v Wade than I've seen anyone get up in arms over the Voting Rights Act or seeing White nationalists getting TV gigs and cabinet positions, and that's fucking frightening.
It's actually a poster of Putin's massive cock, stained with Paul's DNA from the flight back.
I finally got mine last week! The box it came in had packing peanuts. I didn't know those still existed. It's just as ridiculous as I was hoping it'd be and it's an S-tier gag gift this christmas. Somehow Trump managed to create a gift better than the "It's Muller Time!" tshirts from last year.
I saw the most recent debate, which was the first i paid attention to any of them, and was pretty unimpressed with all of them. Graham who is in the lead was pretty bad. Stilted and fake delivery of lines, and she said she was a mom every other sentence which was annoying. King is garbage, at least from a presentation/delivery aspect. Gillum wasnt too bad but he doesnt have a shot. Greene seemed sloppy and sporatic. Levine was probably the best all-around that has an actual shot at winning the race.
Hmmm Omarosa bullshitting because she's a snake selling a story.....Or Omarosa backstabbing Trump because she has a story to sell.
Which angle to believe
I can must up some meager sympathy for people who feel disenfranchised by the system not wanting to vote. I couldn't give a damn about the more affluent people complaining about how they aren't represented and not participating in voting
No but apparently she had free access to the whole of the White House and would sit in meetings at random. So who know what she recorded.
That said, are you guys quoting some troll? I see a lot of discussion about "good faith" but I don't see the offending posts so they must be hidden.
So assuming that Carolyn Long (WA-03), Sharice Davids (KS-03), Haley Stevens (MI-11), the eventual winner of WA-08 (who knows), the eventual winner of MN-08 (who knows), and the eventual winner of FL-27 (probabs Shalalalala but who knows) get added to DCCC's Red to Blue list, that list is a huge and is pretty much the official battleground of 69 candidates. Nice.
Last edited:
Agree entirely. Simply not voting is only marginally better than actively voting against one's interests as a lot of people do, but millions of people have been beaten down so badly by various factors that they don't feel like they can do anything about it. Even a single vote someplace that's not competitive means something and adds up if you could get everyone to vote.
Sadly, this is the internet, where the people with the loudest voices are white males who feel like society is wronging them. Ugh.
Voting against harm is important but that argument is hard to make when people are getting harmed whether they vote or not. Yea Trump sucks but for a lot of black people, there's not much of a difference. Inner city economies are still fucked so the jobs are limited, criminal justice reform isn't happening, crime could be a problem depending on where you are, etc. Many of the major inner cities have democrats in control of various things and shit has been bad for decades. Obviously there are multiple factors at play but I don't think democrats showing up every 2-3 years waving around MLK quotes has worked out for black people.
Of course part of this is on the black community as well. One of my biggest problems with faux "woke' shit today, BLM, etc is that the messages seemed moreso aimed at whites than blacks. What happened to community based action? It's going on in some places of course, I don't want to make a grand macro level statement...but more can be done. A lot more. It seems to me a lot of black movements today just boil down to begging white people for stuff (don't kill us, hey pay attention to us, etc) with little to no work being done in communities with actual black people. A revival of black nationalism is needed. Beyond the regressive, hateful hoteps online (Dr. Umar, Tariq etc)...I'm talking about actual grassroots based community work.
Civil rights must always be fought for and we must always be progressive. But some don't view the Dems as being progressive or view them as ineffectual politicians in the back pockets of corporations. Like JustinP said, it is in the Dems best interest to rid themselves of that image. Shaming people into voting isn't going to do much. Telling voters to vote Dem just to stem the GOP tide doesn't work. It didn't work with Kerry or Clinton. It's time to try a new method to get people to vote.
I saw the debate also. I think Graham is fine and probably will end up winning. Her family currently owns a company trying to build a huge mall/ tourist attraction on the edge of the everglades - which I'm not a fan of at all. She also seems to be pretty weak on marijuana legalization. But aside from that they're all running on basically the same platform. Levine is probably the second most economically conservative of the candidates. I really like Gillum.
@AmandiOnAir
Russians have penetrated some Florida voter registration systems, @SenBillNelson says
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/election/article216326550.html …
4:32 PM - Aug 8, 2018
Im concerned about when they go against Desantis outside the primary. I think Levine has a better shot at winning than Graham does in Florida.
I agree. We should have some mutual aid going on and black owned WSDE. However, I think one of the reasons why we haven't seen much of that in the last couple of decades is because we've seen other black people try it and get locked up or killed over it not to mention COINTELPRO
Stacey Abrams is about to RIP the Georgia Republican party a new one. I think more people are aware of the threat than you are suggesting.
In the long term I don't think reaching these people is relevant politically
Like, we should keep changing Democratic policies to include more social justice because that's the right thing to do, and if we are successful in doing so we will certainly win the votes of black radicals who believe that both parties don't care about social justice, because we will be addressing their concerns. Which is good in itself.
But I feel like the implicit argument here is really about "how do we win elections consistently," and the reality of that is that these voters really aren't critical to the electoral math. Radicalized black voters have the advantage of being actually correct. They have the disadvantage of being a pretty small group in a political system that really devalues individual voters to the greatest extent possible, in a larger subgroup (Black Americans) who already have extremely strong social norms towards voting Democratic. If those social norms haven't convinced them to vote, it's not clear that we can do so efficiently.
The reality of the American electoral system is that the biggest relevant factor is who's in the White House when the election happens, and both parties always have a shot at winning pretty much any seat no matter how crazy they get. This really hamstrings arguments from political necessity. It's more sensible, in my perspective, to argue from moral necessity. It's not about winning votes -- the question to ask is really, are they right about the Democratic Party? To the degree that they are, how do we fix it?
I think you can make a much stronger case that Schumer's views are not congruent with the consensus of the Democratic Party than you can for Nancy Pelosi.
If the issue is just that the GOP will run ads against Pelosi, stop negotiating with terrorists.
New sanctions (undefined) against Russia in response to Skripal poisoning:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/russia-sanctions-trump-nerve-agent-poisoning-767536
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/08/08/russia-sanctions-trump-nerve-agent-poisoning-767536
White Dems have moved hard to the left on immigration/racial issues over the past decade. A big part of needing to message on a national level towards white people is that getting their buy-in on these issues is important for changing policy in local and national arenas that aren't monolithically black. (the homeownership:voting correlation below accounts for part of that- the voting electorate tends to be whiter than the area regardless of demographics.) But that's also clearly not the only thing that's happening STL, Philly- the Democratic party is fundamentally bottom up and local community organization is a part of it that is very much happening.
Secretly recording conversations with the President, and then playing those back for third parties who presumably have no security clearance? I have a hard time believing that isn't illegal in some way.
It often is, but I do think that increasing the voices of locally-focused organizations helps to disrupt that network. Many people's political attention is given solely to national politics, and my suggestion is just that further attention should be granted toward a person's closer surroundings.
Since you mentioned that you live in Austin, I just did a quick googie and there are groups there like the Workers Defense Project, Austin Tan Cerca de la Frontera, House the Homeless, and a lot of others, as well as the NAACP and PP. Obviously beyond this search, I'm not very familiar with the groups, but I think that the more prevalent an organization is, the better it will be able to advocate for stronger representation.
- Status