Can't say that this thought is unreasonable.They fucking want to lose and you'll never convince me differently.
The funny thing is they even admit in their post it's a stupid tweet. I guess they just don't want anyone to point out it's a stupid tweet.It's
A
Stupid
Fucking
Tweet
I swear you are the parties cheerleader on this site. "Never criticize them! Don't be mean to the Democratic Party when it does something dumb!". I can't imagine being so bought into a party that only some of the time cares about its constituents.
The party is essentially a consulting and patronage system. Without that system the party has no purposeThe consulting arm of the party needs to step back from a rich kid patronage system and hire somebody who can actually do this work.
You're right, probably factually so. It goes: Cartoonishly evil Republican candidate gets power ———> Democrats present most moderate, status-quo-upholding candidate possible, warning that if you don't vote for said candidate, the cartoonishly evil Republican candidate will get power again ———> moderate, status-quo-upholding Democratic candidate gets power, but due to how little things change, the people lose enthusiasm and so the cartoonishly evil Republican candidate gains power the next election cycle ———> rinse and repeat.They fucking want to lose and you'll never convince me differently.
If people constantly need enthusiasm in order to keep authoritarians out of power, I'd be blaming the people. At the same time, this is also super reductive.You're right, probably factually so. It goes: Cartoonishly evil Republican candidate gets power ———> Democrats present most moderate, status-quo-upholding candidate possible, warning that if you don't vote for said candidate, the cartoonishly evil Republican candidate will get power again ———> moderate, status-quo-upholding Democratic candidate gets power, but due to how little things change, the people lose enthusiasm and so the cartoonishly evil Republican candidate gains power the next election cycle ———> rinse and repeat.
This way, the American status quo remains safe and sound. You want "progressives" in power? Don't be silly. You don't want the cartoonishly evil Republican candidate to win, do you?
You think it was the Democratic Party driving those changes?If people constantly need enthusiasm in order to keep authoritarians out of power, I'd be blaming the people. At the same time, this is also super reductive.
in the past 20 years, gay marriage was legalized and we finally have some form of universal healthcare and many democratic controlled states have legalized marijuana for recreational use, doubled the minimum wages in comparison to the federal minimum, and expanded access to Medicaid. In addition, they've codified legal protections on the basis of sexuality and gender identity in many states. Oh also, they've expanded tax credits for working class families and took unemployment from 14.8% to sub 5% along with a massive uptick in salaries because the incentives they offered due to Covid gave people the chance to evaluate the money companies were offering.
those are all pretty big things done in record time considering it took 150 or so years for women to vote, took 190 years before black people were able to vote without poll taxes or harassment tactics, and took some 240 years to get to a state that gay marriage would be legalized and it was under the term of the democrats.
I mean who selected most of the sc judges responsible.You think it was the Democratic Party driving those changes?
Obama, Clinton, Biden and nearly every Democrat openly opposed gay marriage in 2008. Their recent support is purely a reflection of shifting public opinion. The majority of issues that they are "right" on they stumbled into when the winds of public opinion changed.
I am old enough to remember how in 2004 after Kerry lost the election the main takeaway the party (and the media) had was that it was gay people's fault.You think it was the Democratic Party driving those changes?
Obama, Clinton, Biden and nearly every Democrat openly opposed gay marriage in 2008. Their recent support is purely a reflection of shifting public opinion. The majority of issues that they are "right" on they stumbled into when the winds of public opinion changed.
I'd be blaming the system that facilitates authoritarians so frequently rising to power in the first place. The things is, all the societal advances you listed are indeed noteworthy, but - as we're seeing now with what's happening with Roe v. Wade - what's the point if they can just be eroded when the other party gains power? We're made to think that the current pace at which the Democrats make progress warrants nothing but the utmost gratitude, when in reality, it could be being made much faster. But anytime you suggest such, you're immediately shut down with accusations of wanting some "pie in the sky" utopia or what not. But that's just the American political system working as intended. Making you believe that it's outrageous to not be absolutely content with gradualism (the fruits of which are not even guaranteed, seeing as how easily conservatives can chip away at any progress made).If people constantly need enthusiasm in order to keep authoritarians out of power, I'd be blaming the people
i see nothing to prove progress can be made much faster in the US. The senate is designed not to allow it. Rather, I see it to take nothing for granted as dismantling things in the government is super easy with just being able to not do what you're supposed to do as the constitution has no penalties if the president chooses not to enforce, the legislature refuses to legislate, or the SC becomes partisan. Truth is if Trump hadn't have won: the course of the pandemic would have been wholly different, Supreme Court would not be on the verge of overturning Roe, and we likely would not have had an insurrection on Jan 6th. US constitution makes it easy to regress and difficult to progress, and we need a majority strong enough to change the constitution otherwise a partisan SC can knock it down including technically knocking down the ability to pack the court.I'd be blaming the system that facilitates authoritarians so frequently rising to power in the first place. The things is, all the societal advances you listed are indeed noteworthy, but - as we're seeing now with what's happening with Roe v. Wade - what's the point if they can just be eroded when the other party gains power? We're made to think that the current pace at which the Democrats make progress warrants nothing but the utmost gratitude, when in reality, it could be being made much faster. But anytime you suggest such, you're immediately shut down with accusations of wanting some "pie in the sky" utopia or what not. But that's just the American political system working as intended. Making you believe that it's outrageous to not be absolutely content with gradualism (the fruits of which are not even guaranteed, seeing as how easily conservatives can chip away at any progress made).
Thinking mean thoughts about the Democrats will make the orange man come back, so if you aren't maintaining constant mental vigilance 24/7 then Mr Trump thanks you for your vote, sweetie.
What kinda returns financially do you get sleeping for a job? Is it usually an ongoing thing(weekly, monthly) or is it kinda one and done then just being amiable with the slimeball
No worries gotcha, I'm too old for a staffer career I was just curious. I don't truly know how I'd feel sleeping for a job but I can understand doing it as just one more indignity in getting ahead. Sounds like for politics staffers it's questionable risk or cost for medium reward.I'm not going to out anything that isn't mine to publically disclose but let's just say there should be a bigger #metoo for campaign staffers. but it gets you up to d.c. faster where these do nothing jobs grow on trees because campaign staffers on a winning campaign can place people because they know the winning candidate and there's implied fact that it'll make lobbying easier.
oh yeah. but lots of times with basic jobs you can get time with senior people. especially in house of rep races. if you're a pretty girl its not hard to flirt with he 28 year old running your office and get some sweet gigs.Very much true in my limited experience (which is all outside looking in and friends) but I want to drill down a bit on one point -
Not randomly work a campaign, you need a campaign position where you get to work directly with the candidate or maybe senior people in the campaign.
I want to make that distinction because I've met people who believe you can get into politics by knocking on doors or phone banking. And seriously, that ain't it. But the campaigns half sell it as such.
No worries gotcha, I'm too old for a staffer career I was just curious. I don't truly know how I'd feel sleeping for a job but I can understand doing it as just one more indignity in getting ahead. Sounds like for politics staffers it's questionable risk or cost for medium reward.
So I know anecdotal hearsay is like bad², but fwiw pretty much every person I know who worked on political calpains in the US told me similar stories, and like, waaaaaay worse, though as you said, not mine to tell.I'm not going to out anything that isn't mine to publically disclose but let's just say there should be a bigger #metoo for campaign staffers. but it gets you up to d.c. faster where these do nothing jobs grow on trees because campaign staffers on a winning campaign can place people because they know the winning candidate and there's implied fact that it'll make lobbying easier.
I am old enough to remember how in 2004 after Kerry lost the election the main takeaway the party (and the media) had was that it was gay people's fault.
I'm so glad you mentioned it because I remember thinking at the time - this is the exact same playbook from '04 and it was to a pretty large degree pushed by the same people.along with that, there were plenty of liberal Democrats blaming black people for the results in California with Prop 8.