***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[rexanglorum]

I ready for more woman politicians.

Kamala! AOC, MTG, Boerbert. I like it.

I want to the Republicans to run a Conservative Woman.

We love our QAnon Kweens or as I call them, Queens.

 

[rexanglorum]

️️️️️️️️️️️

 

[buddhashark]

A while back we were talking about European immigrants in America changing their names to sound more American to get jobs. I just read this about Naomi Osaka in Japan.

“ ‘Osaka’ is the name of the city where the tennis star was born and her mother’s maiden name as well. She uses Osaka because “it was mostly a practical matter when they lived in Japan, helpful for enrolling in schools and renting apartments.”

 

[buddhashark]

Cuomo sealed his fate when he berated that reporter in November. Journalists don’t like it when you’re mean to them.

 

[walkingBred]

 

[osh kosh bosh]

I do not drink alcohol or drugs

So I've always found the way people seperate drugs from alcohol to be a little baffling.

Alcohol seems to be really really bad,

Id bet it's the biggest killer of all the intoxicants but because it's culturally accepted no one talks about it like the "alcoholism epidemic"

I can't go so far as to endorse a couple bumps of heron by the fire place,

but is thaaaat much work than the wine mom getting **** faced every night on merlot?

 

[Methodical Management]

Oh, Twitter matters now?

Trying to keep track

Someone really needs to ask Republicans to define “cancel culture.”

Good point, man.

I’ll be honest, I am sensitive at least with people who I think are friends and allies. Yeah, it does hurt when there’s a disagreement, that veers into or feels like it veers into it being personal, with folks who I think of as on the same team. I have trouble seeing things as either totally good or totally bad and I know it has caused a lot of strife on here and I’m sorry and trying to work on that because obviously the whole damn world is not a binary.

Left and/or progressive politics should always stay focused on what we care about rather than relatively small differences.

I wouldn't have guessed that you considered Rusty a "friend and ally" given the week's events.

Maybe if we're lucky, aepps20 will grace us with the fight breakdown.

My intent in that joke wasn't to clown you. That said, I got your point and agree with it.

No worries there, I didn't perceive it as an insult. It's not that there's nothing to the notion that "the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house." It just wasn't the point I was making. As such, it felt like more of a replacement than a rephrasing.

I think one difference between us is I'm not super focused on fairness when I discuss things with other people. I mean, I have my sense of what is fair and I use that as a compass, but I find that most people aren't very interested in what I find fair. So either conversation goes nowhere or I find myself painfully trying to cram my vision into their ethical framework which I'm simultaneously guessing at. Instead, what I do think and talk about more is suffering - especially suffering that serves no end that I find valuable. Since I'm new here, I want to be clear: I think white supremacy is the cause of a tremendous amount of suffering and serves no end that I can see any value in.

Your point reminds me of Jeremy Bentham's with regard to the cruelty inflicted upon non-human animals: "The question is not, "Can they reason?" nor, "Can they talk?" but "Can they suffer?" Not every social justice appeal can be crafted around self-interest. At a certain point, those with unearned and unjust privilege will need to develop/engage their sense of empathy.

That said, the "fairness" discussion took place within the context of the debate over student loan debt relief, and there can be no question that the means testing component was driven, in no small part, by perceived unfairness.

Fairness is a relative concept, but it is an undeniably powerful motivator - and one that is so widespread that it transcends our species.

If you can sidestep the entire thing to sell a worthy policy, so much the better, but the point of my post was to try and demonstrate that Rex's frustration with denying life-altering benefits to a large number of people out of spite and Rusty et al.'s frustration with the associated rose Twitter tantrums were not mutually exclusive criticisms.

As such, I don't know that I don't see your posts as captious or an expression of disagreement so much as an attempt to add perspective. There's nothing antagonistic about that. We're all here for the discussion, after all.


Incidentally, welcome to our community and thank you for signing up as a supporter. We do our best to put such contributions to good use. Last year, for example, we donated all of our subscription fees, less only the amount deducted by our payment processor, to a national bail fund. Some of the regulars here, who I won't embarrass by singling out, gave generously to the accompanying fundraiser. I know they appreciate your support as much as I do, and are pleased to have you here. I hope you've been enjoying the experience thus far.

 

[TooOlfForThisIsh]

At a certain point, those with unearned and unjust privilege will need to develop/engage their sense of empathy.

Empathy is what it’s all about. I’m here to learn and get perspective, and empathy, from a group of people that I respect and whose backgrounds are different from my every day contacts.

That said, the "fairness" discussion took place within the context of the debate over student loan debt relief, and there can be no question that the means testing component was driven, in no small part, by perceived unfairness.

Fairness is a relative concept, but it is an undeniably powerful motivator - and one that is so widespread that it transcends our species.

Absolutely. People’s response to perceived unfairness is visceral. And I think a lot of the polarization we see in American society has to do with deeply entrenched, and different notions of fairness. Suffering redoubles everything.

Notions of fairness needs to be considered, politically, but their differences can be difficult to bridge without empathy.

Incidentally, welcome to our community and thank you for signing up as a supporter. We do our best to put such contributions to good use. Last year, for example, we donated all of our subscription fees, less only the amount deducted by our payment processor, to a national bail fund. Some of the regulars here, who I won't embarrass by singling out, gave generously to the accompanying fundraiser. I know they appreciate your support as much as I do, and are pleased to have you here. I hope you've been enjoying the experience thus far.

Thank you. I have no doubt that you put the money to good use. And I look forward to your next fundraiser.

 

[IATT]

“Pro life“

 

[had pants]

 

[IATT]

 

[had pants]

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

This morning I made the mistake of checking Mathew Yglesias's blog, and his intern wrote a heater Arguing that Democrats are sabotaging themselves because they are making everything about race. How are they making everything about race? They are making it known their policies, even their economic policies, will help close racial income gaps. That's pretty much it, they make everything about race by....check notes...speaking about racism.

He of course cherry-picked the words of a few black people for cover. The usual "see I'm right, these black people agree" steez.

Little mention of the fact that the reason Dems don't win power as much as they should is not their messaging, but a rigged electoral system

Pic of the dude upset Dems are sabotaging themselves by mentioning race...

Spoiler

Amazing, truly amazing.

At least some people took issue with it in the comments.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

^I haven't read the post but Im certain im going to agree.

I've said something similar during the primaries, about Cory Booker and democrats talking reparations.



i cannot understand why any politician who actually wanted to do things for black people in america would be talking reparations openly.

 

[KHUFU]

This morning I made the mistake of checking Mathew Yglesias's blog, and his intern wrote a heater Arguing that Democrats are sabotaging themselves because they are making everything about race. How are they making everything about race? They are making it known their policies, even their economic policies, will help close racial income gaps. That's pretty much it, they make everything about race by....check notes...speaking about racism.

He of course cherry-picked the words of a few black people for cover. The usual "see I'm right, these black people agree" steez.

Little mention of the fact that the reason Dems don't win power as much as they should is not their messaging, but a rigged electoral system

Pic of the dude upset Dems are sabotaging themselves by mentioning race...

Spoiler

Amazing, truly amazing.

At least some people took issue with it in the comments.

Damn, sounds familiar.

aepps20 , care to comment?

 

[RustyShackleford]

^I haven't read the post but Im certain im going to agree.

I've said something similar during the primaries, about Cory Booker and democrats talking reparations.



i cannot understand why any politician who actually wanted to do things for black people in america would be talking reparations openly.

I know you would

He mentions Cory Booker. But Cory the issue he has with Booker is that Booker points out that economic research shows his baby bonds plans shrinking the racial wealth gap

His argument is not about Dems advocating for politically unpopular plans. He thinks that Dems shouldn't mention that their popular universal economic plans help minorities.

Don't alienate white people by letting it be known the plan that will help them a lot, will also greatly benefit black folk, Latinos, etc.

Which seems dumb to me

 

[osh kosh bosh]

He thinks that Dems shouldn't mention that their popular plans help minorities.

oh lol yah i definitely agree.

or at least I agree for politicians.


economists, scholars, policy experts should say whatever the truth is.
but politicians should def keep that low. can't let the white people know lest they lose their minds.


heather mcgeee been talking about that on her book tour, for "the sum of us"
how their used to be public swimming pools in America, but white people filled them with concrete the minute they had to share it with black people.

 

[blastercombo]

Scientists put a robot on Mars: “man they’re so smart!”

scientists tell you to wear a mask: “they think they know everything!”

 

[dinyc3st]

Cuomo should’ve just kept it 100 and say **** the Right Wing Media. Instead he faked the reports for them not to catch on.

hold that L

 

[IATT]

 

[RustyShackleford]

oh lol yah i definitely agree.

or at least I agree for politicians.


economists, scholars, policy experts should say whatever the truth is.
but politicians should def keep that low. can't let the white people know lest they lose their minds.


heather mcgeee been talking about that on her book tour, for "the sum of us"
how their used to be public swimming pools in America, but white people filled them with concrete the minute they had to share it with black people.

I think politicians have different roles, and they don't have to/should not have to sound like an academic. But I don't think the Dems close to that in any way. Don't think most expect them to either.

Like if a Democrat is asked directly if their plan will help black people, they should lie?

Should they avoid black media outlets to duck the question too?

People, that represent black districts do the same?

When the next unarmed black man gets killed, and protest break out, they should be like "well police misconduct hurts everyone guys"?

If we are talking about political strategy, yes the Dems need to win over some reactionary white people, but if apathy sets in among younger black voters (and that apathy persists as the age), the Dems are in trouble too.

Because black people can be as pragmatic as hell, enough think the Dems don't care, and get apathetic, the drop in turnout will hurt the Dems electoral prospects too. On top of that, black folk supposed to stand in line for 8,10,12, 16 hours to vote for this party that can't even say they are on their side.

Especially given your argument about the GOP going after black voters. If a Republican is saying "yeah, look at everything I will do specifically for black people" (we know it will be BS), the Dems answer should be "yeah guys, we are just here to help everyone, not one specific group".

Like I remember you saying the Dems should focus on making material gains for people, and message on that. But just never let it be known, in any way, black people will be helped?

I think the Dems have to be calculating on messaging, but I think there is a point where the request kinda becomes ridiculous.

Seems easier said that done. The political calculation goes both ways

 

[IATT]

dwalk31 your boy’s lawyer

 

[Belgium]

Even Bannon was clearly thinking "yikes..." at the end

 

[gry60]

economists, scholars, policy experts should say whatever the truth is.
but politicians should def keep that low. can't let the white people know lest they lose their minds.

That's not a realistic proposition.

First of all, the browning of America is real, so it's not good practice for politicians, regardless of their experience and/or time in office to ignore a growing number of future voters in order to coddle a demographic whose proportion is going down. Politicians need to learn to talk to all the people who make up this country, and they shouldn't shy away from legitimate issues because some people will be uncomfortable.

Secondly, Isn't that how Obama ran, and what did that get him?
A lukewarm healthcare bill that only got saved by a dying GOP senator who probably voted against the repeal not because he didn't want it, but because he needed to send a "**** you" to the Trump admin.

Hillary told the "nice" truth about the future of the American workplace and how she would make sure that automation doesn't leave the traditional blue-collar crowd (tradespeople, manufacturing) behind, and they went ahead and voted against forward-looking policy and in favor of nationalism and populism.

A large section of the American populace is untethered to reality anyway. If they wanted to be talked to with unlimited deference, they should have been born inside the walls of Buckingham palace.