***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[osh kosh bosh]

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 directed if their plan will help black people, they should lie?

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

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.

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

I think there is a way of tacitly acknowledging something while pivoting back to the point that it will help everybody.

Like Cory Booker coming out on front street with"baby bonds are a way to fix the racial wealth gap"
is def sub optimal. IMO

Baby bonds will help everyone! sprinkle in some hillbilly elegy ******** about appalachia and then add that it will help black people to.
is the goldilocks zone.

I think black people are discerning enough to figure out Baby Bonds would help them without needing the;
"this will fix the racial welath gap" framing.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Secondly, Isn't that how Obama ran, and what did that get him?

uhm...365 electoral votes, a filibuster proof majority and a second term?

im kidding.

but i think you are seriously underestimating Obama's success.

 

[Belgium]

Funny I was listening to this earlier then came here.

Not really into hard drugs like that but when I was in the hospital they gave me some valium and man, I understood.

Haven't had Valium but had Xanax in the hospital once. I guess it makes you nice and relaxed but that's about it. Opioids on the other hand also do that while at the same time drowning you in euphoria. My chronic pain forced my opioid addiction on me but I doubt I wouldn't have gotten addicted to them under normal circumstances. Not a day goes by where I don't think about that amazing high.

One of the stranger effects of an opioid high that I noticed is drastically improved hearing. Very odd.
All of a sudden you can hear and separate every sound in a song even with a terrible mix, a night and day difference. Future's best works just ascend to a whole new level of greatness in that state, especially something like March Madness, Inside The Mattress, ...

And of course Codeine Crazy. I'm pretty sure I once listened to Codeine Crazy for 12 hours straight while I was high out of my mind.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

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.

Im pretty sure Hillary Clinton talked more explicitly about systemic racism then any presidential candidate ever.

 

[frshstunna]

definately. My boy worked on wall street and smoked hella crack

Just the way you said this got me dying

But yea I don’t mess with the “hard” drugs but don’t care or judge anybody that does n stays out the way...I’ll stick to me drink (trying cut back) x da rhinos/PED’s combo

 

[RustyShackleford]

I think there is a way of tacitly acknowledging something while pivoting back to the point that it will help everybody.

Like Cory Booker coming out on front street with"baby bonds are a way to fix the racial wealth gap"
is def sub optimal. IMO

Baby bonds will help everyone! sprinkle in some hillbilly elegy bull**** about appalachia and then add that it will help black people to.
is the goldilocks zone.

I think black people are discerning enough to figure out Baby Bonds would help them without needing the;
"this will fix the racial welath gap" framing.

That is not what Booker does though, not even close. I have watched video of Booker's *** crying in front of a room full of white people in Iowa during the primary, pushing baby bonds to help their kids. He was telling them that they should support it because it will close the racial wealth gap.

Booker's general messaging is that it will help the middle and lower class. People of all races.

However, he points out it will close the racial wealth gap.

So he has one of the closest things to a Goldilocks policy. A universal program that has a very strong target effect. And he is in the Goldilocks zone as you described it.

But damn, it is black history months and black people are asking questions. Book can't even speak the truth in that circumstance?

And maybe should read political discussions on NT outside of this thread, because there are a ton of black people that don't pick up on such things. I see it all the time too in the real world too. Black media ask these questions. I think on some level some dude black folk need/want it to be made salient. That is literally some dudes on NT major issues with the Dems

If the GOP winning the marginal black vote matters so much for elections, doesn't the marginal black vote saying home because they think the Dems don't care matter too?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Im pretty sure Hillary Clinton talked more explicitly about systemic racism then any presidential candidate ever.

Beyond the Civil Rights Era, does Jesse Jackson doesn't exist now

Plus, Hillary wasn't out there calling out systematic racism every chance she got. Most of her talk was during the primary anyway. And if talk of race had any effect on those people's vote, it wasn't Hillary's, it was Trump's.

Let us be honest, these ************* thought Bill Clinton and Al Gore were too "woke" too.

 

[dacomeup]

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.

What was McGee’s point? That they shouldn’t have pushed for integrated public pools?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

That is not what Booker does though, not even close. I have watched video of Booker's *** crying in front of a room full of white people in Iowa during the primary, pushing baby bonds to help their kids. He was telling them that they should support it because it will close the racial wealth gap.

Booker's general messaging is that it will help the middle and lower class. People of all races.

However, he points out it will close the racial wealth gap.

So he has a Goldilocks policy. A uniserial program that has a very strong target effect. And he is in the Goldilocks zone as you described it.

But damn, it is black history months and black people are asking questions. Book can't even speak the truth in that circumstance?

And maybe should read political discussions on NT outside of this thread, because there are a ton of black people that don't pick up on such things. I see it all the time too in the real world too. Black media ask these questions. I think on some level some dude black folk need/want it to be made salient.

If the GOP winning the marginal black vote matters so much for elections, doesn't the marginal black vote saying home because they think the Dems don't care matter too?

from what i saw they def foregrounded it. in the media they did leading up to announcing it
the proposal all took form it that cutting the racial wealth gap is the primary motivation.

ayanna pressley and booker talked a ton about the racial wealth gab and def foregrounded it was a the main goal of the program when they announced it.
" so we must be every bit as intentional in advancing policies that center racial and economic justice – policies like Baby Bonds."

this stuff imo def doesn't help.

also im skeptical that explicit mentions of reparations or racial wealth gap turns out black voters.
black democrats are generally more culturally conservative than white democrats.

i don't know how you can be certain that it really turns out voters.

and given gerrymandering, and geography increasing the power of white voters is it worth that trade off.



I think there's a goldilocks zone somewhere. where black people know you're trying to help
but white people don't view it as wealth transfer from whites to blacks.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

What was McGee’s point? That they shouldn’t have pushed for integrated public pools?

Her point was that it's dangerous to foreground the idea of white supremacy in the minds of white voters.
because it causes them to do irrational **** like destroy public goods.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Beyond the Civil Rights Era, does Jesse Jackson doesn't exist now

Plus, Hillary wasn't out there calling out systematic racism every chance she got. Most of her talk was during the primary anyway. And if talk of race had any effect on those people's vote, it wasn't Hillary's, it was Trump's.

Let us be honest, these mother****ers thought Bill Clinton and Al Gore were too "woke" too.

presidential candidate. not primary.

who talked about it more?

 

[RustyShackleford]

Sidenote I would like to point out that these articles and takes about the Democratic not appealing to an every increasing reactionary white voter base is because the system is rigged against them.

The Dems have formed a winning coalition that would have power if American's electoral system was even remotely just.

People's complaint that the Dems have not found a perfect strategy to blowout the GOP routinely on a scale that has never been done seen before, a while the electorate is the victim of a massive propaganda campaign.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Sidenote I would like to point out that these articles and takes about the Democratic not appealing to an every increasing reactionary white voter base is because the system is rigged against them.

The Dems have formed a winning coalition that would have power if American's electoral system was even remotely just.

People's complaint that the Dems have not found a perfect strategy to blowout the GOP routinely on a scale that has never been done seen before, a while the electorate is the victim of a massive propaganda campaign.

I agree.


everything is stacked against democrats so they gotta be extra careful.

and racism makes white people crazy and liable to do anything. so you gotta tip toe around their feelings. imo

 

[RustyShackleford]

from what i saw they def foregrounded it. in the media they did leading up to announcing it
the proposal all took form it that cutting the racial wealth gap is the primary motivation.

ayanna pressley and booker talked a ton about the racial wealth gab and def foregrounded it was a the main goal of the program when they announced it.
" so we must be every bit as intentional in advancing policies that center racial and economic justice – policies like Baby Bonds."

this stuff imo def doesn't help.

also im skeptical that explicit mentions of reparations or racial wealth gap turns out black voters.
black democrats are generally more culturally conservative than white democrats.

i don't know how you can be certain that it really turns out voters.

and given gerrymandering, and geography increasing the power of white voters is it worth that trade off.



I think there's a goldilocks zone somewhere. where black people know you're trying to help
but white people don't view it as wealth transfer from whites to blacks.

Dude, it black history month and Booker can't talk about an aspect of his bill?

This is Booker a year and a half ago pitching Baby Bonds...


You really think buying farm equipment was meant to be about black people's wealth? I got this clip from PBS Iowa

Like this is my issue. When Booker ran for national office, he lead with "this is for everyone, everyone will benefit" he lead with the class first message. But now he is a Senator, addressing the problems facing his party's most loyal voters, he gotta hide the truth cause "it doesn't help"

At some point, I think the request becomes a tad bit ridiculous IMO, if applied to any and every situation.

 

[RustyShackleford]

I agree.


everything is stacked against democrats so they gotta be extra careful.

and racism makes white people crazy and liable to do anything. so you gotta tip toe around their feelings. imo

The thing is, the Dems already do that.

I think what you are asking is that the Dems put the feelings of white people central to everything they do, all the time, even as white people get more reactionary, in hopes they will get a reward politically for doing that, and with the assumption, it won't suppress their base.

Yet, no evidence shows that is a winning strategy. Like does Sherrod Brown does that? He faces an electorate that is probably more reflective of the national electorate with GOP advantages built-in.

He doesn't do that, so why should other Dems have to.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

The thing is, the Dems already do that.

I think what you are asking is that the Dems put the feelings of white people central to everything they do, all the time, even as white people get more reactionary, in hopes they will get a reward politically for doing that, and with the assumption, it won't suppress their base.

Yet, no evidence shows that is a winning strategy

I think older democrats do that and younger democrats do not.

Consequently Joe Biden is 78 year old and just won the presidency, winning more white people.
Obama did this and won a lot, but I think there is a younger generation of democrats think you don't have to and I think they are wrong.

 

[dacomeup]

Her point was that it's dangerous to foreground the idea of white supremacy in the minds of white voters.
because it causes them to do irrational **** like destroy public goods.

Yea, I think this ask is pretty ridiculous. White people are going to do this whether there’s racial foregrounding or not. Most of the major issues in this country disproportionately harm Black people. It’s virtually impossible to talk about them without that discussion, especially when you need to appeal to Black voters. Trump even did it on the other side. They’re just more comfortable when there’s a flagrant white supremacist doing so because they can be comfortable that Black people won’t get “too much”.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Dude, it black history month and Booker can't talk about an aspect of his bill?

This is Booker a year and a half ago pitching Baby Bonds...


You really think buying farm equipment was meant to be about black people's wealth? I got this clip from PBS Iowa

Like this is my issue. When Booker ran for national office, he lead with "this is for everyone, everyone will benefit" he lead with the class first message. But now he is a Senator, addressing the problems facing his party's most loyal voters, he gotta hide the true cause "it doesn't help"

At some point, I think the request becomes a tad bit ridiculous

i mean he can do whatever he wants.


but if he wants it to happen I would recommend not talking about it that way.

 

[osh kosh bosh]

White people are going to do this whether there’s racial foregrounding or not.

this i definitely don't agree. joe biden flipped a bunch of white people.

obama won the votes of tons of people with a lot of racial resentment.



this idea that the way you do politics won't impact who you can bring into your coalition doesn't make sense to me.

 

[RustyShackleford]

presidential candidate. not primary.

who talked about it more?

Besides specifically saying "systematic racism" I think Obama 2012, and Hillary 2016 were pretty similar

I could say use some Dems from the 1960s but that is kinda unfair

 

[RustyShackleford]

i mean he can do whatever he wants.


but if he wants it to happen I would recommend not talking about it that way.

If he wants a 60 billion dollar a year program that could be funded by a simple tax increase, that could probably be done through budget reconciliation, while the Dems have a trifecta,;he should stop mentioning it would help some of the Dems most loyal voters.

The votes are there to pass the policy. He needs to get other Dems in Congress on board, not white voters.

You don't see how that sounds ******* ridiculous on some level?

 

[RustyShackleford]

I think older democrats do that and younger democrats do not.

Consequently Joe Biden is 78 year old and just won the presidency, winning more white people.
Obama did this and won a lot, but I think there is a younger generation of democrats think you don't have to and I think they are wrong.

And Joe Biden talked about systemic racism a lot more than Hillary

He made direct statements about helping black people

We gonna ignore that?

 

[osh kosh bosh]

Besides specifically saying "systematic racism" I think Obama 2012, and Hillary 2016 were pretty similar

I could say use some Dems from the 1960s but that is kinda unfair

I mean I could be taking out of my *** so if you have some data on this let me know. But in my memory Hillary leaned on that stuff more than Obama. Obama would w.always temper that stuff with pull up your pants black dad stuff

 

[gry60]

but i think you are seriously underestimating Obama's success.

I don't want to sound like he didn't accomplish much during his 8 years; however, his inability to hold onto the Senate and/or the House kept him from futureproofing his successes against Republican attacks. The Dems losing control of the legislative branch can be attributed to low turnout among Democrat voters, and that messaging strategy did contribute to the lack of enthusiasm.

And maybe should read political discussions on NT outside of this thread, because there are a ton of black people that don't pick up on such things. I see it all the time too in the real world too. Black media ask these questions. I think on some level some dude black folk need/want it to be made salient.

This.
If people don't know what you're doing for them, why should they bother taking the day off to go vote for you?

 

[Sharpshoeter13]

“Republican activists” is just another way to describe terrorists and Klansmen