The End of the World: A Political Thread. A New Hope coming soon!

Status
Not open for further replies.
JinCA said:
They've been talking about prison reform since before the last election and immigration gets brought up every time they speak on subjects regarding latino's and it has been that way since before Obama was elected. I just hate the identity politics stuff.

The LatinX thing just gets on my nerves because in most of America gender identity isn't a concern, gender identity is mostly an issue on the internet and with famous people who want to appear to be supportive, very few every day Americans even think about it and for many that do it freaks them out because they don't understand it and instead of giving them time to come around they are being called transphobes and bigots. I'm a gay man, as long as I don't hear a politician saying he's actively trying to make my life harder like denying gay marriage/same sex relationship benefits I'm fine with being ignored and lumped in with everyone else lol.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't strive for acceptance but when it comes to trans/gender identity issues that's less than 1% of the population and we shouldn't really be making that a priority to talk about when we are trying to win a national election. When I hear politicians parroting things they read on social media it just makes me think they are letting their interns tell them what they should focus on, sadly many don't realize only 25% of American adults even use twitter so basing your campaign around what people on twitter say is a huge mistake.
Click to expand...

I remember this story about some gay/lesbian rights organization wanting to meet with Bill Clinton in the 90s. He refused to meet with them because only 2-3% of the population at the time was openly gay and he didn't feel like it would help him politically.

I remember people being "freaked out" by homosexuality and saying so openly. What changed was overwhelming gay representation in the media and very consistent messaging over 12+ years. Even that alone didn't really do it. It was public shaming and the fear of punishment that got a lot of democrats to come around to the idea of people being gay.

So it makes sense that the trans community would use a proven formula.
 
Last edited:
GeorgeSoros said:
I remember this story about some gay/lesbian rights organization wanting to meet with Bill Clinton in the 90s. He refused to meet with them because only 2-3% of the population at the time was openly gay and he didn't feel like it would help him politically.

I remember people being "freaked out" by homosexuality and saying so openly. What changed was overwhelming gay representation in the media and very consistent messaging over 12+ years. Even that alone didn't really do it. It was public shaming and the fear of punishment that got a lot of democrats to come around to the idea of people being gay.

So it makes sense that the trans community would use a proven formula.
Click to expand...

So, stick to your values no matter what and keep losing every election to the Republicans?

This is the #1 difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats fight over the moral high ground, while the GOP laughs and just keeps winning and turning more and more of the system against them. They love it when you even repeat the narrative they feed to everyone.

Obama would not have been president in 2008 had he not played down the gay rights issue.

I'll never get it, why run candidates who have almost no chance of winning?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Plainview
JinCA said:
Had there been a public option and cost controls in Obamacare it would have been more popular, sadly a lot of the benefits weren't really pushed for and a lot of people's premiums went up a lot over that time. It didn't help that website kept crashing like crazy when they started trying to get everyone on it, it just came across as amateurish and the other side pounced on that.
Click to expand...

I get why people want to try going further left, but I fear it would backfire. Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe there'd be this swell of left voting that would win out.

All I do know is, that Trump was attacking Biden since before the primary. Meanwhile he was complimentary of Bernie. The GOP's strategy isn't hard to see - they want to align anyone with the "far left".

Again, if 2020 looked more like 2008, I'd be in a different mindset. The election results show pretty clearly that America is far more right leaning than people want to admit. We couldn't even beat Trump nearly as badly as Obama beat Bush. Based on the numbers, Bush was much less popular than Trump, which is scary and sad.
 
Kerosene31 said:
So, stick to your values no matter what and keep losing every election to the Republicans?

This is the #1 difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats fight over the moral high ground, while the GOP laughs and just keeps winning and turning more and more of the system against them. They love it when you even repeat the narrative they feed to everyone.

Obama would not have been president in 2008 had he not played down the gay rights issue.

I'll never get it, why run candidates who have almost no chance of winning?
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone thinks any of this discussion really hurt Joe Biden because its all about messaging. Democrats could talk or push any issue if they were good at messaging or could control the messaging like the GOP.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Plainview and Kerosene31
yankeessuck said:
I don't think anyone thinks any of this discussion really hurt Joe Biden because its all about messaging. Democrats could talk or push any issue if they were good at messaging or could control the messaging like the GOP.
Click to expand...

If I were to nitpcik more on Democrats, they need to stop whining about social media and learn to start using it to their advantage.

They also need to stop "gifting" the economy to Republicans. They need to talk economy, how they are good for it, and how Republicans are bad for it.

It needs to be simple, direct, and repeated across multiple pathways. Economy, jobs, health care.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Plainview and yankeessuck
Kerosene31 said:
So, stick to your values no matter what and keep losing every election to the Republicans?

This is the #1 difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats fight over the moral high ground, while the GOP laughs and just keeps winning and turning more and more of the system against them. They love it when you even repeat the narrative they feed to everyone.

Obama would not have been president in 2008 had he not played down the gay rights issue.

I'll never get it, why run candidates who have almost no chance of winning?
Click to expand...

JinCA's point was that the democratic party was already going too far on behalf of the transgender community. I was just explaining why it wouldn't make much sense for the transgender community to take their foot of the gas given how well this worked for the gay community.

Edit: I also have to clarify, that it worked well among non-conservatives. Conservatives are apathetic at best towards gay people, even their own family members, if not openly defiant.

It is understandable that certain groups would need a certain threshold to be met in order for the democratic party to gain their support. Just "not being Republican" shouldn't be enough for anyone. People seem to want to root for a political party like it's a sports team or something. Winning doesn't really matter if your intent is not to do anything.
 
greenwald.substack.com

A Long-Forgotten CIA Document From WikiLeaks Sheds Critical Light on Today's U.S. Politics and Wars

The Agency knew that their best asset for selling their wars was Barack Obama -- the same reason so many in the security state were eager to get rid of Donald Trump.
greenwald.substack.com greenwald.substack.com

😄

​
But one major reason for the contempt harbored for Trump among security state operatives was his inability and unwillingness to prettify barbaric U.S. actions and to pretend that the U.S. is something other than it is. Recall the fury and rage provoked in 2017 when, in response to a question by Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly about Putin’s use of violence against journalists and others, Trump responded: "There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?"​

....
​
As the 2010 CIA memo reflects, useful presidents are those, like Obama, skilled at deceiving the world and propagandizing them to view U.S. aggression as benign, so as to allow even democratically elected leaders to act in contradiction to public opinion when doing so suits U.S. interests.​

You are right, Trump was nothing like Obama when it came to war mongering.
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Reactions: karmakid
GeorgeSoros said:
I remember this story about some gay/lesbian rights organization wanting to meet with Bill Clinton in the 90s. He refused to meet with them because only 2-3% of the population at the time was openly gay and he didn't feel like it would help him politically.

I remember people being "freaked out" by homosexuality and saying so openly. What changed was overwhelming gay representation in the media and very consistent messaging over 12+ years. Even that alone didn't really do it. It was public shaming and the fear of punishment that got a lot of democrats to come around to the idea of people being gay.

So it makes sense that the trans community would use a proven formula.
Click to expand...

Seems to me it was more about doing it from the ground up and putting a face to the issue with people, letting friends and family members know that people they loved were gay and letting it go from there. I've never listened to anyone who screamed at me even if they were right, yelling at people and calling them names doesn't help anyone's cause.

Trans people are going to have an even tougher fight than gay people, even though we get lumped together our issues are not the same. I'm a gay man but I am happy to be a man I don't wish that I were a woman or feel like I was born in the wrong skin. I think trans issues are harder for people to wrap their heads around compared to sexuality. While it may not be easy for a lot of people they can at least understand love and attraction to someone it has nothing to do with feeling like they are something other than what they were born so it's harder for people to wrap their heads around.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: karmakid
JinCA said:
Seems to me it was more about doing it from the ground up and putting a face to the issue with people, letting friends and family members know that people they loved were gay and letting it go from there. I've never listened to anyone who screamed at me even if they were right, yelling at people and calling them names doesn't help anyone's cause.

Trans people are going to have an even tougher fight than gay people, even though we get lumped together our issues are not the same. I'm a gay man but I am happy to be a man I don't wish that I were a woman or feel like I was born in the wrong skin. I think trans issues are harder for people to wrap their heads around compared to sexuality. While it may not be easy for a lot of people they can at least understand love and attraction to someone it has nothing to do with feeling like they are something other than what they were born so it's harder for people to wrap their heads around.
Click to expand...

Ground up? On the coasts maybe, but in fly-over-country hell no. I had a relative that once told me "that was against God" when talking about a gay family member then when I asked him about it 8 years later he said "he would never say something like that". 😄

Both him and his son (both two neoliberals) showed me pictures of him thinking I would rag on him too. TODAY, they would never do something like that. In fact, he actually let him borrow a couple grand and he only had to pay back half.

This is because of consistent messaging, fear of punishment, and peer pressure. I can't think of any group that has progressed without money behind them and supporters in prominent positions.

The idea that people will just do the right thing because people are inherently good is a fallacy.

Christian conservatives don't accept gay people ANYWHERE. Doesn't matter whether you live on the coasts or somewhere in the middle. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. A person can be totally apathetic towards you and tolerate you. They can even be cordial sometimes, but when you need serious help?

That's when they show you how much they accept you.
 
Last edited:
GeorgeSoros said:
Winning doesn't really matter if your intent is not to do anything.
Click to expand...

Being intent on doing something doesn't matter at all if you don't win.

I'm not actually arguing any of these political points, but if you don't win elections, it simply doesn't matter.

While we were arguing over the warts and dents of Hillary/Bernie/Biden, the Republicans put in a Catholic dominated supreme court, with judges in their 40s.

While people should be relieved that Biden won, the Democrats lost pretty big in the election. Losing house seats and probably losing the senate is a big blow.

The GOP will be screaming about the deficit before Biden is even inagurated. It comes down to power vs position. Biden could sit down and adopt the most progressive platform, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing. The GOP has more than enough power to drop a big old boat anchor on the next 4 years and make sure nothing gets done.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Plainview
GeorgeSoros said:
Ground up? On the coasts maybe, but in fly-over-country hell no. I had a relative that once told me "that was against God" when talking about a gay family member then when I asked him about it 8 years later he said "he would never say something like that". 😄

Both him and his son (both two neoliberals) showed me pictures of him thinking I would rag on him too. TODAY, they would never do something like that. In fact, he actually let him borrow a couple grand and he only had to pay back half.

This is because of consistent messaging, fear of punishment, and peer pressure. I can't think of any group that has progressed without money behind them and supporters in prominent positions.

The idea that people will just do the right thing because people are inherently good is a fallacy.

Christian conservatives don't accept gay people ANYWHERE. Doesn't matter whether you live on the coasts or somewhere in the middle. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. A person can be totally apathetic towards you and tolerate you. They can even be cordial sometimes, but when you need serious help?

That's when they show you how much they accept you.
Click to expand...
It's not that people are inherently good but when something you don't understand gets a face put to it that can open minds and hearts a bit more. Yes tv shows with gay characters can make people feel more "comfortable" in a way because they see that gay people exist but you still need a real connection. I do think representation matters to a degree, I just got done binging Schitt's Creek and I loved how the gay characters in that show never had their sexuality be the focus for them, they were just people who loved each other and nobody else in the town gave it a second thought or looked at them negatively in any way for it. They didn't have to hide their love and nobody expected them to and that was awesome, so much better than the heavy handed stuff that used to accompany most storylines featuring a gay character.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Videodrome
Kerosene31 said:
Being intent on doing something doesn't matter at all if you don't win.

I'm not actually arguing any of these political points, but if you don't win elections, it simply doesn't matter.

While we were arguing over the warts and dents of Hillary/Bernie/Biden, the Republicans put in a Catholic dominated supreme court, with judges in their 40s.

While people should be relieved that Biden won, the Democrats lost pretty big in the election. Losing house seats and probably losing the senate is a big blow.

The GOP will be screaming about the deficit before Biden is even inagurated. It comes down to power vs position. Biden could sit down and adopt the most progressive platform, and it wouldn't mean a damn thing. The GOP has more than enough power to drop a big old boat anchor on the next 4 years and make sure nothing gets done.
Click to expand...

There should be a threshold you have to cross in order to get my support. I should only be concerned with whether the democratic party wins or loses if they are genuinely trying to make progress on things I care about.

If your goal is to help the other side reach their goals and stifle the left then I shouldn't be too concerned with whether or not you win elections. In fact, we would reach a critical mass much sooner if Republicans were allowed to follow through on their plans without restrictions. As it stands now both wings of the establishment party are just boiling the frog slowly.
 
JinCA said:
It's not that people are inherently good but when something you don't understand gets a face put to it that can open minds and hearts a bit more. Yes tv shows with gay characters can make people feel more "comfortable" in a way because they see that gay people exist but you still need a real connection. I do think representation matters to a degree, I just got done binging Schitt's Creek and I loved how the gay characters in that show never had their sexuality be the focus for them, they were just people who loved each other and nobody else in the town gave it a second thought or looked at them negatively in any way for it. They didn't have to hide their love and nobody expected them to and that was awesome, so much better than the heavy handed stuff that used to accompany most storylines featuring a gay character.
Click to expand...

Nah, people knew that they had gay family members before 2008. What changed was that they started bombarding people with messaging and representation and they hit a critical mass. That's part of the reason why they withheld reviews of Dave Chappelle's last Netflix comedy special. Because they didn't want anti-trans sentiments like that to trend.
 
GeorgeSoros said:
There should be a threshold you have to cross in order to get my support. I should only be concerned with whether the democratic party wins or loses if they are genuinely trying to make progress on things I care about.

If your goal is to help the other side reach their goals and stifle the left then I shouldn't be too concerned with whether or not you win elections. In fact, we would reach a critical mass much sooner if Republicans were allowed to follow through on their plans without restrictions. As it stands now both wings of the establishment party are just boiling the frog slowly.
Click to expand...

While you are busy planning the revolution, the right wants the exact same thing. They want a civil war so they can put in place a racist, populist state that exists only for the benefit of the oligarchy. Basically, Russia but with a theocracy instead of atheism.

Heck, the only reason America exists as we know it now is because of Trump's incompetence. He found all the cracks in the system that he could exploit.

The next Republican populist who gets hold of this country isn't going to let go. In the next civil war you'll be outmanned and certainly outgunned.
 
Kerosene31 said:
While you are busy planning the revolution, the right wants the exact same thing. They want a civil war so they can put in place a racist, populist state that exists only for the benefit of the oligarchy. Basically, Russia but with a theocracy instead of atheism.

Heck, the only reason America exists as we know it now is because of Trump's incompetence. He found all the cracks in the system that he could exploit.

The next Republican populist who gets hold of this country isn't going to let go. In the next civil war you'll be outmanned and certainly outgunned.
Click to expand...

That's a bad take. My "revolution" is to do nothing.

There won't be another Republican populist candidate to come out of the Republican primary (they will rig it). Even if there was I wouldn't allow the democrats to use that person as leverage to get away with doing what they are paid to do.

Racists are isolationists so that puts them at odds with the Republican establishment. So if the establishment fails so miserably that they allow for a white supremacist state to ruin their American empire then so be it. It shouldn't be up to progressives or any other group to sacrifice the needs of their group to undo the moral failings of other groups.
 
Last edited:
GeorgeSoros said:
Nah, people knew that they had gay family members before 2008. What changed was that they started bombarding people with messaging and representation and they hit a critical mass. That's part of the reason why they withheld reviews of Dave Chappelle's last Netflix comedy special. Because they didn't want anti-trans sentiments like that to trend.
Click to expand...

People didn't think about having gay family members, believe me if my Mom had known I was gay when I was young I wouldn't have heard a lot of the things I did growing up in my house.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back