Joe Biden 2021

[wildcat09 29,237]

Just now, Js1 said:

Democrats would be in a much better situation today if:

• They showed up in 2010/2014 midterms to avoid the hole Democrats had to dig out of post-2014 (54-46 minority) 
• The far left who hate Manchin now voted for Dem Senate candidates during 2016 instead of protest voting for Jill Stein or whatever - PA (1.43% loss) and Wisconsin (3.36% loss)
• Florida didn't have such a shitty ass ballot design in 2018 (0.12% loss) (or Bill Nelson put in just 1% more effort) 
• Cal fucking Cunningham would keep it in his fucking pants in 2020 (1.75% loss) 

We might end up looking back at 2010 as the real beginning of the end of American democracy. It's still incomprehensible how badly the Dems fucked it up, given how unpopular the GOP had been just two years before.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

31 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Similar scenarios happen all the time and it's easy to look back on them and say "oh, Obama should have done X differently," but what the fuck would work with Manchin? He's in a Trump +1000000 state and the Democrats can't risk him flipping.

Tunnel vision.

We are talking about national policy that impacts minority populations across the entire nation. Populations that will vote in future elections in every state nationwide.

We are in this position specifically because the guiding principle of the Democratic Party for decades has been to extend a middle finger to minority and working class populations to try and win educated suburban white people and "protect" Democrats in red areas.

3 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Democrats would be in a much better situation today if:

• They showed up in 2010/2014 midterms to avoid the hole Democrats had to dig out of post-2014 (54-46 minority) 
• The far left who hate Manchin now voted for Dem Senate candidates during 2016 instead of protest voting for Jill Stein or whatever - PA (1.43% loss) and Wisconsin (3.36% loss)
• Florida didn't have such a shitty ass ballot design in 2018 (0.12% loss) (or Bill Nelson put in just 1% more effort) 
• Cal fucking Cunningham would keep it in his fucking pants in 2020 (1.75% loss) 

Only one political group is singled out.

Right-wing troll.

 

[Biff Tannen 45,492]

5 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

We might end up looking back at 2010 as the real beginning of the end of American democracy. It's still incomprehensible how badly the Dems fucked it up, given how unpopular the GOP had been just two years before.

I had no idea at the time how badly electing a black man had broken their brains.

[softlynow 1,783]

1 hour ago, bad_teammate said:

The masses of citizens don't even need guns.

 

Democracy must win at the ballot box, because the tools available to enforce authoritarianism only improve day after day.

Edited June 9, 2021 by softlynow
Not sure why I wrote the deleted paragraph

[wildcat09 29,237]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Tunnel vision.

We are talking about national policy that impacts minority populations across the entire nation. Populations that will vote in future elections in every state nationwide.

We are in this position specifically because the guiding principle of the Democratic Party for decades has been to extend a middle finger to minority and working class populations to try and win educated suburban white people and "protect" Democrats in red areas.

Only one political group is singled out.

Right-wing troll.

 

I don't disagree, but it has nothing to do with how to sway Manchin right now.

[Js1 85,104]

10 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

Right-wing troll.

 

This is a broken brain if I've ever seen one. 

Without red state Dems, we have no Senate majority, period.  Maybe ever.  

We can just run progressives everywhere and get *checks notes* 27% of the vote in WV.  That'll learn those pesky red state Democrats ! 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Js1

[sheeeit 129]

On 6/1/2021 at 7:48 PM, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

Where's the lie in what he said? Perhaps it seems condescending to you is that the narrative (aka the truth) doesn't fit your world view and makes you acknowledge privilege you hadn't considered. I'd be willing to bet POC's heard and saw a white president acknowledge what they have always known as truth. That's not insignificant. 

I just picked this particular post to respond to so not necessarily responding to you personally.

I can find credit and fault in Biden‘s comments in Tulsa.
 

The sitting president of the United States coming to a community and acknowledging past atrocities is a very good thing. This event was particularly despicable and there is no question that policies and actions in the past have hindered the economic development of minorities.
 

Where I take exception to Biden‘s comments is when he uttered the lines about lawyers and accountants.  And this really isn’t specific to Biden as, in my opinion, very few people in powerful positions in government actually want to solve any real issues.

My problem with what Biden said is that, while recognizing the past, he offered no positiveOr constructive advice about the future. his comments about lawyers and accountants is just patently false and I think he knows it but doesn’t care.

The SBA has hundreds if not thousands of programs that have been established specifically for minority entrepreneurs. they offer free counseling on business plans and business ideas and offerGrants and loans to minority businesses that are not available to non-minority businesses. they provide, apparently to Biden’s amazement, free access to accountants and lawyers to help them in their endeavors.  I think these programs are fantastic and are deserved. I personally think the biggest issue is that we do not publicize the opportunities enough to the people that they are designed to help.  What Biden is telling these minorities is that they got a raw deal and that it is not their fault for their current position in lifeand that if it were not for white people they would all be thriving.whether or not parts of that are true, I think that it is a very bad message to be sending.  Because, if we just agree that it is true, it still does nothing to help people going forward.

I think it is much better for the country as a whole and for minorities in particular if Biden would have said something like the following “ What happened in Tulsa and other related events was absolutely horrible and we must, as a country, acknowledge this fact.  And as a result, your government has developed an extensive array of programs that are specifically tailored to minorities.  I know that you black entrepreneurs are just as bright and hard-working as anyone else. I acknowledge that historically you have not had great access to some of the advantages that non-minority people have had access to in America. But you have that access today. There are many many government programs that are only available to you as minorities that will offer you free assistance and free guidance and free mentoring to recognize your entrepreneurial dreams. We provide grant money, low interest loans, government set-aside contracts, access to lawyers and accountants and all of it is free and waiting for you to take advantage of it. I’m here to help. I want you to succeed.  Take advantages of these programs and go out and compete and show the world how successful you can be.”

And, for the record, these types of programs that are specifically tailored to minorities, in my opinion, are the absolute best way for us to make up for the actions of the past.  I have no idea why I never hear black leaders or really any government leaders ( R or D) speaking publicly about all of the advantages that now exist and touting all of the available avenues.  I am guessing the vast majority of the people on this site have never done any research into the available programs that are out there for minorities. It really is expansive and it really is a very good thing.  If anything, I think many of these programs should be expanded and there should absolutely be a national approach to create awareness to them.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,841]

lol, ok. just because those programs exist doesn't mean it wipes away 300+ years of oppression. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

I don't disagree, but it has nothing to do with how to sway Manchin right now.

It means we shouldn't place swaying Manchin right now at the top of our list.

"We are moving towards justice. We will get it sooner or later. If you stand in the way, it will come later. And if you stand in the way, we will destroy any concept of a legacy you ever dreamed of having. We are going to win either way. We can disagree on tax rates. We can disagree on a lot of other issues. But when it comes to the voting rights of Americans, we act with one voice and disloyalty is not tolerated. If you stand in the way of black voting rights you are a supporter of white supremacy and we will say that about you loudly, repeatedly, and without hesitation. Choose."

5 minutes ago, softlynow said:

Democracy must win at the ballot box, because the tools available to enforce authoritarianism only improve day after day.

Again, tunnel vision.

The ballot box isn't really where this stuff is going to shift. The reality of this today is the same as it's always been; things will change through the public expression of the power of the masses.

Just now, Js1 said:

This is a broken brain if I've ever seen one. 

A serious effort to break down the causes of Democratic weakness does not include whining about Jill Stein voters. You're a troll.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

8 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I have no idea why I never hear black leaders or really any government leaders ( R or D) speaking publicly about all of the advantages that now exist and touting all of the available avenues. 

How many black leaders do you listen to? Answer honestly.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

Outside of switching parties, I think the assumption that Manchin would suffer political consequences for anything he does now is absurd.  Voters don’t give a shit about the Senate legislative filibuster, Manchin voting for or against any legislation isn’t going to cost him votes three years from now.  

[wildcat09 29,237]

14 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

It means we shouldn't place swaying Manchin right now at the top of our list.

"We are moving towards justice. We will get it sooner or later. If you stand in the way, it will come later. And if you stand in the way, we will destroy any concept of a legacy you ever dreamed of having. We are going to win either way. We can disagree on tax rates. We can disagree on a lot of other issues. But when it comes to the voting rights of Americans, we act with one voice and disloyalty is not tolerated. If you stand in the way of black voting rights you are a supporter of white supremacy and we will say that about you loudly, repeatedly, and without hesitation. Choose."

Again, tunnel vision.

The ballot box isn't really where this stuff is going to shift. The reality of this today is the same as it's always been; things will change through the public expression of the power of the masses.

A serious effort to break down the causes of Democratic weakness does not include whining about Jill Stein voters. You're a troll.

What does this mean?

[Js1 85,104]

3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

What does this mean?

Nothing at all. It's word vomit by the left wing brigade.  Blue MAGA is just as bad as red MAGA.

No one is going to convince Joe Manchin other than Joe Manchin.  Elect more Dems in 2022 and make his influence on the caucus after 2023 minimal.  Dems can do whatever they want without him and Sinema if they can get 52 Senators.  All those seats we can win in 2022 are a direct effect of losing them in 2016 due to apathy, disinformation and "BOTH SIDES ARE BAD" bullshit. 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

What does this mean?

Mass movements.

- Demonstrations
- Strikes
- Protests
- Marches
- Sit-Ins
- Boycotts
- Occupations
- etc...

The working class of America has been pacified alarmingly and convinced by the pundit class (who is paid/controlled by capital) that electoralism is the beginning and end of how to enact change. It's just one link in the chain, not the entire chain.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

8 minutes ago, Js1 said:

Elect more Dems in 2022 and make his influence on the caucus after 2023 minimal.

How? Serious question.

If your answer involves being mad at the left and not figuring out how to bring in the 10x larger population of non-participating Democrat-leaners then you seriously need to stop posting because you're either a massive moron or a self-aware troll.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

It's a rather sad and pathetic state of our nation when instead of grabbing multiple ladders to scale the walls of the inaccessible castle wherein reside the 1%, a substantial portion of the populace would rather stand on the rungs of one and punch others in the face who are climbing up behind to help. Black people have been holding up that ladder for over a century and the 1% have a lot of people convinced that the black people have saws and want to cut them down. They're trying to build more ladders. What is that saying? If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.

 

I'm getting rather sick and tired of the whole charade.

[wildcat09 29,237]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Mass movements.

- Demonstrations
- Strikes
- Protests
- Marches
- Sit-Ins
- Boycotts
- Occupations
- etc...

The working class of America has been pacified alarmingly and convinced by the pundit class (who is paid/controlled by capital) that electoralism is the beginning and end of how to enact change. It's just one link in the chain, not the entire chain.

Sure, all that would be great. I don't want to throw 2022 away in an effort to make them more likely, though.

The only likely way to keep Republicans from stealing the House and Senate back in 2022 is to pass both the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For the People Act this year. Mass movement isn't going to spontaneously manifest in West Virginia and change Manchin's mind that quickly (and we've still got Sinema and other squishy centrist shits to worry about, but they're more susceptible to ordinary party pressures).

If the Republicans are able to steal 2022 they'll absolutely steal 2024. Then we might see mass movement, but the GOP will respond with bullets. I know there's some accelerationist lefties who think that'd be good, but I never thought you were one of them. Are you?

[TwiceHorn 31,269]

3 hours ago, softlynow said:

This shit just hammers home how empty the heads of extremist 2nd amendment folks are. If they really meant for our government to be scared of the governed they’d be in favor of nuking immunity as well as just about every anti-majoritarian aspect of our electoral system (EC, filibuster, partisan gerrymandering, the Dakotas). In reality they just want their toys.

 

I don’t see how we avoid a dystopian future not-unlike Elysium where most of us live in squalor while the billionaire class escapes to paradise in orbit above us. We’ve probably reached the point that the weaponry needed for a real revolution is only available to would be non-benevolent plutocrats, and it’s only getting worse in that regard. 

No doubt it is working out that way.

But, on the other side, given how generally litigious our society is, there is a real risk that government would grind to a halt if every aggrieved citizen could sue every allegedly responsible official for whatever their petty grievance.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Sure, all that would be great. I don't want to throw 2022 away in an effort to make them more likely, though.

Pardon me for throwing your own question back at you but... What does this mean?

Quote

The only likely way to keep Republicans from stealing the House and Senate back in 2022 is to pass both the John Lewis Voting Rights Act and the For the People Act this year.

ok cool How?

Quote

If the Republicans are able to steal 2022 they'll absolutely steal 2024. Then we might see mass movement, but the GOP will respond with bullets. I know there's some accelerationist lefties who think that'd be good, but I never thought you were one of them. Are you?

Again... What does this mean?

I know what accelerationism is in terms of Marxist philosophy but I think you're using it in the Twitter sense so I genuinely don't know what you mean.

I am advocating the organization of public demonstrations. That this would be called "accelerationist" is either alarming or just a misunderstanding.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

1 minute ago, bad_teammate said:

Pardon me for throwing your own question back at you but... What does this mean?

ok cool How?

Again... What does this mean?

I know what accelerationism is in terms of Marxist philosophy but I think you're using it in the Twitter sense so I genuinely don't know what you mean.

I am advocating the organization of public demonstrations. That this would be called "accelerationist" is either alarming or just a misunderstanding.

I am happy to demonstrate and whatnot, but I am going to be looking for a spot behind a concrete bollard because the risk of some whackjob running me over has accelerated with ole white dude governors enacting 'run er down' legislation. They knew this and condone violence. They're fascists. Doesn't matter one whit whether I'm peaceable. If they 'feel' afraid, they can run me down and the government and law will bind me and not them. I will take that risk, but I don't discount that others  may decide it's not worth it especially because they are not white.

Heather Heyer's killer was sentenced to life in prison and they don't want to repeat that mistake again. They want the killers to be martyred not the victims. (SEE: Rittenhouse, Kyle).

[wildcat09 29,237]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Pardon me for throwing your own question back at you but... What does this mean?.

I think your proposed approach to persuading Manchin is likely to cause him to switch parties, with the side effect of splintering the Democratic coalition, making a Dem victory in 2022 much harder for a variety of reasons. This isn't to say organizing public demonstrations isn't an important political tactic, just that I don't think it will work on Manchin in West Virginia right now. There just aren't that many people in West Virginia who will actually publicly demonstrate in support of progressive priorities and Manchin thinks it's in his best interest politically to be seen opposing the people who we could get to demonstrate. He doesn't want to appeal to progressives. 

I don't have a good strategy for passing these bills. I'm pretty fucking pessimistic about it right now because Manchin is absolutely necessary, but he's in a heavily Republican state and seems to legitimately be the type of dumb Democrat that thinks odes to bipartisanship is what gets you reelected. I think the best option is just to bribe the asshole with a bunch of pork, but he keeps saying shit that indicates it won't be enough for him. 

As for "accelerationist," I'm not using it in the Marxist sense because I've never really read Marxist philosophy. I'm using it in the sense that a lot of people want to accelerate a decline in X (whether it be material conditions, social cohesion, or whatever), because they think the decline will spark organization to make things better. I'm extremely wary of those arguments because they tend to boil down to "I'm fine with things getting much worse for women and minorities so we can accomplish what I want" (and there's no guarantee it would actually work).  

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

I think your proposed approach to persuading Manchin is likely to cause him to switch parties, with the side effect of splintering the Democratic coalition, making a Dem victory in 2022 much harder for a variety of reasons.

I'm going to need more than "a variety of reasons" to understand why Biden (and the rest of the Dems) shouldn't be going hard on Manchin, especially given your alternative plan which seems to be nothing.

Also, I don't know why Manchin switching would "splinter the Democratic coalition". Manchin is basically on an island alone and isn't representative or leader of a group of any kind. Sinema and Tester aren't rolling hard with him or anything.

Quote

As for "accelerationist," I'm not using it in the Marxist sense because I've never really read Marxist philosophy. I'm using it in the sense that a lot of people want to accelerate a decline in X (whether it be material conditions, social cohesion, or whatever), because they think the decline will spark organization to make things better.

Why would mass public demonstrations indicate a "decline" in anything?

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

The Dems refusal to take the gloves off and go on offense because of fear of losing the power they are too afraid to use anyway is really something.  They keep operating in this fantasy world that doesn’t exist, and it’s going to give away everything eventually.  

I’m not an accelerationist but incompetent leadership will create enough to bring the whole thing down. 

Edited June 9, 2021 by Hugo Stiglitz
Redundancy

[Js1 85,104]

23 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

As for "accelerationist," I'm not using it in the Marxist sense because I've never really read Marxist philosophy. I'm using it in the sense that a lot of people want to accelerate a decline in X (whether it be material conditions, social cohesion, or whatever), because they think the decline will spark organization to make things better. I'm extremely wary of those arguments because they tend to boil down to "I'm fine with things getting much worse for women and minorities so we can accomplish what I want" (and there's no guarantee it would actually work).  

Ah, the ole "burn it all down by voting for Trump so we can build it back up with progressive policies afterwards!" philosophy.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Trolls love strawmen arguments.

[GRHorn 105]

 

[Biff Tannen 45,492]

Cool?

[Mrs Whiggins 13,049]

She's doing her homework so she follows protocol and doesn't end up like this:

 

[DonkeyCigars 144]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Trolls love strawmen arguments.

Bad_teammate completely owned JS1 and reduced him for all to see, for what he is, a troll. I'm here for it. All of it. 

[sheeeit 129]

3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

How many black leaders do you listen to? Answer honestly.

I’m probably like most people here.  I rarely watch the news on television.  I go to 4 websites (Fox, CNN, Reuters and Politico) for news updates.  I watch the Today show in the morning with wife.  
 

there have been 100s of different black leaders or black people on those mediums over the last 15 years or so.  I don’t think I have actually ever heard one single one of them talk about the various advantages that are in place and ready to be accessed by minorities.  I never heard Obama talk about it and I’ve never heard Biden talk about it. I never heard Trump talk about it and I never heard Bush talk about it.  I’ve never heard AOC, Pelosi, McConnel, Schumer, McCarthy etc talk about it.  I’ve never heard Abrams, Sharpton, Jackson, Waters etc talk about it.  
 

Maybe they have and they do but it certainly is not getting much attention.  I could be completely wrong and just unaware.   This is just my personal observation.  
 

Do you have examples?

[Satchel 6,908]

Those of us in Texas must support Beto’s effort to register two million new voters in preparation for the ‘22 midterms. All of the handwringing is okay but we must convey the seriousness of the threat to the franchise to those willing to pay attention.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

27 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

I’m probably like most people here.  I rarely watch the news on television.  I go to 4 websites (Fox, CNN, Reuters and Politico) for news updates.  I watch the Today show in the morning with wife.  

OK.

So here was your conundrum:
I have no idea why I never hear black leaders or really any government leaders ( R or D) speaking publicly about all of the advantages that now exist and touting all of the available avenues. 

Here is the answer:
Because you have no connection at all to the black community. You make zero effort to hear them. You pay no attention to them.

That was easy!

Quote

Maybe they have and they do but it certainly is not getting much attention.  I could be completely wrong and just unaware.   This is just my personal observation.

This is the one.

I know you asked for examples, and I'd be glad to point to things like Obama talking to the urban league and whatnot (as was/is his job for the Democratic power establishment, the black scold), but you really should think through the base-level assumptions you're carrying into the question. Namely, the assumptions that black people are lazy, unmotivated, ignorant, and unappreciative. Really really important to interrogate those assumptions in your heart before anything boring like evidence will matter to you.

In question form: Why would your assumption be that "black leaders" don't talk about these things? Why wouldn't you just assume that happens?

27 minutes ago, Satchel said:

Those of us in Texas must support Beto’s effort to register two million new voters in preparation for the ‘22 midterms. All of the handwringing is okay but we must convey the seriousness of the threat to the franchise to those willing to pay attention.

Yep.

1 hour ago, GRHorn said:

 

trump at mar-a-lago with an empty pad of white paper pretending like he's writing things down

[softlynow 1,783]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

No doubt it is working out that way.

But, on the other side, given how generally litigious our society is, there is a real risk that government would grind to a halt if every aggrieved citizen could sue every allegedly responsible official for whatever their petty grievance.

Correct, but the immunity of our pols needs to have reasonable limits. From LE on up, I think we've passed that threshold.

4 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

Again, tunnel vision.

The ballot box isn't really where this stuff is going to shift. The reality of this today is the same as it's always been; things will change through the public expression of the power of the masses.

The ballot box is the only place that ultimately matters. Agitation, protest and demonstration is one way to win there, but it's delusional to think it's the best way. More of the electorate wants normalcy than spectacle, and that is why many activists are their own worst enemy.

Right now, post-1/6 the GOP is the party of disturbance. I think that event really helped turn swing-voter ire away from the Floyd protests last summer and towards the MTGs and Hawleys. Trump getting the train back in gear is a boon to Dems, and a good sign for the mid-terms. They've run against him well in the last two cycles ('18, '20), and if he's still the presumptive '24 nominee, Dems should fare well.

The GOP is making a massive mistake in not making a concerted effort to to sideline Trump. It's best to never interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake. Or we could, you know, be seen as breaking people's shit, and hope that will work out this time.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

Just now, softlynow said:

The ballot box is the only place that ultimately matters.

The ballot box exists to organize and pacify the thing that ultimately matters, which is the exercise of power. That isn't some wild leftist philosophizing on my part, that's the explicit purpose of representational government. That's what "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

It's why the Constitution begins with "We the People".

The power of the people, in whatever way it is expressed, is ULTIMATELY what matters.

Quote

Agitation, protest and demonstration is one way to win there, but it's delusional to think it's the best way. More of the electorate wants normalcy than spectacle, and that is why many activists are their own worst enemy.

It is a testament to your privilege (and ignorance of that privilege) that you see a public fight to maintain voting rights as mere "spectacle".

Quote

Or we could, you know, be seen as breaking people's shit, and hope that will work out this time.

I don't want to mischaracterize you here, so what you are advocating is that no one do any demonstrations or protests in order to agitate for black voting rights? Right?

[bad_teammate 13,132]

The ballot box is the trailing indicator. It's where people go AFTER something else has shifted them. It's downward in the chain of action and change.

[edit]

The Dems do not motivate their base because they fucking hate their own base openly. You will never see GOP politicians scold their base as much as Democrats do, so is it any wonder that Democrats fucking lose all the time despite having the most popular platform?

"Vote for us, you scum. You pieces of entitled shit. God I hate you. Just vote already and shut up. The right-wing has you idiots nailed. Vote for me."

Edited June 9, 2021 by bad_teammate

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,841]

you and Hugo need to fuck already, jesus y'all are insufferable. now that you don't have former guy to rail on you really have no compass

[GW Hayduke 1,952]

11 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The ballot box is the trailing indicator. It's where people go AFTER something else has shifted them. It's downward in the chain of action and change.

[edit]

The Dems do not motivate their base because they fucking hate their own base openly. You will never see GOP politicians scold their base as much as Democrats do, so is it any wonder that Democrats fucking lose all the time despite having the most popular platform?

"Vote for us, you scum. You pieces of entitled shit. God I hate you. Just vote already and shut up. The right-wing has you idiots nailed. Vote for me."

You are triggered when folks point out excessive cancel culture is dumb?  You think the Dems should embrace cancel culture and run with it at the top of the platform?

[Satchel 6,908]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

OK.

So here was your conundrum:
I have no idea why I never hear black leaders or really any government leaders ( R or D) speaking publicly about all of the advantages that now exist and touting all of the available avenues. 

Here is the answer:
Because you have no connection at all to the black community. You make zero effort to hear them. You pay no attention to them.

That was easy!

This is the one.

I know you asked for examples, and I'd be glad to point to things like Obama talking to the urban league and whatnot (as was/is his job for the Democratic power establishment, the black scold), but you really should think through the base-level assumptions you're carrying into the question. Namely, the assumptions that black people are lazy, unmotivated, ignorant, and unappreciative. Really really important to interrogate those assumptions in your heart before anything boring like evidence will matter to you.

In question form: Why would your assumption be that "black leaders" don't talk about these things? Why wouldn't you just assume that happens?

Yep.

trump at mar-a-lago with an empty pad of white paper pretending like he's writing things down

Chuckle. He also did that while in Walter Reed struggling to breathe ...stupid old coot.

[softlynow 1,783]

3 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

The ballot box exists to organize and pacify the thing that ultimately matters, which is the exercise of power. That isn't some wild leftist philosophizing on my part, that's the explicit purpose of representational government. That's what "deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed".

It's why the Constitution begins with "We the People".

The power of the people, in whatever way it is expressed, is ULTIMATELY what matters.

Pointless, dog-chasing-tail, navel-gazing drivel. Par for the course from you.

Quote

It is a testament to your privilege (and ignorance of that privilege) that you see a public fight to maintain voting rights as mere "spectacle".

Do I? Is that what I said? I though you at least could understand basic context clues in the English language.

Quote

I don't want to mischaracterize you here, so what you are advocating is that no one do any demonstrations or protests in order to agitate for black voting rights? Right?

You mean, after doing that, you've decided to stop for a bit.

Anyway, I'm usually for political rallies which remain undeniably of that nature. Disruptive rallies, much less so. Your list in post 3614 above went far beyond "demonstrations and protests."

If the more disruptive forms of demonstration happen organically, they happen. Sometimes they are necessary. But 2022 is, not as of yet, looking like that kind of moment. But if Dems fuck up '22, we might be, in short order, in need of channeling the spirit of 1789.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

The republicans are fine with violence as a political tactic, I don’t think this has sunk in yet.  The insurrection and subsequent lack of accountability for the ringleaders is exhibit A.  

The republicans are in the process of delegitimizes future elections right now.  Their strategy is clear, keep chipping until the vote will not matter unless there is an intervention to stop them.  I don’t see an intervention coming from where one should come from right now. The judicial and legislative umpires that got us through 2020 are not guaranteed to be there or to do the right thing next time.  

Edited June 9, 2021 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Satchel 6,908]

While I can’t speak for all black people, I can tell you that nothing pissed us off more in ‘08 and 2012 than Republican efforts to suppress our vote. I suspect the same thing will happen in the mid terms and the general in ‘24.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

1 minute ago, softlynow said:

Do I? Is that what I said? I though you at least could understand basic context clues in the English language.

What is the "spectacle" that you're referring to, then? Specifics would be helpful.

Quote

Anyway, I'm usually for political rallies which remain undeniably of that nature. Disruptive rallies, much less so. Your list in post 3614 above went far beyond "demonstrations and protests."

Usually?? What the fuck?

And why do you give a shit about whether or not they are "disruptive"? That's the entire fucking point.

Christ.

Quote

But 2022 is, not as of yet, looking like that kind of moment.

Black Americans are having their voting rights stripped away right now. And you call to wait for a more convenient season.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

2 minutes ago, Satchel said:

While I can’t speak for all black people, I can tell you that nothing pissed us off more in ‘08 and 2012 than Republican efforts to suppress our vote. I suspect the same thing will happen in the mid terms and the general in ‘24.

Just make sure you aren't disruptive. Be nice.

Stay on the sidewalk. Ask for permission. Thank the nice police officers for their service.

[softlynow 1,783]

22 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

What is the "spectacle" that you're referring to, then? Specifics would be helpful.

 

Black Americans are having their voting rights stripped away right now. And you call to wait for a more convenient season.

Read the entire sentence in which I use that word. Recalibrate it for what those people see.

Quote

Usually?? What the fuck?

And why do you give a shit about whether or not they are "disruptive"? That's the entire fucking point.

Christ.

Yes, usually. Did you fail every standardized test in which you have to consider other sentences or even paragraphs of the reading comprehension sections in order to determine the right answer? If so, then let me help you. Look in the paragraph following the one you quoted.

Quote

Black Americans are having their voting rights stripped away right now. And you call to wait for a more convenient season.

Wait for what? I want to win an election, which usually means ignoring the things you say should be done. If you're asking do I support astroturfing a revolution, the answer is no.

[SydneyCarton 47,873]

I still haven't seen anyone definitively give a set of actions Biden and Democrats could engage in that would constitute "taking the gloves off." Ok, so what does real hardball look like, exactly? I know Democrats are pussies, but specifically, what can really be done here? Other than primary them, which I'm all for when the time comes, someone help me out. I'd love to see some real examples. 

[wildcat09 29,237]

55 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

You are triggered when folks point out excessive cancel culture is dumb?  You think the Dems should embrace cancel culture and run with it at the top of the platform?

Cancel culture isn't a thing.

[wildcat09 29,237]

4 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I still haven't seen anyone definitively give a set of actions Biden and Democrats could engage in that would constitute "taking the gloves off." Ok, so what does real hardball look like, exactly? I know Democrats are pussies, but specifically, what can really be done here? Other than primary them, which I'm all for when the time comes, someone help me out. I'd love to see some real examples. 

I want the party and Joe Biden to speak in a unified voice about the threat the Republican party poses to American democracy. A lot have come around, but it seems like it's going to be impossible to get everyone on the same page (Manchin, SInema, Coons especially) and if there's still "moderate" Dems pretending that bipartisanship is possible we're fucked.

[Satchel 6,908]

Correct. It’s the latest right wing boogeyman used to demagogue any expression of empathy. (See diversity, multiculturalism, BLM, CRT, ACORN...the list goes on.)

[jimmyjazz 45,554]

It always takes me a day or so to recognize the far right talking points that are disseminated nightly.  The latest?  "The inherent built-in advantages Black America enjoys."

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,356]

2 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

I still haven't seen anyone definitively give a set of actions Biden and Democrats could engage in that would constitute "taking the gloves off." Ok, so what does real hardball look like, exactly? I know Democrats are pussies, but specifically, what can really be done here? Other than primary them, which I'm all for when the time comes, someone help me out. I'd love to see some real examples. 

See how republicans treat democrats.  Democrats need to do that, except democrats don’t need to lie, the truth is damning enough.  

There should have been multiple public hearings already on the insurrection but Dems tried to do some bipartisan investigation with the insurgent party.  That is the opposite of taking the gloves off.  
 

Democrats can’t bring themselves to fight back against political warfare because they think it will be perceive as being “too divisive”, it’s flawed logic that’s been their demise for a long time.