Progressives, part 3...

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

"The Squad" are huge winners.  This is yet another meaningless event that has garnered them huge amounts of attention.  Good or bad, attention is what they want.  Attention is exactly what they got.  I know Trump loves to hear his name like no one else, but did he have to created a crisis using these four?  It gives "The Squad" way more relevance than it deserves.  

I'd even go so far as to say that the attention they got was a net positive.  They came out looking like people who had been inaccurately bullied without breaking down.  It was definitely a more positive moment than their actual performances have warranted.
 

posted by like_that

Political theater.  Just be happy they are bickering about stupid shit like this and not passing stupid ass laws that will affect us.

This.  AND the fact that it's all really pretty entertaining.

Politics is like the first reality television that I've been able to truly enjoy.  I think it's because there's actual gravitas to it all.
 

posted by CenterBHSFan

Blue Dogs already do that. They swing it to the left, they swing it to the right...

Sounds like John Holmes running for office.
 

posted by gut

How far we've come from 2012 when they laughed at Romney for calling Russia our greatest threat (but IMO it's still China).

I still think about this all the time.  Everyone mocked him.  Both sides.  Republicans thought it was a bad look.  Democrats knew it was.  Yet here we are, seven years later, and he looks insightful.
 

posted by iclfan2

Right on cue Omar and Tlaib put forth a pro-BDS bill today, and compared boycotting Israel today like boycotting Nazi Germany. Lol ok.

Fuck's sake.  Can we stop treating EVERYTHING we don't like as though it's an adequate parallel to Nazis or Hitler already?  I'm not even "pro-Israel" in the geopolitical sense, but dear lord, this is ridiculous.

posted by O-Trap

I still think about this all the time.  Everyone mocked him.  Both sides.  Republicans thought it was a bad look.  Democrats knew it was.  Yet here we are, seven years later, and he looks insightful.
 

This was the "mic drop" moment of that debate and everyone was jerking off to it. This came off the heels of Romney dominating Obama the previous debate. He was doing well in this particular debate, until this line happened.  We all know that line has not aged well at all.  

I don't really have any of those bat shit crazy liberal friends (some are really left), even living in DC, but I anytime anyone bitches about Russia I bring this up.  It's a classic case of that meme where the guy has to choose between two red buttons.  Either they acknowledge Russia is a huge threat and admit Obama was very wrong or they admit they are full of shit about Russia and only care because of the man in the White House.  

Can anyone make sense of this? I swear some people just blame capitalism for anything and everything. To be clear, capitalism allowed @jhooks to create a website that people want to pay money to use. Capitalism allowed him to create wealth out of an idea and hard work. Capitalism has nothing to do with 50 people sharing an account you dolt.

posted by justincredible

Can anyone make sense of this? I swear some people just blame capitalism for anything and everything. To be clear, capitalism allowed @jhooks to create a website that people want to pay money to use. Capitalism allowed him to create wealth out of an idea and hard work. Capitalism has nothing to do with 50 people sharing an account you dolt.

So wait ... let me get this right ...

It's cool to share with 2-3 people.  Just not 50.

Okay, where's that line?

And where is the line on motives, since obviously "friends help[ing] friends" is acceptable?

"I only killed 2 or 3 people"......"50 is just wrong"

same logic.

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

I have read a total of one article about her and I'm already on board.  She may be a nut for all I know.  But at least she has acknowledged that AOC is a child looking for attention - nothing more.  

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Not to say she isn't sincere in her motives, but it's almost a little too convenient and perfect a candidate to challenge AOC.  But, as mentioned, a Repub has no chance in that district.  Now, if AOC switched parties a Democrat would still end-up winning that district.

posted by gut

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Not to say she isn't sincere in her motives, but it's almost a little too convenient and perfect a candidate to challenge AOC.  But, as mentioned, a Repub has no chance in that district.  Now, if AOC switched parties a Democrat would still end-up winning that district.

 

They don't need to.  It's an easy victory and there is no need to give her attention.

posted by like_that

They don't need to.  It's an easy victory and there is no need to give her attention.

Unfortunately I think you are correct.  AOC has turned herself into a major celebrity.  I think that will be enough for her to defeat anyone who challenges her.  

posted by gut

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Not to say she isn't sincere in her motives, but it's almost a little too convenient and perfect a candidate to challenge AOC.  But, as mentioned, a Repub has no chance in that district.  Now, if AOC switched parties a Democrat would still end-up winning that district.

 

See how they treat Candace Owens, same thing except without the added immigrant tag.

I think people especially hate Candace Owens because she switched sides when her anti conservative websites failed. AFTER being hired by turning point she completely changed her views. She sued her high school for discrimination but argues discrimination doesn’t exist. 

posted by geeblock

I think people especially hate Candace Owens because she switched sides when her anti conservative websites failed. AFTER being hired by turning point she completely changed her views. She sued her high school for discrimination but argues discrimination doesn’t exist.

Yeah, I don't think she's a good example.  I think she plays a role.

Many of the talking heads political biases are "fluid".  Meghan Kelley is a good example.  Tucker Carlson is an even better example, because he's a bad actor and doesn't sell that he actually believes half the crap he says.

A lot of your media people really are Ron Burgundy.  People don't want truth in reporting, they want to have their beliefs affirmed - and so most of your media is actually entertainment aimed at filling that demand.

posted by geeblock

I think people especially hate Candace Owens because she switched sides when her anti conservative websites failed. AFTER being hired by turning point she completely changed her views. She sued her high school for discrimination but argues discrimination doesn’t exist. 

Your timeline is wrong. She became conservative and later was hired by Turning Point. I saw some of her videos before her employment with them and they were conservative view points. 

You actually don't know you did it, but you proved my point. She is hated among liberals because she is black and left the plantation of liberalism (her words, not mine so don't call me a racist for using plantation).

posted by gut

Yeah, I don't think she's a good example.  I think she plays a role.

Many of the talking heads political biases are "fluid".  Meghan Kelley is a good example.  Tucker Carlson is an even better example, because he's a bad actor and doesn't sell that he actually believes half the crap he says.

A lot of your media people really are Ron Burgundy.  People don't want truth in reporting, they want to have their beliefs affirmed - and so most of your media is actually entertainment aimed at filling that demand.

I don't know, Meghan Kelley was by far the most liberal prime time host Fox had ever had and she didn't go much further left once she was gone from Fox. I admittedly don't watch Tucker (only see some snippets on youtube) and he is somewhat annoying and plays "gotcha". Was he liberal before his Fox gig? Honest question as I don't know.

Edit: Quick wikipedia look at Carlson shows he has been a conservative commentator his whole career. He was the conservative voice on CNN's Crossfire then had his own show on MSNBC before they went full lefty looney and he was a conservative there too.

posted by jmog

Your timeline is wrong. She became conservative and later was hired by Turning Point. I saw some of her videos before her employment with them and they were conservative view points. 

 

You actually don't know you did it, but you proved my point. She is hated among liberals because she is black and left the plantation of liberalism (her words, not mine so don't call me a racist for using plantation).

Her own Wikipedia page shows her career she wasn’t conservative. Until she was. She lacks credibility and only tweets conservative taking points. She is being used and will be tossed aside when she is no longer needed in my opinion. She has a right to her views and people have the right to listen to her or not. In my opinion her biggest qualification that makes her relative is that she’s black. Other than that she would be useless to the right. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Unfortunately I think you are correct.  AOC has turned herself into a major celebrity.  I think that will be enough for her to defeat anyone who challenges her.  

I think it'll still happen, though.  Political campaigns will still put out commercials and ads, and you've gotta fill the ad with SOMETHING.
 

posted by gut

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Two words:

Uncle. Tom.

Whether or not the liberal side is the most justified for minorities in the US (we can debate that elsewhere; it's not relevant to the point here), it seems to me that it's problematic when society, or even a significant subset of society, doesn't grant an individual the right to arrive at their own conclusions and form their own convictions.  If a POC arrives at the conclusion other than that which is in-step with what is acceptable within the scope of the Democratic Party, they're treated like a traitor.

Obviously, there's a fundamental problem with linking an ACT of betrayal with a conviction concluded in good faith.

It would be disingenuous to say that the Republican Party doesn't have their own problems with views on race, but it seems to me, as an admittedly non-minority in any real way, that denying someone the right to arrive at their own convictions because of their skin tone is just as problematic and needs addressed if you claim the moral high ground on race.

geeblock, I know you catch heat on here for some of your views, but as a POC, I'd like to hear your take on this.  Am I way out in left field, and if so, where did I make the wrong turn?
 

posted by jmog

Edit: Quick wikipedia look at Carlson shows he has been a conservative commentator his whole career. He was the conservative voice on CNN's Crossfire then had his own show on MSNBC before they went full lefty looney and he was a conservative there too.

I'm not saying Tucker isn't a conservative, I'm saying his show/persona is an act.

Most of these shows should have the disclaimer "the views expressed by the host are not his/her own, nor the networks".  They are giving a performance of what their target audience wants to hear.  When you see these people move around to different networks, you'll see their performance adapt to the new target audience.

posted by O-Trap

I think it'll still happen, though.  Political campaigns will still put out commercials and ads, and you've gotta fill the ad with SOMETHING.
 

posted by gut

I'm really curious to see how Democrats will attack a young black, female Republican who is also an immigrant.

Two words:

Uncle. Tom.

Whether or not the liberal side is the most justified for minorities in the US (we can debate that elsewhere; it's not relevant to the point here), it seems to me that it's problematic when society, or even a significant subset of society, doesn't grant an individual the right to arrive at their own conclusions and form their own convictions.  If a POC arrives at the conclusion other than that which is in-step with what is acceptable within the scope of the Democratic Party, they're treated like a traitor.

Obviously, there's a fundamental problem with linking an ACT of betrayal with a conviction concluded in good faith.

It would be disingenuous to say that the Republican Party doesn't have their own problems with views on race, but it seems to me, as an admittedly non-minority in any real way, that denying someone the right to arrive at their own convictions because of their skin tone is just as problematic and needs addressed if you claim the moral high ground on race.

geeblock, I know you catch heat on here for some of your views, but as a POC, I'd like to hear your take on this.  Am I way out in left field, and if so, where did I make the wrong turn?
 

 

I mean I think people feel the same way about Candace Owens as Tomi Lahren. She is a pretty blond and they trot her out there to serve her role. Neither one really has the qualifications to comment on anything really. Candace didn’t even graduate college. 

As far as people of color and the Republican Party. Who have our options been so far? Haven’t had much to choose from. I think people don’t realize that most black people are conservative. Especially in the south. Church membership is very high especially in the south. In my opinion the gop hasn’t really wanted black people to be in the party or part of the party. Not that I’m saying dems are much better. Both parties push the super predator/war or crime every election which usually is bad for poor people and people of Color. So I guess the lack of candidates, lack of policies that provide support for schools and programs that support disadvantaged people I’m not sure why anyone would expect them to. I think certainly rich black people in certain tax brackets vote republican because of tax breaks. 

posted by geeblock

I mean I think people feel the same way about Candace Owens as Tomi Lahren. She is a pretty blond and they trot her out there to serve her role. Neither one really has the qualifications to comment on anything really. Candace didn’t even graduate college. 

As far as people of color and the Republican Party. Who have our options been so far? Haven’t had much to choose from. I think people don’t realize that most black people are conservative. Especially in the south. Church membership is very high especially in the south. In my opinion the gop hasn’t really wanted black people to be in the party or part of the party. Not that I’m saying dems are much better. Both parties push the super predator/war or crime every election which usually is bad for poor people and people of Color. So I guess the lack of candidates, lack of policies that provide support for schools and programs that support disadvantaged people I’m not sure why anyone would expect them to. I think certainly rich black people in certain tax brackets vote republican because of tax breaks. 

But I mean, suppose for example that you had come to the conclusion that most assistance programs were not an overall net benefit for those they're meant to help (maybe you think they perpetuate the generational reliance on them), and so you opposed many of them.  How comfortable would you feel expressing that to other POC?  Suppose you looked at the schools who have gotten more funding over the years and really haven't demonstrated any palpable improvement as a result of it, so you began to oppose those.  Do you think that conviction would be at least able to be discussed with POC, or would you be concerned that you'd immediately be labeled and written off as being something less than a real POC (No True Scotsman)?

Listen, I'm as WASP as they come.  I'm white.  My primary background is Welsh.  I'm Protestant.  I'm cis.  I'm straight.  I have no frame of reference for worrying about being treated in this manner.

But I live in a school system much like the one I described, where the money given to the local school district has risen for decades (and has outpaced inflation, in case that's a concern), and yet, it really hasn't resulted in any improvements. The public school system is still academically failing with an absurdly high truancy rate and cases of violence that are notably higher than the average for public schools in my state.  I have a vested interest in the education of my kids and of the people around me, and yet I don't see any statistical, or even any anecdotal, evidence that the increase in funding has improved anything.  As such, beyond any philosophical objections, I oppose most increases to public school spending on practical grounds, as well.

Were I a POC, would I be able to discuss that position publicly without being ostracized and written off?

posted by geeblock

Her own Wikipedia page shows her career she wasn’t conservative. Until she was. She lacks credibility and only tweets conservative taking points. She is being used and will be tossed aside when she is no longer needed in my opinion. She has a right to her views and people have the right to listen to her or not. In my opinion her biggest qualification that makes her relative is that she’s black. Other than that she would be useless to the right. 

I don't disagree with that, and neither does she. She admits she was a liberal and finally "woke up". Ronald Reagan was the same, was a democrat and switch when he realized things weren't right with the democratic party.

Shoot, my grandpa who just passed away last year at 86 years old. He voted democrat his whole life until just the last 2 POTUS elections, his own words were "they aren't about freedom of speech and helping the working people anymore, they are all about socialism and calling people who aren't with them racists".

So yes, people switch, that wasn't my point. My point was that she switched well before Turning Point. By asserting that she switched sides just for money is a little presumptuous. Do you believe Reagan switched sides for money? Power? Or can people switch sides just because they gain new information and change their minds?

I used to think libertarians were loons, then I actually read more information on them when Ron Paul actually made the most sense in the RNC debates. Once I looked into them I realized I was wrong and fell in line more with the libertarian view point than the Republican.

posted by geeblock

I mean I think people feel the same way about Candace Owens as Tomi Lahren. She is a pretty blond and they trot her out there to serve her role. Neither one really has the qualifications to comment on anything really. Candace didn’t even graduate college. 

As far as people of color and the Republican Party. Who have our options been so far? Haven’t had much to choose from. I think people don’t realize that most black people are conservative. Especially in the south. Church membership is very high especially in the south. In my opinion the gop hasn’t really wanted black people to be in the party or part of the party. Not that I’m saying dems are much better. Both parties push the super predator/war or crime every election which usually is bad for poor people and people of Color. So I guess the lack of candidates, lack of policies that provide support for schools and programs that support disadvantaged people I’m not sure why anyone would expect them to. I think certainly rich black people in certain tax brackets vote republican because of tax breaks. 

You didn't answer his question. Basically 90-95% of African-Americans vote democratic. Whenever any African-American of any prominence comes out and votes for/aligns with republicans they are immediately labeled as an "Uncle Tom".

Why are they labeled as betraying their "race" by coming to a different conclusion/viewpoint?