Jump to content

The Politics Thread


Toups

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Vee

    6818

  • DRW50

    5991

  • DramatistDreamer

    5521

  • Khan

    3465

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • Members

Pelosi disagreed with her. I see both points of view; she's right that that rhetoric hurt a lot of moderates and has to be reworked and rebranded in how we talk about de-militarizing the police, etc. But what gets Spanberger elected in a red state is not the issue or chosen cause of every Dem across the nation in very different places, and Spanberger needs to recognize that. I'm very glad she held her seat, but I'm tired of moderates demanding the party always hew to them first and last. They have to meet us halfway too. That doesn't mean I'm remotely interested in hewing to the goals of, say, the Squad, because I think only Pressley and AOC have made strides to mature, but I still think the party needs to be prepared to take names and kick ass.

 

Fight for our issues, don't run from them just because of our red state members. Give them room to moderate locally. But the only thing the GOP and their less committed swing voters respect is strength or the appearance thereof. When Trump and Bush won with numbers like what we're now facing, they called it a mandate and walked tall, and the media believed it. We have to do that. We have to be forceful and we have to take it to them.

 

 

Pelosi did also say it flat out: "Joe Biden has a mandate." Good.

 

Meanwhile:

 

 

 

 

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

I really think this is a problem due to the infrastructure of the US. It's hard to say that a President has a mandate, if they just squeaked by and won the election. I would feel more comfortable with a Biden mandate if we won the Senate, or received at least 300+ electoral collage votes. We need those in order to truly action a "mandate". That's easier for Republicans to do than Democrats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Doesn't matter. Perception is reality with some of these things.

 

Another good point made on the Dem call: Pascrell said Schumer is a problem for them, leaving Pelosi doing a good job but "with one hand tied behind her back". IMO that's right. Schumer is a good man but weak.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Spanaberger is right. Progressives keep pushing unpopular policies and hanging them around the necks of red and purple state Dems with lousy talking points. Then they turn around and claim Dems are bad at messaging. Stop using the word socialism. Don't try to explain it. Just stop using it. Stop using a word that makes it harder to get what we want. Why is that so hard?

 

"Defund the police" actually harmed the BLM movement. After George Floyd's murder the support for BLM hit a record high of 67 percent. Then came "defund the police" and that horrible scene of BLM protestors surrounding that woman outside a Georgetown restaurant and support dropped by 20 points. 

 

 

 

Yeah, Schumer isn't the right man for this moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

On that I agree. We keep telling these people the language and approach are wrong and they don't want to hear it. I think a lot of progressive initiatives are worthwhile and worth pursuing, but if you can't sell it you can't make shít happen. Anything approaching the word 'socialism' is radioactive in this country and will remain that for at least a couple more generations. Police de-escalation, demilitarization is a lot better to work with than acting like you want to abolish the cops. We can deliver policies on par with shared liberal goals and call them different things.

 

Incredible:

 

 

 

Edited by Vee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Because, in the eyes of most progressives, that means compromise, which a lifetime of pouting and stamping their feet to get whatever they want has taught them never to do.  (Of course, I could be wrong, but it's been my experience that a progressive is one who has never been told "no.")

Edited by Khan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • Jean Hackney was awful and that lead to Ben's exit story which sucked. I liked Ben/Val together. Val's love for Ben was that of a grown woman moving on with her life and Ben's love for Val made him willingly decide to raise another man's children as his own.
    • It wasn't just a GL thing, it was an 80s thing. Opulent party scenes on soaps were very big back then. Even in regular episodes where people are just going to dinner they're dressed up like they're going to see royalty.
    • Just started the May 27 episode and first thing I see is that Willow got an ugly haircut since hte last time i watched   I dont have the context for how everthing went down but I know its all Lulu's fault which make her a bish for what she did to Gio
    • I'm pretty sure he was. But point taken. GL really had a thing for masked and costumed balls/parties in the '80's. Everyone looks fabulous, but those poor costume designers.
    • Still here ^^ Come on Prime Video, it's due to bring it back!
    • Got through the eighth season, and it was... painful. 

      Please register in order to view this content

    • I agree 100% with both you and Mitch64.  Soaps have been going further and further off-course since 1981. TPTB just don't have a fundamental understanding of what makes soap fans so loyal. I'd love to be on a writing team with both of you.  Maybe we could put together a real soap opera, and show people what its all about...  
    • They weren't in town, but Fletcher worked at the paper (and we saw anniversary Journal headlines for the 50th, although I don't remember if Roger was one of them), and I'd think Alex would have at least heard of him due to the damage he did to Spaulding only a few years before her return to the fold. I know I have to remember it's not real life, of course.
    • YES. The videos being uploaded to Spauldingfield are almost to the point where Alan is reintroduced. They're already talking about the guy he pretends to be, and yes, he returns at a masked ball. In fact, that masked ball is almost beat for beat the same as the masked ball where Alex was introduced! Get a new schtick. Before the Kobe era, that's pretty much what they did. Characters would just show up. Maybe other characters would talk about them for a while--the Chamberlains, Tony, Maureen, Andy, Kelly, Carrie--but then they would just appear. When Hope came back, she simply knocked on Bert's door and said something like, "Hi, Grandma, I'm home again." No particular fanfare. Sometimes it would be a bit dramatic--Jennifer and Morgan were introduced when Mike accidentally crashed into their car, for instance, and Alan and Elizabeth were introduced through Jackie's flashbacks when she was remembering giving up Phillip for adoption. Nola was involved in the Roger return. Roger's return in 1980 was very dramatic, but in a way that made total sense. He was trying to kidnap a child, so dressing up as a clown did not seem crazy. The mask bit was not only silly, it didn't even make sense. Alex never knew him, so there was no reason for him to be masked in front of her. Yeah, she knew OF him, but there's that phenomenon called cognetive dissonance. If you see someone outside of an expected situation, you probably won't recognize them, especially if you never met them in person and think they're dead. I bet a CIA spook like Roger would be familiar with that concept. And he didn't have to be skulking around SF for months. Again, I will cut Long a little slack--it was not her idea to bring back Roger, she was told to do it. She never wrote for the character. It was something that was not planned. They originally went to Zaslow to offer him the role of Alan. He, of course, turned them down because that was a ridiculous idea, but then he suggested coming back as Roger. At such short notice, it's not strange his return was not handled well.
    • Eh...but neither had been in town. Know the name Roger Thorpe? Sure. But Alex would have gone crazy trying to memorize all of Alan's co-conspirators/lovers/wives and Fletch didn't even know Roger/Adam was on the island, IIRC. But who knew or should've known each other is always a little dicey when people come back to town. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy