People aren’t happy, democrats especially are dissatisfied with the party any candidate is capable of winning if they present themselves as different from than the typical candidate. Cuomo’s connections to the Clinton will hurt him more than any corruption scandal.
Pretty sure I agree with all of that. I’m more trying to navigate the waters we’re in than trying to diagnose what got us here. If literally half the country wont listen to you the second you start calling them racists, maybe don’t call them racists and try another avenue. I’d say fuck em but obviously saying fuck em ended with Donald trump being president. Yet it seems like we want to do nothing but double down on calling them all racist bigots. Y’all dont want to explore other avenues, which is why I don’t chime in on this thread any more.
It as never about calling people racist. It was your insistence on “focusing on economics instead of race” that was always the problem. It was you saying ugh Democratic Party should abandon its messaging of inclusion in order to court racists that was the problem. And I really don’t think that your posts on the topic could be considered at all consistent with the summary of: “In any case, you can't think productively about economic policy in America today without thinking about identity, race, and the divisions that afflict us” in that final tweet.
Many of us don't want to participate in your rationalization of your defense of your racist relatives, no. Most of us have racist relatives, by the way. Those of us who have questioned you just see danger in catering to their shittiness that you don't seem to see. Also, Trump is not POTUS because racists were called racists. If that's where this weird philosophy of yours stems from, then it makes a lot of sense.
Y’all carry on I just gave my two cents because I was tagged. Stop tagging me if you don’t want my thoughts.
How is anything you’ve said on the matter consistent with the idea that you can’t talk economic policy without discussing race/identity?
If they pushed back he would have ended the interview. It really was a Catch 22 they were fucked either way.
I’ve said over and over again that focusing on poverty in our marketing will be more beneficial than focusing on race. And in turn it will help the black community disproportionately more than any other race because they are disproportionately more impoverished. That’s the god damn bed mark of the Democratic Party. Helping the impoverished. You don’t have to divide your fucking ranks by drawing a racial line. It weakens your effort since it ostracizes votes and undermines your actual ability to help the black community.
This might be one of the things about Trump's vocabulary that pisses me off the most. "Do bipartisan" Stop fucking cutting out the noun out of your fucking sentences and only using the adjective. It's fucking infuriating.
I'm speaking for myself. I understand the importance. I just think their processes are outdated. Sorry if I offended you.
He’s wrong, pro-white guys who don’t get pussy end up shooting up schools, churches, concerts. Pop that P for Nazi’s ladies, it chills them out.
So b/c I respond to you and show you why your "I'm just looking out for my best interests" doesn't work for the entire country....I'm upset?
OR, and this is big, maybe they just shouldn't be racists. This is the equivalent of people saying poor people should try not being poor. Why should it be incumbent of good people to tone down what they say to appease the stupid? Ignore the how all you want, but your line of thought amounts to giving them a pass for being racists because it hurts their feelings. They are too stupid to be reasoned with.
It's pretty incredible how many losers obsessed with video games became nazis and all of a sudden started to care deeply about "western civilization" because girls, who were never going to fuck them, started playing/talking about video games more
Not agreeing with you doesn't mean we don't want to discuss or critique your point of view, much like many of us probably learn and appreciate reading critiques of our own points of view. You almost sound like you don't want to be challenged in your point of view. That behavior sounds awfully familiar.
Whatever the approach it’s a waste of time to go after ALL of them. A good 25-30% of the populace will not listen to any sort of appeal, be it economic, moral, etc. Nixon still managed to hold 24% when he flew away on the helicopter, and Trump’s base will never slip below 30% most likely. Go after the people in the 30-46% cut, it doesn’t have to be the same argument for everyone.
If people feel ostracized by the mere discussion and admission of racial inequality, do they actually want to help the impoverished. or do they just want to help a subset of the impoverished? If helping the impoverished is the bed (bench?) mark of the Democratic Party, maybe these people who feel ostracized aren't actually Dems/libs? My biggest issue with how you've presented this argument the last few months is your insistence on using "we" as if there's some monolith you represent. If you want a benchmark of the Democratic Party/liberals, it's that they're anything but a monolith.
I think the saddest part is that those losers could get girlfriends who have similar interests (games, not hitler) if they cleaned themselves better and exercised like twice a week.
It's amazing how uniform they are too with their ideas on race relations. They love "egalitarianism."
I think Joe’s trying to say that if they took care of themselves they could get laid and if they got laid they wouldn’t feel like losers and therefore they wouldn’t blame their shortcomings on immigrants and blacks.
I do want my point of view to be challenged. I just don’t want to cause shitstorms which tends to happen if I disagree with something over here.
Congress and CC co. set the standard for destroying the USPS. They have been paying virtually nothing to send us junk mail. I can only imagine the cost of having shitty cc offers hand delivered to people in Nowhere Alaska that are used for kindling.
Weird how he starts talking about Iran then right at the end there clearly just starts talking about America.
If only there were some sort of process that allowed senators to read, discuss, and debate bills before they vote on these bills. They could even get creative and solicit public comments and allow people to testify before Congress. I heard some old folklore of a bill that took 18 months to pass, even included a president holding town hall meetings and allowing the other political party to make amendments to the bill, real fictitious stuff.
I recall Schoolhouse Rock reaching me how a bill became a law. This bill happened wicker than that cartoon.