Democratic (Party) Direction

can we pls lob those quotes at all the "let's scold non-voters till they change their ways, it's bound to work this time" crowd

for real. engagement on their terms is the key

HOOS yr a hero btw

i mean is it crazy that i think he was trying and failing to recognize that white people have ingrained antiblack biases without making those same white people recoil from the label of racist

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, 8. november 2018 21:43 (twenty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and obviously the latter is a problem, i'm not defending it, i just * think * i see where the language he was using is orthogonal to the actually correct thing, like a misremembered scripted line

― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, 8. november 2018 21:44 (twenty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Can you elaborate on this? I can't square the two posts, like what is even close to being 'correct' about refusing to label people with ingrained antiblack bias as 'racists'?

I wasn't sufficiently clear I think -- what I'm saying is the 'correct' part there, whic his post-16 new hires have helped him learn to articulate, is 'white people have ingrained antiblack bias.' the totally botched and maybe hopelessly revealing in terms of his capacity for getting these things right is his insistence on not hurting these ostensible listeners feelings by insisting 'BUT they're not racists'

I;'m glad I wasn't imagining that he "got better" (read: hired smart and plugged-in staffers to help out w/ messaging) since '16

one word could have made a big difference - ie "not necessarily consciously racist"

Or just not including it at all: “I think you know there are a lot of white folks out there who are not necessarily racist who felt uncomfortable for the first time in their lives about whether or not they wanted to vote for an African-American,”

hyup

aw the poor ittle nonvoters

not everyone in iowa is terrible

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/zachary-wahls-who-went-viral-defending-his-lesbian-moms-in-speech-wins-iowa-state-senate-seat-2018-11-07

but i can't help think that believing that there are republicans who would really end up supporting it is like charlie brown and the footbal

there is already a bipartisan caucus supporting the bill. for any new members to join, they have to bring a member of the other party.
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/climate-solutions-caucus/

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:01 PM (one week ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

90 fucking members

― Οὖτις, Wednesday, October 31, 2018 4:01 PM (one week ago)

19 of the 43 republicans on the Climate Solutions Caucus , including the co-founder Carlos Curbelo, lost during the mid-terms, or are retiring

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/11/how-many-house-republicans-believe-climate-change/575233/

sorry, not sure why that discussion is in this thread.

Has anyone seen a good, thorough, relatively objective analysis of how various left vs moderate approaches fared in elections? Obviously it wasn’t exactly a crushing victory for the Bernie platform in either the primaries or the general but I’d like to see a thorough analysis of where / why / which races bucked the trend etc on both the federal and state levels.

https://wthh.dataforprogress.org/ might be useful for that

At this juncture, I’d be content with a political majority that conceeded science is our best approximation of fact:

* Anthropogenic climate change is an existential risk for human civilization.
* Males and females have equal intellectual potential.
* Race isn’t a viable biological category.
* Sexual orientation is innate, and not a choice.
* There’s also an innate human need to escape the churn of life, which some do with spiritual rituals, and others with psychotropics.

Anything beyond that, like looking at outcomes in more progressive societies, and modeling our own society (in social provision of healthcare, criminal rehabilitation, or economic safety nets) after others with the best outcomes is just bonus, at this juncture.

I interviewed incoming Congressman @SeanCasten about how he flipped a 40-year Republican district by talking incessantly about climate change https://t.co/c30p24Hne2

— Emily Atkin (@emorwee) November 12, 2018

Also this is going to be fun

"I'm Richard Ojeda and I'm running for the president of the United States of America." https://t.co/MEV2SIcyPF

— Dave Weigel (@daveweigel) November 12, 2018

I heard him referred to as a "rape apologist" somewhere without context and I'd really like to know what that was in reference to.

wait did Ojeda even win his race in WV?

No he lost by 20 points iirc

Still I’d like to see him get a ride out if trump

*rise

Jfc bit early in the morning for that typo

I like an angry labor union dude but c'mon

There are going to be like 50 democratic candidates, and we can’t pay attention to all of them, and this guy is going nowhere. I get it. I just want to see trump take the bait a few times.

No he lost by 20 points iirc

Lost by 12 in a pretty GOP district; was looking good in polls in the summer by October he was pretty clearly behind.

Cool about Sean Casten.

I volunteered in 2016 for Martin O'Malley, not because I believed he had a good chance, but because he was the candidate who cared most about the issue, and it gave me an opportunity to talk about climate change to other voters.

Anthropogenic climate change has a long duration, between 5 and 160 thousand years in the literature. 5 thousand years ago, Egyptian pyramids were still in construction. If you live in a coastal city, in 5 thousand years the sea will be 170-180 feet over your head, and every physical object you ever cared about will be slowly buried in silt.

We know the effects on crop yields. Its -10%/° C for the first few degrees, and more for heating beyond ~3° C. Just multiply crop yield losses by the expected duration of climate change. Its staggering. In our lifetimes, humanity will emit enough greenhouse gasses to prevent the existence of tens of billions of humans. In their future, maybe they'll match population to resources with mandatory sterilization, or just abandon infants, as was the norm for many societies before modern chemistry aided agriculture. Every so called pro-Life voter is either a climate change hawk, ignorant, or a hypocrite.

For those of us who strive to be ethical, climate change shifts all markers. Just living as a first world person, now, means that several people will never live over the next several centuries. I can't justify plane flights to see the last coral reefs, because the plane flight emissions cause more harm than my tourist dollars can rectify.

So, I will always work for and vote for the candidate with the strongest climate change game. Even if they're flawed in other respects, as whatever other issue you may care about is pretty trivial in comparison.

can't wait to vote for the Dem who primises to kickstart radically reorienting the global economy to serve the needs of the species and planet instead of accumulating capital for a walled elite!!

that voting rights package is dope and exactly the kind of big obvious must-happen shit i want to see actually get enacted when they finally get the power to do so. going ahead and putting it on the table now is really encouraging. needs a little tightening up (some pieces, esp. overturning citizens united, sound like they need to be constitutional amendments)... and maybe some additions, to try and deal with some of the vulnerabilities of electronic voting, and definitely to make election day a holiday (even if it's just moving Columbus Day's observance over or November or something).

Really believe that a candidates who just says "corporations are not people, and hence have no protected rights", and promises to only nominate Judges who also doubt the court reporter comments on the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company that gave us corporate personhood, would claim much of Trump's angry voter base.

Lol no

The people that were angry enough to toss a grenade at DC labeled "Trump" aren't corporation fans.

If you believe that there should be immortal citizens that aren't subject to the criminal law as it applies to humans for murder, theft, pollution, and which should have unlimited ability to fund politics to favor their own issues, then I submit you aren't a Democrat.

Corporations are not people. They shouldn't be granted the rights of people. They should be granted charters and exist solely because they can benefit the economic welfare of real people. When they chose to harm the society that granted them life, we as society should revoke their charters. The death penalty. There are many corporations that have demonstrated contempt for the common good, and we the people need to kill them.

if Democrats have done much of anything to roll back corporate personhood in my lifetime I've not heard about it

My position is that you are fundamentally misreading the interests of Trump voters.

No disagreement re: corporate personhood

Trump’s angry voter base is not guided by rationality, issues, positions, gas prices, the economy, or any other coherent interest. It is a tribal cult of personality driven by resentment and xenophobia and that is p much it.

don't forget racism

supersized portions of racism

Delicious racism

shakes otm

Corporate personhood is a concept created by the judiciary, and will only be abolished by the judiciary. Obama's supreme court nominees, most notably Elena Kagen, are on record for determining corporate personhood as an existential risk to democracy.

We need a generation of Democratic presidents, to nominate supreme court nominees who follow Elena Kagen's reasoning, before we can defeat the concept of corporate personhood.

It's very nice to imagine we have that long

meanwhile, in Oregon

Oregon voters just gave Democrats the gov's mansion & super majority in the legislature. The party's first order of business? Let Nike, Oregon's largest private employer & a notorious tax dodger, write tax the policy lawmakers will vote on next year. Bold https://t.co/J0wIY8yAs3

— Shane D. Kavanaugh (@shanedkavanaugh) November 12, 2018

I truly do not care one iota for what life on earth is like in 5000 years

I only care about that faintly, but I care very much what it's like in 50 and even 500

oh dear, thanks for that heads up on Oregon, time to call ppl

fuck Nike btw and I don't give a shit that Knight is "no longer involved"

2020 primaries are going to be amazing.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dr1XOPyU0AAy3AD.jpg

was that really necessary

lol Debra Messing RTd that with "This is everything"

livestock in the bedroom is only allowable when youre like a one room agrarian society imo

Silby: from an ethical perspective, the 7.6 billion living now and the < 2 billion living in 7000 AD have equal standing.

It's why the only civilization that has any hope of persisting makes "leave the world better than you found it" the first ethical commandment. And flays alive those that violate it.

Utilitarianism is wrong actually