Kep
In our state, nothing will change until the legislature changes (and fat chance of that happening).
My only hope is to get enough GOP legislators in to prevent a veto override.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Kep
In our state, nothing will change until the legislature changes (and fat chance of that happening).
My only hope is to get enough GOP legislators in to prevent a veto override.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
If I read correctly, Thomas wrote his opinion such that all cases involving race and voting rights now must receive "strict scrutiny."
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
If I read correctly, Thomas wrote his opinion such that all cases involving race and voting rights now must receive "strict scrutiny."
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Nothing will ever change, anywhere until we get some balls and throw out the "dollars have 14th amendment protection" creeps. Your dollars do not have due process, rich people. Get over yourselves and try to get by with only a billion or so.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Nothing will ever change, anywhere until we get some balls and throw out the "dollars have 14th amendment protection" creeps. Your dollars do not have due process, rich people. Get over yourselves and try to get by with only a billion or so.
bronconick
Yep, still here
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
4th Court of Appeal keeps Trump's ban overturned
0-5
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
4th Court of Appeal keeps Trump's ban overturned
0-5
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Sessions has a sad.
Well Jefferson Beauregard, I have something for you right here.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Sessions has a sad.
Well Jefferson Beauregard, I have something for you right here.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Ya know, Dems participating in the last election may have helped in that regard since a SCOTUS seat was at stake. Amazing how many non-voters and 3rd partiers should be beaten senseless because of that. Set back the fight against money in politics for a generation.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Ya know, Dems participating in the last election may have helped in that regard since a SCOTUS seat was at stake. Amazing how many non-voters and 3rd partiers should be beaten senseless because of that. Set back the fight against money in politics for a generation.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Get.
A.
Better.
Candidate.
It's fine for us, we follow this sh-t closely. But to win elections you need to give people something to eat besides a sh-t sandwich. I know this brings up painful memories for you, but going forward there are many lessons. Unity, yes. But you can't win without casual and lofo voters -- they are the majority of both parties -- and you can't win an election when you creak out a godawful trashpile and tell people it's a chocolate sundae.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Get.
A.
Better.
Candidate.
It's fine for us, we follow this sh-t closely. But to win elections you need to give people something to eat besides a sh-t sandwich. I know this brings up painful memories for you, but going forward there are many lessons. Unity, yes. But you can't win without casual and lofo voters -- they are the majority of both parties -- and you can't win an election when you creak out a godawful trashpile and tell people it's a chocolate sundae.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Why didn't they show up for the Senate candidates though? You never answer that question. If Feingold, Murphy and McGinty win their races, all people who's progressive credentials I believe were pretty solid, Gorsuch isn't on the SCOTUS.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Why didn't they show up for the Senate candidates though? You never answer that question. If Feingold, Murphy and McGinty win their races, all people who's progressive credentials I believe were pretty solid, Gorsuch isn't on the SCOTUS.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
We've been through all this a hundred times. The top of the ticket pulls people to the ballpark. Even a good enchilada won't sell if you serve it slathered with expired sour cream.
Thing is, I'm not dismissing your main point: people hafta vote. I'm merely adding an observation that is Marketing 101: if a product doesn't sell, you won't get far if your response is to blame the market. Why you need to hold your breath and squeeze your eyes tight is anybody's guess, but it doesn't make that fact go away.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
We've been through all this a hundred times. The top of the ticket pulls people to the ballpark. Even a good enchilada won't sell if you serve it slathered with expired sour cream.
Thing is, I'm not dismissing your main point: people hafta vote. I'm merely adding an observation that is Marketing 101: if a product doesn't sell, you won't get far if your response is to blame the market. Why you need to hold your breath and squeeze your eyes tight is anybody's guess, but it doesn't make that fact go away.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Makes no sense Kep. All of these people should have won more votes than the top of the ticket then, even if they ended up losing their races. Might it be that Dem voters need to take elections a lot more seriously than we have been? Not showing up in 2010, 2014 and 2016 is downright criminal if you consider yourself to be a progressive. I mean, aren't we supposed to be the smart people? Yet we're too smart to participate when it actually counts.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Makes no sense Kep. All of these people should have won more votes than the top of the ticket then, even if they ended up losing their races. Might it be that Dem voters need to take elections a lot more seriously than we have been? Not showing up in 2010, 2014 and 2016 is downright criminal if you consider yourself to be a progressive. I mean, aren't we supposed to be the smart people? Yet we're too smart to participate when it actually counts.
Yes, dems ARE the party of smart people, in the sense that ~80% (working assumption) of smart people vote blue. Problem is that only 20% of the country is smart....if that. So you get a guaranteed 16% of the vote by portraying yourselves as the party of smart people. Congratulations on that, and good luck.
If you actually want to win elections, though, then you darn we'll better figure out how to appeal to a whole lot of dumb people - in spite of being perceived as the party of smart people.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Correct, and the way to do that is to approach people on their terms and listen to them, and have your messaging reflect what they want. The GOP has shown you don't even have to mean it -- they have done nothing but bend the poor over a barrel for 30 years and give it to them without lube, but because they put goofballs with the right gun totin' straight talkin' nonsense in front of the camera the dummies cry for more.
If I am the Dems (which, after all...) I launch a full-scale class war just the way the GOP has launched a full-scale cultural war. The aim would be exactly the same: give people someone to blame. In this case, blame the plutes. It makes no practical difference but it is at least a nice coincidence that it happens to be true.
The thing that prevents us, other than cowardice and the learned helplessness of the DLC types, is that doing this will cost us many of our plutes. The Clinton Foundation was built on plute money; they and their network will be no help. Obama seems to be going the same direction though if we act fast we might still save him as an asset. The kleptocracy has had a 39-year chokehold on the government not just because the Republicans are their active champions but because the Democrats have been their passive enablers. It's time for an Abolitionist movement to wipe out the American aristocracy. The last time we did it they squealed like stuck pigs and we built the strongest economy and greatest middle class in world history.
It's the smart thing to do economically and the right thing to do morally. Feed the poor. Eat the rich.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Correct, and the way to do that is to approach people on their terms and listen to them, and have your messaging reflect what they want. The GOP has shown you don't even have to mean it -- they have done nothing but bend the poor over a barrel for 30 years and give it to them without lube, but because they put goofballs with the right gun totin' straight talkin' nonsense in front of the camera the dummies cry for more.
If I am the Dems (which, after all...) I launch a full-scale class war just the way the GOP has launched a full-scale cultural war. The aim would be exactly the same: give people someone to blame. In this case, blame the plutes. It makes no practical difference but it is at least a nice coincidence that it happens to be true.
The thing that prevents us, other than cowardice and the learned helplessness of the DLC types, is that doing this will cost us many of our plutes. The Clinton Foundation was built on plute money; they and their network will be no help. Obama seems to be going the same direction though if we act fast we might still save him as an asset. The kleptocracy has had a 39-year chokehold on the government not just because the Republicans are their active champions but because the Democrats have been their passive enablers. It's time for an Abolitionist movement to wipe out the American aristocracy. The last time we did it they squealed like stuck pigs and we built the strongest economy and greatest middle class in world history.
It's the smart thing to do economically and the right thing to do morally. Feed the poor. Eat the rich.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
As long as you cut the line that's holding the 40% anchor to the boat. They're gone (hopeless). Let them drown.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
As long as you cut the line that's holding the 40% anchor to the boat. They're gone (hopeless). Let them drown.
unofan
Well-known member
I don't get the bashing Obama for doing what all of us would do; cashing in on easy money. If Goldman Sachs wanted to pay me 500 large for a 2-hour speech, I'd be on the plane tomorrow. He's out of office, can't run again, he's earned the chance to take it easy and cash big checks.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
I get it. He doesn't need the money. It looks bad. There's no upside for his legacy to do that ****.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Why isnt he giving a bunch of the money to the Chicago inner cities?
And his legacy died the second Trump was elected.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Why isnt he giving a bunch of the money to the Chicago inner cities?
And his legacy died the second Trump was elected.
unofan
Well-known member
He's a private citizen now. I don't care if he takes it and spends it all on hookers and blow. If he wants to get enough to set his family up for generations, good for him.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Maybe if progressives weren't so condescending and dismissive of people who did not agree with them totally, and tried to frame their arguments in terms that appeal to those other people, they might be more persuasive? Calling people stupid isn't exactly the best way to win them to your side, as all those "deplorables" and "Gruberites" who turned out in droves last November demonstrated.
and maybe finding issues that had more mainstream appeal than gender correctness or income inequality might help.
Income inequality is a losing argument in the heartland because secretly everyone wants to be rich; and overplaying it as an issue means you are turning away lots of people you otherwise might attract. For the voter who thinks "I may not be rich today, but someday I hope to get there," why not demonstrate how your policies will help bring that about?
(assuming you actually have any policies that would do that....
)
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Maybe if progressives weren't so condescending and dismissive of people who did not agree with them totally, and tried to frame their arguments in terms that appeal to those other people, they might be more persuasive? Calling people stupid isn't exactly the best way to win them to your side, as all those "deplorables" and "Gruberites" who turned out in droves last November demonstrated.
and maybe finding issues that had more mainstream appeal than gender correctness or income inequality might help.
Income inequality is a losing argument in the heartland because secretly everyone wants to be rich; and overplaying it as an issue means you are turning away lots of people you otherwise might attract. For the voter who thinks "I may not be rich today, but someday I hope to get there," why not demonstrate how your policies will help bring that about?
(assuming you actually have any policies that would do that....
)Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
um, I thought that it was the First Amendment that said that people have the right peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances?
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
um, I thought that it was the First Amendment that said that people have the right peaceably to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances?
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
I absolutely agree that we should be as hypocritical as GOP politicians and tacticians who keep their disdain for the apes on the D/L. Mitt Romney was in many ways the first honest Republican in decades (Richard Spencer is the second) and we all saw what that got him.
Back when the Democrats had an active labor wing they summed up the message you suggest in a pithy saying: "if you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic." Bill Clinton was a master at that line of talk. You are right we should return to it. (We have done so with blacks and Latinos by essentially saying "if you want to live like Whitey...") One of the biggest mistakes we made was walking away from hard core leftist economic messaging on the campaign trail. There used to be a strong progressive middle America -- the Progressive Movement started in rural middle America and led directly to the policies that were able to rip down the 19th century Gilded Age plutocracy.
There have been some "prairie populists" that moved in the right general direction but something always did them in (plus, to be honest, other than Wellstone they lacked all charisma). I was hoping maybe the Udalls might make this their brand -- the smart one has the policy chops and the pretty one can be the Pied Piper (c.f. Bobby and Jack Kennedy) but they've gone silent. The Castros are the next ones up to bat but the entry barrier with midwestern populism is racism and I'm not sure brownie's gonna play in Davenport.
Apropos of nothing, this is cool.
Re: Power of the SCOTUS IX: The outlook wasn’t brilliant for the SCOTUS nine that day
Maybe if progressives weren't so condescending and dismissive of people who did not agree with them totally, and tried to frame their arguments in terms that appeal to those other people, they might be more persuasive? Calling people stupid isn't exactly the best way to win them to your side, as all those "deplorables" and "Gruberites" who turned out in droves last November demonstrated.
and maybe finding issues that had more mainstream appeal than gender correctness or income inequality might help.
Income inequality is a losing argument in the heartland because secretly everyone wants to be rich; and overplaying it as an issue means you are turning away lots of people you otherwise might attract. For the voter who thinks "I may not be rich today, but someday I hope to get there," why not demonstrate how your policies will help bring that about?
(assuming you actually have any policies that would do that....
I absolutely agree that we should be as hypocritical as GOP politicians and tacticians who keep their disdain for the apes on the D/L. Mitt Romney was in many ways the first honest Republican in decades (Richard Spencer is the second) and we all saw what that got him.
Back when the Democrats had an active labor wing they summed up the message you suggest in a pithy saying: "if you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic." Bill Clinton was a master at that line of talk. You are right we should return to it. (We have done so with blacks and Latinos by essentially saying "if you want to live like Whitey...") One of the biggest mistakes we made was walking away from hard core leftist economic messaging on the campaign trail. There used to be a strong progressive middle America -- the Progressive Movement started in rural middle America and led directly to the policies that were able to rip down the 19th century Gilded Age plutocracy.
There have been some "prairie populists" that moved in the right general direction but something always did them in (plus, to be honest, other than Wellstone they lacked all charisma). I was hoping maybe the Udalls might make this their brand -- the smart one has the policy chops and the pretty one can be the Pied Piper (c.f. Bobby and Jack Kennedy) but they've gone silent. The Castros are the next ones up to bat but the entry barrier with midwestern populism is racism and I'm not sure brownie's gonna play in Davenport.
Apropos of nothing, this is cool.
- Status