Jump to content

Tuco

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    3411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

5644 Surly 10%

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The difference between politicians and activists is that politicians work within the political systems and activists work outside the political system. The Dems lost in the political system in 2024. We lost the Presidency, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and numerous state governments. Part of that is because natural biases in the system towards small population states, and part of it is bias the Republicans have installed and are working to increase greatly. The biggest part of it is that Americans are stupid and racist and sexist. I think we have a good chance of regaining ground in 2026, but my hopes wane when looking at the next Presidential election. Still, there is a chance and I will put money on that chance, even if it is a long shot. But Politicians work within the political system and at least for the next 17 months, there is very little they can do there. Activism is the only viable path right now.
  2. No, I don't see a state-sponsored boycott as a consent for a military takeover. If that is sufficient, they were going to do it anyway.
  3. I once used that story as a “values moment” in a management meeting to demonstrate the relationship between commitment and sacrifice. There were no follow-up questions.
  4. I wanted her. (No hetero)
  5. Actually that was my bad. The race is non-partisan, so it makes more sense to have a party endorsement, so it is clear who is pushed on the slate card, prior to the primary. I'd still prefer the party stays out of it and let the candidates list their own endorsements (from actual people), but I can see where a local party would make an endorsement.
  6. Point of clarification: Fateh never had the State DFL endorsement. He won the City DFL endorsement. Different leaders, different voters. While the State DFL doesn't have veto power, they do have authority on rules to make the locals are on the up and up. They went through the endorsement vote and found it didn't follow the rules and determined the vote didn't count. In other words, the State Party was worried what effect the endorsement might have on state-wide races and found an excuse to veto it. The intrapolitics shit gets pretty chippy. One of the reasons I don't really get involved with it. So much infighting over who gets to drive the bus rather than changing the oil. And all that is probably a good case for why the party(s) shouldn't endorse before the primary. That shit should be worked out by the big group, with formal election rules, consistently enforced.
  7. "President" and "present threat" sound a lot a like.
  8. Well, I'm a registered Democrat, which gives me the right to vote for who will be Democratic candidate for partisan elections. (Not sure if Texas operates that way.) But, beyond that, for the last 35 years, the Democratic Party has consistently approach challenges with the same mindset that I do, with very few exceptions. They may not write the policies the way I would write them, but it is generally coming from the angle: - it is important to protect the environment - free market capitalism is frequently a good way to develop an efficient economy, but there are notable exceptions like health care - voting participation should be encouraged - the government has a role in protecting human rights and promoting equality - upward mobility is good for society and the government has a role in promoting it, including through public education If the Democrats stop viewing things through that prism, I will stop calling myself a Democrat. In the meantime, there is no reason to be coy about who I am or what I believe. And sure, there are things I approach differently than the Dems generally do, but they aren't that high on my priority list.
  9. You assume too much. Some may have dabbled in the bleach during the pandemic.
  10. In six months he will be complaining that he was blackballed from Hollywood by the liberal elite.
  11. Yeah, "trade imbalance." In other words, our country can afford to pay your people to work for us more than your country can afford to pay our people to work for you. The obvious solution is that we become poorer. Which, looking at the movement in currency over the last seven months, we are doing.
  12. If the "average guy" in a purple state was the same as the "average guy" in a solidly red state, those purple states would be solidly red. Do you not understand how this works? But your clarification makes it easier to understand what you are going for. But I think you are using it to back into a position you have already have. There are dozens of different issues that affect 10s of thousands of swing and cross-over voters (and non-voters) in different swing states.
  13. Why would anyone give a shit about Steve in Nebraska, unless he is in District 2. There are plenty of Steves in LD2 who give a shit about Israel/Gaza. (I was Tuco Nebraska CD2 until four years ago. There are plenty of people who care about Gaza.) Let's talk some more about the reasoning and mechanics here and you can present a solution. A few things I understand about "LatinX" 1. It's not a Latino/Latina/Hispanic/Chicano movement. It's a feminist movement, or a byproduct of the feminist movement. Feminists are pushing for more gender neutral language. There are feminists who are in the "Latino" community who don't want to be defined by a masculine adjective. And there are feminists outside of the Latino community who will support them. 2. Anytime you push for cultural changes, you will inevitably get pushback. When we started using "work-hours" instead of "manhours" in proposals, there were some people who scoffed at it. But, at work, you get paid. So, yeah, it will offend some Latinos. That's not a shock to anyone. 3. I'm willing to bet the "Texas Young Democrats Latinx Caucus" was started by people at the local level who are invested in both Latino and feminist causes. This was not something handed down from the national party or lobbyists in Washington. So, what do you do if you are Party leadership? Do you tell feminists to store their shit, that their cause needs to be backburnered for the next twenty years or that you simply don't believe in their cause? Do you tell that people who are actually showing the fuck up, volunteering their time, and working to get voter registered that they are in the wrong Party? My recommendation: A. Show the fuck up. Go to your local Party meetings and work to both understand the different factions and influence the overall group direction with your more centrist views (and votes). Nobody is going to change the dynamics at the local level by complaining about Schumer or whoever you consider the "leadership" of the Democratic Party is. B. Work to convince voters that they should vote for their interests rather than against their annoyances. There is no reason to believe the Latino community will be particularly feminist. We need to get them to vote for the Latino interests. There is no reason to believe the black community will be particularly pro-gay. We need to get them to vote for Black interests. There is no reason to believe gay people will be pro-progressive tax policies. We need to get them to vote for gay interests. Unfortunately I think that has become more challenging in the outrage-culture of social media. There is always something to be pissed about, and that is were Republican messaging it targeting. I also think it more difficult to explain the reasoning behind different issues, which might be annoying people, when you have to do it a one second scroll-by ad. I
×
×
  • Create New...