|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Yeah, but they can't vote. Felons.
And to a large extent, that would be more votes in areas Democrats already win.
Ah, yes, I knew that, but I was thinking if that percentage of prisoners are in on drug charges, close to half, that would represent a much larger swath of the population. I mean their family and friends can't all be felons as well. You really don't understand how divided america is, geographically.
MMCJawa wrote: Guy Humual wrote: MMCJawa wrote: Guy Humual wrote: So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it? They like having the police in their neighborhoods busting teens for simple possession? See that is very counter to what I've heard and my understanding of human nature. I'm sure the gerrymandered state houses don't care much, but that doesn't mean there aren't wide swaths of the states that don't feel this is a major concern if not a primary issue. The people bearing the brunt of harsh drug laws largely belong to minority groups that Republicans don't care about, and who don't make up a significant fraction of the Republican voting base (and for vast swaths of the country probably not a significant fraction of democrat leaning voters, to be honest). I don't really care who the republicans care about to be honest. I'm more concerned about the majority of Americans as I think progressive and populist policies are things most Americans want. Those majority of US Citizens only dwell in a small number of states (and often small areas of those states). You can't dismiss everyone else as irrelevant, when those other areas represent a majority of congressional districts and states. 48% of the US currently identifies as independent. Maybe a quarter of the country is Republican. The problem is you usually fail to get more then 60% to turn out for elections. Maybe the turn out will be higher in 2018, maybe people will be pissed enough in 2020 to vote Pence out of office, but I'm not sure the democrats can run another election like the last one. I think the dems should have something a bit more substantive. Single payer I think is a winner, raising the minimum wage I think is a winner, and free collage or trade school would all be sold campaign promises that would differentiate the democrats from the republican to the average voter.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I can agree with the last part of that ^
Facebook Friend I've Never Met running for city council in Washington
Socialist Sarah Morken announces run for Tacoma City Council seat
Guy Humual wrote: Irontruth wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Irontruth wrote:
Public opinion on marijuana has changed dramatically, but most people don't care very much about the issue. A very, very small minority sees it as their primary issue, but we're talking about less than 1% of voters. They've just happened to get it on a ballot in a couple states, where the rest of the voters don't have to do any work other than check a box.
Well I don't disagree with the idea that most Americans don't care, but I'm sure the people that feel it's a primary issue is probably higher, especially in areas were pot possession is used to put people in prison. This would be the opposite of true. States where it's completely illegal are the places where it's used to put people in prison the most and those are states that have failed to push any sort of decriminalization. They're literally the states where people care the least about decriminalizing pot. So you think areas where people are being put in prison for pot possession are fine with it? They like having the police in their neighborhoods busting teens for simple possession? See that is very counter to what I've heard and my understanding of human nature. I'm sure the gerrymandered state houses don't care much, but that doesn't mean there aren't wide swaths of the states that don't feel this is a major concern if not a primary issue. Have you ever had a friend say "we should hang out more often" and then never call you?
Which tells you more about how that person feels, their words? Or their actions?
People answering polls that they think marijuana should be some form of legal, but take zero action to bring that about certainly have an opinion on the topic, but it isn't important enough for them to actually do anything.
If people cared, they'd change it. Like the people of Washington and Colorado.
I have an opinion on the topic, but I also don't care enough to make it something I go out and fight for. I'll certainly vote on ballot measures, but I put my efforts into other issues. For example, I'm sure I'm on Jason Lewis' list of potentially troublesome voters on the issue of health care.
If voters express an opinion, but take no action on that opinion, yes they do hold it, but it's very weak. Just like your friend who might actually think hanging out would be fun, but it's so low on his priority list that making a single phone call to arrange a time isn't even a consideration.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: 48% of the US currently identifies as independent. Maybe a quarter of the country is Republican. The problem is you usually fail to get more then 60% to turn out for elections. Maybe the turn out will be higher in 2018, maybe people will be pissed enough in 2020 to vote Pence out of office, but I'm not sure the democrats can run another election like the last one. I think the dems should have something a bit more substantive. Single payer I think is a winner, raising the minimum wage I think is a winner, and free collage or trade school would all be sold campaign promises that would differentiate the democrats from the republican to the average voter. After 2 (or 4! years of Trump (and apparently an impeachment or nearly as unprecedented retirement since you expect a President Pence)), you expect the Democrats to need to work on differentiating themselves from the Republicans? Think they should normalize this rogue administration by just focusing on policy differences?
Isn't that the mistake Obama made back in 2008? "looking forward not back" and spending more than a year getting the ACA through and not even investigating the crimes and failures of the Bush administration. Of course that wasn't single-payer, so that's completely different.
The next election will be nothing like the last one. It can't be. Winning in 2018 and likely in 2020 as well is going to be all about reaction to Trump. Ignoring the corruption and incompetence and failures to focus on even progressive policy ideas would be folly. What such policies actually get implemented in a new Democratic administration will likely affect the next election cycles, but such policy promises aren't going to be the focus of the next few years.
All assuming we're not in the midst of a new war or some other great crisis that'll dominate everything.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I think planning out any strategy for the next presidential election is jumping the gun. Let's get the 2018 election messaging figured out before we worry about 2020.
And so far at least 2018 does seem likely to be about healthcare, if I were to make a guess.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
MMCJawa wrote: And so far at least 2018 does seem likely to be about healthcare, if I were to make a guess. Actually, I expect it will be about the need to swing congress to the Democrats so that there will be some kind of check on Trump... assuming he is still in office of course.
thejeff wrote: After 2 (or 4! years of Trump (and apparently an impeachment or nearly as unprecedented retirement since you expect a President Pence)), you expect the Democrats to need to work on differentiating themselves from the Republicans? Think they should normalize this rogue administration by just focusing on policy differences? Well I am party jesting here, Trump could indeed hang on to the presidency, and quite frankly the democrats have a better shot at winning if he does because Pence would probably be far more effective and far less of an embarrassment. I'm not sure though how you normalize the president by suggesting policies that help all Americans though.
thejeff wrote: Isn't that the mistake Obama made back in 2008? "looking forward not back" and spending more than a year getting the ACA through and not even investigating the crimes and failures of the Bush administration. Of course that wasn't single-payer, so that's completely different. Was that a mistake though? Or was that what his donors wanted? I mean he didn't break up the big banks, almost nobody went to jail from that industry, and now Obama is getting paid $400 000 to give speeches. It's only a mistake if banks and the military industrial complex were out of control entities that were dangerous to the American public. I mean one only collapses the economy with their reckless speculating and the other only gets the US into countless military conflicts.
thejeff wrote: The next election will be nothing like the last one. It can't be. Winning in 2018 and likely in 2020 as well is going to be all about reaction to Trump. Ignoring the corruption and incompetence and failures to focus on even progressive policy ideas would be folly. What such policies actually get implemented in a new Democratic administration will likely affect the next election cycles, but such policy promises aren't going to be the focus of the next few years. So no matter who won in 2016, 2018 and 2020 can't be about progressives policies. If Hillary had won you'd be staying the course, making slight tweaks to the ACA, aiming for slight change, but now that Trump won you can't do anything bold or beneficial for all Americans because that would somehow normalize Trump? Great system of government you got there.
Irontruth wrote:
Have you ever had a friend say "we should hang out more often" and then never call you?
Which tells you more about how that person feels, their words? Or their actions?
People answering polls that they think marijuana should be some form of legal, but take zero action to bring that about certainly have an opinion on the topic, but it isn't important enough for them to actually do anything.
If people cared, they'd change it. Like the people of Washington and Colorado.
I have an opinion on the topic, but I also don't care enough to make it something I go out and fight for. I'll certainly vote on ballot measures, but I put my efforts into other issues. For example, I'm sure I'm on Jason Lewis' list of potentially troublesome voters on the issue of health care.
If voters express an opinion, but take no action on that opinion, yes they do hold it, but it's very weak. Just like your friend who might actually think hanging out would be fun, but it's so low on his priority list that making a single phone call to arrange a time isn't even a consideration. Well this just goes back to what I was saying about the will of the American public often being usurped by the political process. There's a number of moneyed interests that are strongly against legalization, from the obvious police unions and the private prisons, to the less obvious pharmaceutical companies, to the seemingly obtuse alcohol and tobacco industries. In the end, even if there is public demonstrations it might not even get covered locally on the news as these industries have a lot of influence. If the American public don't know these protests are taking place they might even know there's a problem. If you live in the suburbs or in some rural town, away from areas impacted by the War on Drugs, insulated from any protest by vested money controlled news media, than why would you even know what's happening with this War on Drugs?
As I said earlier, I agree, the only thing that I'd add is that even if there is protest, you might never hear about it on the news as people marching in the streets isn't particularly sexy (unless there's violence) and sponsors might ask the stations to tone down their coverage of any such events. If violence does break out at these protests the media can then undermine any message the protests might have by linking them to criminal elements. If you're protesting a war on drugs I'm sure the police, who have a vested interest in continuing said war, might ensure violence does break out(agent provocateur or just good old fashioned escalation of a situation) so they can present a scenario of law and order vs bedlam and common criminality.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: After 2 (or 4! years of Trump (and apparently an impeachment or nearly as unprecedented retirement since you expect a President Pence)), you expect the Democrats to need to work on differentiating themselves from the Republicans? Think they should normalize this rogue administration by just focusing on policy differences? Well I am party jesting here, Trump could indeed hang on to the presidency, and quite frankly the democrats have a better shot at winning if he does because Pence would probably be far more effective and far less of an embarrassment. I'm not sure though how you normalize the president by suggesting policies that help all Americans though.
thejeff wrote: Isn't that the mistake Obama made back in 2008? "looking forward not back" and spending more than a year getting the ACA through and not even investigating the crimes and failures of the Bush administration. Of course that wasn't single-payer, so that's completely different. Was that a mistake though? Or was that what his donors wanted? I mean he didn't break up the big banks, almost nobody went to jail from that industry, and now Obama is getting paid $400 000 to give speeches. It's only a mistake if banks and the military industrial complex were out of control entities that were dangerous to the American public. I mean one only collapses the economy with their reckless speculating and the other only gets the US into countless military conflicts.
thejeff wrote: The next election will be nothing like the last one. It can't be. Winning in 2018 and likely in 2020 as well is going to be all about reaction to Trump. Ignoring the corruption and incompetence and failures to focus on even progressive policy ideas would be folly. What such policies actually get implemented in a new Democratic administration will likely affect the next election cycles, but such policy promises aren't going to be the focus of the next few years. So no matter who won in 2016, 2018 and 2020 can't be about progressives... It's the system we've got. I can't wave my hands and change it into a better one. Nor am I convinced that it's so bad that open revolt is the only solution.
I'm not saying that progressive policies should be kept out of the platform or not worked on in the next Democratic administration - in fact I did suggest that it would be a good thing in the next (2022+) election cycle. Elections tend to be referendums on whoever's currently in power.
Running in 2018 (or 2020) on "Democrats have better policy", when you've been handed a raging garbage fire like Trump (and a GOP lined up behind him) would be a political mistake. Run on "Trump's trying to take away your healthcare" (or "did take it away", depending), not on "the ACA is horrible, but our policy fix will be better than the GOP's".
Treating someone like Trump and in fact the whole GOP as if they are normal political opponents with whom you have polite disagreements about the best policy options just legitimizes them, while they lie, cheat, steal and break everything that's kept our government running.
thejeff wrote: Nor am I convinced that it's so bad that open revolt is the only solution. If we're not there yet, I think we're getting close. Not only are our "leaders" brazenly acting against the interests and wishes of the people, they don't even seem to feel any need to hide it. They're practically daring the populace to revolt.
Remember, the winners write history, and the time to revolt is only "clear" in hindsight. Meanwhile, the temptation to look around and say 'not yet' -- right up until it is too late -- is very strong (and understandably so). The fact that our side is much more prone to introspection and compromise doesn't help.
Guy Humual wrote: Irontruth wrote:
Have you ever had a friend say "we should hang out more often" and then never call you?
Which tells you more about how that person feels, their words? Or their actions?
People answering polls that they think marijuana should be some form of legal, but take zero action to bring that about certainly have an opinion on the topic, but it isn't important enough for them to actually do anything.
If people cared, they'd change it. Like the people of Washington and Colorado.
I have an opinion on the topic, but I also don't care enough to make it something I go out and fight for. I'll certainly vote on ballot measures, but I put my efforts into other issues. For example, I'm sure I'm on Jason Lewis' list of potentially troublesome voters on the issue of health care.
If voters express an opinion, but take no action on that opinion, yes they do hold it, but it's very weak. Just like your friend who might actually think hanging out would be fun, but it's so low on his priority list that making a single phone call to arrange a time isn't even a consideration. Well this just goes back to what I was saying about the will of the American public often being usurped by the political process. There's a number of moneyed interests that are strongly against legalization, from the obvious police unions and the private prisons, to the less obvious pharmaceutical companies, to the seemingly obtuse alcohol and tobacco industries. In the end, even if there is public demonstrations it might not even get covered locally on the news as these industries have a lot of influence. If the American public don't know these protests are taking place they might even know there's a problem. If you live in the suburbs or in some rural town, away from areas impacted by the War on Drugs, insulated from any protest by vested money controlled news media, than why would you even know what's happening with this War on Drugs?
As I said earlier, I agree, the only thing that I'd add is that even if there is protest, you might never hear about it on the news as people marching in the streets isn't particularly sexy (unless there's violence) and sponsors might ask the stations to tone down their coverage of any such events. If violence does break out at these protests the media can then undermine any message the protests might have by linking them to criminal elements. If you're protesting a war on drugs I'm sure the police, who have a vested interest in continuing said war, might ensure violence does break out(agent provocateur or just good old fashioned escalation of a situation) so they can present a scenario of law and order vs bedlam and common criminality. It's all subtler than that. Listen to Trump sometime. Or what he gets from Fox/talk radio/less reputable sources. It's all about violence and the brave police defending us from the hordes of urban thug drug gangs. All (very thinly) racially coded.
You're assuming that if the people in most of the rural areas don't know it's a problem. They know it's a problem, but they've been sold an entirely wrong narrative on why it's a problem.
And of course I bring it back to race, because if anything in the US is tied to race it's the drug war. Legalizing pot so the urban kids can sit around on welfare getting stoned isn't really a priority for anyone. That's not the reality, of course, but it is the myth.
bugleyman wrote: thejeff wrote: Nor am I convinced that it's so bad that open revolt is the only solution. If we're not there yet, I think we're getting close. Not only are our "leaders" brazenly acting against the interests and wishes of the people, they don't even seem to feel any need to hide it. They're practically daring the populace to revolt.
Remember, the winners write history, and the time to revolt is only "clear" in hindsight. Meanwhile, the temptation to look around and say 'not yet' -- right up until it is too late -- is very strong indeed. It also doesn't help when our side is prone to introspection and compromise. OTOH, losing a revolution only entrenches the winners and even winning has a strong tendency to put an autocratic military leader type in control.
It's also not clear to me if you're talking about Trump and the GOP or about the US in general - do you think Obama was also "practically daring the populace to revolt"? (Other than those ready just based on him being a black Democrat.)
thejeff wrote: OTOH, losing a revolution only entrenches the winners and even winning has a strong tendency to put an autocratic military leader type in control. You're right. But when the president openly fires those who dare to investigate him, I'm afraid that we're rapidly running out of better options.
thejeff wrote: It's also not clear to me if you're talking about Trump and the GOP or about the US in general - do you think Obama was also "practically daring the populace to revolt"? (Other than those ready just based on him being a black Democrat.) I'm talking about Trump, along with the complicit parts of the GOP, who are together deliberately eroding the separation of powers.
thejeff wrote:
I'm not saying that progressive policies should be kept out of the platform or not worked on in the next Democratic administration - in fact I did suggest that it would be a good thing in the next (2022+) election cycle. Elections tend to be referendums on whoever's currently in power.
You know that old saying "Tomorrow never comes", well I'd suggest to you that it's by design, because there's always going to be a new military conflict somewhere in the world, there's always going to be economic disasters, and now there's also going to be more environmental disasters.
thejeff wrote: Running in 2018 (or 2020) on "Democrats have better policy", when you've been handed a raging garbage fire like Trump (and a GOP lined up behind him) would be a political mistake. Run on "Trump's trying to take away your healthcare" (or "did take it away", depending), not on "the ACA is horrible, but our policy fix will be better than the GOP's". So run on "We're not Trump" ticket v2.0?
Also, strange way to phrase single payer, I think if I were selling the proposal to the public I'd go with "we're removing the middle man", why do you have to pay someone to pay the doctors? People don't pay a middle man to pay the police or the fire department, there's only one entity paying them, and so we tried having the insurance companies take everyone, and they lobbied the republicans to allow them to set up death pools, so now we're taking them out of the equation, everyone gets covered, we're going to have single payer.
thejeff wrote: Treating someone like Trump and in fact the whole GOP as if they are normal political opponents with whom you have polite disagreements about the best policy options just legitimizes them, while they lie, cheat, steal and break everything that's kept our government running. How does having a progressive agenda do that again? Can't you say "these guys are monsters let's do things completely different" rather then than "these guys are monsters, let's do something slightly less extreme."
thejeff wrote: You're assuming that if the people in most of the rural areas don't know it's a problem. They know it's a problem, but they've been sold an entirely wrong narrative on why it's a problem.
And of course I bring it back to race, because if anything in the US is tied to race it's the drug war. Legalizing pot so the urban kids can sit around on welfare getting stoned isn't really a priority for anyone. That's not the reality, of course, but it is the myth.
I'm still in 'let them suffer for their stupidity' mode... the next sane AG should leave Sessions' drug warrior policies in place... and use them to launch a mass roundup of redneck and yuppie drug users and subject THEM to the wonders of mandatory minimum sentencing.
Police and prosecutors have been going after urban minorities for decades... without any apparent progress. Indeed, drug use has just gotten worse. Clearly, the problem is that they haven't focused enough on other communities.
thejeff wrote: It's all subtler than that. Listen to Trump sometime. Or what he gets from Fox/talk radio/less reputable sources. It's all about violence and the brave police defending us from the hordes of urban thug drug gangs. All (very thinly) racially coded. I don't get that stuff up here in Canada thankfully, I mean I'm sure I could hunt it down if I wanted to, but I wouldn't want to rot my brain.
thejeff wrote: You're assuming that if the people in most of the rural areas don't know it's a problem. They know it's a problem, but they've been sold an entirely wrong narrative on why it's a problem. What they don't know is how futile and costly the war is, and yes, that is by design. However recent polling is showing people are getting more accepting of pot at the very least and as marijuana becomes more acceptable for medical use, these new companies are going to start lobbying the government and the more "speech" they can afford the more likely that congress will legalize marijuana across the country.
thejeff wrote: And of course I bring it back to race, because if anything in the US is tied to race it's the drug war. Legalizing pot so the urban kids can sit around on welfare getting stoned isn't really a priority for anyone. That's not the reality, of course, but it is the myth. Well this gets back to my point earlier about trying to down play race in your platforms going forward. Legalization helps everyone, it might even help minorities more as it's one less way the police can harass and arrest them, but if some rural racist, who might be losing family members to opioid addiction, thinks that the policy is about race, they might just cut their nose to spite their face.
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: It's all subtler than that. Listen to Trump sometime. Or what he gets from Fox/talk radio/less reputable sources. It's all about violence and the brave police defending us from the hordes of urban thug drug gangs. All (very thinly) racially coded. I don't get that stuff up here in Canada thankfully, I mean I'm sure I could hunt it down if I wanted to, but I wouldn't want to rot my brain.
thejeff wrote: You're assuming that if the people in most of the rural areas don't know it's a problem. They know it's a problem, but they've been sold an entirely wrong narrative on why it's a problem. What they don't know is how futile and costly the war is, and yes, that is by design. However recent polling is showing people are getting more accepting of pot at the very least and as marijuana becomes more acceptable for medical use, these new companies are going to start lobbying the government and the more "speech" they can afford the more likely that congress will legalize marijuana across the country.
thejeff wrote: And of course I bring it back to race, because if anything in the US is tied to race it's the drug war. Legalizing pot so the urban kids can sit around on welfare getting stoned isn't really a priority for anyone. That's not the reality, of course, but it is the myth. Well this gets back to my point earlier about trying to down play race in your platforms going forward. Legalization helps everyone, it might even help minorities more as it's one less way the police can harass and arrest them, but if some rural racist, who might be losing family members to opioid addiction, thinks that the policy is about race, they might just cut their nose to spite their face. There's that wall of misunderstanding we just can't get past. Downplaying race in the Democratic platform doesn't change one bit of the messaging about "urban thugs", because that's not coming from the Democratic platform (at least not mostly). Legalizing pot does help minorities more - that's exactly the messaging problem with it.
Mind you, I do agree with it. And opinion has definitely been changing and we're probably close to a break even point. It's nothing like a clear "Sweep whoever proposes it into office" yet though. Partly because support is divided and is strongest in already Democratic areas, I believe.
The rural white groups worried about the opioid epidemic isn't a problem that's fixed by legalizing pot. That doesn't make any sense. At best they don't really care about it - as someone noted above, it's a lot harder to track and prosecute small time users/growers in rural areas and nobody really cares anyway, but they tend to still be happy with the (brown) drug gangs getting busted - whether in the cities or border smugglers. Even when they smoke themselves.
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote:
I'm not saying that progressive policies should be kept out of the platform or not worked on in the next Democratic administration - in fact I did suggest that it would be a good thing in the next (2022+) election cycle. Elections tend to be referendums on whoever's currently in power.
You know that old saying "Tomorrow never comes", well I'd suggest to you that it's by design, because there's always going to be a new military conflict somewhere in the world, there's always going to be economic disasters, and now there's also going to be more environmental disasters.
thejeff wrote: Running in 2018 (or 2020) on "Democrats have better policy", when you've been handed a raging garbage fire like Trump (and a GOP lined up behind him) would be a political mistake. Run on "Trump's trying to take away your healthcare" (or "did take it away", depending), not on "the ACA is horrible, but our policy fix will be better than the GOP's". So run on "We're not Trump" ticket v2.0?
Also, strange way to phrase single payer, I think if I were selling the proposal to the public I'd go with "we're removing the middle man", why do you have to pay someone to pay the doctors? People don't pay a middle man to pay the police or the fire department, there's only one entity paying them, and so we tried having the insurance companies take everyone, and they lobbied the republicans to allow them to set up death pools, so now we're taking them out of the equation, everyone gets covered, we're going to have single payer.
thejeff wrote: Treating someone like Trump and in fact the whole GOP as if they are normal political opponents with whom you have polite disagreements about the best policy options just legitimizes them, while they lie, cheat, steal and break everything that's kept our government running. How does having a progressive agenda do that again? Can't you say "these guys are monsters let's do things completely different" rather then than "these guys are monsters, let's do something slightly less extreme." Because you're shifting the focus to a policy debate rather than the disaster of the Trump administration.
If you're just debating policy, that's a reasonable difference we can have a reasonable debate over.
It's like running against Hitler by claiming you've got a better health plan. Might be true, but focusing your campaign on that is ignoring the giant elephant in the room.
As for "We're not Trump" ticket v2.0?", as I said, elections tend to be referenda on the current president. That strategy works a lot better against a sitting president than against a newcomer. Last year, it was a lot easier to pretend Trump wasn't the disaster he is than it is today and very likely it will be even harder by even 2018.
thejeff wrote: There's that wall of misunderstanding we just can't get past. Downplaying race in the Democratic platform doesn't change one bit of the messaging about "urban thugs", because that's not coming from the Democratic platform (at least not mostly). Legalizing pot does help minorities more - that's exactly the messaging problem with it. Well, what I'd say is that minorities are disproportionately targeted by the war, and even though they're not using at higher rates then anyone else, they're more likely to be charged. So ending the war does help them more. Messaging needs to be that all Americans are equal and ending this facet of the war means all Americans will no longer be needlessly charged and imprisoned for possesion of this relatively harmless, and potentially beneficial, drug.
thejeff wrote: Mind you, I do agree with it. And opinion has definitely been changing and we're probably close to a break even point. It's nothing like a clear "Sweep whoever proposes it into office" yet though. Partly because support is divided and is strongest in already Democratic areas, I believe. Well this isn't one of my main wants as far as platform proposals go, my main concern are the lives that are needlessly being ruined by possession charges, or worse, people actually being killed by aggressive nighttime raids by police. I think pot has a lot of potential use as a drug, which kind of brings us to the next point:
thejeff wrote: The rural white groups worried about the opioid epidemic isn't a problem that's fixed by legalizing pot. That doesn't make any sense. At best they don't really care about it - as someone noted above, it's a lot harder to track and prosecute small time users/growers in rural areas and nobody really cares anyway, but they tend to still be happy with the (brown) drug gangs getting busted - whether in the cities or border smugglers. Even when they smoke themselves. medical marijuana is a non addictive pain killer, which is the usual entry point for opioid addiction, and while people turn to illegal forms when the medication runs out and then you have stories of over doses when people get their hands on fentanyl. If doctors can prescribe medical marijuana it removes the dangerous addiction component that comes with opioids. I think people know this and this is why medical marijuana is gaining traction.
thejeff wrote: Because you're shifting the focus to a policy debate rather than the disaster of the Trump administration.
If you're just debating policy, that's a reasonable difference we can have a reasonable debate over.
You can still point to failure whilst still giving progressive alternatives.
thejeff wrote: It's like running against Hitler by claiming you've got a better health plan. Might be true, but focusing your campaign on that is ignoring the giant elephant in the room. Let's not Godwin it up too soon, besides, I like Jon Stewart's take: "comparing "X" to Hitler is a disservice to Hitler"
Instead let's look at what I fear Trump is closer to: Silvio Berlusconi. He's an awful awful man, and for years people ran against him pointing out how awful he was, but he kept getting re-elected. It took being actually charged and convicted of crimes to force him out of office, and yet he remained popular. He was a swamp monster. Attacking him just made him stronger as suddenly you were at his level. Swamp monsters win in the swamp.
thejeff wrote: As for "We're not Trump" ticket v2.0?", as I said, elections tend to be referenda on the current president. That strategy works a lot better against a sitting president than against a newcomer. Last year, it was a lot easier to pretend Trump wasn't the disaster he is than it is today and very likely it will be even harder by even 2018. Midterms are likely going to go well for the democrats, but people have short attention spans and Trump, or maybe Pence could be forgiven for the current disasters if they can turn it around by 2020. If Bernie runs again, and I hope he does, he won't have to run on the "Not Trump" ticket, and instead, being who he is, he'll talk about policy, which means the swamp monster will need to come out of the swamp to attack his opponent on the issues. Trump has nothing if pressed on issues. He's great at making vague statements, but he's got absolutely nothing going on upstairs, no knowledge, no interest, and so he dries up and cracks if he's forced out of the swamp.
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Because you're shifting the focus to a policy debate rather than the disaster of the Trump administration.
If you're just debating policy, that's a reasonable difference we can have a reasonable debate over.
You can still point to failure whilst still giving progressive alternatives.
thejeff wrote: It's like running against Hitler by claiming you've got a better health plan. Might be true, but focusing your campaign on that is ignoring the giant elephant in the room. Let's not Godwin it up too soon, besides, I like Jon Stewart's take: "comparing "X" to Hitler is a disservice to Hitler"
Instead let's look at what I fear Trump is closer to: Silvio Berlusconi. He's an awful awful man, and for years people ran against him pointing out how awful he was, but he kept getting re-elected. It took being actually charged and convicted of crimes to force him out of office, and yet he remained popular. He was a swamp monster. Attacking him just made him stronger as suddenly you were at his level. Swamp monsters win in the swamp.
thejeff wrote: As for "We're not Trump" ticket v2.0?", as I said, elections tend to be referenda on the current president. That strategy works a lot better against a sitting president than against a newcomer. Last year, it was a lot easier to pretend Trump wasn't the disaster he is than it is today and very likely it will be even harder by even 2018. Midterms are likely going to go well for the democrats, but people have short attention spans and Trump, or maybe Pence could be forgiven for the current disasters if they can turn it around by 2020. If Bernie runs again, and I hope he does, he won't have to run on the "Not Trump" ticket, and instead, being who he is, he'll talk about policy, which means the swamp monster will need to come out of the swamp to attack his opponent on the issues. Trump has nothing if pressed on issues. He's great at making vague statements, but he's got absolutely nothing going on upstairs, no knowledge, no... Bernie ain't gonna save us. A policy wonk ain't gonna save us.
And Trump ain't gonna "turn it around". And if he gets booted and Pence somehow survives (cause he's tied into anything Trump could get impeached for, except maybe the actual profiteering), it'll be after a bitter nasty internal Republican war.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
yeah we are still getting angry town halls and just recently had some pretty well attended marches.
I mean there is a worry that the movement will just be exhausted, but I feel that is less about EVIL DEMOCRATS versus just how exhausting this presidency is and a sense (real or imagined) that nothing people does has an actual effect.
MMCJawa wrote: yeah we are still getting angry town halls and just recently had some pretty well attended marches.
I mean there is a worry that the movement will just be exhausted, but I feel that is less about EVIL DEMOCRATS versus just how exhausting this presidency is and a sense (real or imagined) that nothing people does has an actual effect.
That's a reasonable worry, though so far it's been nicely countered by continuing revelations of crazy and evil.
That article though wasn't about that. It was about the evil Democrats.
Irontruth wrote:
If people cared, they'd change it. Like the people of Washington and Colorado.
Everyone in the US doesn't have access to a citizen initiative method in their state, which is how those things have been passed, basically everywhere.
About half the country has to somehow convince state representatives to push it through their legislature.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Ryan Freire wrote: Irontruth wrote:
If people cared, they'd change it. Like the people of Washington and Colorado.
Everyone in the US doesn't have access to a citizen initiative method in their state, which is how those things have been passed, basically everywhere.
About half the country has to somehow convince state representatives to push it through their legislature. True, but that doesn't mean it's really a driving force in very many places.
One might be for marijuana legalisation, but actually make their voting decisions based on promised tax cuts, for example.
thejeff wrote: Ryan Freire wrote: Irontruth wrote:
If people cared, they'd change it. Like the people of Washington and Colorado.
Everyone in the US doesn't have access to a citizen initiative method in their state, which is how those things have been passed, basically everywhere.
About half the country has to somehow convince state representatives to push it through their legislature. True, but that doesn't mean it's really a driving force in very many places.
One might be for marijuana legalisation, but actually make their voting decisions based on promised tax cuts, for example. Thats kind of my point though, in about half the states they have to make their votes on kind of a conglomerate of issues this representative espouses. The initiative system is kind of necessary to get a real "if people cared they'd change it" effect. Even then its dangerous as f*$!. Oregon basically slit its own fiscal throat in the 90's through measures 5 and 50 and most people don't even realize that they're a major contributing factor to the continuous budget shortfalls around the state.
thejeff wrote: Pan wrote: The movement losing steam?
But if the movement is controlled and funded by the same party professionals that have created a brand so off-putting, and so toxic, that the American people prefer Trump, what measure of success can it realistically expect to have?
Note that the article doesn't say anything about any evidence the resistance is losing steam, just assumes it inevitably will because Democrats. Which is why I asked the question. Will the resistance tire and eventually everything goes back to business as usual? Seems dem establishment thinks so.
Pan wrote: thejeff wrote: Pan wrote: The movement losing steam?
But if the movement is controlled and funded by the same party professionals that have created a brand so off-putting, and so toxic, that the American people prefer Trump, what measure of success can it realistically expect to have?
Note that the article doesn't say anything about any evidence the resistance is losing steam, just assumes it inevitably will because Democrats. Which is why I asked the question. Will the resistance tire and eventually everything goes back to business as usual? Seems dem establishment thinks so. Not sure why you say that. Again, the article doesn't make that claim either. Seems to me that Democratic politicians are taking the resistance seriously and trying to join/work with it. Why would they do that if they thought it would just fade away?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: Pan wrote: thejeff wrote: Pan wrote: The movement losing steam?
But if the movement is controlled and funded by the same party professionals that have created a brand so off-putting, and so toxic, that the American people prefer Trump, what measure of success can it realistically expect to have?
Note that the article doesn't say anything about any evidence the resistance is losing steam, just assumes it inevitably will because Democrats. Which is why I asked the question. Will the resistance tire and eventually everything goes back to business as usual? Seems dem establishment thinks so. Not sure why you say that. Again, the article doesn't make that claim either. Seems to me that Democratic politicians are taking the resistance seriously and trying to join/work with it. Why would they do that if they thought it would just fade away? Co-opting like a hostile takeover. Maybe I'm wrong, and I really hope to be proven so.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
State of the Resistance, a Partial Report from Northern New England
It's a Leninist dictum that you can only understand the world to the extent that you intervene into it, but, as I've had occasion to remark, the more active I get the less time I have to follow the news.
On the one hand, the Lowell anti-Trump coalition group has fallen into uselessness. Around the time of the bombing of Syria, we noticed that their main focus was turning to postcard campaigns lining up behind the "blame Russia" contingent; at the same time, most of the elements that we were interested in working with spun off to focus on Sanctuary work (I think we've got up to two churches signed on although there has been, as yet, little ICE activity in Lowell) and/or defense of public education (rally Saturday in Boston).
Meanwhile, the New Hampshire progressive activists, for the most part, down-ticket Democrats who broke ranks to vote Stein have largely returned to the fold and are now focusing on various single-issue campaigns.
On the other hand, May Day featured 1,500 people marching in the streets of downtown Lawrence in defense of undocumented workers who were picked up while applying for green-card status; two of the five, I believe, were later released. And 200 or so lefties showed up to counter a gathering of alt-rightists in Boston. Not much happened, but the alt-right seemed pretty demoralized and humiliated, so it was nice to rob them of a victory the same weekend that Spencer had his torch-burning in Virginia.
Most important, and I guess this doesn't really have anything to do with what's being discussed, is the retreat of Black Lives Matter from street demos. As a glance at the headlines indicates, minorities are still being gunned down in the streets with depressing regularity, but #BLM has, post-Trump, decided to focus on community outreach (e.g., a couple of weekends ago one of their speakers came and addressed the Unitarian congregation in Nashua, NH, without, I couldn't help noticing, mentioning Jeffrey Pendleton). One can certainly make an argument one way or the other about the merits of this decision, but it also makes clear how much BLM's previous tactics relied on a "pressure the Democrats" strategy.
Anyway, I imagine that this will be the next big Resistance confab:
The People's Summit, June 9 - 11, 2017, McCormick Place • Chicago, IL
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
There is also The Left Forum coming up June 2-4th in NYC.
Each spring Left Forum convenes the largest gathering in North America of the US and international Left. Continuing a tradition begun in the 1960s, we bring together intellectuals and organizers to share perspectives, strategies, experience and vision. For the US and the world, revitalizing an American Left has never been more urgent; Left Forum has a critical role to play in that undertaking.
Our work parallels and cross-fertilizes with the renewal of left, progressive, radical and social movement strength elsewhere—from indigenous movements in Bolivia to the South Korean farmers to the electoral gains of European and Latin American left parties. Like many movements abroad, Left Forum seeks to link the critique of neo-liberalism to anti-capitalism and to foster radical alternatives to the established order. Left Forum provides a context for critical engagement by people of different persuasions who, nevertheless, seek common ground. Please join us for the 2017 Left Forum conference in New York City. We are posting the details for submitting proposals as well as exact date and location soon.
I did forget about Left Forum. I haven't been in years (since it was still the Socialist Scholars Conference, actually) and while it is certainly a good time to be had if you're a red, it tends to be about 25% activism, 75% indecipherable arguments between Marxist academics.
Last time I was there, though, I got to meet Al Lewis (Grandpa Munster), which gives an indication of how long it's been since I attended.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote: it tends to be about 25% activism, 75% indecipherable arguments between Marxist academics. activism is different than indecipherable arguments between Marxist academics.?
Yes. Attending a forum about "Why You Should Join the Socialists" will be much easier on the brain than, for example, a panel debating the merits of Vivek Chibber's defense of the Brenner thesis against the criticisms of the Subaltern Studies crowd.
What does that mean?
Beats me.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Beats me.
Now THAT sounds like a useful seminar.
*ow ow ow ow i can really feel the oppression! ow ow ow ow... "
thejeff wrote: Bernie ain't gonna save us. A policy wonk ain't gonna save us.
So you're rooting for some other corporate democrat, maybe Hillary, to take another run at Trump?
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Bernie ain't gonna save us. A policy wonk ain't gonna save us.
So you're rooting for some other corporate democrat, maybe Hillary, to take another run at Trump? No. I'm saying that we need to be focused on running against Trump (even in 2018 - tying GOP politicians to him), not on tearing down Democrats.
thejeff wrote: Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Bernie ain't gonna save us. A policy wonk ain't gonna save us.
So you're rooting for some other corporate democrat, maybe Hillary, to take another run at Trump? No. I'm saying that we need to be focused on running against Trump (even in 2018 - tying GOP politicians to him), not on tearing down Democrats. Maybe Democrats should be focusing on building up America instead?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: Bernie ain't gonna save us. A policy wonk ain't gonna save us.
So you're rooting for some other corporate democrat, maybe Hillary, to take another run at Trump? No. I'm saying that we need to be focused on running against Trump (even in 2018 - tying GOP politicians to him), not on tearing down Democrats. Maybe Democrats should be focusing on building up America instead? You're right. You and Pan (over in the Comey thread) have convinced me.
Democrats should shun the resistance to Trump movements and do their best to ignore any problems with the current administration. They should just run on putting forth a completely new program for the US, preferable based on socialist or at least Canadian models. While also ignoring any identity politics issues, except as they might be helped by broader changes.
That will guarantee huge electoral victories.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: Maybe Democrats should be focusing on building up America instead? Thats like asking the guy that's not allowed in the toolshed to build the house. Whats he supposed to do, wish it into a different shape?
Step 1 is to get into the toolshed.
Step 2 is to slow down the idiot running the back hoe through the living room while chugging a beer hat. Possibly knocking them out with a wrench from said toolbox (which in this metaphor , would be an impeachment)
step 3 is to get someone else in the backhoe
step 4 THEN you can stop the bathtub from overflowing
step 5 then you can fix the house
THEN.. maybe, you can start to improve it.
You can. not. skip any of those steps. Saying "do it" is pointless. "HOW?" is a legitimate response.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: I'm saying that we need to be focused on running against Trump (even in 2018 - tying GOP politicians to him), not on tearing down Democrats. Maybe Democrats should be focusing on building up America instead? Here's a crazy thought: Maybe those things aren't mutually exclusive.
For the 2039420934324234th time, we have a two-party system. Like it or not, that's the game. Blasting the Dems (while patting oneself on the back for ideological purity) might feel good, it doesn't win elections.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: You're right. You and Pan (over in the Comey thread) have convinced me.
Democrats should shun the resistance to Trump movements and do their best to ignore any problems with the current administration. They should just run on putting forth a completely new program for the US, preferable based on socialist or at least Canadian models. While also ignoring any identity politics issues, except as they might be helped by broader changes.
That will guarantee huge electoral victories.
That's what you think I'm suggesting? Yes, new programs, especially ones that are popular with the American people, but why would you shun the resistance to Trump? Why would you have to ignore things like voter ID laws just because it's not going to be one of your main campaign focuses? You don't have to stop fighting Trump just because you want to put forward new ideas, you don't have to abandon minorities just because you're trying to appeal to a broader audience.
bugleyman wrote: Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: I'm saying that we need to be focused on running against Trump (even in 2018 - tying GOP politicians to him), not on tearing down Democrats. Maybe Democrats should be focusing on building up America instead? Here's a crazy thought: Maybe those things aren't mutually exclusive.
For the 2039420934324234th time, we have a two-party system. Like it or not, that's the game. Blasting the Dems (while patting oneself on the back for ideological purity) might feel good, it doesn't win elections. Apparently neither does incremental change. I mean considering how terrible Bush was, and how awful Trump seemed, Clinton should have been a no-brainer, but instead you got Trump. Obama won pretty handily with the hope and change message, despite being a black guy with a Muslim sounding name.
thejeff wrote: You're right. You and Pan (over in the Comey thread) have convinced me.
Democrats should shun the resistance to Trump movements and do their best to ignore any problems with the current administration. They should just run on putting forth a completely new program for the US, preferable based on socialist or at least Canadian models. While also ignoring any identity politics issues, except as they might be helped by broader changes.
That will guarantee huge electoral victories.
I never made any such suggestions of abandoning the resistance or equality politics. In fact, im trying to get folks to demand the opposite of the established dem party instead of hoping a steady course will work out.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Guy Humual wrote: Maybe Democrats should be focusing on building up America instead? Thats like asking the guy that's not allowed in the toolshed to build the house. Whats he supposed to do, wish it into a different shape?
Step 1 is to get into the toolshed.
Step 2 is to slow down the idiot running the back hoe through the living room while chugging a beer hat. Possibly knocking them out with a wrench from said toolbox (which in this metaphor , would be an impeachment)
step 3 is to get someone else in the backhoe
step 4 THEN you can stop the bathtub from overflowing
step 5 then you can fix the house
THEN.. maybe, you can start to improve it.
You can. not. skip any of those steps. Saying "do it" is pointless. "HOW?" is a legitimate response. Then why would you ever hire person? Just because the other handyman is worse doesn't mean I have any confidence in the one that's not allowed in the toolshed.
Guy Humual wrote: bugleyman wrote: Guy Humual wrote: thejeff wrote: I'm saying that we need to be focused on running against Trump (even in 2018 - tying GOP politicians to him), not on tearing down Democrats. Maybe Democrats should be focusing on building up America instead? Here's a crazy thought: Maybe those things aren't mutually exclusive.
For the 2039420934324234th time, we have a two-party system. Like it or not, that's the game. Blasting the Dems (while patting oneself on the back for ideological purity) might feel good, it doesn't win elections. Apparently neither does incremental change. I mean considering how terrible Bush was, and how awful Trump seemed, Clinton should have been a no-brainer, but instead you got Trump. Obama won pretty handily with the hope and change message, despite being a black guy with a Muslim sounding name. To be fair, things went to hell during GWB's watch. McCain didn't stand a chance and Palin made damn sure of that. Maybe if McCain was a bigger sport and bought into the hyper crazy alt-right like Palin and now elected prez Trump did....na McCain doesn't have it in him.
|
