As you say, Identity politics is not sustainable in the digital social media and now emerging AI age because identities can be micro-segmented. Message/Agenda politics is taking over.
The Decline of the DNC IV
- Thread starter CrimsonJazz
- Start date
- Status
We are led by large numbers of psychopaths and sociopaths. The rest are useful idiots. I've lost confidence in most of our leadership on a state and national level. They are out for themselves and no one else.
Yes, but George Carlin's admonition is also true.
These people didn't fall out of the sky, they attended American schools and they ran American businesses and they were in American churches and they were voted in by American citizens.
To summarize:
Black Dems REALLY like the black woman and hate the gay guy and the weirdo from Minnesota.
Booker polls better with them than anyone, no surprise.
White Dems like the gay guy, the white divorcee', and the hot Latina - and hate the bald black guy and the weirdo from Minnesota.
Hispanics like the black woman, the hot Latina, and the astronut and hate the gay guy and the weirdo from Minnesota.
identity politics sure seem to be working (at least in the short term) for republicans these last several years. we’ll see how sustainable that is going forward
If I got 100 people to vote if they wanted me in charge of them and only 3 said yes. I wouldn't exactly think they love me. You can't help but feel a little rejected.
"Hate" might be a strong word, yes.
And I don't for one second think Mayor Pete as a nominee would cause black voters to vote for a Republican Presidential candidate, either.
Let me add something else: you cannot trust ANY of these polls right now to reflect reality. Most voters refuse to admit how ignorant they really are, so they're asked questions and they pick out or say the first name that recognize.
When Gary Hart withdrew from the 1988 Democratic nomination - he was polling 60% in the party - Jesse Jackson moved into first place as the "front runner" because in the summer of 1987, very few people outside of their states had heard of Michael Dukakis, Bruce Babbitt, Paul Simon (the senator not the singer), Joe Biden, Al Gore, or Richard Gephardt.
But everyone for better or worse had heard of Jackson.
When Gary Hart withdrew from the 1988 Democratic nomination - he was polling 60% in the party - Jesse Jackson moved into first place as the "front runner" because in the summer of 1987, very few people outside of their states had heard of Michael Dukakis, Bruce Babbitt, Paul Simon (the senator not the singer), Joe Biden, Al Gore, or Richard Gephardt.
But everyone for better or worse had heard of Jackson.
Jasmine Crockett says Democrats’ attacks on her are racially motivated:
“The thing that is not normal is for me to be attacked from the Left… I look at this specifically as a civil rights lawyer and I see when they’re sending out ads and they’re darkening my skin.”
So does she have a point or is this excuse-making for her poor numbers? Personally, I lean towards the latter, but I'd like to know what the board Dems think.
“The thing that is not normal is for me to be attacked from the Left… I look at this specifically as a civil rights lawyer and I see when they’re sending out ads and they’re darkening my skin.”
So does she have a point or is this excuse-making for her poor numbers? Personally, I lean towards the latter, but I'd like to know what the board Dems think.
If people are intentionally darkening her skin in negative ads, then she has a point. However, most “attacks” on her from other Democrats are due to disagreement with some of her platform and/or a perceived problem with electability relative to her opponent. If she wants more party support, she needs to earn it by appealing to those who might vote for someone else rather than focusing on the race card.
I agree, although the skin-darkening thing is bothersome. The media has been pulling this **** for years now. They did it to Joe Rogan to make him look sicker than he actually was when he got COVID. (CNN was responsible for that one.) I wouldn't put this past them.
Weird stand to take, but I suppose that's to be expected...
Transgender Minnesota Dem says restricting kids from porn is harmful because it might be "educational if they are *****. "This is the hill they're dying on. Age verification is oppression because some kids might need adult content for... education.
Transgender Minnesota Dem says restricting kids from porn is harmful because it might be "educational if they are *****. "This is the hill they're dying on. Age verification is oppression because some kids might need adult content for... education.
Susan Rice offers a taste of what’s coming should the left retake power — promises Democrats will punish corporations and other institutions who have “taken a knee to Trump.”
“It’s not going to end well for them."
“If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules…they’ve got another thing coming."
“There will be an accountability agenda."
“This is not going to be an instance of forgive and forget."
Winning message or nah? The narrative of retribution worked pretty well for Trump, but his situation was very, very different. His people believed that 2020 was absolutely stolen and they watched as Trump was being relentlessly attacked via lawfare that could only have ended exactly the way it did. The left never runs out of outrage, but is it enough to carry an election like Trump 2.0 did? I'm a bit skeptical, but anything is possible.
“It’s not going to end well for them."
“If these corporations think that the Democrats, when they come back in power, are going to play by the old rules…they’ve got another thing coming."
“There will be an accountability agenda."
“This is not going to be an instance of forgive and forget."
Winning message or nah? The narrative of retribution worked pretty well for Trump, but his situation was very, very different. His people believed that 2020 was absolutely stolen and they watched as Trump was being relentlessly attacked via lawfare that could only have ended exactly the way it did. The left never runs out of outrage, but is it enough to carry an election like Trump 2.0 did? I'm a bit skeptical, but anything is possible.
Not saying it was a better time or anything, but there's a reason we used to burn people like this at the stake. Porn is damaging enough as it is on adults; I can only imagine the effect it would have on children.
People are twisting this into something it isn’t.
The argument isn’t “let kids watch porn.” It’s about unintended consequences. Gay teens in particular often feel like traditional sex ed doesn’t speak to their reality. Many aren’t comfortable asking parents or teachers personal questions, so they look online.
That doesn’t mean porn is good education. It obviously isn’t. But critics of strict age verification worry about privacy issues and legitimate resources getting blocked along with explicit content.
Disagree if you want, but pretending the position is “pro-porn for kids” skips over the actual point. If we tighten restrictions, the obvious answer is better, inclusive, age-appropriate sex education.
(And why is the speaker referred to as “transgender?” Other than the positive implication that’s she’s able to speak from a perspective that most of us lack, there’s really no non-inflammatory reason.)
- Status
Trending content
Latest threads
-
Being a kid in the 21st Century
- Started by Huckleberry
- Replies: 0
-
-
Let It Go - Tell Us Something Positive Going On in Your Life!- Started by BamaMoon
- Replies: 9
-
BREAKING R.I.P. Ted Turner 1938-2026- Started by Bazza
- Replies: 8
-
ESPN: 'Everyone is completely bought in': How Matt Campb...- Started by TideFans Reporter
- Replies: 0
-