Taintrunner posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6cY-CghyKY

turn off the TV posted:

https://twitter.com/daviddoel/status/1176485918959656960

turn off the TV posted:

Kokoro Wish posted:

One of the better short-hands on why the left has a tendency to get back-bitey. Powerless people looking to act out power on what they can effect, even if it is of active detriment to them to do so.

Corey Robin via Facebook posted:

We are at a moment in American politics where the chief problem is not that most people don't have a sense of the magnitude of the crisis, whether it be climate, healthcare, inequality, or racial domination. Nor is it that we don't have a sense of the policies that might do something about these issues. The real problem is a ruling class that seems utterly indifferent or incapable of addressing those problems and the absence of power on the part of enough people to force that ruling class to address those problems or get the gently caress out of the way.

There is one candidate who has understood, for the last fifty years, that the fundamental problem in American politics is just that: the ruling class and the absence of power on the part of working people. That candidate is Bernie Sanders.

Now Bernie doesn't score moral points in my book for being right or consistent on this. He doesn't deserve to be rewarded because he was there first. He gets *political* points because he has lived this truth and put into practice. He did it in Vermont, which we should remember was a Republican, fairly conservative state at the moment of Bernie's ascendancy. And he did it in 2016, when he galvanized a latent moment that virtually no one saw coming and turned it into something real, electorally speaking, and thereby began to fundamentally change the direction of the Democratic Party.

Elizabeth Warren is a good candidate. If she receives the nomination, I will vote for her. But Bernie's better.

If I were voting for the smartest candidate, if I thought that that kind of intelligence would solve our problems, I'd vote for Warren in a heartbeat. If I were voting for the candidate who understands policy the best, I'd vote for Warren. If I were voting for the best debater or best speaker, if I were voting for the candidate whom I personally would like to speak with, I'd vote for Warren.

But that's not what this moment is about. It's about whether we have a candidate who not only understands the fundamental problem is a ruling class that cannot solve these issues, who understands that popular power needs to be leveraged, but who ALSO has built an entire political career by acting on that belief. I know Warren has made these claims recently, so I don't doubt she's aware of these issues. She may evolve even further on them; she has a genuine capacity to take in new information.

But let's face it: While Bernie was building a progressive base that took power in a Republican state, Warren was getting elected by less than robust margins (and sometimes less than the national Democratic candidate) in the only state that voted for George McGovern. That's a track record that matters.

There are voices further to my left who will say that mine is an argument that places too much faith in politicians, that all that matters is the movement. I think the history of the New Deal complicates that story. There's an old debate in political science and sociology about whether it was the NIRA and then the Wagner Act that spurred the organization of workers into unions or the mass strikes of 1934 that produced the Wagner Act. There is ample data on both sides of that argument. If we take a less simplistic, less dichotomous view of the matter, and refuse the either/or of social science, we can see that leadership at the level of the state made a difference. A big difference.

We've seen similar things more recently. I don't think we'd have seen the wave of teachers' strikes last year—many led and organized, as Eric Blanc shows in his amazing book, by Bernie supporters and leaders from 2016—without the Bernie campaign of the last cycle. Political leadership matters.

Again, for me, the issue is simple: it's not a lack of awareness of the crisis; it's not a lack of policy solutions or intelligence (indeed, I think those Kennedy School-type categories of smarts and policy design, which got such traction on the left under Bill Clinton and then Barack Obama, have really led us astray, where now everyone thinks the answer to everything is on a candidate's website).

The real issue is a ruling class that needs to be pushed out of the way. Bernie gets that. He always has. And has acted accordingly.

So here's my bottom line: Warren is good. Bernie's better.

Some Guy TT posted:

heres some less confrontational bernie is better than warren talking points


i mean obviously warren isnt actually good but getting too angry about her might just get you labeled as a misogynist bernie bro so its a matter of picking your rhetoric based on who youre talking to

comedyblissoption posted:

i've bookmarked stuff related to warren from the succ zone as ive read the thread cuz im an insane crazy person and ive dumped the bookmarks here:
https://pastebin.com/Vxix16KF

you can download that and open it as an html in some webpage

there's a lot more than i thought there would be but maybe thats just cuz warren is an overwhelming wave of succ

Nichael posted:

Every time I see a post like that, it just encourages me more to burn down this stupid party. Tonight I'm having a meeting focused on a big upcoming race that I can't give many details on yet, tomorrow is another Bernie thing I'm organizing and call time with another candidate soon to announce, Sunday is more of this stuff. Primary every loving bad Democrat.

quote:

The Sanders plan helps them more, because it forgives all their debt. And that reduces racial wealth inequality more than does the Warren plan, because those households are disproportionately black. All of this showed up in the lowest ventile in Subsection 4.1;now those gaps between the Warren and Sanders scenarios appear wider, and they extend further up the wealth distribution, to approximately the 40th centile. Since the gaps are larger, it’s more apparent now that the cap matters more for black household wealth than white household wealth. But fundamentally, what’s going on here is the same as what was going on in 4.1: poor households with more than $50,000 in outstanding student debt get more out of the Sanders plan than they do from the Warren plan, and those households are disproportionately black.

quote:

Hence, below the ultra rich, the Sanders and Warren plans are very similar.The big difference is that the Sanders wealth tax applies a much more progressive tax on the ultra rich (the top .005% or richest 8000 families with wealth above $250 million) with graduated rates from 3% (starting at $250 million) up to 8% (above $10 billion). This extra progressivity raises an extra $106 billion (in 2019) and accounts for 78% of the $135billion difference in revenue (in 2019) between the two plans.This additional graduation can have a large impact on very top fortunes in the long-run as we illustrate below drawing on our recent work where we use the Forbes 400 data since 1982 to simulate the long-term impact of wealth taxation on top fortunes.5The wealth tax erodes fortunes over time. Billionaires still arise but under a wealth tax but they cannot stay billionaires(and especially deca-billionaires)for as long.

quote:

Through the Sanders proposal of providing free college education from revenue
generated by the FTT, jobs, incomes and tax revenues will, of course, rise sharply among
people working in higher education. It is through taking account of all of these factors
that we conservatively estimate that a U.S. FTT, with the specific design features
incorporated in the Inclusive Prosperity Act, can net approximately $220 billion per year
in tax revenues.

quote:

Elizabeth Warren’s claim to Cherokee ancestry is a form of violence
Be it by the barrel of a carbine or a mail-order DNA test, the American spirit demands the disappearance of Indigenous people.
Kim TallBear PERSPECTIVEJan. 17, 2019From the print edition.

In the early 1990s, I bought a T-shirt at a powwow that read “No! My great-grandmother was not a Cherokee princess!” It was a reference to the practice of non-Natives, with no lived tribal experience, who love telling Native people their own family myth of a Cherokee great-grandmother. The message may have seemed nonsensical to passersby, but to me and my family, it was hilarious.

In the United States, especially in the South and East, it’s common for us to hear improbable tales of being “part” Cherokee. Sometimes, there are assertions of Blackfeet or Apache ancestry. Considering how far away those tribal nations typically are from the claimants, both physically and culturally, many actual Native people struggle not to roll our eyes when the story comes up. The T-shirt, as it turned out, did not at all help to curb that tendency. Eye-roll.

Twenty years later, this most American of family legends began its journey to the spotlight in national politics when Elizabeth Warren, during her U.S. Senate run in Massachusetts in 2012, claimed to have Cherokee and Delaware ancestry. At the time, when asked if I would vote for her, I said, “Yes,” despite disappointment with her cliché claim to a Native ancestor with “high cheekbones.” These days, however, I can’t answer that question in the same way.

Indian great-grandmother stories are a central part of the American myth. In his 1998 book Playing Indian, Harvard historian Philip Deloria documented the long history of non-Natives engaging in “redface.” Since the 18th century, non-Natives have dressed as Indians at the Boston Tea Party, in fraternal orders, in the Boy Scouts, at hobbyist powwows, within the New Age movement, and in sports, as racist mascots. For hundreds of years, Americans have donned and absorbed Indigenous images and histories even while massacring and starving actual Indigenous people.

Be it by the barrel of a carbine or a mail-order DNA test, Indigenous people must disappear for the United States to thrive.

In his book, Deloria cites English writer and poet D.H. Lawrence, who wrote that an “essentially ‘unfinished’ and incomplete” American consciousness produced an “unparalleled national identity crisis.” He continued: “No place exerts its full influence upon a newcomer until the old inhabitant is dead or absorbed.” For Lawrence, the “unexpressed spirit of America” could not be fulfilled without Indians being exterminated or assimilated into white America. A few decades later, Spokane author Sherman Alexie echoed these sentiments in the poem “How to Write the Great American Indian Novel,” concluding that “In the Great American Indian novel, when it is finally written, all of the white people will be Indians and all of the Indians will be ghosts.”

In the case of DNA, science now offers a kindler, gentler hand in the disappearing of Native people. The personal genomics industry unwittingly retains older racist and colonial ideas of the unassimilated Native — notions that shape scientists’ search for the supposedly biologically distinct, or “unadmixed,” Native, which privileges the “purer” Native in research in order to gain a better view into an ancient, less-civilized humanity. Living Indigenous people sampled in the course of research become proxies for ancient humans. Ironically, genetic science, which seeks to sample Indigenous people before they vanish into a sea of admixture, actually helps to vanish Indigenous peoples by implying that “mixed” Natives are less Native.

In the settler-colonial belief system, genetic ancestry is expressed as a defining trait of what it is to be “Native American,” or even “Scandinavian,” for that matter. Yet Native people’s own notions of belonging, in addition to contentious but vital tribal political definitions of citizenship, emphasize lived social relations, both with human relatives and with our nonhuman relatives in our traditional lands and waters. Genetic ancestry alone is a shallow definition of who we are, as are the human-centric views of settler-colonists that place humans above nonhuman plants and animals.

Indigenous analyses run counter to many of these settler-colonial ideas, but are often misunderstood, ignored or framed as being fodder for one political party or another. In the 19th century, for example, settlers accused us of being in the way of “progress” in order to justify land theft, massacres of unarmed Native people, and forced assimilation for those who survived. Today, we are seen as in the way of progress if we resist a pipeline, or genetic research and DNA testing that objectifies us as bodies and identities to be studied and consumed for the benefit of non-Natives. Both then and now, settler states and actors, in the pursuit of private property, profit, individual advancement or self-actualization, do not understand Indigenous world-views, and resort to violence or appropriation instead of collaboration; colonialism instead of kinship.

Today, the Democrats peddle a story to Americans of multicultural progress, inclusion and absorption into the imperial state. Elizabeth Warren’s DNA test and the arguments defending it reflect that narrative. But that story, like the one sold by Republicans, is based in a worldview that holds private property as sacred and America as morally exceptional. For Indigenous people, private property has been, and is, devastating to our lives and cultures. It devastates the planet by enabling natural resource extraction, including Indigenous DNA, for the profit of settler societies. Meanwhile, the idea of moral exceptionalism in North America is informed by, and affirms, the genocide of Indigenous people: physically, symbolically, politically and scientifically. The stories that settlers insist on telling about the world, their world, have life-and-death repercussions for the planet, humans included.

This is the legacy that Elizabeth Warren inherits and champions. In the years since her claims to being Cherokee, she has ignored Cherokee requests to meet and rectify her assertions — a clear illustration of her lack of integrity, commitment or relation to the very people she claims to have descended from. Instead of kinship, she has chosen colonialism. She is a bad relative, as are the political conservatives and liberals that share a common, anti-Indigenous bond — a story that sacrifices Indigenous worldviews and the good relations between humans and non-humans those beliefs espouse.

Would I vote for Warren if she becomes the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee? Today, the answer is, “No.” I was raised deep inside the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor party by a mother intimately involved in party politics. But she also centered a Dakota view of history and peoplehood, and a sense that our primary allegiance is not to the settler state, but to Dakota ancestors and living relations, including our traditional lands and waters – relational views of peoplehood not uncommon to Indigenous communities.

I lost that Cherokee great-grandmother shirt years ago, but the painfully funny joke continues to circulate through Indian Country as much as it did 25 years ago, this time, with a presidential candidate as the punchline. Raised on settler narratives and mythologies, Warren is one of millions of Americans who would “play Indian” in a quest to absorb the original inhabitants of this land, whom the state has failed to completely exterminate.

Kim TallBear is Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Peoples, Technoscience, and Environment in the Faculty of Native Studies at the University of Alberta.

Email High Country News at editor@hcn.org or submit a letter to the editor.

quote:

We saw irregularities in vote patterns. For example, everyone knew that there were discrepancies between most exit polls and reported polls. However, we found that there were more discrepancies in states with strictly electronic voting machines.

Clinton won 65 percent, Bernie Sanders 35 percent in those states. In states with paper ballots, Clinton won 49 percent, Sanders 51 percent. Voting methods vary from state to state and from county to county within states. You can go to Verified Voting to see a map of the methods used across the US.

Results are most reliable in Oregon, Massachusetts and Vermont. The absolute worst is Louisiana. Their strictly statewide electronic voting could be considered a form of voter suppression.

...

In 2016, however, violence erupted after a yay-nay voice vote was held at the Nevada State Democratic Convention because Clinton had been awarded 20 delegates to the national nominating convention, Sanders 15. Sanders issued a critical statement reported by Rolling Stone, in “WTF Happened at the Nevada Democratic State Convention?”:

“According to various reports, Sanders supporters yelled, threw chairs and booed Clinton surrogate Barbara Boxer, incensed by a process they saw as rigged in Clinton’s favor. Clinton backers responded by calling for the disruptive Sanders delegates’ arrests. …

“Sanders went on to denounce the way the Nevada state convention was conducted, saying [Party Chair Roberta] Lange should at the very least have held a head-count rather than a yay-nay voice vote, and accusing her of refusing to acknowledge motions from the floor or accept any petitions for amendments, in violation of the rules. Sanders also protested the disqualification, ‘en masse,’ of 58 of his delegates.

“‘These are on top of failures at the precinct and county conventions,’ Sanders said, ‘including trying to depose and then threaten with arrest the Clark County convention credentials chair because she was operating too fairly.’”

With regard to the violence, Sanders said he doesn’t condone any violence, but that someone had fired a shot through the window at his Nevada campaign headquarters while he was inside, and that the hotel his staff were staying in had been robbed and ransacked.

The Clinton campaign claimed that there were no irregularities, and condemned the violence at the state convention.

Willie Tomg posted:

https://sfbayview.com/2019/09/election-interference-2016-paper-trails-suggest-fraud-in-democratic-primaries/

Some Guy TT posted:

heres some less confrontational bernie is better than warren talking points


i mean obviously warren isnt actually good but getting too angry about her might just get you labeled as a misogynist bernie bro so its a matter of picking your rhetoric based on who youre talking to

loquacius posted:

PSA btw, if anyone ITT finds themselves in an argument about Whether Liz Warren Was In Fact Fired For Being Pregnant, here's a good direction to steer that conversation instead

https://twitter.com/dwclash/status/1181969630023311360

Ytlaya posted:

comedyblissoption posted:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

That's a good article, and it really is pretty frightening the extent to which liberals just treat it like obvious common sense that intelligence community claims are legitimate.

Most people can only recognize propaganda outside of their own cultural context. So liberals can look at old Nazi propaganda and recognize it, or look at current conservative propaganda on Fox News and recognize it because they aren't conservatives and aren't part of that culture. But they'll believe things the CIA claims as long as it's released through the NYTimes or another source they trust.

It's kind of upsetting to realize that these same people would all have absolutely supported the Iraq War at the time (and will support any other wars that end up happening in the future).

GoluboiOgon posted:

i don't think it's really a coup tho: there is absolutely no way that the republican senate actually removes trump based on such flimsy evidence, and pelosi appears to lack the spine to even get the house to impeach. better to look at it as the foreign policy apparatus seizing control over foreign policy with the help of the media. the impeachment blather has completely sabotaged trump's policy in ukraine, and framed the news narrative around things such that not sending more anti-tank weapons to ukraine is treason.

deliberately lost in the noise is the question if delaying weapons shipments was a good thing. this whole affair has occurred during a period in which zelensky has been moving towards negotiations with russia. in mid september, zelensky gives a speech in yalta in which he announces his intentions to demilitarize the border with donetsk, and his intention to start negotiating a peace deal with the russians. us special envoy kurt volker gives a speech at the same venue cautiously praising zelensky's decision. zelensky signs the steinmeier "map to peace" into law two weeks later. however, by then the whistleblower report hits the fan, kurt volker resigns in disgrace, and the future of any peace negotiations is highly uncertain. delaying arms shipments in late august seems to have triggered diplomatic progress, although there is of course no way to prove it.

the current ambassador to ukraine, bill taylor, is quoted in the texts released as evidence as calling ending shipments of arms to ukraine "my nightmare scenario." in his testimony before congress, volker states that taylor "was also worried that Trump might be willing to trade away Ukraine's interests as part of a grand bargain with Russia." clearly taylor (and a majority of state department types) want any sort of peace negotiations to fail, as a treaty that the russians would sign would necessarily involve redrawing borders.

perhaps this would be the correct place to point out that, in the texts released to justify the impeachment, the only person to state that weapons shipments were withheld for a political campaign was bill taylor? the whole impeachment case seems to hinge on comments he made that were never agreed with by trump's supporters. it is good that he fights against political corruption in ways that absolutely do not consolidate his power in ukraine. he was the director of state department reconstruction funds for afganistan and iraq under dubya, so we know that he takes corruption very seriously and would never do anything shady to help the intelligence agencies.

tylersayten posted:

The “whistleblower” is nothing more than a cia agent, and the agency is using the term whistleblower for him as a deceptive propaganda tactic to harness and divert legitimate outrage by the public over persecution of actual whistleblowers/publishers like Snowden, Assange, and Manning’s treatment (by the cia/alphebet agencies) and direct it towards trump instead. It’s just more alphabet agency disinfo/psychological warfare

Pointing this out will get liberals rubbing shoulders with fascists like Ellen degeneras to call you a secret trump fan though

comedyblissoption posted:

https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1182309703562518528

Pingui posted:

My sincerest apologies to Rhode Island:

Calculated difference between poll (latest poll if no RCP average exists) and actual result, name is bolded where the actual winner and the poll winner differ:

Clinton -3.8% - Iowa - Poll: Clinton +4% / Result: Clinton +0.2%
Sanders +9.1% - New Hampshire - Poll: Sanders +13.3% / Result: Sanders +22.4%
Clinton +3.1% - Nevada - Poll: Clinton +2.4% / Result: Clinton +5.5%
Clinton +20.0% - South Carolina - Poll: Clinton +27.5% / Result: Clinton +47.5%
Clinton +1.7% - Texas - Poll: Clinton +30.3% / Result: Clinton +32.0%
Clinton -5.3% - Massachusetts - Poll: Clinton +6.7% / Result: Clinton +1.4%
Clinton +5.9% - Georgia - Poll: Clinton +37.0% / Result: Clinton +42.9%
Clinton +7.6% - Virginia - Poll: Clinton +21.5% / Result: Clinton +29.1%
Sanders +57.2% - Minnesota - Poll: Clinton +34% / Result: Sanders +23.2%
Clinton +7.7% - Tennessee - Poll: Clinton +26% / Result: Clinton +33.7%
Clinton +10.6% - Alabama - Poll: Clinton +48% / Result: Clinton +58.6%
Sanders +12.4% - Oklahoma - Poll: Clinton +2% / Result: Sanders +10.4%
Clinton +8.1% - Arkansas - Poll: Clinton +28.5% / Result: Clinton +36.6%
Sanders -2.5% - Vermont - Poll: Sanders +75% / Result: Sanders +72.5%
Clinton +8.9% - Louisiana - Poll: Clinton +39% / Result: Clinton +47.9%
Sanders +45.4% - Kansas - Poll: Clinton +10% / Result: Sanders +35.4%
Sanders +22.9% - Michigan - Poll: Clinton +21.4% / Result: Sanders +1.5%
Clinton +22.1% - Mississippi - Poll: Clinton +44% / Result: Clinton +66.1%
Clinton +2.3% - Florida - Poll: Clinton +28.9% / Result: Clinton +31.2%
Clinton -0.5% - Illinois - Poll: Clinton +2.3% / Result: Clinton +1.8%
Clinton +5.8% - Ohio - Poll: Clinton +8% / Result: Clinton +13.8%
Clinton -10.2% - North Carolina - Poll: Clinton +24% / Result: Clinton +13.8%
Clinton +1.2% - Missouri - Poll: Sanders +1% / Result: Clinton +0.2%
Clinton -12.3% - Arizona - Poll: Clinton +30% / Result: Clinton +17.7%
Sanders +66.2% - Alaska - Poll: Clinton +3% / Result: Sanders +63.2%
Sanders +10.9% - Wisconsin - Poll: Sanders +2.6% / Result: Sanders +13.5%
Clinton +4.3% - New York - Poll: Clinton +11.7% / Result: Clinton +16.0%
Clinton -4.0% - Pennsylvania - Poll: Clinton +16% / Result: Clinton +12.0%
Clinton +5.7% - Maryland - Poll: Clinton +24% / Result: Clinton +29.7%
Clinton -0.4% - Connecticut - Poll: Clinton +5.6% / Result: Clinton +5.2%
Sanders +14.2% - Rhode Island - Poll: Clinton +2.5% / Result: Sanders +11.7%
Clinton +13.6% - Delaware - Poll: Clinton +7% / Result: Clinton +20.6%
Sanders +11.8% - Indiana - Poll: Clinton +6.8% / Result: Sanders +5.0%
Sanders 0.0% - West Virginia - Poll: Sanders +6% / Result: Sanders +6.0%
Sanders +25.2% - Oregon - Poll: Clinton +15% / Result: Sanders +10.2%
Clinton -4.5% - Kentucky - Poll: Clinton +5% / Result: Clinton +0.5%
Clinton +10.5% - California - Poll: Clinton +2% / Result: Clinton +12.5%
Clinton +6.1% - New Jersey - Poll: Clinton +20.5% / Result: Clinton +26.6%
Clinton -11.0% - New Mexico - Poll: Clinton +14% / Result: Clinton +3.0%

Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/DemPrimaryPollsResults.html

As an average for won states Sanders was +24.8% off
As an average for won states Clinton was +2.62% off (both are plus due to undecideds)

Some Guy TT posted:

fyi for the second page gonna be more aggressive about asking for probes youre going to get them even if youre being polite provided youre not posting relevant content


krystal ball is excellent in general but shes good for msnbc fans in particular because her show uses a similar format and tone to cable news and its pretty short too msnbc news junkies might find it easy to dismiss the dirtbag left out of hand because theyre rude and angry and can go on ranting for an hour at a time but krystal ball doesnt convey that kind of energy at all and is a good trojan horse you can even bolster her credibility by mentioning that shes been on bill mahers show as dumb as that may sound to us its persuasive to those who think hes appropriately edgy

also her name is a stupidly good icebreaker because no one believes its real

Gene Hackman Fan posted:

leftists in the south communicate and congregate primarily through podcasts, as prior oddballs did with BBSs and Ham Radio. making the world seem a little smaller, just to hear something you agree with spoken by a neighbor. and sometimes, we manage to catch the attention of other leftists, as word spreads across these hills and hollers.

case in point: by following the trillbillies, i found out there is a podcast about the military with a specifically left analysis.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymd4K_5B_DQ

CAPS LOCK BROKEN posted:

buttchug getting owned repeatedly by the audience:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjT5MlOoUUI

the shot you're looking for happens around 2:20

Frijolero posted:

I didn't want to post this because I frankly don't give a gently caress about the allegations and I don't want to give them credence, but a Univ. of Michigan professor ran a model and concluded that if all the alleged fraudulent votes were given to the opposition instead of Evo, he still would've won by over 10%:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~wmebane/Bolivia2019.pdf

Real heads know that this doesn't matter, but might be worth sharing with Libs

Shageletic posted:

How many years of political experience did Obama have, really? Years of pounding the pavement to get votes? AFAIK he ran in the Illinois legislature in 1996, got re-elected in 1998, and continued to be in it until 2003 after losing the congressional race to Bobby Rush. That's a couple of terms of banking on his Hyde Park segregated district before being rushed into the Senate and eventually President. That man never developed, never needed to develop, the skills of a politician that needs to assemble a constituency. He was perfect cats paw for the forces that used him when he was in office.

And gently caress the literal five months he spent as a community "organizer" before joining a law firm. That poo poo is straight up bullshit.

An infinitely better way to put this is what Adolphus Reed wrote, in loving 2008

https://progressive.org/magazine/obama/

Read the entire article, and its shocking how well Prof Reed called it a decade ago.

Finicums Wake posted:

Adolph Reed's great, easily one of my favorite commentators on american politics. his son, the historian Toure Reed, has published stuff in the same critical vein, which is worth checking out. here's an article he wrote about coates and obama you might be interested in:

https://catalyst-journal.com/vol1/no4/between-obama-and-coates

Lastgirl posted:

thanks so much for the resources, I have a whole bunch of assigned reading from a few activist groups so I have to log that in but I definitely want to see if they know about these name drops too so I can discuss and enlighten myself further. I actually am in the middle of a debate between what black feminism and white liberal feminism is at the moment because I'm trying to contextualize the difference and why black feminism is better (it is) but I need to be able to reason and articulate it so that I can identify the issues because I don't have that particular life experience and I'm trying my best to empathize without the confirmation biases of privilege getting in the way.

because I'm insane like that~

also to expand on that, I don't think there is shame to admit that if you were an Obama voter because the climate was so much different, the importance is that you learn and identify why it didn't work the way it was supposed to so that you have better contexts and awareness to frame the real issues that neoliberals have successfully marketed (until now) as dismissive fantasies not worth exploring.

Shageletic posted:

Hey I'm in the same way! No one knows everything, and I'm always racing to understand more of whats going on.

If you got some reading about race/feminism intersectionality lemme know.

Finicums Wake posted:

idk if this is helpful, but this reader has a section on black feminism, if you're looking for more resources on that issue
https://communistresearchcluster.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/release-of-reader-vol-3-on-revolutionary-feminism/

joepinetree posted:

If you're looking for stuff to share with people:

https://splinternews.com/pod-fails-america-1830463026

https://splinternews.com/lets-play-the-worlds-smallest-violin-for-the-pod-save-a-1838258744

https://www.fastcompany.com/90250825/the-pod-save-america-tv-show-is-not-going-to-save-democracy-or-even-your-friday-nights

And if you are looking for a soundbite version of why they suck, to me the most emblematic thing is the following:

Jon Lovett's partner is Ronan Farrow. You know, the Ronan Farrow who wrote about Hillary cancelling an interview with him when she found out that he was writing about Weinstein, and how her staff expressed concern over his reporting on Weinstein. So Jon Lovett has known all along that Hillary was protecting a serial rapist and had tried to stop his partner from reporting on it, to the point of cancelling an interview that was important to his book on foreign relations. And yet not only he didn't say anything about it, but they had Hillary on to promote her book and slam Bernie a little more. Because that is what nice, centrist careerists do: they do puff piece interviews with the woman protecting a serial rapist who tried to sink your partner's reporting because she has the right politic and connections.

Corky Romanovsky posted:

"Detailed" policy is part of the terminal disease known as liberalism. They have become so accustomed to means testing and other bullshit that is added to legislation to make programs suck and/or fail. Means testing adds stressful hoop jumping to the party in need, and wasteful administrative auditing of applicants. Oops, you earned $5 over the limit, so you can't apply. Sanders's proposals are short sometimes short on details because they don't have lovely means testing. Student Debt Forgiveness: boom, everyone, let's get it done and move on rebuilding our crumbling nation.

Person I know (gen x, if it matters) has some condition that makes them feel like "free" stuff creates some poor habits in the recipient, and is trying to come up with some token payment scheme to accompany Bernie's college for all. I've finally talked them down to considering that worker's paystubs should be mandated to include where the withheld taxes are going, to instill the feeling they are looking for, the feeling that their college education wasn't free and that they are chipping in.

Maybe your friends have similar hang-ups. It is a completely alien thought process for people accustomed to means testing and trapezoid benefits.

shame on an IGA posted:

Just realized it's the anniversary of my first donation to Bernie 2020, when I was surprised by the "why?" ask box on the receipt page, then channeled every ounce of righteous indignation in my body and posted like I had never posted before.

quote:

My mother was born in the coal country of Fayette Co. WV in 1963.

She watched her father die when she was six years old. Our MeeMaw raised four children alone on her wages from the Sears shoe department in the most impoverished region in America. They didn't have running water until the 1970's.

Mom always wanted to be a writer. When she graduated from Mount Hope High School in 1983 she scraped together what she had saved from her after school job at Liggett's department store and started looking for a college she could afford. Massilon Baptist College of Ohio was the only option within her reach.

It was a trap. After an education much heavier on misogynistic evangelical theology and light on workplace skills, she found herself with a controlling husband and two sons, rootless and living in the Carolinas blocks from his family and far, far from hers.

We were evicted from our first home there because she wouldn't sleep with the millionaire business owner landlord. The second, where we stayed for nine years, was an uninsulated shack 20 minutes from the nearest town. Mom worked as a carhop at Sonic for a few years, then at Dollar General, eventually making her way to the store manager position she would hold for nearly 20 years. Dad spent this time as an on again off again truck driver, usually spending on the road as much as he made. The times he was on long hauls were the best of my childhood and we all secretly hoped he wouldn't come back.

In 1999, during a brief window of relative stability, my parents bought a patch of land on the other side of town and a doublewide trailer that they had no idea how to negotiate for with a loan no sane person would ever have approved were their own money at risk. Namely, $145,000 at 12% APR variable. This, when interest rates were the lowest they had ever been in US history.

Dollar General was the target of repeated venture capital takeovers. Suddenly, Mom was the only "Exempt Salaried Employee" in the store, filling every gap in the schedule left by an ever shrinking payroll with her own unpaid hours. She was pulling 10 to 15 hour shifts unloading trucks and manning registers for the equivalent of $9/hr. Her bad home life and nonexistent social life having stripped her of the confidence to believe anything better than this was possible for her, Ma soldiered on.

She was fired without notice in 2012 because her time-in-position raises had made her more expensive than a new hire, lost her house, took an assistant manager position at another discount store chain and was then diagnosed with terminal breast cancer after she had been there for two months, not yet eligible for company insurance or FMLA.

Three months after she died, I recieved a letter from the CFPB addressed to her, finding that her mortgage servicer had acted improperly by refusing to adjust the terms of her loan and containing a settlement check for $21.00.

My mother was grist for the wheels of capitalism's worst excesses every single day of her life and I will give the full measure of my time, treasure, and blood to build an America where no one is treated like that.

Today was her birthday.

That's why.


One year and three pairs of shoes later we are going to win and we are going to build the country she deserved to live in.

Bobby Digital posted:

here’s some interesting audio from a warren colleague at penn in the 80s


https://twitter.com/plaidhombre/status/1222144715866431491?s=21


https://twitter.com/plaidhombre/status/1222145000559038465?s=21

Platystemon posted:

Original source here for posterity

These links are shareable for me:

code:

https://twitter.com/i/status/1222143485677051908

[url]https://twitter.com/i/status/1222143762723491841[/url]

reignonyourparade posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiwrIxV3JeY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8qCO1wOZ4s
From the comments

Drucilla Cornell posted:

I knew Elizabeth Warren when I was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. She was a right-wing Reaganite, and the University of Pennsylvania had the most progressive law school curriculum in the country. This is Elizabeth Warren: I taught first year classes, a class called Income Security. Elizabeth Warren said, "There is no more ridiculous idea than nationalized health care." That's the Elizabeth Warren I knew. She's in her thirties at this time. She was the henchwoman of the right wing takeover to destroy the left wing curriculum. I taught Focused Rights; I taught the National Labor Relations Act, which doesn't exist anymore, for the most part. It's not taught in any law school in the United States. I taught Income Security, and I taught Jurisprudence. Elizabeth was against all those things.

I don't really know Elizabeth Warren personally, I just knew her as a right wing Republican. And somehow or another God came out of the Heavens and turned her into a Democrat. Probably at the very moment that Derrick Bell stepped down from Harvard because he would not work anymore until they hired an African American woman. Now she couldn't pretend she was black, so she pretended she was Native American. That's not what we call people who are Native Americans because they are First Nations people. Apaches and Cherokees were nations. There's no such thing as a Native American. Elizabeth checked that box just as Derrick Bell was stepping down. She went to Massachusetts, she becomes a Democrat. There is no more relentless, ruthless nihilist that I have ever met in my entire life than Elizabeth Warren. She's right up there with Donald Trump. So, I can't really support her. She did succeed in destroying that progressive curriculum and that progressive curriculum, you know, it's one of life things you hold onto.

Drucilla Cornell posted:

...one of those life things you hold onto, right? So I don't trust Elizabeth Warren as far as I can throw her. She has no policy, she doesn't understand imperialism. And she has said that she's a capitalist. What she really is is a technocrat who clawed her way to Harvard. I mean, that's where you want to end up, right, if you're a law professor? You want to be at [mocking emphasis] Harvard. Okay, she did that. She succeeded. But as President of the United States? I wouldn't even dream of supporting her, because Bernie Sanders--whatever you think of him--like me, was chaining himself to schools to desegregate them, was protesting against the Vietnam War. There are people who have held onto values for a lifetime, and those [indistinguishable] are the people I trust.

Lansdowne posted:

somebody was asking for a collection of biden's senility earlier. this might be a good thing to bookmark.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/stop-calling-it-a-stutter-here-are-dozens-of-examples-of-bidens-dementia-symptoms-b010c8e6b45c

UFOTacoMan posted:

Dolphin posted:

"she is my granddaughter"

comedyblissoption posted:

https://twitter.com/curaffairs/status/1236324706824769536

ihatepants posted:

Goons, I wrote a thing because this dude apparently joined every single Democrat group on Facebook (including pro-Bernie ones) and keeps downplaying Biden's gaffes as solely due to his stutter. I just got really pissed off and wanted to point out his hypocrisy. Apparently he is a psychiatrist and professor at Johns Hopkins and wrote a bunch of articles about how Trump has dementia and he also started his own SuperPAC of other psychiatrists and neurologists who think they have to warn the public about Trump's dementia. I'm a doctor, but not a psychiatrist or neurologist and the first response to my post was asking if I was a practicing psychiatrist/neurologist as if you had to be one to notice signs and symptoms.




I've been pointing out signs of dementia in Biden in multiple posts saying that all of his recent gaffes are "just his stutter," so I've compiled this list. As I've said multiple times, a stutter is a speech disorder that affects the flow of speech, which is not what is happening here. I've also included comparisons from two articles written by Dr. John Gartner, who actually frequently posts in this group, about how he is able to see signs of dementia in Trump. I'm just applying these same exact criteria he uses for Trump and applying them to Biden, with sourced examples.

That said, I am NOT diagnosing Biden based on what I've stated here, because no doctor will be able to diagnose him without actually examining him. I am merely pointing out signs (objective evidence that can be observed by anyone) of possible cognitive decline and saying that perhaps he should undergo an actual cognitive examination. I'm wondering why there is no demand for Biden to undergo the same neuropsychologic evaluation that Dr. Gartner himself claims that Trump needs when Biden himself exhibits many of the same signs that Trump did. Trump went even further and at least provided a standard cognitive screening test, which Biden's own Doctor is quoted as saying that wasn't done when Biden released his doctor's letters in December.

Here are the two articles Dr. Gartner has written for comparison:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/09/does-donald-trump-have-dementia-we-need-know-psychologist-column/3404007002/
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...umn/1052290001/

Signs of decline in Biden: Compare video of him even 4 years ago to any extended interviews or speeches of his today. He's able to actually get through and correctly articulate what he wants to say without any slurring, tangents or change in thought process. https://twitter.com/SharnaAisha/status/1235049620767555585?s=20


It should be noted that there are six different types of semantic paraphasia. It doesn't have to be as stark a difference as the example given where Trump said oranges when he meant something else.

Signs of semantic paraphasia in Biden: "I'm a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate, look me over and if you like what you see, help out if not vote for the other Biden."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqS4m-8B4IQ

"We'll increase healthcare premiums and make sure care is not quality, only affordable."
https://youtu.be/8UY_8fXdvIY

"We choose truth over facts."
https://youtu.be/15RjcRJ3Z70


Signs of phonemic paraphrasia in Biden: "Obidenbama democrat"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBLavIE2c4


Signs of circumstantial and tangential speech in Biden:
“Well they have to deal with the — Look, there is institutional segregation in this country. And from the time I got involved I started dealing with that. Redlining. Banks. Making sure that we’re in a position where — Look, talk about education. I propose that what we take is those very poor schools, the Title 1 schools, triple the amount of money we spend from 15 to 45 billion a year. Give every single teacher a raise that equal raise to getting out — the sixty-thousand dollar level.

Number two, make sure that we bring into the help the — the student, the, the teachers deal with the problems that come from home. The problems that come from home. We need — We have one school psychologist for every fifteen hundred kids in America today. It’s crazy. The teachers are reca — Now, I’m married to a teacher. My deceased wife is a teacher. They have every problem coming to them. We have make sure that every single child does in fact have three, four, and five year-olds go to school — school, not daycare. School. We bring social workers into homes of parents to help them deal with how to raise their children. It’s not that they don’t wanna help, they don’t want — they don’t know quite what to do. Play the radio, make sure the television, the — ‘scuse me, make sure you have the record player on at night, the-the-the-the phone, make sure the kids hear words. A kid coming from a very poor school, a very poor background, will hear four million words fewer spoken by the time they get there.”
https://youtu.be/4AYVwgcAOMY

"And by the way, you know I sit on the stand and it'd get hot. I got a lot of — I got hairy legs ... that turn blonde in the sun, and the kids used to come up and reach in the pool and rub my leg down so it was straight and then watch the hair come back up again. So I learned about roaches and I learned about kids jumping on my lap. I love kids jumping on my lap."
https://youtu.be/uIjYuIeEbAo


Not mentioned in the article is confabulation, which is another sign of dementia. Confabulation is when someone makes up stories to fill in any gaps in their own memory. They aren't doing this on purpose because they actually believe that it happened in the way they are describing.
Examples of confabulation in Biden would be:

Saying he was vice president during the Parkland shooting (which happened in 2018) and that he remembers the kids marching up to him on the hill and that he met with them because of it.
https://youtu.be/M5X3pIPehq4

Saying that he will appoint the first African American woman to the Senate (Senators are obviously not appointed by the president and Carol Braun took office in 1993):
https://youtu.be/jPWkoCOBz0Q

Being confronted by Iraq War veterans who said their friends died because of Biden's policies and Biden insinuating that his son also died in Iraq:
https://youtu.be/wD7e8Cld5ao

Saying that he was arrested in South Africa when he tried to meet Nelson Mandela during apartheid
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/02/joe-biden-campaign-walks-back-false-nelson-mandela-story.html

Where is this letter urging Biden to undergo a cognitive exam? Why is there no call for Biden to do the same? Is he simply exempt because he has a (D) by his name? I keep hearing about all these "medical records" that Bernie needs to provide, but nothing about any need for Biden to undergo a full neuropsychological evaluation. But sure, hypocrisy is fine when Democrats are the ones doing it.

Son of Man posted:

ATTENTION SHITASS BASTARDS

The police are loving thieves, stealing from every one of us. I'm not shocked we already have over 50% of America publicly against the cops because most Americans have already experienced this.

Most Americans interactions with the police center around traffic stops. We all know it's bullshit. We all know the police don't make roads safer. We all know they have quotas. Maybe city council told them no more quotas. This is bullshit. The cops are doing it anyway. Who's going to stop them?

In one jurisdiction I know of, a state police patrolman had to write two tickets per hour to be eligible for promotion. Good thing traffic laws are so vaguely written and arbitrarily enforced that cranking out tickets is no problem for a cop who doesn't mind harassing people for petty garbage. Lights. Signal. Insurance. Registration. Inspection. Weaving. Driving to fast. Driving too slow. Maybe they'll just make one up, like 'cracked windshield,' which is not a violation in many jurisdictions but a police fiction that people believe.

But we all know the traffic stop is just the pretext. They want to get in your vehicle. Have you been drinking? Where are you going? Where have you been? You got any drugs? You got any weapons? You got any warrants? The pig sniffs for any possible pretext to get you in cuffs. Not even arrested, but at least detained. He shines his flashlight through your windows and cranes his neck around.

He asks if he can search your car. If you say no, he asks you why not while he shines his light in your face and rests his hand on his pistol. If you still resist, he'll just call a k9 unit. Police dogs are a scam btw if you didn't know, they alert whenever the police want them to. Hell, if the cops feeling lazy he can just say he smells marijuana and then he can search any car he wants. Didn't find any marijuana? No problem, cops are held to a subjective rather than objective standard in court, so they face zero consequences for lying to get a free search!

It's all about getting around the 4th amendment. Every police report is written to make it look like the officer was confronted with obvious criminal activity. The suspect made furtive movements. The suspect appeared nervous. The suspect was unusually quiet. The suspect was unusually talkative. They might pull a 'cracked windshield' and just make something up. "I searched the subject for officer safety." Does anybody remember from school the article of the constitution that lays out the officer safety exception to your rights? I bet none of you do, because it isn't loving there!

The courts have carved out a billion ways for the cops to violate your 4th amendment rights, and the cops will exploit every one of them. Because they want to root through your poo poo. Those quotas aren't just for traffic tickets! Oh, but they aren't quotas - it's called "self (or officer) imposed productivity," so it's not a quota. And the officer imposed part is exactly what it sounds like. The cop needs to make those arrests.

The cop needs to make those arrests.

Because arrests = $$$. No, not all arrests. Nobody gets rich off a competent rape or murder investigation. It's all about guns, drugs, and cars. If the pigs can arrest you, they can probably (***this is not legal advice - none of any of this i ever post is legal advice***) search your car, confiscate your drugs and weapons, and tow your vehicle. If you can't afford the $300 tow fee and $150/day impound fee that piles up while you are in jail, then they keep your car!!! Oh yeah we lost your gun sorry haha.

That's if they don't just steal your poo poo with civil asset forfeiture. The 'civil' part means they get to circumvent the criminal court and you get fewer rights and a lower standard of proof. Anything involved with evil, evil drugs can be "forfeited" - cars, vehicles, cash... even your loving house. The police can legally steal everything you own if they find enough drugs on you. And the Baltimore PD body cam showed us all that the cops will always find something if they want to find it.

And all the poo poo I just described is small potatoes. It's the baby grift that the local departments run. The big rear end cash money comes from mandatory fines and fees that the legislature requires for drug convictions. They call it poo poo like "drug enforcement fund fee" or "narcotic demand reduction fee" etc. Just like mandatory minimum sentencing, the judge has no say. The police union forces the legislature to mandate fees on all these convictions.

And where do those fees go??? Maybe to the billion alphabet soup layer cake agencies cops in every state run. State police. County sheriff. Municipal police. State beureu of investigation. Fish & game. Atf liaison office. Dea liaison office. Vice squad. Port authority. Park rangers. Gaming enforcement. Highway patrol. Etc. Etc. Etc. The court system is nothing more than a money funnel.

That huge pot of gold buys the pigs all the rifles and tanks and bombs and gas they need to oppress us. All of these items are bought at the department's discretion in a no bid process. All these paramilitary supply and training companies are non-competitive cop grift.
Who elects these pigs? Who oversees them? Do you even know who the highest leo in your state is? These people can kill you. They can take your car and your house and all your money. They are immune to the law. They are immune to the (representative) democratic process. They control the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of our government.

The bloated hierarchy of law enforcement agencies (and I'm not even talking federal yet lol, just LOL) is why all this bullshit about state and federal oversight committees won't fix a God drat thing. It is nothing more than an excuse to establish a new police budget. More grift. No wonder centrist politicians like Sanders and Biden want the oversight groups. It appeases cops by giving them more money and it provides the illusion of reform.

All police reform is an illusion. It is as ridiculous a proposition as reforming slavery or child marriage. Anything less than abolition of the police will merely prolong our subjugation within their invisible prison empire.

That is the truth, the reality of policing in America.


DID THAT PISS YOU OFF?!?!

General Bullshit posted:

1992 is a really weird election for like 9 reasons. Perot ran as an eccentric billionaire who didn't need anyone's money because he was self-funded and the politicians are all bought and he said really inflammatory albeit half-true things about the political system and the media ate it up because it made for fantastic 10-second soundbites. In many ways he was the Ur-Trump, because the media gave him the most press time and he sucked all the oxygen out of the room. His main issue was that there was "a giant sucking sound in the economy" and that it was "all the jobs are going down the drain" due to outsourcing.

How did Perot make his money? Outsourcing call centers to India. This didn't matter, he at one point was winning -- he actually was beating both Clinton and Bush in the polling -- and then Perot dropped out. He didn't want the job, and someone was blackmailing his daughter about nude photos. Once he dropped out he realized no one was paying attention to him, and he jumped back in the race, and by then his numbers never rebounded. The poo poo about outsourcing stuck though, the Rust Belt was taking it on the chin and Bush at this time was negotiating NAFTA and unions were kicking and screaming about how it needed to be blocked in Congress or vetoed by the president...

Bush was a "wimp" according to the press and the GOP itself. He was never a real Republican, he ran against Reagan and called trickle-down "voodoo economics" and he had to convince Republicans the entire time he was their president that he was one of them. He was a dinosaur from another era, the Republicans had already gone full Christian-fundamentalist and was full of rabid crazies under Reagan, Bush was a hold out from a saner time. When he accepted the nomination in 1988 he made the "Read my lips: no new taxes" speech to wild applause, then once he found out that Reagan killed the budget he had to raise taxes. This made all the Norquisters livid. He wasn't a fundamentalist on poo poo like abortion and homosexuals. He even went on TV and denounced the Rodney King verdict: "Viewed from outside the trial, it was hard to understand how the verdict could possibly square with the video. Those civil rights leaders with whom I met were stunned. And so was I and so was Barbara and so were my kids."

Bush appealed to like zero of the new Republican base. He had the Iraq War on his side, and at one point he had massive popularity because it was a quick, clean war that erased Vietnam from everyone's brains, so he shed the wimp image. But the base did not show up for Bush. Oh and then in 1992 the country went through another recession due to Reaganomics. So like Reagan just kept dragging him down.

Clinton really should not have won. He was a Dark Horse candidate, no one in the DNC liked him, he was part of a new faction called the DLC that argued TRIANGULATION and the "third way" between traditional left and right. He thought corporations needed more say in the Democratic Party and therefore sell out things like labor.

All during his campaign he was dogged by sex scandal after sex scandal. It looked like he was finished. Hillary went on tv and in a fake southern accent talked about how she wasn't Tammy Wynette and then when the media asked her about working as a parent she made a gaffe about how she wasn't going to sit at home and bake cookies all day.

How did Clinton win? He went on Arsenio Hall and got a huge last minute bump from the media. They played that poo poo constantly. Arsenio was pulling bigger ratings than Carson at the time, and Clinton now looked cool. Also he was super vague about the economy and jobs. He told people "he felt their pain" in regards to outsourcing, and the Rust Belt ate it up.

Then once he became president he passed NAFTA. Hillary Clinton lost all those states in 2016.

Iron Twinkie posted:

Technically about ICE but the part about Obama taking an obscure program from Dubya and empowering every cop in the country into a deportation agent is relevant to the current cooling trend in America

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-deportation-machine-obama-built-for-president-trump/

Black wealth was absolutely destroyed under the Obama presidency.

https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/obama-foreclosure-crisis-wealth-inequality
https://theintercept.com/2017/12/08/barack-obama-housing-policy-racial-inequality/

If they are succ enough to read those two sources in a Russian accent then maybe they could look at Matt Bruenig's and Ryan Cooper's paper directly.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/12/07/destruction-of-black-wealth-during-the-obama-presidency/

Oh poo poo and how can I forget about defense authorization Obama passed in reaction to Occupy Wall Street that allowed the US military to operate as police on US soil

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/hedges-v-obama_b_5234382
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedges_v._Obama

Phi230 posted:

Listen, Liberal

Liberalism: A Counter History

Surrender by Sandra Meeropol

Shattered

Why Marx Was Right

Why not Socialism?

Fleetwood posted:

obama drone striking Americans

https://www.amnestyusa.org/is-it-legal-for-the-u-s-to-kill-a-16-year-old-u-s-citizen-with-a-drone/

Takoluka posted:

is there a comprehensive "look at this undisputable list of awful poo poo that Elizabeth Warren has done" because one of my succ lib friends who is very convinced of russiagate and "Bernie Bros don't vote" needs to be bombarded with it, tia

Juul-Whip posted:

current affairs has one about her pathological lying

galenanorth posted:

1. https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1274379536692625408

https://twitter.com/nhyouthmovement/status/1110650036248104961

His climate change plan had no goal or target whatsoever and criticizes the idea of a 2050 or sooner goal for zero carbon emissions because of "the economic dislocation that would result from abruptly killing the fossil fuel sector." He ignores that the SR15 report commissioned by the Paris Agreement exists, like most Democrats, and pretends that lip service is enough.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/06/13/john-hickenlooper-climate-change-1528869
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/john-hickenlooper-opposes-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-green-new-deal-wants-n988221

On the same topic, "Elizabeth Warren’s Support For Trump Trade Deal Chafes Climate Allies"
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/elizabeth-warren-usmca-trade-deal_n_5e139811e4b0b2520d26252c?m8v

2. https://npeaction.org/elizabeth-warren/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakringelstein/2019/10/22/the-problem-with-warrens-education-plan/#47e58e2410ce

Elizabeth Warren views high-stakes standardized tests as the measure that must be used to hold States accountable for the federal tax dollars they receive, a tactic which has been proven to disadvantage poorer communities. She also kind of came around lately on the charter schools issue

3. https://www.cfr.org/article/elizabeth-warren

It seems to me like the logical order for renegotiating a treaty which one country broke should be "first to leave is first to re-enter" order, not waiting for Iran to stop its nuclear program it started back up when Trump stomped on the treaty.

She hedges her bets when it comes to initial reactions to foreign policy events so she can follow instead of lead.

https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1196519189583974402

She said during the 8th debate in New Hampshire whether she'd leave Special Forces in Afghanistan depends on the generals' plan. I don't think the generals have ever planned to end a war.

4. https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1205580048570425344

She uses the weasel word "unnecessary" and doesn't elaborate on what that means, beyond that there will be people detained with medical care necessary for them.

5. https://twitter.com/gabrielwinant/status/1219024828461658112

task forces to establish guard rails to zzz

6. picket line crossing in various forms

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTxe8fGsTig

Andorra posted:

Having a friend read I think it was this article massively turned her away from Warren since she wasn't aware of her history with tribes or the issues with tribal membership and sovereignty

Vox Nihili posted:

Remember how Biden won South Carolina due to a supposed strong show of support from black voters?

Anywho, turns out that the SC electorate that is typically majority nonwhite (66% nonwhite in 2016) was actually majority white this time, due to an apparent spike in white participation by 112%. Biden won bigly due to enormous conservative white turnout.

https://www.scvotes.org/cgi-bin/scsec/vothist?election=vhppd20&regvote=VOT

Takoluka posted:

is there a reasonable go-to response for the whole "young people don't show up and vote" talking point?

apparently, things like "they have jobs and aren't allowed to get time off to go stand in line for hours" and "young voters are actively poo poo on by the party and community at large, so they feel voting doesn't matter" don't seem to break through to people. just a whole lot of "Bernie couldn't convince them"

Takoluka posted:

is there a reasonable go-to response for the whole "young people don't show up and vote" talking point?

apparently, things like "they have jobs and aren't allowed to get time off to go stand in line for hours" and "young voters are actively poo poo on by the party and community at large, so they feel voting doesn't matter" don't seem to break through to people. just a whole lot of "Bernie couldn't convince them"

Pingui posted:

So regarding the youth turnout I ran the numbers, by comparing exit polling of 2016 to 2020 and the turnout of primaries in 2016 and 2020. Not all states have both exit polling and/or primaries for both years, but I compared all that do:

pre:

Group	Pct change	2016 total 	2020 total
18-24	5% 		847,727		888,305
25-29	4% 		649,661		678,033
30-39	29%		1,249,548	1,616,837
40-49	27%		1,420,201	1,800,182
50-64	30%		2,676,119	3,487,946
65+ 	78%		1,848,097	3,289,071
Total	35%		8,672,797	11,721,471

Keeping in mind that "youth" is currently defined as below 50, it should be pretty clear that youth turnout was massively up. It just got completely flooded by 65+

pre:

Group	Pct change	2016 total 	2020 total
18-49	20%		4,167,137	4,983,358
50+	50%		4,524,216	6,777,017

As a note: if anybody wants a further breakdown, I did have to tabulate it myself, so I have it on state by state.