General Politics Discussion (IV) [ARCHIVED] • Page 851

nothing like a nice cup of ratio to wake ya up

 

What spineless garbage people. It's good to see them being as slimey as we've all expected. Burn the whole thing down ASAP.

 

We’re close now.

 

Admitting this seems like a good idea. lol.

 

peak brand twitter


Spike TV Is Off The Air, So Its Twitter Went Off The Rails | HuffPost

 

Lol.

 

its restaurant week in philly time to pretend i can afford ridiculous places to eat

 

Dornuld thuh Dorve

 

Corps’ top leaders warn Marines to stop eating Tide Pods

Hmm

 

As I said, everyone I've seen, and even myself, has been quite specific and consistent to whom we are addressing when we use the term. Of course, you're free to reject it, but your rejection, in itself, doesn't change anything about the people we are actually addressing. That's just purposefully, or unintentionally, muddying the waters for the purposes of evading the critique. It's comparable to when they took Hillary's "deplorables" remark and contorted it to mean "all poor white people". Well, from context clues and, like, everything else, we can discern who she was addressing, but deflection and redirection obviated the reality in favor of a political message.

 

I don't make the assessment regarding democratic policies based on the tweet. It's an actual reality based on how they've voted. As with the FISA vote, by and large, democrats have been consistent in their support of the national security apparatus. Why this is important relates to domestic policy, whether we're talking about how the war on terrorism creates a feedback loop in which we're consistently shoring up and reproducing Islamaphobia, or talking about the lack of available funds for, say, single-payer or the way in which it enriches the ruling class in this country. These connections can be made and integrated into broader messaging, if you're so inclined. One of the main drivers of political discontent had to do with the fact that we were lied to about Iraq and subsequently spent trillions of dollars there, while the conditions in this country disintegrated. To be cliche, the civil rights movement was quite successful in managing multiple campaigns, with multiple messages, all of which crystallized into a worldview that was worth fighting for.

 

So who are you including and excluding from your definition then? Let's start there. Because I don't think it's specific at all. At times it's addressed specifically to members of congress and their "resisting," and at times there's talk of the "resistance" of neo-liberal twitter accounts, or organizations, or celebrities and at times it's addressing the democrats as a whole, including their voters.

When ADAPT hand out their "Adapt and Resist" flyers -- I'm assuming you're not saying that's bullshit, even though it's very clearly a part of the larger resistance (by their own words/and hashtag). So who is in and out?

If you want to talk to a subset of a group, you should address that subset specifically. But by saying "the resistance" you are actively addressing millions of people that identify with, use, and rally behind that specific phrase as the "resistance." I think you, and many others on the left, are doing a disservice to a massive movement by trying to make this phrase a pejorative by shrinking who fits under the banner to only be the people you disagree with and ignoring the millions of people that are choosing to stand under it as a loose coalition of activists, celebrities, politicians, and every day people to "resist" the Trump administration.

Or maybe you do mean it's bullshit when ADAPT and Indivisible team up with a neo-lib group and stage sit-ins in Washington, many wearing "resist" t-shirts of some kind. There are people, millions of them, that are under this "resistance" banner right now —by choice — and I urge the left to stop denigrating them with "the resistance is bullshit" talk if they want them to stay involved and activated. They've chosen to identify as such, someone saying saying 'well, we don't mean you when we say you're bullshit' has, IMO, already lost a huge opportunity.

 

If you think a very broad messaging movement will work today, by all means try it. If you think the push for DACA/CHIP in exchange for the CR this week should also include multiple other campaigns as well and not a singular push, I think you'd muddy the entire thing up and we would not see the movement we have so far. I've also got A-B testing and the news cycle of the past three years that show how extremely difficult it is for a multiple message strategy to work in the internet era. Medium sized, concentrated, pushes for about one to two weeks on one specific item and goal sees better results.

 

It's two pronged, really: corporate earnings are stellar and economic growth continues. The tax bill helps some, not if you're a company like Tiffany's, but lots of companies are excited about the rate drop, but it's not everything to the market like Trump would have you believe. Optimism is also there given the confidence the Fed seems to have in planning to hike rates three times this year. Additionally, global economies are looking healthy finally, look at major international indexes... it's been a long time since the financial crisis. A weak US dollar is also helping. All this said, as interest rates rise, expect for those increased rates to weigh on economic growth. There are several other reasons for concern too.

 

Actual CNN chyron right now:

“Graham: Trump Not a Racist, Just Wants to Be Liked”

 

LOL.