So we're just going to ignore that a lot of voters in California just didn't like or trust her based on her own actions we've seen and heard on Capitol Hill?
Get money out of politics.
A bunch of people are. I said "Ya'll". If you're not one of the people defending Schiff and saying it's 'all part of the game", then good.I very much like Porter as a politician, and find sonething sinister and ugly in the way she has been crucified over this.
This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was addressing what Doom Art said.
To address you now, most people are not following things anywhere near that closely, they just go with who the party signals for them to support unless the other person has really fucked up, and Schiff hadn't. He was a hero to Resistance Liberals, not an out of touch and complacent dinosaur. I think that and his being more acceptable to money and having more money accounts for the strength of his victory.
The number of people who had not already decided they wanted to vote for the more moderate candidate and then found reasons to distrust her and who instead were neutral or favorable towards her but were turned off by her actions is likely miniscule.
Of course you do, thats your schtick. Reality isnt important when youre dedicated.
Yeah he makes it real obvious hes not making honest posts
and find sonething sinister and ugly in the way she has been crucified over this.
Proving my point
I very much like Porter as a politician, and find sonething sinister and ugly in the way she has been crucified over this.
Do you think Schiff has a chance of losing?
It's possibly over the top, but if the point is to not undermine all faith in the institutions of Democracy, then maybe find a better way of saying there are problems than "RIGGED!" which has become a loaded word.
Jfc how much clearer could you make it that youre just trolling
But I strongly believe the cost of not using it when appropriate is even higher
There is literally no cost in her having used better wording.
Schiff is easily going to win the seat; it wouldve been much more competitive if it was Schiff vs Porter. And that doesnt take away from the fact that everyone can tell youre posting in bad faith to elicit reactions rather than to have any worthwhile discussions.
weird sniping and word policing that's only ever targeted towards the left.
Let me just ask: do any of you know anyone who is bent out of shape about this who is:
1. In real life
2. Is not already a conservative
3. Is not a twitter clapback progressive hater
As leftists stalk aoc in the streets because they don't like the way in which she's repeatedly called for ceasefires
Yes. Literally every normal person I know thought Defund the police was stupid. They vote for the left pretty much every election. I know maybe 2 progressives that supported it and even they admitted the framing was pretty bad and could have been better.
Plenty you could do about that actually
"Defund [some program]" or "[some program] has been defunded" has always meant all funds have been removed and program shuttered. Everybody interprets it that way.Clearly everybody doesn't hence how unpopular the slogan was.
Clearly everybody doesn't hence how unpopular the slogan was.I'm not sure what you meant by this. Are you implying that if everyone interpreted it the way he described that it would have more popular? Or is this sarcasm? Sorry, I'm not great at reading into comments like this. Bare with me.
I was talking about the issue with Porter, not defunding the police. Maybe that was unclear.
I don't dispute that most people weren't on board with defunding the police because they were essentially hearing the idea for the first time, out of context, heard it refracted through hostile sources, and were unfamiliar with all the ideological underpinnings of the idea. You'd see a similar pattern with any radical idea.
In every other aspect of life, using variables and situations to help you increase your chances at winning is smart and wise. In Politics - it's rigging.
Clearly everybody doesn't hence how unpopular the slogan was.You remind me of those people who took "black lives matter" to mean "*only* black lives matter". You're arguing that the slogan is worded poorly, but you and other diehard democrats don't care for directing funding meant for police to social services that would better serve situations that police aren't capable of handling properly. Biden came out and said that we shouldn't defund the police and that we should actually do the opposite and be funding the police MORE, as if they don't get enough funding.
Thank God, most realized it was a bad slogan including those that use to adore it.
Now there's just those rare few who pop up to needlessly defend it.
It's telling that you have to be this vague and abstract about what actually happened here. Funding your opponent to screw over your primary obstacle is well within what most people would call rigging and shady as hell in any context."we spiked the other team's water with steroids so they'd get banned, no shady behavior here"
Do you seriously think the average person is okay with or likes things like that, or do you think that kind of BS is exactly the problem with politics and is why things suck?
I'm not sure what you meant by this. Are you implying that if everyone interpreted it the way he described that it would have more popular? Or is this sarcasm? Sorry, I'm not great at reading into comments like this. Bare with me.That's my bad, read his post while reading that other user's post and mixed up their positions.
That's my bad, read his post while reading that other user's post and mixed up their positions.Ah, no worries. If we are keeping score, that's something that I do with far too much regularity.
You remind me of those people who took "black lives matter" to mean "*only* black lives matter". You're arguing that the slogan is worded poorly, but you and other diehard democrats don't care for directing funding meant for police to social services that would better serve situations that police aren't capable of handling properly. Biden came out and said that we shouldn't defund the police and that we should actually do the opposite and be funding the police MORE, as if they don't get enough funding.
You remind me of those people who took "black lives matter" to mean "*only* black lives matter".I'd give your entire post a serious, but I know you and your history.
This is a total non sequiter, it has nothing to do with anything anyone has said in this topic.
Biden might be right though. The solution to shit cops killing people isn't less money. It's better training, better hiring (requires better pay as well). They should probably be funded more.
Biden might be right though. The solution to shit cops killing people isn't less money. It's better training, better hiring (requires better pay as well). They should probably be funded more.That's assigning too many responsibilities to one department that is not meant to be addressing those responsibilities. "Better hiring" is easier said than done, especially since Biden said nothing about how he'd do that, just to throw more money at the problem.
I'd give your entire post a serious, but I know you and your history.Funny, since my supposed "history" hasn't stopped you from responding to me before. I guess you couldn't think of anything to say this time, huh? If you have no material, you could at least tell everyone what you think my history is. Could always go for entertainment.
So my post is now to anyone who compares the "Defund the police" slogan with "BLM." The 2 slogans do not compare.Your misinterpretation of the slogan and the fact that even when you know the meaning of the slogan you choose to not support it anyway shows that it compares very well and aligns with your modus operandi and your... history...
See, as always, it's not actually about the wording. You have a different and fundamentally incompatible political position than them. That is and has always been the issue, it's not marketing, phrasing, or any of that. You are simply to the right of them on policing and don't want their desired policy outcomes.
Same with the BLM issue. They just didn't want those specific pro-black and anti-police policies, and didn't consider police to be a fundamentally racist institutions or think issues of policing were connected to economics.
Youre right, why would you try to not troll when that clearly goes against your mission
Nah he was spot on there. People willfully misrepresenting slogans to their least charitable meaning.
Nah he was spot on there. People willfully misrepresenting slogans to their least charitable meaning.He wasn't spot on at all. The 2 slogans do not compare.
Adam Shit donated millions to help the republican win. The "game" fucking sucks. Instead of playing a game, maybe the so-called "Democratic Party", could I dunno.. try being democratic?
I'd give your entire post a serious, but I know you and your history.
So my post is now to anyone who compares the "Defund the police" slogan with "BLM." The 2 slogans do not compare. One tries to be deep with the word "defund" with some even going so far to argue "abolish" the police..... to mean some deeper meaning of reforming the police. Instead of just saying that cant be twisted like "Fix the Police" or "Reform the Police." The words "defund" and "abolish" does not mean reform or fix.
That doesn't compare to BLM which is much harder to twist the literal words which is simply, "black lives matter" as police were going around killing black lives. One has to intentionally twist it to mean only black lives matter.
This is completely ahistorical. As I already explained, defund does not mean reform, it's the abandonment of reform. You are trying to equate them because the concept of defunding or abolishing the police does not compute to you. But they meant defund or abolish not "fix" and they said so.You are only piling onto my point here.....