One one hand she's right, on the other hand her PR team should've red flagged the term "rigged" because it's just bad optics since it got hijacked by Trump.^This. I had to remember who Katie Porter was before I realized she wasn't some MAGA nutjob.
Writing a few paragraphs doesnt change the fact that defund the police was deliberately misrepresented the same way that black lives matter was. Trying to justify it doesnt change that fact.It wasn't, but I understand the bubble who adores the "defund the police" slogan actually thinks it compares.
And you think the Republican voters who turned out were Katie Porter voters who got flipped to conservative? Get real. While I agree it's kinda dirty, that's what politics is, and it's no different from when Dems donated money to Todd Akin to help him win his primary to be an easier opponent in November, which was a celebrated tactic at the time.
Katie could've done a better job turning out this supposed "progressive vote" that seems to have trouble proving itself to exist, and it wouldn't have mattered. Him propping up a R should've been amazing campaign fodder for her to drive the vote, too.
Schiff wanted the R in 2nd place so he'd have an easy general election, it didn't help him win the primary. If anything, as the most moderate of the 3 Dems, he sacrificed some of his own potential votes now b/c he figured he had a better chance w/ Lee splitting the vote now than 1 v 1 w/ Katie later. I don't know how anyone can think it helped him in the primary, it was to push his toughest rival out of 2nd place.
With the benefit of hindsight, it looks like Schiff didn't even need to worry about Porter, he had such a wide lead over her in the 4-way, it was probably in the bag for a 1 v 1 considering the vast majority of the R votes would either not vote at all or vote for him over her.
Both of them running for the seat was always a colossal fuck up, I didn't know the ramifications. She should've kept holding her House seat that to her credit she guarded quite well in a very tough district. I guess now the best thing for her to do is to campaign for her Dem replacement hopeful and then look for a new spot to run next time, like governor or something.
That ire should go to Ms. Porter for running a mess of a campaign and making no friends.
She lost most Black voters in California with her disrespect towards Maxine Waters. Despite what people say online, a lot of CA voters were already wary of her due to Dianne Feinstein's circumstances.
The fact Porter lost her own district is telling.
Yeah, never challenge the party establishment, do as your told and fall in line regardless of the moral and ethical position.
You are only piling onto my point here.....
Never the cluster circus of everyone not even agrees on the meaning of the slogan. We dont even need to debate what the slogan was really supposed to mean depending on who you asked. The fact that its a fucking circus to those that genuinely support fixing the police what that slogan means is exactly why its a horrible slogan. You can twist into a pretzel as much as you want to defend it. Not everyone was on the same page about your beloved slogan who genuinely supported fixing the police. Being deep with it is not helping. Having to debate or explain your deeper meaning of a slogan is counterintuitive to actually addressing the real issue which is your supposed deep meaning.
Lastly, I didn't say people didn't twist BLM. Read the post. I said twisting it made way less sense compared to Defund and abolish the police. Defund and abolish have actual definitions. They don't mean the deep meanings you want the slogan to mean. Especially during a time when crime was a hot topic. "Defund/abolish the police" while a flash theft was perceived to be a hot issue is just dumb.
He wasn't spot on at all. The 2 slogans do not compare.Maybe if you have to constantly clarify your message, its because the people youre talking to arent listening.
I edited my post while you posted this so I will just copy and paste.
"Defund the police" and "abolish the police" tried to be deep. Both slogans were used around the same time, and despite the revisionist history some were very serious about the total dismissal of the police. While some meant reform. Even when we focus strictly on those who meant reform, all to mean some deeper meaning of reforming the police is just dumb. Instead of just saying a slogan that cant be twisted like "Fix the Police" or "Reform the Police." The words "defund" and "abolish" does not mean reform or fix. Just a thought, how about not trying to be deep using a different word to mean something else. If you have to constantly clarify your deeper meaning, it's a dumb message. Because I know it's painfully difficult for those in their bubble who love the slogan to admit, not everyone is perpetually on TikTok and Twitter following your deep meaning of the word defund the police in a time frame that crime was being perceived to be high.
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.
It feels like progressives genuinely don't care about changing minds or persuading people sometimes.We do.
It feels like progressives genuinely don't care about changing minds or persuading people sometimes. They just want to feel righteous and scream at people.This is funny since it's usually the milquetoast liberals screaming about how they're the adult in the room and that the most reasonable thing is to stick as closely to the status quo as possible, even if it's bad, and to trust in our institutions, even if they're bad. They revel in this mediocrity while pretending it makes them morally and intellectually superior, as well as more mature.
The fact that Katie Porter is not treated as a national treasure is deeply shameful.
They revel in this mediocrity while pretending it makes them morally and intellectually superior, as well as more mature.Whether it makes them morally or intellectually superior isn't relevant.
I dont give a shit about the slogan, youre just completely ignoring the fact that both were deliberately misrepresented and pretending that means you have a good argument. Your logic is just nonsensical.I agree some people are going to deliberately not understand it or try to misrepresent it.
It wasn't, but I understand the bubble who adores the "defund the police" slogan actually thinks it compares.I'm so glad people finally stopped saying "defund the police" and we were able to get that essential police reform we were hoping for, all because liberal heroes joined with conservatives and spoke out in unison about the poor optics. Police brutality was finally eradicated, all thanks to proper messaging!
"Defund/abolish the police" was great slogan to you and nothing I say will change your Mind. That I'm aware of, I'm just happy most stopped.
I'm so glad people finally stopped saying "defund the police" and we were able to get that essential police reform we were hoping for, all because liberal heroes joined with conservatives and spoke out in unison about the poor optics. Police brutality was finally eradicated, all thanks to proper messaging!Get back out there and persuade people if liberals aren't doing enough then?
Whether it makes them morally or intellectually superior isn't relevant.Easy to be "winners" when you're on the side of billionaires. There is no lesson to learn here.
It makes them winners. It gets them power to implement their policies.
Learn a thing or two
Easy to be "winners" when you're on the side of billionaires. There is no lesson to learn here.Fight dirty and play the game
Get back out there and persuade people if liberals aren't doing enough then?Oh, absolutely. I think one of the biggest problems we face as a society is bad messaging. Bad slogans are really what lie at the heart of injustice. We always just let the left do whatever it wants, they have such a stranglehold over every level of government and the judiciary, it's crazy! They really are to blame for all this.
Like the left needs to stop acting like it's going to be handed the keys to the kingdom just cause they shout a bad slogan loudly enough.
Fight dirty and play the gameYou have to change the rules to win.
Change the rules when you win.
You have to change the rules to win.
Whether it makes them morally or intellectually superior isn't relevant.
It makes them winners. It gets them power to implement their policies.
Learn a thing or two
You do understand that it's far easier to win while advocating for the status quo than it is to win while advocating for something new right? You get more resources, more backing, fewer attacks, etc, the playing field isn't level at all. Status quo ideas don't necessarily win because they're better, they win because they're the status quo. You can't learn to simply be the status quo when you're not the status quo. The things they can learn are from the people who managed to overcome the status quo.https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/5/5fb7cc06.jpg