gulliver
gulliver's JournalSaying some group X is "disproportionately affected" by bad thing B is a two-edged sword
While it may be true that bad thing B disproportionately affects group X, it might not necessarily be a good idea to wield that fact in arguments intended to benefit group X and/or oppose bad thing B. Justice and fairness aside, other groups, like less proportionally affected group Z, might decide that bad thing B isn't so bad after all, if it doesn't affect group Z as much. And group Z might also disproportionately consist of jerks who either don't care or actively root for bad things like B to happen to group X.
To defeat bad thing B and benefit any group X, Y, or Z, therefore, the best bet may sometimes be to focus on B's badness to all three groups.
Trump was a disaster, and we're succeeding like no one's ever seen before.
We shouldn't forget to say that. Always be closing. Our product is great; theirs is garbage.
Keep the "dignified mode" criticism with its facts and decorum. Sure. Refer to Fred Trump's brat as "the former president" or his harem of political concubines as "the former administration or Republican Party leaders." But don't forget on occasion to sum up what a worthless schlub he is, what a bunch of sneaky, lying dogs his salespeople are, and how great we're doing.
What's the left doing for the right lately?
Love the American Rescue Plan...love the infrastructure bill...love vaccinations being mandated...love us getting out of Afghanistan. But to read the news, those things all sound like things that were done "for the left" and done badly. We need to surprise the media and change their dumb script. We need to do a Tootsie on them.
The left could be using our successes (and they are great successes!) to crow about how we've been doing things for the right just as much as for the left. If we don't, the right will just keep thinking the left is doing power grabs and the valiant Republicans are holding back the hordes.
On the left, we often "reach out" (horrible phrase), by saying things like "the bills passed with bipartisan support," or treacly pablum like "all Americans want good paying jobs to provide for their families while they're sitting at the kitchen table talking about a future for their children." The idea, I guess, is that people who think of themselves as being on the right will subtly pick up on our hint that their leaders went along with us on certain things (bipartisan!) and that, hey, we've got a lot in common like liking doggies and kids playing on merry-go-rounds.
Too subtle imo. Just say, "Republicans, we got out of Afghanistan because you wanted it. We wanted it and you wanted it. We did it for you just as much as us. Now about your leaders...um, what have they done for you besides stir you up and neglect Social Security?"
Street protests are like a skinny-dipping party in a pond full of leeches
You can do it, but...leeches.
The Internet has ruined street protests, imo. Your AR-15ers and anger-holics and got-no-lifers and criminals now see them as someplace they want to be. The Internet spreads the scent, and those types just home in. Pretty soon it's just another cluster, an own goal, lossage for whatever good it might have had.
"Owning" Trump and his imitators
Defeating Trump and his dummy copycats involves "owning them." It's subtle, but there's a big difference between, say, getting your way in court against Trump and owning him. We need to do both.
It's a big shame we don't seem to use a common word for "non-breakthrough" infections.
We hear about "breakthrough infections" all the time, but there seems to be no category-identifying word in common use for the non-breakthrough kind. That's a terrible situation, imo. It fails to provide people with the two contrasting categories they need for side-by-side comparison.
I'd suggest settling on something like "unvaccinated infection" as a fair term for infections that aren't breaking through a vaccination. Then people can be asked which they'd rather have, an unvaccinated infection or a breakthrough vaccinated infection. To me that's a no-brainer.
Or what's the scientific term? I'd argue that "singling out" breakthrough infections from general infections is actually bad for public health. It fuels misinformation arguments.
Are we failing to note that Trump and Bannon are yellow?
Just asking. I mean, they've got these precious, "complicated" reasons they can't let the facts out or, in Bannon's case, face Congressional testimony. Hillary Clinton managed it, but Trump and Bannon know they can't equal her. Sure, they've got their reasons. It's complicated. They're not hiding behind their "mamas," the lawyers, and the media. That's just how it looks.
What a joke these two specimens are. I don't think "tough guys" (as they portray themselves) would cower and flee at the prospect of facing Congress. They'd stand up tall and walk right in. Trump and Bannon, therefore, aren't tough to anyone with the first clue about what tough is. They're nothing but over-mouthy, chickenshit wimps when you see them for what they really are. When push comes to shove and it's time to stand up for themselves, these two just scamper to their respective hidey holes and let others do their fighting for them.
Go Republican, young lowlife! Go Republican!
Have you committed crimes (or do you want to commit them)? Just "go Republican" and you're off the hook. No matter what you're accused of, no matter who you've screwed over or harmed, no matter how many lies you've told and will tell...you're welcome in the Republican Party. Any and all of your sins can be washed away with "the Democrats are out to get me." Every Republican will fall in line to back you up, no matter how rotten you are.
The Republican Party must be experiencing a record influx of vile people now, rushing to self-identify as "political" as camouflage for their rottenness. Trump himself is the model. Republicans will literally lie with anyone now (both meanings). Their standards are gone. The bad people have finally succeeded in making the Republican Party an all-inclusive hideout for bad people. Go Republican, young lowlife! You'll prosper there. You'll lead. You'll get on Fox News!
The Drug War is a linchpin of most of our domestic problems
We need to completely overhaul our approach to substance abuse. It's great to spend trillions on social programs with the aim of benefiting society and getting the most wealth possible for and from our citizens. But we should also "stop digging the hole" the Drug War has us in. We'd have an easier time promoting people's prosperity if we didn't have the cursed Drug War dumpster fire ruinously working against us all the time, destroying prosperity at the root.
The Drug War breaks society, relationships, and individuals in ways that no amount of investment can repair. It drives social division, civil paranoia, mass incarceration, over-policing, permanent loss of employment opportunity, and violence. It victimizes people who are already victims. It distracts and burdens substance abuse victims and their families, depriving them of the very resources and energy they need to end the abuse.
We're addicted to the Drug War. We're buying something that destroys us. We need to declare Drug Peace and build good habits to drive out bad habits at a national level.
The AZ fraudit doesn't "confirm" anything and shouldn't be reported that way
I noticed the CNN site has a headline that says "Trump-backed AZ audit confirms the obvious: Biden won". It should read "states the obvious, despite unfounded, whiny, sore loser, knowingly false Republican complaints about the election," not "confirms."
The definition of the word confirm (from Google) is "establish the truth or correctness of (something previously believed, suspected, or feared to be the case)." That's not what the fraudit did and not what should be reported. I can look out the window right now and "confirm" it's a sunny day. That doesn't make me a meteorologist.
The frauditors "confirmation" of the results of the competent election process in Arizona doesn't make the frauditors competent or their "results" not garbage. More importantly, it doesn't suggest future fraudits are somehow legitimized.
There never was a legitimate case for the fraudit. Like the election lawsuits, the fraudit was just another vehicle for delivering Republican misinformation warheads targeted at the United States. We shouldn't be allowing the fraud to "confirm anything" except that the Republican Party is now pitiably and thoroughly rotten to the core.
Profile Information
Gender: MaleMember since: 2001
Number of posts: 13,443