Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
“If You Think You’re Going to Have a Peaceful Democratic Convention While Our People Are Starving… Stay Tuned!” – Black Chicago Residents Issue Warning to Democrats and Biden (VIDEO)”
Snip
“Black Chicago residents are furious that Joe Biden’s illegal aliens are taking up the city’s resources.
Black residents issued a stark warning to the Democrat party last week at Chicago City Hall.
Earlier this year the Democrat National Committee announced that Chicago will host the 2024 Democratic National Convention.
Chicago residents have been outraged over the influx of illegal aliens and the strain they are putting on the city’s resources.
Black residents who depend on government resources such as housing, healthcare and food, are being pushed aside for the illegal invaders.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/12/if-you-th...
No. of Recommendations: 1
Their convention is going to be GLORIOUS.
I can’t wait.
No. of Recommendations: 5
LurkerMom: If You Think You’re Going to Have a Peaceful Democratic Convention...
Did you watch the video? There were fewer than a dozen people at whatever that was (pretend press conference). And this line from the article sure sounds all kinds of racist: Black residents who depend on government resources such as housing, healthcare and food, are being pushed aside for the illegal invaders.
I am happy to see Gateway Pundit finally has a writer with a non-Fight Club byline, though.
Friendly suggestion: stop reading that garbage.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Their convention is going to be GLORIOUS.
I can’t wait.
You're almost certainly going to be disappointed.
There are progressive protests at almost every large political event, all the time, on all types of issues. It's something that is certain to happen, and was always certain to happen, on a wide variety of issues. It's just part of basic logistics and security planning now. Having some black community activists upset about immigrants will be a drop in the bucket.
Now - those particular protests - as opposed to protests about climate change or globalization or child care costs or student loan forgiveness or anything else - will probably get outsized coverage on conservative leaning media outlets. But between a convention that had those folks protesting and one that didn't, you'd never be able to tell the difference if you were there.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Now - those particular protests - as opposed to protests about climate change or globalization or child care costs or student loan forgiveness or anything else - will probably get outsized coverage on conservative leaning media outlets. But between a convention that had those folks protesting and one that didn't, you'd never be able to tell the difference if you were there.
Think so, eh?
Ask yourself this:
Do you believe that black residents in Chicago are the only ones upset with the democrats at the moment? Black residents in Chicago certainly are, and they have legit reasons. But they’re not who I’m talking about.
If Israel is still fighting Hamas next summer, their convention is going to be a complete poopshow.
No. of Recommendations: 8
Do you believe that black residents in Chicago are the only ones upset with the democrats at the moment?
Of course not. I just think that you're overlooking the degree to which progressives are always upset with the Democrats.
They're always mad, they're always disappointed, they're always giving voice to their frustration that the DNC isn't pursuing the policies that the most progressive 5% of the party wants to pursue. And so they protest. They always protest.
But by the time the convention rolls around, Trump will be the presumptive GOP nominee and Biden will be the presumptive Democratic nominee, and that will clarify a lot of people's perspectives about how to actually achieve progressive goals (hint: it's usually not by electing a Republican President). So while there will still be protests, you're not going to have anything close to the chaos of 1968.
No. of Recommendations: 2
DEMS wrote the boson political violence....
Luckily, it's growing and going mainstream.
Hopefully one day the "gaming" websites --you know, where so many Americans gamble and then whine "my debt! Cost of living! Rich Corporations!"......have bets on political violence.
You people can bet on beatings and even deaths at polling places, get odds , etc.
It's coming....
You deserve it.
No. of Recommendations: 0
Friendly suggestion: stop reading that garbage
You would not have a clue what is happening in the real world such as this
article and say....what is happening at our southern border.
Your liberal MSM and liberal blogs etc do not report on anything that rubs wrong with
your dysfunctional idiot who takes up space at the White House.
No. of Recommendations: 6
LurkerMom: You would not have a clue what is happening in the real world such as this
article...your dysfunctional idiot who takes up space at the White House.
Since I live in Chicagoland, I think I have a better understanding of the city than you. And while there has been considerable local coverage of migrant housing and complaints by local ward residents, this "article" would never make the local news because of the few people involved (fewer than a dozen) and the fact that it looked staged.
And if these are the economic results of a "dysfunctional idiot," please, please, please give me more:
- GDP growth 5.2%
- Inflation zero last month
- Wage growth remains robust
- Strongest recovery in the G7
- Lowest uninsured rate in US history
- Median wealth up 37% from 2020-2022
- Dow nearing all-time high
No. of Recommendations: 1
Since I live in Chicagoland, I think I have a better understanding of the city than you. And while there has been considerable local coverage of migrant housing and complaints by local ward residents, this "article" would never make the local news because of the few people involved (fewer than a dozen) and the fact that it looked staged.
Sure, minimize the strife of the a ‘few people’ voicing their complaints. Never mind though
they are speaking for their community as a whole.
And if these are the economic results of a "dysfunctional idiot," please, please, please give me more:
Oh sure..BUT..
“The jump in rates has pushed up borrowing costs for homes, cars, and business investments. The belief that inflation will continue to be high and that interest rates will stay higher for longer may explain why Americans say the economy is headed in the wrong direction despite all the other good news.
economy?
Experts say inflation and decreasing income are two major reasons for Americans' pessimism about the economy and their financial prospects. Americans face soaring living costs due to a 40-year-high inflation.”
No. of Recommendations: 1
LurkerMom: You would not have a clue what is happening in the real world such as this
article...your dysfunctional idiot who takes up space at the White House.
Come on LM. You can do better than that. Take a lesson from Trump if you want to really sound viciously deranged. But you're getting there.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Of course not. I just think that you're overlooking the degree to which progressives are always upset with the Democrats.
And that's the truth. In a couple of elections I spent some time trying to get progressives, etc., from throwing away their vote on Nader or whatever. Some focus on purity, others are just angry. I do three step voting. First step, which way do I want the country to go? Second step, what are the issues? Which way there? Third step, which is priority? Well the third step usually goes back to the first step - does the country need to go right or left? This country has been needing to go left for most of my adult life. We have shifted so far right we are staring at authoritarianism in the face. We have an unhinged leader on the right. I do believe that he would take the DOJ and go after his enemies. So we need to get out the vote and convince progs how dire it is. Since they tend to be argumentative zealots - tough road.
No. of Recommendations: 3
And that's the truth. In a couple of elections I spent some time trying to get progressives, etc., from throwing away their vote on Nader or whatever. Some focus on purity, others are just angry. I do three step voting. First step, which way do I want the country to go? Second step, what are the issues? Which way there? Third step, which is priority? Well the third step usually goes back to the first step - does the country need to go right or left?
I agree, but that's a very transactional way of viewing voting. And I think it's inconsistent with the more ideological, "expression of values" way that a non-trivial number of progressives (especially young and activist progressives) view voting. If a candidate doesn't "deserve" their vote, they won't give the candidate their vote - even if giving that candidate their vote is the best choice for the issues they care about. It's also a little inconsistent with the way Democrats have framed their oppo positioning against Trump in the last two elections, where GOP support for Trump (after he won the nomination) was cast as a moral failing among Republicans rather than a completely rational choice for folks who want the country to go more to the right (or at least not as far to the left) as a Democratic President would take it.
No. of Recommendations: 1
"Democracy!!" but I want to tell people not to throw away their vote.
The Two Parties, regardless of what the Google Jockey thinks--- are just that, parties.
If Liz Cheney, Tom Ridge, John Kasich or anyone else goes 3rd party, and hurts Trump in 2024- - - it's trump's fault for not earning those votes.
Ditto Corporate Gore.
There's a few non sellouts left on the Left....so what if they went Nader. That was their "democratic" franchise.
No. of Recommendations: 3
"Democracy!!" but I want to tell people not to throw away their vote.
Of course. There's no inconsistency there. Democracy means that voters get to vote however they choose. That doesn't mean that every choice is a smart choice. Or one that will lead to what the voter says they want. Democracy means you get to vote as you choose....which means that you have the ability to make self-defeating choices. And folks who support a particular set of policies have the ability to try to persuade people that voting a certain way will be self-defeating.
One of the core features of elections is a campaign - people trying to persuade other people to cast their ballots for one candidate or another. It's a potent - and legitimate - argument in favor of a preferred majority-party candidate to point out that the majority-party candidate might actually win, while the third-party candidate will not. Especially since the majority-party candidate for whom the support is being elicited is almost always closer (politically) to the third-party than the other majority-party candidate.
If Liz Cheney, Tom Ridge, John Kasich or anyone else goes 3rd party, and hurts Trump in 2024- - - it's trump's fault for not earning those votes.
And those voters' faults if they end up electing Biden if they would have preferred Trump to Biden. Voting is a right - but like most rights, exercising that right has an effect on the world. When you vote, you influence the outcome of the election (even if only in a very tiny way). If you wanted a Republican to win but voted for Cheney (or Ridge or Kasich), it's not just Trump's fault for not being a good-enough candidate for you. It's also your fault for not properly assessing the inability of those alternatives to actually win.
No. of Recommendations: 1
It's also your fault for not properly assessing the inability of those alternatives to actually win.
***
Who says? Where in the Constitution does it say voters are compelled to vote for the person that can win?
If someone liked Nader - for little things like food safety, seat belts, true progressivism versus Gore Corporatism...they 100% fulfilled their responsibility - and voted Nader.
Funny part is - the Google Jockey is in a tizzy for all around the world lately - people aren't taking it.
They are voting for what they WANT, not what a few Google Jockeys and Establishmentarians tell them.
Hey Trumpers--Ridge won't cost you the election. YOU should've gone there and gotten more votes.
Ditto Nader and Florida.
One man, one vote.
"Democracy!!" - lol - f
No. of Recommendations: 6
Who says? Where in the Constitution does it say voters are compelled to vote for the person that can win?
It doesn't. Again, there's no compulsion here. Voters are free to vote for whoever they want.
But if they choose to cast their vote for someone, and the results of their decision are results they don't like, they shoulder some of the responsibility for helping that outcome happen.
If a group of voters cast their ballots for a person who can't win, and that enables the major-party candidate that they didn't want to win to take the election, then it's not just the fault of the other major-party candidate for not "winning" their votes. They have agency. They chose to cast their votes a certain way. It is also their "fault" for not casting their votes in a way that would get them an outcome they wanted, rather than a feeling they wanted.
If someone liked Nader - for little things like food safety, seat belts, true progressivism versus Gore Corporatism...they 100% fulfilled their responsibility - and voted Nader.
No, they didn't. Because had they thought carefully about their choice, they would have realized that voting for Nader wasn't going to move them any closer to food safety, or seat belts(?), or true progressivism vs. Gore Corporatism. It just got them President Bush.
They're perfectly free to make that choice. And Gore supporters were (and still are) perfectly free to point out that it was a dumb choice. Nader had no path to winning, and Gore losing didn't help advance any of the things that the voter wanted to happen.
Your vote actually has an effect in the world - a very tiny one, but one that (in connection with everyone else's votes) determines the outcome of an election. The responsibility for that effect doesn't just lie in the candidates. Some of it rests with the voter who decides what to do with their vote.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Your vote actually has an effect in the world - a very tiny one, but one that (in connection with everyone else's votes) determines the outcome of an election. The responsibility for that effect doesn't just lie in the candidates. Some of it rests with the voter who decides what to do with their vote.
Exactly. Casting a vote in an election isn't at all the same as expressing a mere opinion in a poll or survey. Both are expressions or free speech, of course, but election votes have real world consequences (as is frequently proclaimed), whereas poll/opinion votes do not.
No. of Recommendations: 6
Your vote actually has an effect in the world - a very tiny one, but one that (in connection with everyone else's votes) determines the outcome of an election.
----------------
Reminds me of an old bit by Jake Johannsen.
I like to vote. I like going into the voting booth and pulling those levers and stuff. Only sometimes, I'm not sure my machine is hooked up to anything. Sometimes I'll pull the lever for something like "healthcare" and something like "flag burning amendment" comes out.
A grown adult living in a country with an indirect, republican form of government that is further artificially constrained to a two-party scheme of positioning alternatives who thinks that their vote has no effect if a) the choices PRESENTED aren't 100% to their liking and b) the choice THEY MAKE doesn't win has a dangerously superficial understanding of how government works. They are essentially voting within a four-square or nine-square checker model and the actual game being played is three-dimensional 8x8x8 chess played over decades.
Living in a functional democracy does not consist of solely voting FOR policies and FOR politicians who CLAIM to want to pull the cart DIRECTLY in the vector you favor. In a diverse society with diverse (and often corrupted) thinking, the system isn't only going to produce POSITIVE choices. The voter will OFTEN be required to evaluate NEGATIVE options and look at the entire system and make choices that may not reflect their preferred, immediate goal of moving five miles east/northeast but instead thwart efforts by another party or candidate to move the country one hundred miles DUE SOUTH.
WTH
No. of Recommendations: 1
I agree, but that's a very transactional way of viewing voting.
I just understood that I was never going to get what I want, so I had to make the best of it, and not get lost or hung up on an issue or two. I knew some progressives who thought my way of voting would compromise their ethics, etc.
