I agree. Democrat turnout was low…sad to see Kamala not exciting enough for her state voters. I really expected women voters will pull her over the line…was not to be.
Still with an apprx 9.7 percent drop in voter turnout in 2024 vs 2020 Trump marginally increasing his votes and Kamala dropping votes, especially in her home state California, where she served as AG and senator is worrying.
Yes I too hoped Texas would be closer but it turned redder (much bigger margin of Trump win than in 2020)
The universal redshift really supports the idea that the economy was the most important factor. Inflation negatively impacts all these demographic groups, unlike the other issues that have been mentioned in this thread.
Like if tha was not pointed out before.
Anyhow, proposals then were not policy regarding vaccines, you fell once again for the talking points of the right regarding vaccines and the “woke” reasons for their restrictions in the pandemic. BTW, the coming administration in the US will push hard on making us all fall sleep regarding the use of vaccines.
Where did the anti-vaxx surge among Republicans come from anyway? As far as I recall Trump was boasting of having got a Covid vaccine produced so quickly, got vaccinated himself, and was originally pro-vaccine. If that’s changed, it’s in response to his audience’s change in views, not the cause of them. Who benefits from this? Reliable GOP voters refusing vaccines and dying in higher numbers isn’t going to help GOP politicians get elected.
Are they, though? Different ethnic groups frequently have different diets and lifestyles, different rates of smoking and taking drugs, different socioeconomic circumstances, and for some diseases different genetic risk factors.
Here are census stats on life expectancy and mortality for England and Wales, showing that white people have the lowest life expectancy of all ethnic groups, and the highest rates of death from cancer:
I don’t think you will argue that these differences are the result of racism, yet similar disparities are often brought up in naive equity arguments, when they go in the opposite direction.
Should health services be expected to engage in massive social engineering to fix this? Or, far worse, be given targets to ensure equal outcomes for each group, despite their manifest inability to change the root causes of the unequal outcomes? That’s what has happened in hiring in at least some instances, and in university admissions. ‘Positive discrimination’ in order to reach targets. If the same thing is done in healthcare, people are going to die as a result.
Do you remember when Trump got booed for encouraging his followers to get their COVID vaccination? It’s hard to pin down the Republican narrative when it comes to COVID because they seem to believe multiple things at once. It was a “plandemic,” it wasn’t really dangerous, Fauci is somehow responsible for deaths or he’s guilty of fraud, etc., etc. The truth, I suspect, is the MAGA crowd doesn’t trust the government and therefore anything the government might suggest is suspect.
I think we forget now, but it was a very scary time and the information was changing frequently. Partly because scientists aren’t gods and they had to do the hard work and figure many things out. And partly because the media often oversimplified things (eg the many articles making fun of the idea of surgical masks providing any benefit).
Into this space came conspiracy theories and alt-health crap.
Such that ultimately, when trump tried to (belatedly) promote the vaccine, it was much too late.
And, just in case, I’m of course not saying trump’s a good guy here; he was of course one of the prime promulgators of disinformation, and in a position to put through policies that would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Trump only advocated for the vaccine briefly, when he thought he might get some personal credit for it.
Yes! I thought it was interesting to see the limits of his power. Even Trump is subject to audience capture. He has a big influence over his supporters, but they don’t blindly believe just anything he says; it has to fit their biases and be close enough to what they want to hear.
Mmm. Trump presumably didn’t intend to promote anti-vaxx attitudes, but he did promote distrust in institutions, which is what led to it. It’s somewhat understandable that people would feel distrust, but it’s highly unfortunate.
To sum up (please correct me if I am wrong)
You were asked to define “woke”. You claimed that ‘Woke people value beliefs more than actions’. You were asked for a cite to back up that claim. As my recent post shows. I did in fact ask nicely. I even used the word please.
You made several more posts. You never provided a definition or a cite. I continued to ask for both.
You eventually responded with apparent anger, telling me I should ask nicely. I quoted my post showing that I did ask nicely.
You still have not provided a definition of “woke” or a cite to back up your claim.
Why is that?
Trump has no real values of his own other than himself. He doesn’t care about abortion, trans people, vaccinations, or many other things he says he’s for. Like most grifters, Trump’s true talent lies in pandering to his audience. Telling them what they want to hear. Watch him work a crowd, the man is a true con artist. Part of it is that Trump basks in the adoration of a crowd and is happy to tell them what they want to hear just to feed his own ego. Just look at how he handled questions about abortion where he tried to play both sides. According to Trump, both the pro-choice and pro-life sides, along with all legal scholars, wanted to be rid of Roe v. Wade and for abortion to be kicked back to the states.
“If that changed”? Talk about not being aware of what Trump said in the campaign trail, I do remember him talking against vaccines again, and then he nominated RFK jr. for Health secretary, meaning that Trump the heel made a heel turn about vaccines early in the year.
Now who benefits? The Republicans that realized that pandering and supporting the anti-vaccine people gave them a significant number of voters; anti-science people like that were bipartisan in the past, but in recent years the “sleeping” people like that were brought into the big Republican tent.
(2021:)
trump was booed when he told a crowd to get the Covid vaccine. He hates being booed.
I was talking as a follow-up to that booing that took place in 2021. Yes, Trump did a heel turn because of that booing when just before that he appeared to support vaccines… he is a heel now…
One thing I think would help is if progressives consider how society will react and think about how best to respond to any opposition. I feel that sometimes progressives base their decisions on ivory tower, academic reasoning and ignore or downplay the potential for opposition. But in the real world, the opposition can be very strong and may end up pushing society farther back. Rather than blindly dismissing any opposition, the opposition needs to be treated as real and there needs to be a plan on how to deal with it.
For instance, a school may have after-school programs from the community. If the City Dancers has a program, no problem. But if the Atheist Dancers have a program, then there will likely be opposition from social and religious conservatives. There could be so much opposition that negative things happen like all after-school programs are canceled, administrators are fired, the school loses funding, conservatives are voted to the school board, etc. In addition, conservative news sites and social media will push the story to generate outrage nationwide. If the Atheist Dancers want to have an after-school program, they should think about the potential for opposition and how best to handle it. One way would be to create a separate group for the after-school program that doesn’t have the word “Atheist” in the name. Or leave the name the same but plan to have community and nationwide outreach programs to mitigate any fallout so that any negative effects are minimized. If the potential for opposition is ignored or dismissed, then the opposition will push forward with full force and may make things worse in the long run. But if the opposition is treated as real and there is a plan to deal with it, then there’s a better chance for the social changes to move in a positive direction.
On the one hand, public reaction should be taken into account.
OTOH
How dare the Atheist Dancers try to exercise their Constitutional rights?
Reminds me of when all those uppity n!gg!rs tried to vote.
I feel , being in a democracy and not a dictatorship, good but minority views and ideas need to be propagated widely by the proponents but they cannot be implemented widely unless the majority of the public accepts it. Sometimes over a period of time the majority do come to accept the “good but minority” view.
Other times they don’t and in such cases the “good but minority view” has to defer to the wider public opinion (expressed through votes).
In such cases if the “good but minority” tries to “preach” or “look down” on the majority…the “good but minority view” proponents will pay a heavy price electorally. After all in a democracy 50% +1 wins though 50% -1 may have had a better policy.
I agree “what is good” is very subjective depending upon a person’s pov (with universally accepted exceptions ofcourse).
Yeah…it’s a redux of the argument that protesters should not inconvenience anybody in any way, that any public reaction is too much.
There is some truth to the idea that if an overwhelmingly majority of people disagree with whatever you’re selling, maybe you need to change tack.
The problem is I’ve yet to see any actual evidence in this thread that the OPs ill-defined ‘problem’ (has anybody actually presented a real definition of ‘woke’ is yet?) is considered such by such an overwhelming majority, nor that it exists as anything but a poorly conceived caricature or stereotype.
Log Cabin Republicans
These gay Americans refused to join the Democratic party becuase they disagreed with nearly all of the Dems positions. They refused to leave the GOP and start their own pro gay rights but conservative in every other way party. They believed that by being good Republicans and carefully advocating for gay rights wihout making any waves, they could get the party to go from thinly veiled homophobia to full support of gay rights.
Idiots.
Certainly over the past few decades America has changed its de facto and official stance on LGBTQ rights. Some of the credit goes to loud groups like Act Up. Some of it goes to the Democratic party. None of it- zero percent goes to the Log Cabin Republicans.