Heck, that’s exactly what I want.
I’m not a member of any organized political party. I’m a Democrat.
That was nineteen-fucking-thirty-five. Why, why, why?
Pass a Voters Rights bill. All else follows.
…eventually maybe considering passing a voters rights bill doesn’t tell people what they should be doing right now.
I don’t think this is civil war 2 or even close. I do think that modern communications have amplified the appearance of irreconcilable gulfs but I don’t believe the appearance reflects the underlying reality.
Huh? You’re the one who asked, “What is Biden/Congress ACTUALLY willing+able to do at 52/60 seats?” Now that someone gave an answer to the question you asked, you dismiss it as unimportant?
…I can assure you of three things:
Firstly, I am not, in any way or form, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Secondly: she is way smarter than I will ever be. Third: I didn’t ask that question of anyone here, AOC asked that question of party leadership.
I was quoting from her tweet. The link can be found further up the thread where I originally posted it. I reposted it because I was asked how Biden, Harris and Pelosi could “step things up.” I think they could start stepping things up by providing answers to AOC’s questions.
If the party leadership actually did come out and say that they will “Pass a Voters Rights bill” then that would probably be a great start. (but based on everything we have seen from them so far this isn’t even on their radar)
However if they followed that up with “All else follows” then I would be skeptical on how-well-thought-out the plan actually was.
Like that notoriously conservative NYC millionaire George Soros? Or Mike Bloomberg?
Im gonna ask you for a cite, because I think that premise is ridiculous. Wealthy New Yorkers, the majority of whom are Jewish, are notoriously liberal and always have been, read Tom Wolfe’s Radical Chic sometime.
Plus, I personally know lots of Tribeca millionaires….and millionaires in other areas of NYC (I worked with a couple of hundred of them during my career, which spanned the time between 1985 and 2020), and 90% of that sample were reliable liberal Democrats. Many of those people contributed lavish amounts of money to Democratic causes. And the Tribeca millionaires are younger and more progressive than the Upper East side millionaires, who are older liberals.
Kneejerk progressive hatred of rich people is a pet peeve of mine. The Democrats need all the help they can get, and pushing away people that are on your side on social justice issues because they have lots of money and resources they are willing to use to help you is not a smart or strategic move.
The statistic I frequently cited was that 70% of the nation’s income is concentrated in counties that went for Joe Biden. This does not mean that everyone that lives in a big city is well off, and there is a certain offset because of the higher cost of living. However, although your New Yorker may pay more for housing and food, especially restaurant meals….they pay the same as red staters for stuff on Amazon and their political donations go just as far. This gives them more disposable income, which is why liberal boycotts tend to be more impactful than conservative ones.
While there is a lot of poverty in NYC, they tax the well to do and wealthy pretty heavily and have lots of progressive laws and policies. For example, if you are homeless the city is legally mandated to provide you shelter and unless you are wealthy, tuition at all campuses of the excellent City University of New York is free.
Aha. Oops, my bad. I think I’m used to people quoting outsiders using the quote function. Still leaves a question…
Okay, so does this mean that you think that AOC’s question is irrelevant (to most people)? DrDeth was still providing an answer to an asked question.
I think that progressives need to recognize how rapidly the Democrats/liberals are losing ground, and they need to accept that even if they get to 52, even if they get to 60, they may not GET anything. The political landscape has deteriorated rapidly for liberals and progressives since 2016.
At this point in history, it’s about exerting every ounce of power, every pound of pressure that you can bring to bear just to retain the gains we’ve made in the past 50 years. You’ll GET to still not be arrested for being homosexual. You’ll GET to continue to not be turned down for a job because you’re black or female. You’ll GET to keep taking your birth control pills.
And if you don’t GET that, you’ll GET to experience the world I came of age in and worked to change. You got your first taste on Friday. You’ve been taking it for granted, and you won’t like it.
Which BTW as we said elsewhere does not mean you stop pushing forward, on the contrary, by pushing forward you neutralize those pushing backward. But we don’t get to quit in disgust when we barely move forward an inch and we don’t expect the universe’s justice to come save us.
Abortion was not just legal—it was a safe, condoned, and practiced procedure in colonial America and common enough to appear in the legal and medical records of the period. Official abortion laws did not appear on the books in the United States until 1821, and abortion before quickening did not become illegal until the 1860s. If a woman living in New England in the 17th or 18th centuries wanted an abortion, no legal, social, or religious force would have stopped her.
The Puritans brought their laws on abortion from merry old England, where the procedure was also legal until quickening. Although the Puritans much of England’s legal system when they established their “city upon a hill,” they kept abortion as a part of Puritan family life, allowing women to choose when and if they would become mothers—whether for the first time or the fifth time.
Acceptance of early-term abortion changed during the 19th century as Victorian sensibilities took hold. By 1910 abortion—except in cases to save the mother’s life—was a criminal procedure in every state except Kentucky, where the courts declared the procedure to be judicially illegal.
The new restrictions on abortion were caused by many factors, including changing social, class, and family dynamics in the early 19th century. Americans in the Victorian era thought abortion was a problem brought on by upper-class white women, who were choosing to start their families later and limit their size. Increased female independence was also perceived as a threat to male power and patriarchy, especially as Victorian women increasingly volunteered outside the home for religious and charitable causes.
< 
s in South African>
Arampartheid.
We do have some nice ones…
…what does a random opinion from a random person on the internet do here though?
I too, have a random opinion on what the Democrats should do right now (that happens to be much more extensive than simply passing a single act). But our opinions don’t matter.
AOC wasn’t asking a question of us. The question was directed to party leadership. It was a demand that they step up to the plate. That’s the relevant thing here. This is what I was talking about. People are welcome to add their own opinions. But that kinda misses the point of why I bought it up in the first place.
I don’t think that its the progressives that need to “recognize how rapidly the Democrats/liberals are losing ground.” They seem to be much more aware of the crisis than those at the centre right now, IMHO.
Tsk. I quote someone–I thought Malcolm Gladwell, but can’t seem to find it:
Canadians are proud of nothing, except, perhaps, that they are not American.
That’s not anti-Canadian, lest anyone think so. Still, as the other saying goes, “If the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold.”
I still doubt that Canada would want most of the U.S., with the possible exception of Washington state. Less likely, but more likely than the rest: Maine, Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin.
My $0.02 (about $0.025 Canadian).
I have been to SE Washington State.
No.
Thank.
You.
Well, maybe they’d want MI. So that they can get all of Lake Huron and most of Lake Superior.
If Quebec goes its own way then they could secure their place in maple syrup production by admitting Vermont despite the resulting geographic remoteness.
This article may be of interest: