A great video on the messaging of “They go low, we go high” that will likely make you reboil with rage about the end of 2015.
1 Like
Btw if you havent you should watch that entire series. Its long but its very well done.
I can’t recall who first brought AOC into the conversation but it may have been me. Anyways, I still stand by this post which I’ll pull over from the other thread:
To expand on the last argument, National Polling numbers are informative but shouldn’t be the sole basis for messaging decisions. Even if polling showed that SJW-style messaging was underwater, social justice is still a legitimate issue in this country and advocating for it is the morally correct position. The comparison to the civil rights era was apt–the messaging may result in short-term pushback, but it is the best way to achieve long-term change.
-
Despite all the #Berniewouldhavewon sentiment, we don’t actually know if he would have beaten Trump in 2016 or if he would beat him in 2020. I think the best anyone can credibly say is that some combination of pure anti-Trump voters and pro-Bernie voters gives him a good shot, but it would be close.
-
Even if Bernie could win, can we acknowledge that his policies might play differently with different audiences when being proposed by a Jewish man in his 70’s than a young Latina woman?
-
I wasn’t necessarily trying to say that Dems shouldn’t adopt her messaging. I just get the feeling that everyone here assumes that AOC [or at least her general politics] is (or would be) universally popular if only more people knew about them, and I just don’t think that’s the case.
Can’t really do anything but lol at this point. All lives matter yang gang guy isn’t in the tent nor does he want to be. He wants to fart into the tent as much as possible before voting Trump.
Most lefties are so much more god damn dumb than the alt right that I’m embarrassed by association at this point.
1 Like
Yeah, I posted three sets of numbers over in the Trump thread. One was early in her term, so maybe Amazon + original GND proposal time. Another was from around the time when Trump started beefing with Ilhan and “the Squad” (and Pelosi came in off the top rope too against the Squad around that time as well). Third was also from a few month ago, so thanks for updated #s from yougov.
Just stumbled across an article that captures some of what we’ve been talking about. I don’t know enough about AZ politics to know if it has a realistic chance of passage, but some of the provisions (middle school and younger, the community input requirements, etc) seem kinda custom designed to make a good campaign ad against anyone who votes against it.
"A Republican senator wants to bar schools from teaching sex education before seventh grade.
The bill from Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, also deletes “homosexuality” from acts constituting “sexual conduct” in a section of the statutes, a move that appears to ban any discussion of homosexuality during sex ed courses.
Allen has already scheduled the measure for a Jan. 14 hearing in the Senate Education Committee, which she chairs, making it the first 2020 salvo in an conflict that’s been brewing since last spring, when lawmakers repealed a decades-old law that forbade the promotion of a “homosexual lifestyle.”
On the other side, Democratic Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley wants to require schools to teach comprehensive and “medically accurate” sex education on an opt-out basis. Senate Democrats plan to introduce similar legislation in their chamber.
Democrats, who hope to build on their success in repealing the state’s “no promo homo” law, accused their Republican colleagues of using a furor over sex education to rally parents wary of children getting exposed to sexually explicit material in classrooms. "
"Sex education, like all other curricula in Arizona, is primarily handled at the school district level. But Allen’s bill would require all districts and charter schools to revise their existing sex education courses to comply with her bill.
Under the bill, all coursework would have to be developed during publicly noticed meetings, and curricula would be available for public comment for at least 60 days before a school board could adopt the educational guidelines. The bill says schools would not be required to provide sex education, and attempts to get around new public notice requirements by providing it after school hours would not be allowed."
What’s the optimal line here? If you want to oppose the bill, are you ready to defend why you think “the government should be teaching 5 year olds about sex?” If you decide to support the bill, how do you plan to respond to the folks who tell you that age appropriate sex ed increases safe sex and that talking about homosexuality might reduce bullying and create a safer environment for gay kids? My initial instinct is to vote against the house bill, support comprehensive sex ed, and then go HAM on the pointing out that there are about a billion more important things that the education committee should be working on, but that’s just me…
1 Like
This can never work because of FPTP
I just want to accuse Republicans of being closet pedos who want their prey to be ignorant, then bring up as many Republican sex scandals as possible, ending by suggesting they want to enable the next Jeffrey Epstein who, if he gets to be a problem, can always not kill himself.