joshcryer
joshcryer's JournalYoung people don't vote when the people they would vote for are continually bashed.
It's rather simple, you hear it on the news, you see it on blogs, websites, why would you go out and vote for people that are bashed on a continual basis? By the left, no less? It doesn't help that the people they would vote for are running against lying Republicans who pretend to be what they're not.
This is the Republican strategy, cause divisive infighting within the Democratic Party, cause discord, and make sure that we eat our own. And, of course, it works, because yet again we're seeing the failure for young people to vote being placed on "poor leadership."
Then you get calls for purges, within the party, no less, and calls for creating a new party, it's all so perfectly designed to assure that young people (and minorities) don't vote when it matters most. Young people have a lot to fight for, but they're not fighting for it because they're disillusioned in the political process.
When you have Republicans like Mitch McConnell actually bashing Warren for not reigning in the banks, you know that Orwell has to be spinning in his grave. Just like what Gardner did in Colorado (top 10 most conservative person on choice, ran as a moderate). The Republicans are liars.
And the only way they win is to suppress the vote, by any means necessary. College kids having to vote off campus. Voter ID laws. False voter roles disqualifying thousands. Highly illegal mailers telling people wrong information about voting.
The loss in 2014 was not a lack of leadership, it was not because too many Democrats are "third way," it was not because "Democrats are too conservative." It was primarily due to Republican voter suppression tactics, and the best tactic that they have at their disposal is causing infighting through ratfucking.
I miss RainDog.
Yeah, I'm sad about Robin Williams, too, but RainDog was my friend, I didn't know them very much but on DU we both spent a lot of time talking about marijuana legalization. They were my friend. I only have a few here who really agree with me on important issues. It's just sad, and I miss them, and I hope, hope, things get better on that issues we both most agreed upon. If only in their memory.
Sorry for the sad post, if you take it that way, but me and RainDog, we really spread the message (just google me and RainDog, we were on top of it). I like to think RainDog was instrumental on my activist efforts to get it legalized in Colorado. I hope they knew that, because I never told them how much they meant to me and how they influenced me. They did it. I worked a lot to get it legalized in 2012, and I don't know if I would have were it not for RainDog's posts here. They gave me hope.
RIP RainDog, my friend, and influence. We had spats on other issues but this was one issue we really connected.
Not really.
My beef is that we're attacking the symptom as opposed to the cause.
And when Democrats do talk about attacking the cause (in one case it's the corporate tax rate which has way too many loopholes) it's sort of ignored or deflected. Democrats say "we need to close the loopholes and lower the rate," everyone focuses on "lowering the rate." Why? The high end is higher than Germany. So why not adjust it down to Germany's rate, and then close the loopholes? It's a win win.
Now you'd call be a pragmatist for saying that, I think it's just common darn sense.
Additionally, give tax incentives to companies which do keep their manufacturing here and who do hire American employees.
Of course, that wouldn't stop something like TPP from being created, but it could probably be made public at that point, because it wouldn't have the kind of economic subterfuge that is necessary to maintain our import economy while at the same time marginalizing our biggest global threats (China and Russia). Slave manufactured goods and oil are unsustainable, and the US knows it.
Automation is going to take over slave labor and renewables are going to take over oil. The question is whether we get off the import economy before it happens or if we strangle the rest of the world while we do it. It appears that we are doing the latter. And the latter will take a lot longer because it means letting the almighty "markets" bring forth renewable energy and automation as opposed to a grand bargain which could bring it about decades sooner.
Lest I ramble on further about how a living wage is going to be absolutely necessary in this new world.
"we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them"
Tarek interrupted me. "People get that point wrong. Ralph doesn't say there is 'no difference;' He says there is 'no major difference'." Tarek also said that lots of environmental groups say it would be easier to fund raise and increase membership under Bush than Gore.
...
I then turned to my favorite argument. I said: "There are those who say at the end of World War Two, that instead of dropping the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. should have taken the Japanese high command out to some island and shown them what this new bomb could do. The U.S. could have demonstrated their destructive weapon without actually taking hundreds of thousands of civilian lives. Ralph could do they same thing. The large vote in the 40 or so safe states would send a real political message; the low or non Nader turnout in the close states would show that Nader sent people to Gore and that he had that kind of power. If he did this, he would be someone to be reckoned with. If Gore won, Nader would have real influence for progressive causes, and he could continue to build his movement and the Green Party. If Gore lost, Nader would have substantial credibility and power within the Democratic party. By holding back in a handful of states now, he could demonstrate his capacity to cause real damage in the future, and gain much in the short and the long run."
Tarek did not disagree with that at all. Instead, leaning toward me, with a bit of extra steel in his voice and body, but without changing his cool tone and demeanor, he simply said, "We are not going to do that." "Why not?" I said. With just a flicker of smile, Tarek said: "Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them."
http://www.hereinstead.com/Ralph-Nader-As-Mad-Bomber.html
OK, so I really don't need a lecture about votes, about people sitting at home, about more Democrats voting for Bush than people who voted for Nader. Those arguments are fine. But that's not how it went down for us junkies.
I remember that campaign and I remember the vote switching campaigns that were happening, where Nader voters would promise to vote for Gore in swing states while Gore supporters would vote for Nader in safe states. This was pretty damn unprecedented.
The fact is there was a concerted effort by Nader's campaign to stick one to the Democrats. One of Nader's biggest philosophical talking points was that it "must get worse before it gets better," or something to that effect. He went on the attack, calling environmental supporters of Gore "servile." Don't forget the Tweedledee and Tweedledum crap.
Whether you want to remember this or rewrite history or whatever, just know that Nader focused on swing states. States where he wasn't going to get as many votes as other, safe, states. This arguably caused the Green Party to lose its ability to get federal funding for the next elections and caused the party to fall into obscurity. We had our chance and we blew it.
Nader broke his promise to not campaign in those swing states. We wanted to create a new liberal party, one that might actually have sway, like the teaparty / Libertarians have sway now. Instead what we got is a rock in a hard place and it sucks.
So please don't lecture me about that time, what matters that we got screwed over, first by Nader breaking his promise and trying to do a scorched earth strategy (which worked, btw), then by Gore doing selective recounting, then by the election board stopping the count, then the final blow by the SCOTUS that left an * stain on our history. A million or so dead Iraqi's. Billions lost to bankers. No significant climate change mitigation. The erosion of rights, NSA spying, Citizens United, Oligarchy United, and todays decision, Citizens United Against Women Health Care. We got royally screwed.
Here's his missive on unions:
http://www.businessinsider.com/teslas-elon-musk-no-need-for-unions-just-fire-the-assholes-2009-6Dude is seriously out of touch, but I think he comes from an uber-capitalist background.
We agree on many things, he believes in climate change, as do I. He believes the US rocket industry is contained by pork / cost-plus / crony contracts, as do I.
But his views as unions as a "two class system" is shit, especially since he, of all people, has advocated 95% in house manufacturing. I might be able to buy his argument if much else was developed outside of the factory, but he owns or controls 95% of production, thus, to me, a union in his company would be the best thing to happen.
Still, again, he justifies his shitty position by pointing out that he pays way more than anyone else, and it's why he retains so many workers, they get paid. Go to ULA, do the same amount of work, you're not getting paid nearly as much, no question.
It's all true, of course, but applied wrong. Think of "sonder."
How can we possibly think that an interconnected world such as ours with all of its glorious industrial magic, stuff so beyond each one of us but applied through the efforts of many, is anything but a truly connected and truly integrated society?
The whole alienation thing only applies to someone from a pre-industrial society watching as industry comes up around them and trying to make sense of it all. The reality is that we as a species are probably more social, more connected, less alienated than any other species on the planet.
Also, to get back to what you were saying, that (buying what we use, buying what we thinkg) is actually one of the critiques of Marx's theory of alienation and commodity fetishism. What if Marxism itself becomes a commodity fetish to the point of alienating others. Think about that one for a bit (yeah, once a philosophy becomes a caricature of its critique it sort of invalidates itself).
If Biden runs he'll run on infrastructure.
Vice President Joe Biden is very unhappy about America's declining infrastructure. During a speech in Philadelphia today, he threw New York's LaGuardia Airport under the bus to drive that point home. But first, the vice president talked about advancements overseas. "If I blindfolded someone and took him at 2 o'clock in the morning into the airport in Hong Kong and said, 'Where do you think you are?’ He’d say, ‘This must be America. It’s a modern airport,'" Biden said. International airports have indeed seen some stunning innovations recently.
"If I took you and blindfolded you and took you to LaGuardia Airport in New York, you'd think, ‘I must be in some third-world country,’" Biden said. When his statement drew laughter from the crowd, Biden quickly noted, "I'm not joking." To further illustrate just how bad things have become, he pointed to statistics from the World Economic Forum. "Just in the last decade, the United States has fallen 20 spots when it comes to the quality of infrastructure," Biden said. "It's embarrassing, and it's stupid. It's stupid."
"That puts us literally behind, they rank us behind Barbados," Biden said. "Great country. One airport." Biden's remarks came during the unveiling of Amtrak's newest rail engine. "Why did we lead the world economically for so long? We had the most modern infrastructure in the world," he said. Despite being one of the most popular airports in the world, LaGuardia is often criticized by travelers for its dated or "unique" facilities.
It's going to be good. Video at link, btw, he shows his passion.
Profile Information
Name: Josh CryerGender: Male
Hometown: Colorado
Member since: 2002
Number of posts: 62,287