HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » WhaTHellsgoingonhere » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »

WhaTHellsgoingonhere

Profile Information

Member since: Thu Dec 22, 2005, 09:00 AM
Number of posts: 2,949

Journal Archives

Where would we be today if Americans didn't let the wealthy ruling class...

scare enough of us, yet again, into believing the Apocalypse would befall us if we didn't do everything they wanted us to do to rescue the banksters and Wall Street. That was 6 years ago, now. I think we'd be on the right track by now.

But, you know Americans, we can't think of alternatives when the uber-wealthy have too much to lose.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 5, 2014, 01:36 PM (0 replies)

2014: Voter Turnout vs Votes Counted

We've got the numbers on our side, they've got the tricks on theirs.
They scheme years in advance, we think GOTV.
We say "count the votes," they lose thousands of votes in key districts.
Trump Card: SCOTUS


12 Very Real Voter-Suppression Tactics Experts Now Worry Will Come Back

1. Changing polling locations. An election official can make this call just days before an election.

2. Changing polling hours or eliminating early voting days. This may be particularly problematic in urban counties where long polling lines are most likely, as Henry Grabar reported last fall.

3. Reducing the number of polling places. This raises the same problem as above, particularly when the eliminated polling places had disproportionately served minority communities.

4. At-large elections. At-large elections for school-board members or city councils often dilute the voting power of minorities who have greater influence in single-candidate district elections. In an at-large election, a cohesive voting block with 51 percent of the vote can elect 100 percent of the officials.

5. Packing majority-minority districts. Election maps drawn to push all of a community's minorities in one or a handful of districts can dilute their voting power.

6. Dividing minority districts. Similarly, election maps can slice minority communities into multiple districts so that they have no cumulative influence in any one place. The line between these two tactics is a fine one (and also illustrates why the VRA was useful for assessing facts on the ground).

7. Voter ID laws: This increasingly popular tactic, sometimes likened to a modern-day poll tax, has the potential to disenfranchise voters who don't have a driver's license, or who don't have the money or ability to obtain one (a disproportionate share of these people are minorities). Such laws can also have a disproportionate impact in cities, where many people don't own cars.

8. Onerous candidate qualifications. In 2007, a Texas provision tried to limit those people eligible to become water district supervisors to landowners who were registered to vote.

9. Changing multi-lingual voter assistance. Making it harder for non-English language speakers to vote is a good way to dilute their power.

10. Changing election dates. Another trick that may not require legislative approval.

11. Creating new elections. In 2006, the DOJ objected to a plan in the Houston area that would have eliminated some joint elections and required voters to travel to multiple polling places.

12. Canceling elections. We're not even really sure how Kilmichael, Mississippi, thought they could get away with this.

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2013/06/12-very-real-voter-suppression-tactics-experts-now-worry-will-come-back/6057/


We need a better strategy than just GOTV.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 5, 2014, 12:18 PM (1 replies)

Interesting point. Seems it's already been put to the test, multiple times...

2000 FL, 2004 OH, and I suspect shenanigans in WI's failed attempt to recall Gov Scott Walker. And that's just in the years ADU.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Sat Apr 5, 2014, 11:59 AM (1 replies)

I'll give AA props for a few things

AA doesn't have psychiatrists performing psych evals and prescribing meds. Today, tens of thousands of AAers are on psych meds. If a friend of a friend's cousin told you that she was at an AA meeting and someone said poo about medication, she can simply go to another meeting.

I'll give AA props for the following:

1. AA accepts everyone from all SES, don't need insurance or a significant bank - good luck getting help if you're poor and uninsured!

2. support group - for many, it's the first time they get to meet and talk to others with same (psych) issues; people discover they are not alone

3. program of action - people who don't take action won't fare well; most people don't want to make changes, so most people don't fare well

4. role models - people with long-time sobriety are role models for newcomers

5. you can find a meeting at all times worldwide when you need support - good luck replicating this with your treatment center...

get ready for the punchline:


YOUR TREATMENT CENTER WILL RECOMMEND AA

Maybe many of you don't travel for work or travel alone, much. It's somewhere to go when you're feeling vulnerable, either because you're lonely or your coworkers are at a bar getting hammered.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Mon Mar 31, 2014, 12:52 PM (0 replies)

You don't even know that HILLARY said that in December at a Goldman Sachs fundraiser???

YIKES!!




http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/why-liberal-democrats-are-skeptical-of-hillary-clinton-in-one-paragraph/282304/
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Mar 28, 2014, 05:40 PM (0 replies)

DU was for change, not progressivism...

Once we got a progressive sounding candidate, we were unified. That was a mirage and short lived.

For those of us who were listening carefully (speaking for myself, pre-inauguration), we got steamed because we weren't getting progressivism. I'm sure many people here don't even know what they're talking about when they say, "I'm a progressive." David Sirota does a good job defining the progressive. And once you read description, you will understand why the progressive-minded folks among us are steamed.

"Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/whats-the-difference-betw_b_9140.html

The Elizabeth Warren wing is the progressive wing: she's a liberal who wants to take on the current economic infrastructure.

The Obama/Clinton liberals aren't progressives: they support liberal ideas, but have no stomach for institutional change.

So, is it a surprise, or even a bad thing, that DU is having this ideological battle right now????


EDIT:

Below, I merely elaborate on the nature of the internal debate. I'm not going to start another thread because it should be part of the OP.

Q: Would you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee?

This could be asked another way.

Did you vote for Obama in 2012?

I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers did as me: I voted for Obama in 2012.

Again, I have no way to prove this, but I would assume close to 100% of the Democratic DUers will do as me if Hillary is the nominee: I will vote for Hillary.

But that question is totally irrelevant.

That question is irrelevant to this thread and the heated debate that so many DUers are lamenting and don't understand. The debate isn't raging over the Democratic Nominee vs the Republican Nominee.

The debate is: Who do you support for the Democratic nomination?

Many of you are angry because you've put the cart in front of the horse: you've already decided that Hillary IS the Democratic nominee.

The, "Who would you vote for, Romney, Christie, Paul?" question is totally irrelevant. It's only being posed by Hillary backers who are furious that there are Democrats who reject her.

That's what's going on, here.
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Fri Mar 28, 2014, 04:04 PM (172 replies)

Yes, MSM, always seek the opinions of those who got everything WRONG

Cheney on Iraq

Rubinites on economy

Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Wed Mar 26, 2014, 06:05 PM (0 replies)

Anti-Third Way, dude

We don't want Hillary Clinton!

Warren, Sanders, or Reich

Obama = Clinton = Third Way

I'm sure close to 100% of us voted for Obama in 2012 and, if Hillary wins the nomination, I suspect a shit ton more would vote for Hillary over Republican nominee than those who would not, possibly very close to 100%, as well.

Obama is taking the beating now while Hillary is in hiding, and that's a good thing for me. Criticizing Obama helps me make my case because Hillary is worse than Obama. It's been a very effective tactic for me as my FB friends are starting to see that The Third Way sucks ass. We never got the Hope and Change we all wanted. Hillary will follow the Obama blueprint: campaign left of center then govern right of center.

Our greatest obstacle, IMO, is we're up against the desire for the first woman. Well, I'm all for that, but she's the WRONG woman. Warren is the RIGHT woman.

So, as I see it, tagging Obama as a Third Way politician (which he is) goes a long way in our effort to reseed the Democratic candidates: between Warren, Sanders, Reich, and Clinton, Hillary is the #4 seed.

Others may, or likely have a different slant. But it's working for me. Not all of my FB friends follow as closely as I do, and I'm seeing a lot of people "Liking" Elizabeth Warren and much fewer pro-Hillary posts.

Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Wed Mar 26, 2014, 03:06 PM (0 replies)

These are the people who flip-flopped on Gitmo, too, when...

Poll: Democrats Flip Flop on Gitmo to Support Obama

In November 2009, after Obama vowed to close Guantanamo, 59 percent of Democrats approved of the decision, according to Pew.

Then in February 2012, a Washington Post/ABC News poll, cited by Pew, showed that roughly the same percentage of Democrats approved of keeping the institution open, at 61 percent.

- See more at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/poll-democrats-flip-flop-gitmo-support-obama#sthash.5TeHlAdT.dpuf


These are the people who screamed bloody murder when Bush was in office but look the other way now that Obama is in office. I suppose the reasoning goes, "Well, if (certain policy) is wrong, it's OK because I trust Obama won't abuse it like Bush or McCain."

These people suck
Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Tue Mar 25, 2014, 06:58 PM (1 replies)

Oil is our #3 export today

Of course this will happen. Oil independence and National Security are slogans not policy; policy is profit driven...because energy is privatized and corporations are the policy makers.

http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html

Posted by WhaTHellsgoingonhere | Tue Mar 25, 2014, 03:45 PM (0 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next »