It's not "Tax Relief" or "Tax Reform" - It's "tax evasion".

It's not "Lower Taxes" either - It's "borrowing money we don't have to give to billionaires".

It's not "Regulatory relief" or "Less government" - It's "abusing power to get away with crimes".

It's not "Virtue signaling" - It's "calling out racists".

It's not "Political correctness" - It's "not being an asshole to people".

It's not "Strong defense" - It's "war mongering".

It's not "Family values" - It's "legalizing sex predation".

It's not "Pro Life" - It's "forced birth into poverty".

It's not "the Religious right" - It's "attacking everything that Jesus said to do"

There are more of these, and you're welcome to add them.


Note: Even the DU uses Republican phrases like "Tax Relief" in their graphics - which is why I wrote this. LOOK AT THIS: "to provide massive tax relief" ?!?

It is one thing to criticize someone who is outright attacking the Democratic party, or otherwise putting forth the narrative that Democrats and/or Democratic leaders are somehow "corrupt" or "only working for corporations" and other pap.

It is quite another to bash someone simply because of a tribal identity.

Now here's the thing. I'm not telling you this because I think we should "move forward", ignoring the history of people who, for various reasons good and bad, ended up contributing to Trump being in office. I am certainly not telling you that bygones should be bygones, and we shouldn't care who stabbed who in the back.

Rather, I'm telling you this because you're supposed to be the grownups in this conversation. And you are better than that yourself.

So, unless there is some FRESH NEW ATTACK that needs to be rebutted, please don't go out of your way to attack any Democratic ally. Specifically, this means people who supported Senator Sanders in the primary (which they had absolutely every right to do) but then went on to vote for Hillary, and Senator Sanders himself, who endorsed the Democratic nominee and campaigned for her.

There are still differences, of course. Mostly about political strategy and a huge amount of misunderstanding about how hard it is to get something done when the nation is filled to the brim with racists and sexists. But making it personal, making ethical attacks, is the original sin of the Sanders campaign (since mostly walked back). So don't do that yourself.

It came out well. Everything I hoped for.

No, this isn't a solicitation. Please just enjoy the pretty picture.

And you win. Period.

Whether you win or lose a local race has very little to do with your positions. It has everything to do with introducing yourself.

Tell her to go knock doors.

Go to the state party. Get VAN access. Cut turf. Have her go to every Democrat and Independent's house. Wear out a pair of walking shoes.

She should have a little script. Maybe something like this.

<Ding><Dong> "Hi, my name is <mopinko's sister>. I'm running for <local office>, which is an election coming up. Because I want to be your representative on <county commission/state house/local city board>, I thought it would be rather unique if I asked people about what they want to see in the local metro area.

If you had one thing that you really want addressed around here, your #1 issue, what would it be?"

Smile. Have a pleasant chat.


By the way, you can canvass for her, just say you're canvassing on her behalf. List everything she's looking to do. Print up fliers for when people aren't home.

I've helped put three people in our local Legislature doing this through the summer. It works.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/its-time-for-hillary-clinton-to-gracefully-bow-out-of-public-life-along-with-all-other-women

https://newrepublic.com/article/142828/no-liberals-not-falling-conspiracy-theories-just-like-conservatives

Senator Ed Markey went on CNN earlier this month and appeared to break major news in the investigation of the Trump campaign’s ties with Russia. “There are very strong allegations the Russians had relationships with people inside of the Trump campaign,” the Massachusetts Democrat said. “In fact, subpoenas have now been issued in northern Virginia with regard to General Flynn and General Flynn’s associates. A grand jury has been empaneled up in New York.” While it was known that federal prosecutors in Virginia had subpoenaed associates of Michael Flynn, Trump’s former national security advisor, the grand jury investigation was news to political reporters who were watching. Fake news, it turned out.

...

Markey’s mistake was the latest and perhaps most prominent example of the rise of conspiracy-mongering on the left, prompting some to worry that liberals are heading into the same fever swamps that have swallowed up the Republican Party. “Mensch and The Palmer Report are part of a disturbing emerging trend,” the New Republic’s Sarah Jones wrote after the Markey incident. “Liberals desperate to believe that the right conspiracy will take down Donald Trump promote their own purveyors of fake news.”

The left ought to be concerned about this trend, but some have gone so far as to apply a false equivalence to conspiracy-mongering. The Russia theories haven’t taken hold among Democrats in nearly the same way that countless right-wing theories—like those about Barack Obama or Seth Rich—have gripped the Republican imagination. That’s because the two parties are fundamentally different: Only one of them acts responsibly when faced with politically convenient, but obviously fantastic, stories.

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols.

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

-- Karl Popper

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trump-allies-with-far-right-to-crush-the-moderates

We have to laugh, so we do not cry.