Jump to content

Ser Reptitious

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ser Reptitious

  • Rank
    I exist!
  • Birthday 12/12/1977

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

4,966 profile views
  1. These people all too often get overlooked by the media and by (to its own detriment) the Democratic party. Especially among the latter I get the sense that "spectrum thinking" is way too ingrained, whereby right wingers are both economically and socially conservative, centrists/moderates are economically conservative and socially liberal(-ish) and left wingers are liberal (in the American sense) on both. The economically left/socially right crowd simply does not fall neatly enough into that linear way of thinking. But the Republicans are very much aware of these people, and they keep them on their side by riling them up about social issues (especially abortion). The Democrats should counter that by steering the election conversation away from social issues* and hone in on ecomonic ones instead (health care, minimum wage, pandemic relief). Kansas is proof that even in socially very conservative states Democrats can succeed when they keep the focus on economic and everyday life issues. For both the Georgia run-offs and beyond, the Democrats should be hammering one simple message: We want to make your life better, the Republicans will make it worse. Constantly go on the offensive about the ACA lawsuit currently before the supreme court, and mercilessly bang on about the stalled Covid-relief package being blocked by the Republican Senate. Point out to Georgians that the only way that they will get any money in their pockets to help out in this difficult time will be if Democrats control the Senate. Full stop. (*to be clear, I'm not advocating ignoring social issues, but rather to keep the primary focus on economic issues that impact the working class)
  2. If only there was a way to like this post a thousand times! Nail on the head and all that.
  3. Or they could instead, you know, talk about the sort of issues that the average voter actually cares about: - how to make sure people can earn a living wage without having to work two or three full-time jobs at once (decent minimum wage); - what can be done to help protect them from the fallout of the Covid pandemic (adequate unemployment insurance); - the fact that the Republicans are right now in front of the Supreme Court trying to eliminate the ACA, including the pre-existing conditions protection (health care); - the ability to obtain some sort of post-high school level certification (which is often vital to get any half-decent job) without it costing an arm and a leg; - etc. But sure, let’s instead talk about whether moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was a good idea. That will surely move the needle among your average Georgian voter struggling to keep his/her head above water! Also, they could try to not suck at messaging when confronted with the above-quoted issues by reporters. How about trying these responses for size: - “Pack the courts? That’s what the Republicans are doing right now. They are packing the courts with the sort of people who wish to make The Handmaid’s Tale a reality! All we want to do is explore various judicial reforms to prevent that sort of fanaticism from taking hold over our courts.” (Seriously, how the fuck are Democrats playing (timid) defense on the courts issue after everything the Republicans have done the last few years?) - “Defund the police? The police are doing a very difficult job and we have the deepest of respect for the numerous officers who give their all to protect the weak and vulnerable among us. But we also have to make sure that there is a system in place that weeds out the bad apples, for the sake of the community served, as well as the morale of the rest of the police force.”
  4. I agree, but the circular firing squad is firing in both directions, and it’s not helping either side. But it does seem to me whenever that phrase is used it is almost always a moderate complaining about the left wing of the party. There definitely are moments when that is truly the case, but there also seems to be frequently an attitude of ‘the left needs to shut up and fall in line’ (at all times). That is no way to unite the party. The left has every right to their views as does the center (which, within the party itself is actually the right wing). In short, when it comes to the ‘circular firing squad’ the moderates should also once in a while look in the mirror. (Personally I tend to go back on forth between the two sides depending on the strength of the argument being brought to the table, which is precisely why I find this labelling of people so frustrating!)
  5. Um, yes, I agree. But wouldn’t now, more than ever (with the spectre of Trumpism still hanging over the country) be the time to finally do this?
  6. Here’s a radical notion: how about instead of obsessing what to label to stick to the various elected Democrats, they (and we) instead start talking about which policies to agree on? And especially for Democratic members of Congress it’d a refreshing change of strategy (as far as I can tell) if they actually hashed that out in a closed meeting, and agreed on strategy and messaging while they’re at it (some horse-trading may be required). Have you ever noticed that outside of primaries GOP members of Congress hardly ever seem to be sniping at each other the way Democrats do? I mean, are moderate Republicans regularly calling out their more right-leaning colleagues as “far right” and openly dismissing their policy proposals as unrealistic and/or too radical? Do they openly blame them for real or imagined election set-backs? I think most of us tend to agree that the Republicans are very good at getting together behind closed doors, hash out policies and strategies, and then show a unified messaging front, and that is what tends to win them elections. So why oh why is this so damn hard to do for the Democrats?
  7. @DanteGabriel has already raised this point earlier, and I'm a bit surprised it hasn't gotten more traction: How come so few of you seem to believe that Trump enablers/Republican/Russian hackers, etc. aren't doing their part in pulling various shenanigans in key battleground places and that's why Biden seems to underperform compared to the polls? I'm not generally one to believe in conspiracy theories, but this isn't exactly far-fetched. Someone posted a story a few days ago of the Trump campaign trying to obtain info in various Pennsylvania districts about where ballots will be stored and counted. And why are so many heavily Democrat-leaning districts in swing states so slow to report? Sure, could be because there is more to count, but it still seems a bit fishy to me. The problem with so many districts leaning strongly one way or the other certainly makes it easier to know where to strike. Orange County in California apparently going for Biden by about a 20 percent margin is also interesting in that regard, since probably nobody bothered with any shenanigans there. There would be no point to it. Anyway, could be that the polls were massively off for a second presidential election in a row, but before you go all screaming full-throated at them, you might want to consider this possibility as well. I mean, how exactly should pollsters be able to account for things like this?
  8. I was just gonna say that this U.S. Election Prediction thread has taken an interesting turn...
  9. I haven’t caught up on this thread yet, so apologies if someone has brought it up, but as soon as I saw this quote I thought of Shawn Mendes’ song “Treat you better”. Every time it comes up on the radio I feel like this is the ultimate “nice guy”/incel anthem. The lyrics address a girl whose boyfriend is clearly a jerk and so why is she “wasting time when you could be with me instead”? He then then goes on to state how, if she were to do that, he would put her on a pedestal (“I’d stop time for you”, etc.). It’s probably the most cringe-worthy song I’ve heard in recent times. But I bet if someone asked Mendes about it, he’d probably characterize it as a love song. (I hope I’m wrong about that last bit, but I doubt it...)
  10. Well, depends... how many black and white dem-leaning Alabamans usually just don’t bother, in the normal course of events, knowing that they will lose anyway? But this year, given that Jones is up for (an extremely tough) re-election, would you really interpret an unusually large surge of voters as a bad sign? (I mean, I agree that it’s not an automatic sign of good news, but when you look at what might be the root cause of the surge there would at least be a hopeful possibility.)
  11. My extremely amateur take on it would be that pollsters (just like the media) prefer tighter numbers in order to create a horse race. That way people pay much closer attention (akin to “click-bait”). But hey, if that has the (unintended?) benefit of ensuring every last person wanting to get rid of Trump goes out and votes, instead of being complacent and thinking (based on polls) that it’s a done deal, then I’m perfectly fine with it. But of course I defer to the opinions of professionals such as @DMC and @Fez, who may have a far better explanation.
  12. Yup. Mask-wearing during a deadly pandemic being the most recent disturbing example.
  13. I get the sense that he doesn't want to do the homework on this!
  14. Acum aveti Nicusor Dan ca primar in Bucuresti, ci si Clotilde Armand in sectorul 1. Sa speram ca vor reusi sa schimbe cultura politica acolo!
  15. Salut, @Alyn Oakenfist, nu sunt Român, dar locuiesc în Cluj de acum 7 ani! Originally from Switzerland, lived in Canada for 20 years. Fell in love with the beauty of Romania, and after visiting several times decided to move for good. Now I’m actually a tour guide for people visiting from German-speaking countries (outside of, y’know, that certain pandemic that is unfortunately keeping tourists away at the moment). And yes, definitely “muie PSD”!
  • Create New...