All Things "AOC" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez & the Squad.

[LadySkinsFan]

Democrats should call CRT what it is: U.S. History. Trying to weasel word around it doesn't defeat the white supremist message that it hurts white children. 

 

The progressive message is more popular than the centrist wing of Democrats want to admit. The BBB put money in people's pockets and they spent it, fueling the economy. So much so that the billionaires and other business owners made a killing. Not to mention that those greedy ****s are now raising prices beyond covering increases in the cost of doing business due to issues like supply chain, that inflation is rising artificially. 

 

Bottom up drove business better that trickle down ever did. And now the greedy are again cashing in while senators like Manchin and all of the Republicans moan and groan about giving money to poor people for their children. **** them!

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

And moderate dems are perfectly capable of expressing common concern with voters without throwing the progressive wing under the bus.  Did AOC and co say that they are not concerned with the average American's pocketbooks?  Not concerned with infrastructure?  Raise tax for the wealthy and corporations and keep or cut tax for middle class and below?  Reform criminal justice system more for treatment and rehabilitation, which is more effective than incarceration?  Which of these proposals are the moderate dems disagreeing with and proposing an alternative?  

 

 

At some point, the lesson gets so watered down that it has none of the controversial aspects left.  Is anyone proposing to teach that racial equality is impossible and that racial discrimination is permanent in American society? Within the context of a history curriculum that applauds the Civil rights movement, are schools proposing to teach that racial equality or racial justice cannot be achieved by legislative means?  At most, lessons will scratch the surface and end with "this is what people refer to by CRT" and give a general broad definition and end at that.  CRT was a theory to discuss the effect and effectiveness of legal structure and law on addressing racism and racial injustice.  The amount of deep diving required to get at why CRT advocates posit the positions they do is not likely in a grade school setting.  Like I said, just because you use algebraic concepts in higher math doesn't mean teaching algebra is teaching higher math.

 

 

What on earth are you talking about?  Sanders won over 20 contests, with like a third from primary states.  Before the super delegates, he was only behind by like 400 delegates.  This is a no name independent senator against a Dem party juggernaut.

 

 

How much shifted between Dem 2020 and Dem 2021?  You're really going to argue that a party that wasn't too liberal to win by 10% in 2020 was too liberal and therefore lost in 2021?  Youngkin victory wasn't about liberalism run amuck.  It was about Virginia being Virginia and electing a governor of the opposite party from the sitting president.  It was about people being disappointed that vaccine didn't mean an immediate end of the pandemic and the delta surge (McAullife was well ahead until the month before the election).  It was about people wanting to elect a governor who was ready to declare the pandemic over.  It was about a historically terrible answer by McAulife on parents' role in school curriculum and subsequent mind boggling campaign gaffe to not walk it back a million times.  

 

And 2021 mid terms isn't going to be about AOC and her friends torpedoeing the democratic party.  It's going to be about a mid term lashing given to almost every sitting president, especially one who has his biggest legislative agenda sunk by the "moderate" members of his own party.

 

Moderate Democrats live in a fantasy land where they can tell the progressives to go sit in a corner for 4 years until come election time.  If you try to court the middle by throwing the left and their positions under the bus, it's not status quo + the middle.  It's status quo + the middle - the left.  You may hope for more from the middle than the left, but that is by no means a given.  

 

We don't know what people want to have taught because there hasn't been much of a conversation about what people want taught. Because it was just, CRT isn't being taught.  You can't say people won't teach X because you don't actually know.  It has just been nobody is and wants to teach CRT.  That isn't true.  What part of CRT should be taught is something to address.

 

400 delegates behind isn't close.  And I meant Democratic primaries (not counting open primaries).  That a bunch of conservatives showed up to vote for Sanders in a state like OK isn't really representative of anything useful.  Actual Democrat voters easily favored Hillary.

 

The difference isn't how liberal the Democrats are.  The difference was no Trump.  If the right is going to run Trump every time, then the progressives are fine.  

 

Progressives don't need to sit in a corner, but they do need to watch their words and language, meet voters where they are, focus on things that are going to appeal to a large number of voters, and work on building consensus.

 

You want to teach CRT in schools.  Fine.  But you need to work on actually building that consensus at through local school boards and build that consensus in the general public.  Not by backdooring it through curriculum changes and teacher training programs.

 

What appears to be ready to happen to Democrats does not appear to be normal.  A record number of House Dems have said they are retiring.  A record number of retirement isn't just the normal sort of thing that happens.  2018 was bad for the GOP because well Trump.  But being 4% out on generic polls this far from an election isn't "normal".  See 2014 as an example:

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

 

 

(Generally, we're getting ready to lose a set of elections because its "normal" isn't very satisfying to the people that are getting ready to lose.  From a completely intellectual levels, that's fine.  But if you are the person looking to lose, that isn't very useful.)

Edited February 19, 2022 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

I find it pathetic for moderates to blame progressives for potentially getting swept out of power this year because of their "proposals".

 

Most people, even Black Americans don't want to "defund the police", but where is the moderates bill to overhaul law enforcement for equal protection under the law?

 

Universal Health Care costs too much, that's I keep hearing over and over again. But is there even a bill in the floor for debate to implement the compromise public option moderates rallied around?

 

Fine, moderates refuse to mass erase student loan debt, but doing a couple thousand at a time when their are millions of Americans getting crushed by this is what's killing moderates, not progressives proposal to mass erase them.

 

I can keep going, but why bother. The clock is ticking and moderates are ready looking for who to blame instead of how to get what needs to be passed passed so they can stay in power.

 

Edited February 19, 2022 by Renegade7

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

We don't know what people want to have taught because there hasn't been much of a conversation about what people want taught. Because it was just, CRT isn't being taught.  You can't say people won't teach X because you don't actually know.  It has just been nobody is and wants to teach CRT.  That isn't true.  What part of CRT should be taught is something to address.

 

Or maybe there hasn't been much discussion behind whether and how much of CRT to teach, because CRT wasn't being taught to begin with.  I can't say for sure that my kid's teacher won't start teaching white supremacy either, but until I get some contrary indication, I'm not going up in arms over it.

 

As for people wanting to teach CRT, like intersectionality, the term has now spun off into something totally different from what it was in an academic setting.  If all discrimination subjects that makes students feel uncomfortable falls under CRT, then no educator in their right mind would say we should categorically not teach it.  There's overlap between teaching the phenomenon of intersectionality, institutional racism, and history of racial injustice and the academic field of CRT,  but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater and not teach racism at all in school.  I have no problem with people wanting to debate what to teach in school.  Just don't manufacture faux outrage over something that isn't happening to begin with (liberals have infiltrated the school system to brainwash the next generation with aims of inverting the traditional racial power structure.  Omg....)   

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

The difference isn't how liberal the Democrats are.  The difference was no Trump.  If the right is going to run Trump every time, then the progressives are fine.  

 

Funny how McAuliffe was winning pretty wide in the polls till the last month.  Did Trump drop off the ballot in October?

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Progressives don't need to sit in a corner, but they do need to watch their words and language, meet voters where they are, focus on things that are going to appeal to a large number of voters, and work on building consensus.

 

Did AOC and co do it successfully with BBB?  How popular is that one?  Who kneecapped it and reinforced the notion that voting doesn't matter cause nothing gets done in DC anyway?

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

 

You want to teach CRT in schools.  Fine.  But you need to work on actually building that consensus at through local school boards and build that consensus in the general public.  Not by backdooring it through curriculum changes and teacher training programs.

 

Progressives haven't said teach CRT.  They have said don't use the faux outrage over something that isn't even taught to wipe the topic of racism off the school  curriculum.  Why is this a problem exactly?

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

What appears to be ready to happen to Democrats does not appear to be normal.  A record number of House Dems have said they are retiring.  A record number of retirement isn't just the normal sort of thing that happens.  2018 was bad for the GOP because well Trump.  But being 4% out on generic polls this far from an election isn't "normal".  See 2014 as an example:

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_congressional_vote-2170.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/2022-generic-congressional-vote-7361.html

 

 

(Generally, we're getting ready to lose a set of elections because its "normal" isn't very satisfying to the people that are getting ready to lose.  From a completely intellectual levels, that's fine.  But if you are the person looking to lose, that isn't very useful.)

 

What do you expect with a president whose approval is in the toilet?  Or are you going to say that Biden's low approval rating is due to the progressives and not because of the lingering pandemic and his legislative failure?  How much better would the picture be looking now if all the dem moderates met progressives half way and passed BBB?  

Edited February 20, 2022 by bearrock

[PeterMP]

5 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

Or maybe there hasn't been much discussion behind whether and how much of CRT to teach, because CRT wasn't being taught to begin with.  I can't say for sure that my kid's teacher won't start teaching white supremacy either, but until I get some contrary indication, I'm not going up in arms over it.

 

As for people wanting to teach CRT, like intersectionality, the term has now spun off into something totally different from what it was in an academic setting.  If all discrimination subjects that makes students feel uncomfortable falls under CRT, then no educator in their right mind would say we should categorically not teach it.  There's overlap between teaching the phenomenon of intersectionality, institutional racism, and history of racial injustice and the academic field of CRT,  but that doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater and not teach racism at all in school.  I have no problem with people wanting to debate what to teach in school.  Just don't manufacture faux outrage over something that isn't happening to begin with (liberals have infiltrated the school system to brainwash the next generation with aims of inverting the traditional racial power structure.  Omg....)   

 

 

Funny how McAuliffe was winning pretty wide in the polls till the last month.  Did Trump drop off the ballot in October?

 

 

Did AOC and co do it successfully with BBB?  How popular is that one?  Who kneecapped it and reinforced the notion that voting doesn't matter cause nothing gets done in DC anyway?

 

 

Progressives haven't said teach CRT.  They have said don't use the faux outrage over something that isn't even taught to wipe the topic of racism off the school  curriculum.  Why is this a problem exactly?

 

 

What do you expect with a president whose approval is in the toilet?  Or are you going to say that Biden's low approval rating is due to the progressives and not because of the lingering pandemic and his legislative failure?  How much better would the picture be looking now if all the dem moderates met progressives half way and passed BBB?  

 

There is no large national set of people in education that want to teach your kid white supremacy.  The issues are NOT directly comparable (in many ways and including their impact on our educational system at a national level).  An effort to make a comparison is an effort to deemphasize the issue (which was my original point).  If you did a national poll of people in education about teaching kids the "Bell Curve" you wouldn't get 50% to say yes (unless it was done to teach them about CRT and the history of racism in this country).

 

Teachers aren't going to training where the foundation is tenets associated with white supremacy.  Comparing the influence of white supremacy and CRT on the education system in the US is an effort to de-emphasize what has happened with CRT.

 

I've given you a poll and an opinion piece by people saying that they want to teach CRT.   You can't then say that they don't want to teach CRT.  Seriously?  How hard is it?  Some people want to teach CRT.  They are telling you they want to teach CRT.  

 

That we shouldn't use CRT to wipe out the teaching of racism isn't the problem.  And I think if Democrats make that argument, they'll be okay.  But again, there are progressives out there saying they want to teach CRT so that's not ALL that's happening.  And maybe there are some aspects of CRT that should be taught in K-12 schools, but you have to get into communities and build that support.  And that wasn't being done.  Nearly 50% of educators in this country want to teach CRT and the majority of the US public still doesn't understand what CRT is and the only reason they've heard of it is because the GOP brought it to their attention.

 

Even in Aug, 538 had him up by 4 points and the race narrowed from there.   That isn't uncommon.  And certainly McAuliffe did somethings to hurt himself.  But it isn't like he was up by 10 points. Generally, I'd say that polls the far out are pretty meaningless.  A lot of people don't pay much attention and are still making up their mind until the last 6 weeks or so of the election.  So I'd generally tell you I wouldn't bother to read too much into polls much more then 2 months out.  He lost ground because people started paying more attention and thinking more about who they were going to vote for.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of it was, 'I don't like the liberal in the Democratic party, and you know Younkin isn't as bad as Trump.  It might be okay if I vote for him.  He's more of a normal Republican.'

 

But those facts are just as bad for your points too.  Did VA all the sudden realize that Biden was President and that they should vote for somebody of the other party the last month?  Did the Biden administration just suddenly stop passing meaningful legislation the last month?

 

The struggles of the Biden administration and pandemic are factors, yes.  But still, it isn't normal (losses due to being the party with President).  What happened to the SF school board isn't normal.  What appears to be happening with Hispanic voters isn't normal.  Now (again) we're pretty far out and so I strongly suspect that the polls will tighten and MAYBE things will end up being better off for the Dems then they appear.  But even based on the normal tightening of polls that happens as an election approaches, the Dems appear to be in for an unhistorical mid-year pasting.  And they'd be stupid not to worry about why that's going to happen.

 

You also can't separate Biden's failure from the larger apparent unpopularity of the Democratic party.  You appear to be implying a cause and an effect that I don't think is necessarily accurate.  You are saying the Dems are going to get pasted in the mid term elections because Biden can't pass legislation.  Maybe Biden can't get legislation passed because the Dems are unpopular which is also going to cause them to get pasted in the mid-term elections.

 

And I think some if it is because of the progressive wing of the party has gained more power and become more vocal.

 

(In terms of the "moderates" that have killed the Democratic legislation.  Let's be honest.  Manchin isn't a moderate Democrat.  He represent a state that's completely red.  He represents a red state, and he's realistically red.  The state government in WV is very red.  He's a Democrat as a matter of historical inertia.  I don't know what Sienma's issue is.)

Edited February 20, 2022 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

6 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

The progressive message is more popular than the centrist wing of Democrats want to admit.

 

Then why don't they win large state and national elections?

 

At some time, there has to be a connection between our message is really popular and actually winning elections.

 

Right?

 

Or passing legislation.

 

Where is the mass of voters that progressive messages popular with calling up and convincing their legislators to vote for progressive legislation?

Edited February 20, 2022 by PeterMP

[Hersh]

13 hours ago, The Almighty Buzz said:

 

Each voter believes in different things.

 

im on my phone so this will be shorter than it probably deserves.  In 2020, I did vote for one Republican.  It was for Sheriff I believe. My first criteria was not supporting Trump and he met that requirement.  Then I compared other positions and he seemed better than the democrat.  And people can be swing voters by voting for Biden but then also a Hogan or Kitzinger.  Or others that may not have won.  Just calling swing voters idiots is stupid and lazy.  You can support more conservative positions within supporting insurrectionists.  At least swing voters put thought into their vote instead of just voting for a letter.

 

 

I wouldn't classify voting for one person in a specific party as a swing voter. I have voted for a GOP Agriculture guy every election over 12 years and otherwise almost all Dem. I also don't really view never Trumpers as swing voters. To me, we are talking about people that routinely go back and forth between parties. It was more understandable to be a swing voter when there was more bipartisanship and more competitive elections produced somewhat higher quality candidates who ran on actual issues. Now, the GOP platform has strayed into bat**** crazy land and we have hyper-partisanship. 

[bearrock]

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

There is no large national set of people in education that want to teach your kid white supremacy.  The issues are NOT directly comparable (in many ways and including their impact on our educational system at a national level).  An effort to make a comparison is an effort to deemphasize the issue (which was my original point).  If you did a national poll of people in education about teaching kids the "Bell Curve" you wouldn't get 50% to say yes (unless it was done to teach them about CRT and the history of racism in this country).

 

Teachers aren't going to training where the foundation is tenets associated with white supremacy.  Comparing the influence of white supremacy and CRT on the education system in the US is an effort to de-emphasize what has happened with CRT.

 

I've given you a poll and an opinion piece by people saying that they want to teach CRT.   You can't then say that they don't want to teach CRT.  Seriously?  How hard is it?  Some people want to teach CRT.  They are telling you they want to teach CRT.  

 

You are ignoring the central issue.  CRT as it is being used in these discussions is not what CRT is.  You have parents complaining about the 1619 project and teaching materials that show history of racism in America.  That's not complaining about the CRT.  You have grade school teachers who frankly have little clue about what CRT is talking about whether they want to teach it or not (not to mention that CRT discussion is now poisoned thanks to the way the right is framing what CRT education means).  You have people advocating for age appropriate CRT without even defining what that is and how that differs from run of the mill history and social studies lessons on racism.  Just because school staff gets workshop on intersectionality and inherent racial bias in traditional curriculum and disciplinary practices, it doesn't mean that teachers are being programmed to incorporate CRT in their lessons.  And just because school administrations accept some of the tenets of CRT in forming school policy (intersectionality, no biological difference based on race, institutional perpetuation of racial discrimination), it doesn't mean they accept all of the controversial offshoots or the manufactured one (inverse the current power structure with the oppressed on top, which no CRT scholar has ever advocated for), much less teach them to kids. Easiest way to tell that CRT is no longer being used accurately in these discussions is the fact that so-called "anti-CRT" laws are not about CRT, they are about acknowledgment of the role of racism in American history. 

 

More importantly, for the context of this discussion, progressives weren't pounding at the pulpit calling for CRT lessons in school. Rufo and his ilk latched onto CRT as a term to use as a cudgel in the latest culture war.  That's a lot of things, but it sure as hell isn't CRT.

 

2 hours ago, PeterMP said:

Even in Aug, 538 had him up by 4 points and the race narrowed from there.   That isn't uncommon.  And certainly McAuliffe did somethings to hurt himself.  But it isn't like he was up by 10 points. Generally, I'd say that polls the far out are pretty meaningless.  A lot of people don't pay much attention and are still making up their mind until the last 6 weeks or so of the election.  So I'd generally tell you I wouldn't bother to read too much into polls much more then 2 months out.  He lost ground because people started paying more attention and thinking more about who they were going to vote for.  I wouldn't be at all surprised if some of it was, 'I don't like the liberal in the Democratic party, and you know Younkin isn't as bad as Trump.  It might be okay if I vote for him.  He's more of a normal Republican.'

 

But those facts are just as bad for your points too.  Did VA all the sudden realize that Biden was President and that they should vote for somebody of the other party the last month?  Did the Biden administration just suddenly stop passing meaningful legislation the last month?

 

The struggles of the Biden administration and pandemic are factors, yes.  But still, it isn't normal (losses due to being the party with President).  What happened to the SF school board isn't normal.  What appears to be happening with Hispanic voters isn't normal.  Now (again) we're pretty far out and so I strongly suspect that the polls will tighten and MAYBE things will end up being better off for the Dems then they appear.  But even based on the normal tightening of polls that happens as an election approaches, the Dems appear to be in for an unhistorical mid-year pasting.  And they'd be stupid not to worry about why that's going to happen.

 

You also can't separate Biden's failure from the larger apparent unpopularity of the Democratic party.  You appear to be implying a cause and an effect that I don't think is necessarily accurate.  You are saying the Dems are going to get pasted in the mid term elections because Biden can't pass legislation.  Maybe Biden can't get legislation passed because the Dems are unpopular which is also going to cause them to get pasted in the mid-term elections.

 

And I think some if it is because of the progressive wing of the party has gained more power and become more vocal.

 

(In terms of the "moderates" that have killed the Democratic legislation.  Let's be honest.  Manchin isn't a moderate Democrat.  He represent a state that's completely red.  He represents a red state, and he's realistically red.  The state government in WV is very red.  He's a Democrat as a matter of historical inertia.  I don't know what Sienma's issue is.)

 

If you want to blame progressives for McAuliffe's loss despite the fact that party's position didn't shift from Nov 2020 to Nov 2021 (if anything progressives showed more moderation in 2021 by cooperating on the infrastructure and scaling back BBB), that's your prerogative.  I personally think the timing of McAuliffe's polling going down occurring after the delta surge, BBB floundering, and Biden's approval rating cratering in the fall shows that those are the likely explanation, not some inherent built-in hatred for the progressive wing of the Democratic party (where nothing really changed from Nov 2020 all the way through Nov 2021 and too liberal/too conservative closely split at 51-46 for Dem/GOP).  But that's my opinion.  I can't prove the cause and effect, only apply reason and logic.

 

And if you are looking for a nail in the coffin for the McAuliffe campaign, CNN exit poll shows that whopping 84% of the polled voters thought parents should have a lot or some say in what schools teach.  They broke 57-43 for Youngkin.  That's a mess created (and not fixed) by McAulife, not progressives.

 

[88Comrade2000]

3 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Then why don't they win large state and national elections?

 

At some time, there has to be a connection between our message is really popular and actually winning elections.

 

Right?

 

Or passing legislation.

 

Where is the mass of voters that progressive messages popular with calling up and convincing their legislators to vote for progressive legislation?

Manchin did say one right thing to progressives; win elections.

 

 

The progressives agenda or progressive friendly agenda Biden wants to pass; doesn’t have complete support. The Dems don’t have enough people in their caucus; who wants it.

 

So, if you want a progressive light or full on progressive agenda passed; then progressives have to have the numbers in congress.

 

That means 218 congressmen and 51 to 60 Senators.

 

To get there, they not only win solid blue areas but swing districts and even some light red districts.

 

Do that and you will have the numbers to pass whatever you want.

 

Now they aren’t vocal but there are a group of congressmen and senators that actually support what Manchin and Sinema are doing.

[PeterMP]

7 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

You are ignoring the central issue.  CRT as it is being used in these discussions is not what CRT is.  You have parents complaining about the 1619 project and teaching materials that show history of racism in America.  That's not complaining about the CRT.  You have grade school teachers who frankly have little clue about what CRT is talking about whether they want to teach it or not (not to mention that CRT discussion is now poisoned thanks to the way the right is framing what CRT education means).  You have people advocating for age appropriate CRT without even defining what that is and how that differs from run of the mill history and social studies lessons on racism.  Just because school staff gets workshop on intersectionality and inherent racial bias in traditional curriculum and disciplinary practices, it doesn't mean that teachers are being programmed to incorporate CRT in their lessons.  And just because school administrations accept some of the tenets of CRT in forming school policy (intersectionality, no biological difference based on race, institutional perpetuation of racial discrimination), it doesn't mean they accept all of the controversial offshoots or the manufactured one (inverse the current power structure with the oppressed on top, which no CRT scholar has ever advocated for), much less teach them to kids. Easiest way to tell that CRT is no longer being used accurately in these discussions is the fact that so-called "anti-CRT" laws are not about CRT, they are about acknowledgment of the role of racism in American history. 

 

More importantly, for the context of this discussion, progressives weren't pounding at the pulpit calling for CRT lessons in school. Rufo and his ilk latched onto CRT as a term to use as a cudgel in the latest culture war.  That's a lot of things, but it sure as hell isn't CRT.

 

 

If you want to blame progressives for McAuliffe's loss despite the fact that party's position didn't shift from Nov 2020 to Nov 2021 (if anything progressives showed more moderation in 2021 by cooperating on the infrastructure and scaling back BBB), that's your prerogative.  I personally think the timing of McAuliffe's polling going down occurring after the delta surge, BBB floundering, and Biden's approval rating cratering in the fall shows that those are the likely explanation, not some inherent built-in hatred for the progressive wing of the Democratic party (where nothing really changed from Nov 2020 all the way through Nov 2021 and too liberal/too conservative closely split at 51-46 for Dem/GOP).  But that's my opinion.  I can't prove the cause and effect, only apply reason and logic.

 

And if you are looking for a nail in the coffin for the McAuliffe campaign, CNN exit poll shows that whopping 84% of the polled voters thought parents should have a lot or some say in what schools teach.  They broke 57-43 for Youngkin.  That's a mess created (and not fixed) by McAulife, not progressives.

 

 

I'm not ignoring the central issue.  I understand that the 1619 project is not CRT.  I understand that there are more controversial elements and less controversial elements of CRT and because somebody wants to teach CRT that doesn't mean that they want to teach the more controversial elements of CRT.

 

But even the 1619 project shows the problem.  It was making it into schools and the vast majority of the American public didn't know what it was.   Most of the American public had never heard of the 1619 project before the GOP started talking about it.  And there was even some controversy around it in academic circles before that.  Something that clearly might cause some controversy (it had already in academic circles) that most of the public didn't know about was making it into schools without getting buy in from communities.   And now, yes there has been a backlash about it and it has been grouped in by many people with CRT.  But guess what, if they'd explained what the 1619 project is and what CRT is ahead of time that wouldn't have happened.

 

CRT was influencing the US education system when most people didn't know what CRT is.  There was no effort to get the larger population to buy into something before it started being important in the education system.  Whether they were ignoring the more controversial element and nobody actually wants to teach the more controversial elements (which you don't actually know but even if I concede the point) doesn't matter because nobody even knew what it was and nobody talked to anybody about want they did what to do and what they think about the more controversial elements of CRT.

 

Younkin's mess was created because of the controversy around CRT and things like the 1619 project.  The people that said that were saying that based on the idea that these ideas were being put into their school without them knowing it and without their consent.  And those things were from the progressives.  If CRT and things like the 1619 project weren't part of and influencing the education system, then Youkins wouldn't have had that problem.

 

And this is a general issue.  Over the last 60 years or so now, progressives have obtained a lot of their goals through judicial rulings and bureaucratic maneuvering without ever having much of the public agree with them.  Long term that's a recipe for disaster because you end up with a collection of people that are mad at you for different reasons and they coalesce into a mass resistance.

 

The progressives are ready to move onto using MMT as a basis for making public economic policy.  The vast majority of the American public has never heard of MMT and a decent percent still think Reagan was a good President because he grew the economy with trickle down economics.  You can't start using an economic theory to guide public policy when a good percentage of the American public is 40 years behind you.  That will be a mistake.

Edited February 20, 2022 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

I'll even bring this back around to AOC.

 

Here's her defense of CRT use in schools:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-defends-critical-race-theory-155800494.html

 

"Oh, wow, so your child’s teacher is anti-racist and is actually fluent in how to dismantle racism and the dynamics of racism in a classroom. That is something that teachers should know how to do, and Republicans are trying to ban this, are trying to ban us from knowing our own history."

 

I think I have a good handle on what CRT is.  But that doesn't even make sense to me.  Why do you have to be trained in CRT to be anti-racist and dismantle racism?  (I'm not even sure what that means.  What does it mean to dismantle racism?)  Do we really need the American public to be taking a law school level class to build anti-racist population and dismantle racism?

 

Is it really outrageous to suggest that if you are going to base teacher behavior in a classrooms on a theory that has controversial components even in academic circles that you might want to get community buy in ahead of time?  That when the general public finds out that you are doing that or want to do that and you haven't gotten any community buy in, there might be some backlash?

 

There was backlash over "new" math and math is a lot less controversial topic than race.

Edited February 20, 2022 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

11 hours ago, PeterMP said:

 

Then why don't they win large state and national elections?

 

At some time, there has to be a connection between our message is really popular and actually winning elections.

 

Right?

 

Or passing legislation.

 

Where is the mass of voters that progressive messages popular with calling up and convincing their legislators to vote for progressive legislation?

 

I'm convinced that if elections were held on a weekend (like France) instead of a typical workday like Tuesday that election results in this country would look noticeably different.

 

A lot of younger people aren't typically in a position of easily being able to take time off they need to make sure they have the Tuesday off that many older conservative already have off from being retired.

 

It's not an excuse for progressives, they conpletely fell apart in their rallying around Bernie Sanders in 2020 (while at the same time many black voters took the pragmatic approach of voting for the candidate most likely to beat Trump over the one most likely to address issues that plague them as a whole).  We should not underestimate the country's desire to remove Trump in comparison to their typical political beliefs, see the number of moderate republican women that voted for Biden in 2020.

 

Millennial as an overall voting bloc are now at least even with the overall voting bloc size of baby boomers, some argue Millenials are slightly larger now, and once that lead happens, they won't give it back to Boomers as they continue to older and die off.

 

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/478237882/millennials-now-rival-boomers-as-a-political-force-but-will-they-actually-vote

 

I'm frustrated with the excuses for low voting turnout for progressives, but you know what, as a whole our country shouldn't be proud of our overall voter turnout in comparison to other democracies.

 

I'd like the election bill "Freedom to Vote Act" to pass, that's separate from the one named after John Lewis and I believe is the one that does things like making election day a federal holiday. Complaining about them won't fix anything, we need to make it easier to vote, then look at the results and see if it helps or not. 

 

There are absolutely other factors here, such as genuine outreach.  Same time, the progressives message about the amount of tax revenue missing from the top 1% and Fourtune 500 to help pay for the their proposals jus isn't getting through to the general population. They, like moderates on other issues, are losing a perception battle that the GOP has mastered.

Edited February 20, 2022 by Renegade7

[The Evil Genius]

39 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'm convinced that if elections were held on a weekend (like France) instead of a typical workday like Tuesday that election results in this country would look noticeably different.

 

A lot of younger people aren't typically in a position of easily being able to take time off they need to make sure they have the Tuesday off that many older conservative already have off from being retired.

 

It's not an excuse for progressives, they conpletely fell apart in their rallying around Bernie Sanders in 2020 (while at the same time many black voters took the pragmatic approach of voting for the candidate most likely to beat Trump over the one most likely to address issues that plague them as a whole).  We should not underestimate the country's desire to remove Trump in comparison to their typical political beliefs, see the number of moderate republican women that voted for Biden in 2020.

 

Millennial as an overall voting bloc are now at least even with the overall voting bloc size of baby boomers, some argue Millenials are slightly larger now, and once that lead happens, they won't give it back to Boomers as they continue to older and die off.

 

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/478237882/millennials-now-rival-boomers-as-a-political-force-but-will-they-actually-vote

 

I'm frustrated with the excuses for low voting turnout for progressives, but you know what, as a whole our country shouldn't be proud of our overall voter turnout in comparison to other democracies.

 

I'd like the election bill "Freedom to Vote Act" to pass, that's separate from the one named after John Lewis and I believe is the one that does things like making election day a federal holiday. Complaining about them won't fix anything, we need to make it easier to vote, then look at the results and see if it helps or not. 

 

There are absolutely other factors here, such as genuine outreach.  Same time, the progressives message about the amount of tax revenue missing from the top 1% and Fourtune 500 to help pay for the their proposals jus isn't getting through to the general population. They, like moderates on other issues, are losing a perception battle that the GOP has mastered.

 

I suspect states that allow early voting and mail in ballots would have a higher turnout of younger voters, based on your theory. 

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I'm not ignoring the central issue.  I understand that the 1619 project is not CRT.  I understand that there are more controversial elements and less controversial elements of CRT and because somebody wants to teach CRT that doesn't mean that they want to teach the more controversial elements of CRT.

 

But even the 1619 project shows the problem.  It was making it into schools and the vast majority of the American public didn't know what it was.   Most of the American public had never heard of the 1619 project before the GOP started talking about it.  And there was even some controversy around it in academic circles before that.  Something that clearly might cause some controversy (it had already in academic circles) that most of the public didn't know about was making it into schools without getting buy in from communities.   And now, yes there has been a backlash about it and it has been grouped in by many people with CRT.  But guess what, if they'd explained what the 1619 project is and what CRT is ahead of time that wouldn't have happened.

 

CRT was influencing the US education system when most people didn't know what CRT is.  There was no effort to get the larger population to buy into something before it started being important in the education system.  Whether they were ignoring the more controversial element and nobody actually wants to teach the more controversial elements (which you don't actually know but even if I concede the point) doesn't matter because nobody even knew what it was and nobody talked to anybody about want they did what to do and what they think about the more controversial elements of CRT.

 

1619 is a project by a private news media.  You're going to blame progressive dems in Congress for that one?  How far off the rails are we getting here?  There is a progressive section of society trying to propel progress in the direction and manner they see fit.  That the conservative members of society have a problem with that is not the fault of progressive lawmakers.  

 

And explaining 1619 a 1000 times (or even CRT, if they chose to teach it) would not molify the parents who object to their kids learning about the role of racism in American history.  You really think a parent who says something like this is going to be put at ease by a better publicity campaign?

 

https://theweek.com/news/1002407/anti-critical-race-theory-parents-reportedly-object-to-teaching-ruby-bridges-book

 

Quote

The Tennessean reported last month that parents in Williamson County have been criticizing the "Wit & Wisdom" curriculum for allegedly not being appropriate for young kids and teaching critical race theory concepts. Community members and advocacy groups, the report describes, have objected to the inclusion of books like "Ruby Bridges Goes to School" written by Ruby Bridges, who became the first Black child to integrate a segregated New Orleans school when she was six. 

 

Robin Steenman, who heads Moms for Liberty's Williamson County chapter, reportedly pointed to this book and others at an education committee meeting, claiming its mention of a "large crowd of angry white people who didn't want Black children in a white school" was too harsh and pointing to the fact that it didn't offer "redemption" at the end, the Tennessean reports. Steenman also reportedly objected to another book about school segregation and expressed disapproval of teaching words like "injustice" and "inequality" in grammar lessons. 

 

Some people flat have opposition to progress.  That's the way it always is.  I am happy to call out legitimate idoitic moves by progressives like framing police reform as defund the police.  That some part of society has a problem with progress that is not manufactured or driven by lawmakers but by progressive members of society is not the fault of AOC and her friends.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

CRT was influencing the US education system when most people didn't know what CRT is.  There was no effort to get the larger population to buy into something before it started being important in the education system.  Whether they were ignoring the more controversial element and nobody actually wants to teach the more controversial elements (which you don't actually know but even if I concede the point) doesn't matter because nobody even knew what it was and nobody talked to anybody about want they did what to do and what they think about the more controversial elements of CRT.

 

Racial equity in education was always a controversial subject.  Calling it CRT didn't change what it was.  If anything, CRT has now become an increasingly meaningless phrase in the public because it morphed into so many different things for different people

 

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/polls-about-lessons-on-racism-in-schools-can-be-eye-opening-and-misleading/2021/12

 

Quote

One common finding: Parents—and the public at large—are uncertain and confused

 

If there is one thing to take away from these results, it’s caution. Quite a few of the national polls simply ask for respondents’ take on whether “critical race theory” should be taught in schools or not.

 

At this point, the term has traveled far beyond the original academic framework that legal scholars developed in the 1980s. That means every poll respondent is bringing their own ideas about it to the table, making it much more difficult to interpret responses. And by now, perspectives are also largely refracted through a national political lens—right along with masking, vaccinations, and other COVID-related topics.

 

“It’s a particular challenge because it’s a topic that wasn’t widely known or widely discussed until the recent controversy about it,” said Lloyd. “Given that reality, survey results could potentially be influenced by how a given poll defines it or whether researchers choose to define the term for respondents at all. It’s a good reason to be cautious about relying too heavily on the results from any single poll.”

 

So stop putting everything under the now poisoned umbrella of CRT and talk about what teachers are actually teaching and actually want to teach.  

 

And again.  None of this is the fault of the progressive dems.  GOP ignites culture wars.  It's their playbook.  The world is changing too fast and too left and soon the liberal boogieman will come and brainwash your kids into becoming communist/hippies/degenerates, whatever.  If not this, they will latch onto something else and someone else.  If not Clinton, Pelosi.  If not Pelosi, AOC.  If not AOC, it will be someone else. 

 

Moderate dems blaming AOC and co for electoral losses is about as stupid and unproductive as progressive lawmakers pretending like they can control the legislative agenda.  They need each other to win and do anything.  Just like progressives thinking that if enough people just paid attention and understood our position, we'd win in landslides is a pipe dream, the moderates thinking that if progressives would just stop being so inconvenient and march in lockstep with us, we'd be able to win over the middle and still turn out the left is stuff of pure delusion.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

Younkin's mess was created because of the controversy around CRT and things like the 1619 project.  The people that said that were saying that based on the idea that these ideas were being put into their school without them knowing it and without their consent.  And those things were from the progressives.  If CRT and things like the 1619 project weren't part of and influencing the education system, then Youkins wouldn't have had that problem.

 

What CRT topics were put into school?  Which of them caught people unaware?  People got outraged over Toni Morrison's Beloved, a book from the 80's and mainstay in AP tests for forever.  It's not like topics of racial equity and institutional racial bias entered the educational scenary yesterday.  

 

And you're conflating progressivism with progressive lawmakers.  If moderates have a problem with some of the democratic voters being progressives, than that's a different issue altogether.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

And this is a general issue.  Over the last 60 years or so now, progressives have obtained a lot of their goals through judicial rulings and bureaucratic maneuvering without ever having much of the public agree with them.  Long term that's a recipe for disaster because you end up with a collection of people that are mad at you for different reasons and they coalesce into a mass resistance.

 

The edge of progress outpaces legislative reform.  Shocking.  Lot of progress was also made through legislations as well (it's not like Civil Rights Act and ACA were passed with slamdunk public support).  But let's continue with the activist judge boogeyman, because that's so much sexier than what really happens in court.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

The progressives are ready to move onto using MMT as a basis for making public economic policy.  The vast majority of the American public has never heard of MMT and a decent percent still think Reagan was a good President because he grew the economy with trickle down economics.  You can't start using an economic theory to guide public policy when a good percentage of the American public is 40 years behind you.  That will be a mistake.

 

Let's be real.  Both parties already behave like they adopted the MMT.  They only harp on the deficit when the other party is in charge.  Vast majority of Americans may never have heard of MMT, but vast majority of Americans also support cutting taxes, keeping every entitlement program, keeping military spending, and creating new government spending, all at the same time.  If not in name, they wholeheartedly support the MMT already.  On this, the American public has been 40 years ahead of the progressives, because if there is one thing stupid voters like more than anything else, it's the notion of free money.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I'll even bring this back around to AOC.

 

Here's her defense of CRT use in schools:

 

https://news.yahoo.com/aoc-defends-critical-race-theory-155800494.html

 

"Oh, wow, so your child’s teacher is anti-racist and is actually fluent in how to dismantle racism and the dynamics of racism in a classroom. That is something that teachers should know how to do, and Republicans are trying to ban this, are trying to ban us from knowing our own history."

 

I think I have a good handle on what CRT is.  But that doesn't even make sense to me.  Why do you have to be trained in CRT to be anti-racist and dismantle racism?  (I'm not even sure what that means.  What does it mean to dismantle racism?)  Do we really need the American public to be taking a law school level class to build anti-racist population and dismantle racism?

 

Is it really outrageous to suggest that if you are going to base teacher behavior in a classrooms on a theory that has controversial components even in academic circles that you might want to get community buy in ahead of time?  That when the general public finds out that you are doing that or want to do that and you haven't gotten any community buy in, there might be some backlash?

 

There was backlash over "new" math and math is a lot less controversial topic than race.

 

Did you read the entire quote?  It's right there in the article

 

Quote

"Critical race theory is not taught in elementary school. It is barely taught in law schools, frankly, in the level that it should be taught," Ocasio-Cortez said. "We know that Republicans have started to now use these laws curtailing critical race ‘curriculum,’ that's not even being taught in the first place, as a proxy to saying we can’t teach anything about race in our schools beyond just some of the most minimal, minimal, minimal facts."

 

Quote

"We should say, 'Why don’t you want our schools to teach anti-racism? Why don’t Republicans want their kids to know the tradition of anti-racism in the United States?'" she said. "Why are they attacking the core roots of history in this country that strays anything beyond what we already know? … Why don’t Republicans want us to learn how to not be racist? Why don’t Republicans want kids to know how to not be racist?"

 

Quote

"Children do not feel guilt about racism when they learn early on what racism is. In fact, children learn to recognize it and can engage in corrective behavior early," Ocasio-Cortez continued. "Republicans are using these words like critical race theory, which, again, is a law school curriculum that is not even taught in schools, and their argument is, 'Well, some teachers may be exposed to it.'"

 

Did she just support teaching CRT in school or did she just say that what GOP is opposing is not CRT and there is no problem with teaching what GOP is opposing?  

[Renegade7]

30 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

I suspect states that allow early voting and mail in ballots would have a higher turnout of younger voters, based on your theory. 

 

Yep, and from what I can tell, that's exactly what happened in 2020.

 

Quote

Voter turnout was highest in states that mailed ballots to all registered voters. Even as vote-by-mail took on increased importance in 2020 due to the pandemic, states approached it differently. Youth voter turnout was highest (57%), and had the largest increases over 2016, in states that automatically mailed ballots to voters. Conversely, states with the most restrictive vote-by-mail laws had the lowest youth turnout, at 42%.

 

https://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/half-young-people-voted-2020-major-increase-2016

[bearrock]

29 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Yep, and from what I can tell, that's exactly what happened in 2020.

 

 

https://now.tufts.edu/news-releases/half-young-people-voted-2020-major-increase-2016

 

And it's not even just an issue of progressive electability.  Voting being a fundamental right should be exercisable with maximum ease and least restrictive safeguards necessary for a safe and secure election.  US ranks in the bottom 3rd in voter turnout.  System needs updating and needs it badly.

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, bearrock said:

 

1619 is a project by a private news media.  You're going to blame progressive dems in Congress for that one?  How far off the rails are we getting here?  There is a progressive section of society trying to propel progress in the direction and manner they see fit.  That the conservative members of society have a problem with that is not the fault of progressive lawmakers.  

 

And explaining 1619 a 1000 times (or even CRT, if they chose to teach it) would not molify the parents who object to their kids learning about the role of racism in American history.  You really think a parent who says something like this is going to be put at ease by a better publicity campaign?

 

https://theweek.com/news/1002407/anti-critical-race-theory-parents-reportedly-object-to-teaching-ruby-bridges-book

 

Some people flat have opposition to progress.  That's the way it always is.  I am happy to call out legitimate idoitic moves by progressives like framing police reform as defund the police.  That some part of society has a problem with progress that is not manufactured or driven by lawmakers but by progressive members of society is not the fault of AOC and her friends.

 

 

Racial equity in education was always a controversial subject.  Calling it CRT didn't change what it was.  If anything, CRT has now become an increasingly meaningless phrase in the public because it morphed into so many different things for different people

 

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/polls-about-lessons-on-racism-in-schools-can-be-eye-opening-and-misleading/2021/12

 

 

So stop putting everything under the now poisoned umbrella of CRT and talk about what teachers are actually teaching and actually want to teach.  

 

And again.  None of this is the fault of the progressive dems.  GOP ignites culture wars.  It's their playbook.  The world is changing too fast and too left and soon the liberal boogieman will come and brainwash your kids into becoming communist/hippies/degenerates, whatever.  If not this, they will latch onto something else and someone else.  If not Clinton, Pelosi.  If not Pelosi, AOC.  If not AOC, it will be someone else. 

 

Moderate dems blaming AOC and co for electoral losses is about as stupid and unproductive as progressive lawmakers pretending like they can control the legislative agenda.  They need each other to win and do anything.  Just like progressives thinking that if enough people just paid attention and understood our position, we'd win in landslides is a pipe dream, the moderates thinking that if progressives would just stop being so inconvenient and march in lockstep with us, we'd be able to win over the middle and still turn out the left is stuff of pure delusion.

 

 

What CRT topics were put into school?  Which of them caught people unaware?  People got outraged over Toni Morrison's Beloved, a book from the 80's and mainstay in AP tests for forever.  It's not like topics of racial equity and institutional racial bias entered the educational scenary yesterday.  

 

And you're conflating progressivism with progressive lawmakers.  If moderates have a problem with some of the democratic voters being progressives, than that's a different issue altogether.

 

 

The edge of progress outpaces legislative reform.  Shocking.  Lot of progress was also made through legislations as well (it's not like Civil Rights Act and ACA were passed with slamdunk public support).  But let's continue with the activist judge boogeyman, because that's so much sexier than what really happens in court.

 

 

Let's be real.  Both parties already behave like they adopted the MMT.  They only harp on the deficit when the other party is in charge.  Vast majority of Americans may never have heard of MMT, but vast majority of Americans also support cutting taxes, keeping every entitlement program, keeping military spending, and creating new government spending, all at the same time.  If not in name, they wholeheartedly support the MMT already.  On this, the American public has been 40 years ahead of the progressives, because if there is one thing stupid voters like more than anything else, it's the notion of free money.

 

Did you read the entire quote?  It's right there in the article

 

Did she just support teaching CRT in school or did she just say that what GOP is opposing is not CRT and there is no problem with teaching what GOP is opposing?  

 

I'm not blaming progressive congress Democrats for creating the 1619 project.  But everything a public media company puts together doesn't end up being used in a classroom.  That required people to actually do work.  People actually had to change the curriculum.

 

Who did that work?  I'm willing to bet it was progressives.  If Breitbart put together a thing on racism in America, I'm betting it wouldn't be implemented in many schools.

 

It isn't about mollifying every parent.  It is about mollifying enough parents that there isn't a large scale public back lash.  If you know somebody is going to set a trap for you and you continually fall into the trap, then when people look at you and say hey you're sort of stupid for falling into the trap they have a point.  You know the GOP is looking for issues to turn into a culture war if you continually give them topics to turn into culture wars that result in holding up action on other issues, then maybe you aren't actually helping push things forward. 

 

If you want to actually help make progress, then at some point you have to stop giving the GOP ammunition to start culture wars.  You have to think big picture and long term.  

 

Yes the GOP are going to try to create cultural wars.  Here's an idea.  Stop falling into that trap.  Stop implementing policies that can create culture wars without getting broad based public support.  How you teach and deal with racism in schools is going to controversial.  Before you adopt new policies, practices, and educational material for dealing with and teaching racism in a classroom make an effort to educate the public and get the public to buy in.

 

If you really want to change the world, you have to put the work in to actually change the world.  

 

And it isn't just that edge of progress is out pacing legislative reform.  The percent of Americans that support abortion hasn't really changed since there has been consistent polling on it back to 1975 (that's when Gallop has historical data going back to but I'd bet if you go even further back you get the same thing).  On many of these issues, public opinion essentially isn't changing.  (Gay rights appears to be an exception.)  Progressives achieved one goal and moved onto the next where the larger public wasn't lagging behind.  The larger public never moved.  Long term, that has created problems.

 

I'm going to use smoking as an example.  In this country once over 50% of adults smoked.  It took years and lots of work.  Today that number is much lower and people don't want to smoke.  The progressive approach would result of essentially 50% of Americans still wanting to approach.

 

None of those quotes from AOC address my questions.  I'll post them again:

 

 Why do you have to be trained in CRT to be anti-racist and dismantle racism?  (I'm not even sure what that means.  What does it mean to dismantle racism?)  Do we really need the American public to be taking a law school level class to build anti-racist population and dismantle racism?

 

That the GOP has used CRT as a catch for all issues related to racism and teaching race in classrooms is true.  And that's not what CRT is is true.  That there is no public school that openly includes CRT itself as part of the curriculum to my knowledge is also true.  That the GOP is trying to rally Americans against changes of how race and racism are dealt with in classrooms is also true.  But none of that addresses my questions.

 

She's avoiding and de-emphasizing the issues.  Teachers were being trained in CRT to affect how they dealt with race and racism in the classroom.  To suggest that wasn't affecting how they were teaching isn't really being honest.  Teachers might not have been directly teaching CRT, but they were being trained in CRT to influence how they teach.  That's a pretty fine distinction.  She ends up making excuses as to why teachers have to be taught CRT (to be anti-racist and dismantle racism) without ever addressing why and how they will use CRT to to be anti-racist and dismantle racism.  She is assuming facts (that to be anti-racist and dismantle racism you have to be trained in CRT) that aren't at all clear to me and certainly aren't clear to the vast majority of the American public.

 

She wants teachers to know and use CRT when they teach and how they deal with racism in the classroom and either can't or won't take the time to explain to the American public why it is actually necessary and/or important.  

 

In addition, she wants to change how race and racism are taught in classrooms without first getting buy and explaining why that's important to the American public.

 

(Now, AOC is on CNN there so she's very much limited to the structure that CNN is going to give here so doing that might not be practical in that setting.  But generally that's the issue.)

 

I'm honestly not sure what you are really arguing with me about.

 

Progressives want to change how race and racism are dealt with and taught in the classroom.  They made changes (e.g. used CRT in teaching training, added the 1619 program into the educational curriculum, etc) without getting large scale buy in from the public.  Those actions have riled up the GOP base (yes the GOP has started a culture war over them), moved some swing voters to the GOP, have hurt the electability of Democrats, and actually impeded the ability to legislatively enact a liberal agenda.

 

Is any of that really debatable?

 

You seem to be just repeating yourself/changing arguments slightly without ever actually addressing the point.

 

The push forward by progressives on different issues (including how race and racism are taught and dealt with in classrooms) has hurt the ability of Democrats to get elected and implement and liberal agenda.  The idea and phrasing of "defund the police" has hurt the ability of Democrats to get elected and implement a liberal agenda.  The failure to continually do the work to move the American public's opinion on abortion has hurt the ability of Democrats to get elected and implement a liberal agenda.  And in the long term is going to result in a decrease in the abortion rights in this country.  By using poor words, bureaucratic processes, and the courts to achieve their goals and not build consensus among the American public in the long term progressives are actually hurting themselves 

Edited February 20, 2022 by PeterMP

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

 

I'm convinced that if elections were held on a weekend (like France) instead of a typical workday like Tuesday that election results in this country would look noticeably different.

 

A lot of younger people aren't typically in a position of easily being able to take time off they need to make sure they have the Tuesday off that many older conservative already have off from being retired.

 

It's not an excuse for progressives, they conpletely fell apart in their rallying around Bernie Sanders in 2020 (while at the same time many black voters took the pragmatic approach of voting for the candidate most likely to beat Trump over the one most likely to address issues that plague them as a whole).  We should not underestimate the country's desire to remove Trump in comparison to their typical political beliefs, see the number of moderate republican women that voted for Biden in 2020.

 

Millennial as an overall voting bloc are now at least even with the overall voting bloc size of baby boomers, some argue Millenials are slightly larger now, and once that lead happens, they won't give it back to Boomers as they continue to older and die off.

 

https://www.npr.org/2016/05/16/478237882/millennials-now-rival-boomers-as-a-political-force-but-will-they-actually-vote

 

I'm frustrated with the excuses for low voting turnout for progressives, but you know what, as a whole our country shouldn't be proud of our overall voter turnout in comparison to other democracies.

 

I'd like the election bill "Freedom to Vote Act" to pass, that's separate from the one named after John Lewis and I believe is the one that does things like making election day a federal holiday. Complaining about them won't fix anything, we need to make it easier to vote, then look at the results and see if it helps or not. 

 

There are absolutely other factors here, such as genuine outreach.  Same time, the progressives message about the amount of tax revenue missing from the top 1% and Fourtune 500 to help pay for the their proposals jus isn't getting through to the general population. They, like moderates on other issues, are losing a perception battle that the GOP has mastered.

 

Two things:

 

1.  Something polling well doesn't matter.  Getting people to vote for something is the bare minimum to get things to change.  If people can't get off their butts and even vote for something, then how it polls doesn't matter.  And that's the minimum.  The progressive agenda has lacked even that bare minimum. 

 

2.  Every generation is the generation that though they'd really change things.  The WWI generation literally meant the war to end all wars after WWI.  That wasn't a phrase that was figuratively at the time.  They really believed they were creating a structure that would prevent future wars.

 

You are railing against the baby boomers as the source of our problems.  Their the generation of the 1960s.  Many of them really thought they were going to change things.  That they would end racism, fix the environment, etc.

Edited February 20, 2022 by PeterMP

[Renegade7]

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Two things:

 

1.  Something polling well doesn't matter.  Getting people to vote for something is the bare minimum to get things to change.  If people can't get off their butts and even vote for something, then how it polls doesn't matter.  And that's the minimum.  The progressive agenda has lacked even that bare minimum. 

 

I completely disagree that polling doesn't matter and seek for a compromise that voting matters more.  How are our representatives supposed to know what we want without asking us?

 

8 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

2.  Every generation is the generation that though they'd really change things.  The WWI generation literally meant the war to end all wars after WWI.  That wasn't a phrase that was figuratively at the time.  They really believed they were creating a structure that would prevent future wars.

 

You are railing against the baby boomers as the source of our problems.  Their the generation of the 1960s.  Many of them really thought they were going to change things.  That they would end racism, fix the environment, etc.

 

Yea know, complex problems take complex solutions, and that takes time.  Not every problem can be solved by a single generation, especially with new problems that arise.  Any generation that claims or says otherwise is being unrealistic, but that should not stop them from trying. 

 

I have my issues with previous generations for different reasons, but failing to solve every problem before it became our turn to address them isn't one of them, I agree that that is unreasonable.

 

Some of these problems have different priorities, and like all priorities, they evolve with reality.  Climate Change is racing up the charts of priority now, with a disportionate impact on older versus current and future generations. 

 

Too many boomers in power are treating it as not their problem as the impact that may worry them and concerning future generations they believe they won't be around for anyway.  That should be worthy of calling out and outrage.  So fine, millenials, gen z, and future generations shouldn't be mad previous generations didn't "solve" this before it became their problem (in the context as you say of trying to solve every problem simultaneously and that beibg unrealistic), but they shouldnt laugh at this being a higher priority for these generations and calling it "progressive". 

 

Something like this should not be a political football, the future of our species is at stake here, whether they are around for it or not.

 

TL;DR - this isn't about solving every problem before it gets to us, it's about getting in the way now with respect to different generations having different priorities

[bearrock]

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I'm not blaming progressive congress Democrats for creating the 1619 project.  But everything a public media company puts together doesn't end up being used in a classroom.  That required people to actually do work.  People actually had to change the curriculum.

 

Who did that work?  I'm willing to bet it was progressives.  If Breitbart put together a thing on racism in America, I'm betting it wouldn't be implemented in many schools.

 

Professors and educators who are progressive or progressive lawmakers, specifically progressive Congressional lawmakers?  Because remember how all this started?  Moderate democrates blaming AOC and co for the upcoming midterm losses?  How did AOC and co convince professors and school districts to incorporate 1619 in their curriculum?  

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

It isn't about mollifying every parent.  It is about mollifying enough parents that there isn't a large scale public back lash.  If you know somebody is going to set a trap for you and you continually fall into the trap, then when people look at you and say hey you're sort of stupid for falling into the trap they have a point.  You know the GOP is looking for issues to turn into a culture war if you continually give them topics to turn into culture wars that result in holding up action on other issues, then maybe you aren't actually helping push things forward. 

 

If you want to actually help make progress, then at some point you have to stop giving the GOP ammunition to start culture wars.  You have to think big picture and long term.  

 

Yes the GOP are going to try to create cultural wars.  Here's an idea.  Stop falling into that trap.  Stop implementing policies that can create culture wars without getting broad based public support.  How you teach and deal with racism in schools is going to controversial.  Before you adopt new policies, practices, and educational material for dealing with and teaching racism in a classroom make an effort to educate the public and get the public to buy in.

 

If you really want to change the world, you have to put the work in to actually change the world.  

 

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree.  No amount of model behavior (however that's defined) will stop the demonizing by the right.  Podesta isn't to blame for Pizzagate by mentioning Comet Pizza in his email.  Obama's parents aren't to blame for terrorist accusation by giving him Hussein as a middle name.  New Deal policies aren't to blame for labeling liberals communists.  Racial sensitivity and racial bias training aren't to blame for the right labeling every racial topic CRT and banning it from classrooms.  Whatever is at the most left-edge of mainstream politics, the right will demonize.  Look at how the right turned on ACA the minute a Democratic president adopted it.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

And it isn't just that edge of progress is out pacing legislative reform.  The percent of Americans that support abortion hasn't really changed since there has been consistent polling on it back to 1975 (that's when Gallop has historical data going back to but I'd bet if you go even further back you get the same thing).  On many of these issues, public opinion essentially isn't changing.  (Gay rights appears to be an exception.)  Progressives achieved one goal and moved onto the next where the larger public wasn't lagging behind.  The larger public never moved.  Long term, that has created problems.

 

I'm going to use smoking as an example.  In this country once over 50% of adults smoked.  It took years and lots of work.  Today that number is much lower and people don't want to smoke.  The progressive approach would result of essentially 50% of Americans still wanting to approach.

 

By that logic, school integration should be stuck in the mud.  Civil rights should be stuck in the mud.  Not every societal change needs to or can wait for ground swell of broad section support.

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

None of those quotes from AOC address my questions.  I'll post them again:

 

 Why do you have to be trained in CRT to be anti-racist and dismantle racism?  (I'm not even sure what that means.  What does it mean to dismantle racism?)  Do we really need the American public to be taking a law school level class to build anti-racist population and dismantle racism?

 

That the GOP has used CRT as a catch for all issues related to racism and teaching race in classrooms is true.  And that's not what CRT is is true.  That there is no public school that openly includes CRT itself as part of the curriculum to my knowledge is also true.  That the GOP is trying to rally Americans against changes of how race and racism are dealt with in classrooms is also true.  But none of that addresses my questions.

 

She's avoiding and de-emphasizing the issues.  Teachers were being trained in CRT to affect how they dealt with race and racism in the classroom.  To suggest that wasn't affecting how they were teaching isn't really being honest.  Teachers might not have been directly teaching CRT, but they were being trained in CRT to influence how they teach.  That's a pretty fine distinction.  She ends up making excuses as to why teachers have to be taught CRT (to be anti-racist and dismantle racism) without ever addressing why and how they will use CRT to to be anti-racist and dismantle racism.  She is assuming facts (that to be anti-racist and dismantle racism you have to be trained in CRT) that aren't at all clear to me and certainly aren't clear to the vast majority of the American public.

 

She wants teachers to know and use CRT when they teach and how they deal with racism in the classroom and either can't or won't take the time to explain to the American public why it is actually necessary and/or important.  

 

In addition, she wants to change how race and racism are taught in classrooms without first getting buy and explaining why that's important to the American public.

 

(Now, AOC is on CNN there so she's very much limited to the structure that CNN is going to give here so doing that might not be practical in that setting.  But generally that's the issue.)

 

AOC is guilty of using CRT imprecisely with respect to teacher training as well (which unfortunately is a fairly common phenomenon at this point).  Even people like Ben Shapiro do not disagree that the phenomenon of intersectionality is real.  Things taught to teachers such as institutional racial bias in curriculum, grading, and discipline are uncontroversial stuff.  There is a intersection between CRT and those issues, but like I said before, it's akin to basic algebraic concepts appearing in higher math.  Intersectionality and institutional racial bias are mundane stuff that most people will agree with.  And training those topics is really not CRT.  It would be as ridiculous as me saying that my kid's curriculum teaches discrete math because they covered 2+2. 

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

I'm honestly not sure what you are really arguing with me about.

 

Progressives want to change how race and racism are dealt with and taught in the classroom.  They made changes (e.g. used CRT in teaching training, added the 1619 program into the educational curriculum, etc) without getting large scale buy in from the public.  Those actions have riled up the GOP base (yes the GOP has started a culture war over them), moved some swing voters to the GOP, have hurt the electability of Democrats, and actually impeded the ability to legislatively enact a liberal agenda.

 

Is any of that really debatable?

 

You seem to be just repeating yourself/changing arguments slightly without ever actually addressing the point.

 

The following are my points and the ones you appear to disagree with to varying degrees.  Tell me where I'm wrong.

1) The term CRT as used in these discussions are not CRT.  They are short hand for any myriad of things to different people (a lot of the times, simply rudimentary instruction on racisim).  

2) No CRT is actually taught in schools.  Just as teaching 2+2 is not teaching discrete mathematics, teaching about intersectionality, history of racism, its role in American history, and institutional racial bias is not teaching CRT.  There wasn't some huge change to race education that prompted this backlash.  Adding interesting perspective raised in 1619 project is not remaking race education in America.

3) Teachers receive CRT training in school that is essentially training about racial sensitivity and bias.  

4) Progressives, especially progressive lawmakers, are not to blame for the "CRT" issue exploding.  It is simply the latest chapter in cultural war by the GOP.  

5) "Swing" voters who are so disingaged from reality and facts as to be legitimately swung by the CRT outrage (not, I really want to vote GOP because I'm sick and tired of the pandemic and want all restrictions off, but I need an excuse) would have been outraged by some other manufactured outrage as they always have been.

6) McAuliffe didn't lose because the progressives have poisoned the democratic party.  The pandemic fatigue, delta surge, BBB failure and aftermath of Biden's approval, and his own ridiculous stance on parent's role in school curriculum torpedoed his campaign (I would've disqualified his ass for doing an end run around VA term limits, but whatever)

7) And most important, central, and originally germane to this thread, AOC and co's messaging or policy positions are not what is sinking the democrats in the upcoming midterm.  Even the most model behavior by the Squad would not stop the pandemic fatigue and Biden's approval rating from nuking the Dem's chances. 

8. AOC and co are not manufacturing policy positions out of thin air.  There are very real segments of the democratic base who will not vote for democrats without people like AOC, Sanders, and Warren advocating for systemic changes.  To repudiate the AOC and the progressive wing is to repudiate those voters.  One cannot win without the other.  If the moderates think that those voters will turn out even if the party position no longer reflects progressive policies, they are dreaming. The democratic party has to find a way to be a big tent party (like passing a moderate/progressive compromise BBB would've shown).  

 

1 hour ago, PeterMP said:

The push forward by progressives on different issues (including how race and racism are taught and dealt with in classrooms) has hurt the ability of Democrats to get elected and implement and liberal agenda.  The idea and phrasing of "defund the police" has hurt the ability of Democrats to get elected and implement a liberal agenda.  The failure to continually do the work to move the American public's opinion on abortion has hurt the ability of Democrats to get elected and implement a liberal agenda.  And in the long term is going to result in a decrease in the abortion rights in this country.  By using poor words, bureaucratic processes, and the courts to achieve their goals and not build consensus among the American public in the long term progressives are actually hurting themselves 

 

You mean the liberal agenda that moderates deem palatable.  Progressive lawmakers do not get to issue marching orders to people who are progressive.  BTW, if the opinion and actions of progressive Americans are hurting the moderates, then blame them, not progressive lawmakers.  By tautalogical nature, moderates will have issues with progressives.  Defund the police is a gaffe and a tactical mistake.  You can advocate for reform without a mistake like that and thus deserves to be lambasted.  But if moderates have problem with the underlying call for reform, you can't blame the progressives as some kind of a tactical mistake.  This is simply a policy disagreement.  Sure, if progressives bought into moderate policy positions or discarded their policy positions to vote for moderate positions, moderates would be free to court more of the middle and elections would be more winnable.  But progressives won't because they are progressives, not moderates.  

 

As for relying on the legal system and executive power, that's a reflection of the broken legislative system and tribal voter mindset.  How much more in favor of abortion can the country get than 70%+ supporting some form of abortion since the 70's?  Ground swell support no longer result in legislative changes, single issue voting does.  Abortion right gets restricted because 70%+ support it but most of them will not use the issue to decide who to vote for, thus the 20-30% diehards win.  Same with guns.  No gun regulation gets passed thanks to single issue voters.  It would be nice if dialogue, engagement, and compromise resulted in forward legislative progress, but that's rarely, if ever, the reality anymore.  

Edited February 20, 2022 by bearrock

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, bearrock said:

 

Professors and educators who are progressive or progressive lawmakers, specifically progressive Congressional lawmakers?  Because remember how all this started?  Moderate democrates blaming AOC and co for the upcoming midterm losses?  How did AOC and co convince professors and school districts to incorporate 1619 in their curriculum?  

 

 

This is where you and I fundamentally disagree.  No amount of model behavior (however that's defined) will stop the demonizing by the right.  Podesta isn't to blame for Pizzagate by mentioning Comet Pizza in his email.  Obama's parents aren't to blame for terrorist accusation by giving him Hussein as a middle name.  New Deal policies aren't to blame for labeling liberals communists.  Racial sensitivity and racial bias training aren't to blame for the right labeling every racial topic CRT and banning it from classrooms.  Whatever is at the most left-edge of mainstream politics, the right will demonize.  Look at how the right turned on ACA the minute a Democratic president adopted it.

 

 

By that logic, school integration should be stuck in the mud.  Civil rights should be stuck in the mud.  Not every societal change needs to or can wait for ground swell of broad section support.

 

 

AOC is guilty of using CRT imprecisely with respect to teacher training as well (which unfortunately is a fairly common phenomenon at this point).  Even people like Ben Shapiro do not disagree that the phenomenon of intersectionality is real.  Things taught to teachers such as institutional racial bias in curriculum, grading, and discipline are uncontroversial stuff.  There is a intersection between CRT and those issues, but like I said before, it's akin to basic algebraic concepts appearing in higher math.  Intersectionality and institutional racial bias are mundane stuff that most people will agree with.  And training those topics is really not CRT.  It would be as ridiculous as me saying that my kid's curriculum teaches discrete math because they covered 2+2. 

 

 

The following are my points and the ones you appear to disagree with to varying degrees.  Tell me where I'm wrong.

1) The term CRT as used in these discussions are not CRT.  They are short hand for any myriad of things to different people (a lot of the times, simply rudimentary instruction on racisim).  

2) No CRT is actually taught in schools.  Just as teaching 2+2 is not teaching discrete mathematics, teaching about intersectionality, history of racism, its role in American history, and institutional racial bias is not teaching CRT.  There wasn't some huge change to race education that prompted this backlash.  Adding interesting perspective raised in 1619 project is not remaking race education in America.

3) Teachers receive CRT training in school that is essentially training about racial sensitivity and bias.  

4) Progressives, especially progressive lawmakers, are not to blame for the "CRT" issue exploding.  It is simply the latest chapter in cultural war by the GOP.  

5) "Swing" voters who are so disingaged from reality and facts as to be legitimately swung by the CRT outrage (not, I really want to vote GOP because I'm sick and tired of the pandemic and want all restrictions off, but I need an excuse) would have been outraged by some other manufactured outrage as they always have been.

6) McAuliffe didn't lose because the progressives have poisoned the democratic party.  The pandemic fatigue, delta surge, BBB failure and aftermath of Biden's approval, and his own ridiculous stance on parent's role in school curriculum torpedoed his campaign (I would've disqualified his ass for doing an end run around VA term limits, but whatever)

7) And most important, central, and originally germane to this thread, AOC and co's messaging or policy positions are not what is sinking the democrats in the upcoming midterm.  Even the most model behavior by the Squad would not stop the pandemic fatigue and Biden's approval rating from nuking the Dem's chances. 

8. AOC and co are not manufacturing policy positions out of thin air.  There are very real segments of the democratic base who will not vote for democrats without people like AOC, Sanders, and Warren advocating for systemic changes.  To repudiate the AOC and the progressive wing is to repudiate those voters.  One cannot win without the other.  If the moderates think that those voters will turn out even if the party position no longer reflects progressive policies, they are dreaming. The democratic party has to find a way to be a big tent party (like passing a moderate/progressive compromise BBB would've shown).  

 

 

You mean the liberal agenda that moderates deem palatable.  Progressive lawmakers do not get to issue marching orders to people who are progressive.  BTW, if the opinion and actions of progressive Americans are hurting the moderates, then blame them, not progressive lawmakers.  By tautalogical nature, moderates will have issues with progressives.  Defund the police is a gaffe and a tactical mistake.  You can advocate for reform without a mistake like that and thus deserves to be lambasted.  But if moderates have problem with the underlying call for reform, you can't blame the progressives as some kind of a tactical mistake.  This is simply a policy disagreement.  Sure, if progressives bought into moderate policy positions or discarded their policy positions to vote for moderate positions, moderates would be free to court more of the middle and elections would be more winnable.  But progressives won't because they are progressives, not moderates.  

 

As for relying on the legal system and executive power, that's a reflection of the broken legislative system and tribal voter mindset.  How much more in favor of abortion can the country get than 70%+ supporting some form of abortion since the 70's?  Ground swell support no longer result in legislative changes, single issue voting does.  Abortion right gets restricted because 70%+ support it but most of them will not use the issue to decide who to vote for, thus the 20-30% diehards win.  Same with guns.  No gun regulation gets passed thanks to single issue voters.  It would be nice if dialogue, engagement, and compromise resulted in forward legislative progress, but that's rarely, if ever, the reality anymore.  

 

I don't think that we disagree with many of the things that you seem to suggest.  I'm not comfortable saying no teacher taught components of CRT in a class room, but I'd guess if push comes to shove you aren't really comfortable saying that either.  But I'm not saying that CRT was part of the planned curriculum or  was being taught in an organized, consistent, or regular manner.

 

You're taking the initial post/point to literally with respect to the squad.  Yes, the squad was mentioned but it also included;

 

"Why it matters: The push to defund the police, rename schools and tear down statues has created a significant obstacle to Democrats keeping control of the House, the Senate and the party’s overall image."

 

Nobody is blaming AOC for renaming schools.  The general point is about progressives hurting the general electability of Democrats and hurt the parties overall image which affects the ability to get things done.

 

You are also still separating Biden's inability to pass legislation, the unpopularity of the Democratic party, and what appears is going to happen in the next election as 3 separate entities instead of related entities that likely have related effects.  That separation seems artificial and unnecessary.

 

You are also still separating the issues the McAulliffe campaign had with the role that parents had in the education system from the fact that it became an issue at all due to progressives.  Yes, it was a misstep, but it shouldn't have had to a be misstep and only became an issue because of progressives.

 

If progressives want to achieve progressive goals, they have to work with moderates.  They have consider the ability to elect a political mass to even achieve moderate goals.  Currently, they are failing that.  If you can't elect a political mass to achieve progressive goals or even a political mass to achieve "moderate" goals, you need to rethink your approach.

 

Abortion isn't supported by 70% of the US public.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

 

Civil rights are stuck in the mud and are even going backwards (see what is happening to the Civil Rights Act).  There do appear to be exceptions (I mentioned gay rights before).  Integration appears to be another.  Though, I'm not sure they really are.  I'm not sure the public opinion didn't at least start moving on those issues before the court (but I will agree the court did move before it was politically/legislatively possible).

 

The last thing I'm going to tell you is that all things to rail up the base and attract moderate voters aren't equally effective.  I don't think calling Obama a secret Muslim that was born in Kenya helped the GOP much.  I don't think pizzagate helped the GOP much.  I think without the e-mails and even the issues at the very end with them being on her aides husband's computer and Comey's statement, Hillary wins that election.  Treating everything the GOP does has equally successful at attracting voters is stupid.  Then the flip of that is treating everything that progressives do that the GOP uses as equally successful at turning voters away from Democrats is stupid.  Acting like the impact on elections of Podesta mentioning Comet Pizza in e-mails is the same as trying to change how race and racism are dealt with in classrooms with out broad based public support are the same is stupid.

 

CRT became a catch all for how to teach and deal with racism and in the public dialogue ended up including things that aren't CRT.  But the idea that parents will care more about and be more motivated to vote based on how race and racism are dealt with and taught in a classroom than a rumor that is unsubstantiated and in the end proven false isn't something I should have to say.

 

And I can't believe that I have to say that.  And with that, I'm done.

Edited February 20, 2022 by PeterMP

[bearrock]

14 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You're taking the initial post/point to literally with respect to the squad.  Yes, the squad was mentioned but it also included;

 

"Why it matters: The push to defund the police, rename schools and tear down statues has created a significant obstacle to Democrats keeping control of the House, the Senate and the party’s overall image."

 

Nobody is blaming AOC for renaming schools.  The general point is about progressives hurting the general electability of Democrats and hurt the parties overall image which affects the ability to get things done.

 

You are also still separating Biden's inability to pass legislation, the unpopularity of the Democratic party, and what appears is going to happen in the next election as 3 separate entities instead of related entities that likely have related effects.  That separation seems artificial and unnecessary.

 

I briefly mentioned it before, but my dim view of this article and the moderate dems bringing AOC and co into the fray stems from my opinion on the motivation behind it (intraparty squabble for power and influence).  Progressive positions creating issues for moderates is nothing new, but they managed to squeeze in the Squad in criticizing policies that you acknowledge are not created by AOC.  That was my initial and central reaction.

 

The whole sidetrack to CRT is probably pretty accurately reflected by your last post.  Whether labeled as components of CRT or basic racism topics that happens to be present in CRT, sure, it's there. I don't think it goes to CRT being taught in school.  I get the sense you'd not sign on the assertion either at least not without some clarification or equivocation.

 

24 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You are also still separating Biden's inability to pass legislation, the unpopularity of the Democratic party, and what appears is going to happen in the next election as 3 separate entities instead of related entities that likely have related effects.  That separation seems artificial and unnecessary.

 

I'm not sure I follow with the discussion of separation.  I mean they are obviously connected, but they also have independent components.  My perspective is that Biden's disapproval due to BBB failure (which was not influenced by controversial progressive positions) and pandemic fatigue would've been sufficient conditions regardless of progressive policy approval or palatability for a midterm drubbing.  In contrast, if Biden's popularity was still high after passing BBB and if pandemic didn't drag on, progressive politics would have minimal drag effect on mid terms.  Obviously that's just a matter of opinion.

 

33 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

You are also still separating the issues the McAulliffe campaign had with the role that parents had in the education system from the fact that it became an issue at all due to progressives.  Yes, it was a misstep, but it shouldn't have had to a be misstep.

 

To the extent that educators have worked to make racial equity and ingrained bias more of an issue for school administration to consider.  To the extent that 1619 spurred on a discussion about different perspective on role of race and racism in American history and society in some schools (I think I saw 3500 classrooms.  That's a pretty small regional effect.  Far cry from remaking race education in America).  I'm not sure how much blame you can lay at the feet of progressives for that one quite frankly (and what moderate dems would even propose to do instead.  Don't change anything?).  In any event, the conservative pushback along with the fear mongering of CRT in school and piggyback of trying to wipe race related education was not a proportional response to progressive actions.  It was highly calculated action designed to gin up irrational perspective and reaction.  You blame the progressives for giving cause.  I blame the bad faith on the right and inability of McAuliffe to effectively address it.

 

45 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

If progressives want to achieve progressive goals, they have to work with moderates.  They have consider the ability to elect a political mass to even achieve moderate goals.  Currently, they are failing that.  If you can't elect a political mass to achieve progressive goals or even a political mass to achieve "moderate" goals, you need to rethink your approach.

 

 

Neither progressives nor moderates can win control of Congress or the White House without the other.  Moderates may scoff at the number of seats by progressives, but they represent the difference between winning and losing.

 

47 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

Abortion isn't supported by 70% of the US public.

 

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

 

70%+ support abortion in some form.  Yet we have states passing laws that effectively ban abortion without exception, which is only supported by about 20 to 30%.

 

50 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

The last thing I'm going to tell you is that all things to rail up the base and attract moderate voters aren't equally effective.  I don't think calling Obama a secret Muslim that was born in Kenya helped the GOP much.  I don't think pizzagate helped the GOP much.  I think without the e-mails and even the issues at the very end with them being on her aides husband's computer and Comey's statement, Hillary wins that election.  Treating everything the GOP does has equally successful at attracting voters is stupid.  Then the flip of that is treating everything that progressives do that the GOP uses as equally successful at turning voters away from Democrats is stupid.  Acting like the impact on elections of Podesta mentioning Comet Pizza in e-mails is the same as trying to change how race and racism are dealt with in classrooms with out broad based public support are the same is stupid.

 

 

I clearly wrote in my post that my original point was that the right will find something to demonize about the left.  Never said these demonization are equally effective (which obviously no one would think).  Sometimes the effectiveness of the demonization is a self inflicted wound (see defund the police).  Sometimes the effectiveness is because voters are dumb.  I see the CRT as voters being dumb given that what teachers are trained on and what students are taught have no resemblance to the CRT boogeyman that the right has created.  Fundamental fracture seems to be that you think the right was at least somewhat accurate in their CRT attack. I think it was ludicrous.  So it goes....

[TheGreatBuzz]

Seems like a good idea.  Way to go Dems.

 

 

 

 

[Renegade7]

Stop it, a Democratic response to a Democratic President's State of the Union address?

 

 

[NoCalMike]

1 hour ago, Renegade7 said:

Stop it, a Democratic response to a Democratic President's State of the Union address?

 

 

 

Didn't Bernie do the same thing on several occasions? I suppose technically he is an (I) but still caucuses' with the Dems for the most part.  Also, the media usually doesn't cover any of the responses besides that of the opposition party anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------------

 

The "CRT in classrooms" issue should have been DOA as soon as the video surfaced of the GOP operative admitting that the goal was never to actually debate CRT itself and instead just make up their own definition of what it is and what it contains.  Get people so outraged over something that they are determined to keep it out of the classrooms when it isn't even in the classrooms, nor does it exist in the first place.  

 

We already see the immediate after effects of this absolute con as evidenced by what else the GOP is going after when it comes to schools.  We have to stop acting like this is anything other than another step in the goal of destroying public education.  

Edited February 24, 2022 by NoCalMike