9 ms·

That's pretty much where liberal politicians end up targeting most of their policymaking and even a sizable portion of their campaign platform (as demonstrated

That's pretty much where liberal politicians end up targeting most of their policymaking and even a sizable portion of their campaign platform (as demonstrated in the Harris platform). Yet "tangled up in social issues" remains a popular misconception. Why?

soco 2y ago
Because anything related to "delivering better lives" gets labeled as "tangled up social issues" and discarded in favor of "increasing profits". Maybe the majority only understands life through money? Like, a better life means more money, period - and has no concept that a better life could mean road safety, reliable healthcare, serious schooling, quiet retirement, and such.
- PaulHoule 2y ago
  Republicans are trusted more on schools post-COVID and evidence is blue states lost more schooling progress than red state even if blue states were mostly ahead pre-COVID. (if you argue that we are not post-COVID, people are not going to trust you on schools even if the virus still lingers. As callous as it sounds, everybody dies, but not everybody gets a complete education and if you think the way the education-industrial complex thinks, students don’t get back social and educational progess they lost)
  - watwut 2y ago
    Republicans are not trusted more on schools. You may trust them more after covid, but overall the claim does not seem to be valid. Also, republican plan is to dismantle public schooling and conservative plan is to move as much as possible toward homeschooling. Which has double advantage of keeping women at home.
Gothmog69 2y ago
[flagged]
jf22 2y ago
I think it's simply that being mad about social issues gets more interactions on social media.
tsimionescu 2y ago
This is entirely false. Centrist liberal politicians in general, and Kamala in particular, promote the idea that everyone is already doing great, and just doing what we're already doing is good enough. There were no major programs or overhaul of existing new programs of any kind in the Harris campaign. There were some ideas that Waltz floated initially, but he was quickly quieted down in favor of the pro status quo message.
dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
> Yet "tangled up in social issues" remains a popular misconception. Why? Do you think declaring their preferred pronouns helped liberal politicians? Who did it ultimately help? Probably the Trump campaign. Also, "defund the police" is easily the stupidest political slogan ever. It's bewildering. Did no one think "Reform the police" was a winner? And yet liberal politicians lapped it up.
- bryanlarsen 2y ago
  I dare you to find a Democratic candidate saying "defund the police" any time in 2024. Bet you can't find any.
  - kelipso 2y ago
    People have memories.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
    Silly straw man, but still, here are 61 Dems doing the next best thing: https://www.businessinsider.com/which-democrats-voted-against-condemning-defunding-police-2024-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/which-democrats-voted-agains...
- wwweston 2y ago
  Here's some quotes from the 2024 D platform: "[We] made record investments in public safety, putting more police officers on the beat; today, violent crime is at its lowest in 50 years" "Democrats provided funding for communities to hire more police." "since day one, President Biden has been working to make sure police officers have the tools they need to protect their communities, including more police officers on the street. We need to fund the police" "Democrats passed and President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan, with the largest ever federal investment infighting and preventing crime, reducing violence, and investing in public safety. That funding enabled cities and states to invest more than $14 billion in public safety and violence prevention, putting more police officers on the beat for accountable community policing." https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTE... Why is it that when looking for examples of what some are doing wrong, you're casting back over 5 years to an activist slogan that even then was treated as a poor expression rather than "lapped it up"? It's almost like what you're here to do is actually reinforce the unproductive association rather than point the direction to a better way. You want to talk about what's "bewildering"? What's bewildering is that your apparent confidence (or deliberately mislead?) confusing very online cheer-squad discourse from some corners over stated positions of most officeholders or candidates. One could charitably assume that it's because you have some acquaintances or media follows who represent themselves or others as you've described and you've accidentally made parasocial promotion into an unfortunate wider partisan caricature. One could also warily assume you're an operative who is here to actively reinforce the associations you were ostensibly fighting against. Perhaps uncharitable, but hardly implausible these days. The majority of liberal politicians are classic liberals who spend their campaign and policy time as you said you wanted, and it seems you haven't noticed. "pronoun" doesn't appear in that 2024 D platform document. Also can't find it in a CBS news summary [1] of the Harris campaign. You know what does show up, though? Housing issues. Actual working class tax cut proposals. Child tax credits (pretty pro birth, very pro parent). And those are what I think about when I think about liberal officeholders and candidates. Because that's what I see them talking about when I follow them and what's discussed in the media coverage I follow. Where are you directing your attention? [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-platform-policy-positions-2024/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-platform-policy-p...
rayiner 2y ago
> Yet "tangled up in social issues" remains a popular misconception. Why? It’s not a “misconception.” Democrats choose to spend their political capital changing the status quo on social issues. For example, Americans overwhelmingly oppose affirmative action: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans-and-affirmative-action-how-the-public-sees-the-consideration-of-race-in-college-admissions-hiring/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans... Affirmative action was banned in California in 1996. Which party tried to repeal the ban in 2020? Republicans didn’t pass a law to ban affirmative action even more!
- jakelazaroff 2y ago
  Did you read your own link? It says that affirmative action enjoys at least plurality if not majority support: > Americans who had heard the phrase affirmative action in the Center’s December survey were asked whether they saw it as a good or a bad thing. Among those who had ever heard the term, 36% said affirmative action is a good thing, 29% said it is a bad thing and a third weren’t sure. > By comparison, Gallup has asked U.S. adults whether they “generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial minorities.” In 2021, the last time Gallup asked this question, a 62% majority of Americans favored such programs.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Keep reading! > Public attitudes about affirmative action can also vary depending on the specific context in which it is being discussed, such as in higher education or the workplace. > A larger share of Americans disapprove than approve of higher education institutions taking race and ethnicity into account when admitting students, according to several recent Center surveys. > In that survey, 74% of U.S. adults said that, when making decisions about hiring and promotions, companies and organizations should take only a person’s qualifications into account, even if it results in less diversity. Around a quarter (24%) said companies and organizations should take a person’s race and ethnicity into account – in addition to qualifications – to increase diversity. The unpopular approach of considering race is what Democrats have pushed recently. E.g. Prop 16: > A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.

soco 2y ago

Because anything related to "delivering better lives" gets labeled as "tangled up social issues" and discarded in favor of "increasing profits". Maybe the majority only understands life through money? Like, a better life means more money, period - and has no concept that a better life could mean road safety, reliable healthcare, serious schooling, quiet retirement, and such.

PaulHoule 2y ago
Republicans are trusted more on schools post-COVID and evidence is blue states lost more schooling progress than red state even if blue states were mostly ahead pre-COVID. (if you argue that we are not post-COVID, people are not going to trust you on schools even if the virus still lingers. As callous as it sounds, everybody dies, but not everybody gets a complete education and if you think the way the education-industrial complex thinks, students don’t get back social and educational progess they lost)
- watwut 2y ago
  Republicans are not trusted more on schools. You may trust them more after covid, but overall the claim does not seem to be valid. Also, republican plan is to dismantle public schooling and conservative plan is to move as much as possible toward homeschooling. Which has double advantage of keeping women at home.

Gothmog69 2y ago

[flagged]

jf22 2y ago

I think it's simply that being mad about social issues gets more interactions on social media.

tsimionescu 2y ago

This is entirely false. Centrist liberal politicians in general, and Kamala in particular, promote the idea that everyone is already doing great, and just doing what we're already doing is good enough. There were no major programs or overhaul of existing new programs of any kind in the Harris campaign. There were some ideas that Waltz floated initially, but he was quickly quieted down in favor of the pro status quo message.

dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago

> Yet "tangled up in social issues" remains a popular misconception. Why? Do you think declaring their preferred pronouns helped liberal politicians? Who did it ultimately help? Probably the Trump campaign. Also, "defund the police" is easily the stupidest political slogan ever. It's bewildering. Did no one think "Reform the police" was a winner? And yet liberal politicians lapped it up.

bryanlarsen 2y ago
I dare you to find a Democratic candidate saying "defund the police" any time in 2024. Bet you can't find any.
- kelipso 2y ago
  People have memories.
- dkjaudyeqooe 2y ago
  Silly straw man, but still, here are 61 Dems doing the next best thing: https://www.businessinsider.com/which-democrats-voted-against-condemning-defunding-police-2024-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/which-democrats-voted-agains...
wwweston 2y ago
Here's some quotes from the 2024 D platform: "[We] made record investments in public safety, putting more police officers on the beat; today, violent crime is at its lowest in 50 years" "Democrats provided funding for communities to hire more police." "since day one, President Biden has been working to make sure police officers have the tools they need to protect their communities, including more police officers on the street. We need to fund the police" "Democrats passed and President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan, with the largest ever federal investment infighting and preventing crime, reducing violence, and investing in public safety. That funding enabled cities and states to invest more than $14 billion in public safety and violence prevention, putting more police officers on the beat for accountable community policing." https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTER-PLATFORM.pdf https://democrats.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/FINAL-MASTE... Why is it that when looking for examples of what some are doing wrong, you're casting back over 5 years to an activist slogan that even then was treated as a poor expression rather than "lapped it up"? It's almost like what you're here to do is actually reinforce the unproductive association rather than point the direction to a better way. You want to talk about what's "bewildering"? What's bewildering is that your apparent confidence (or deliberately mislead?) confusing very online cheer-squad discourse from some corners over stated positions of most officeholders or candidates. One could charitably assume that it's because you have some acquaintances or media follows who represent themselves or others as you've described and you've accidentally made parasocial promotion into an unfortunate wider partisan caricature. One could also warily assume you're an operative who is here to actively reinforce the associations you were ostensibly fighting against. Perhaps uncharitable, but hardly implausible these days. The majority of liberal politicians are classic liberals who spend their campaign and policy time as you said you wanted, and it seems you haven't noticed. "pronoun" doesn't appear in that 2024 D platform document. Also can't find it in a CBS news summary [1] of the Harris campaign. You know what does show up, though? Housing issues. Actual working class tax cut proposals. Child tax credits (pretty pro birth, very pro parent). And those are what I think about when I think about liberal officeholders and candidates. Because that's what I see them talking about when I follow them and what's discussed in the media coverage I follow. Where are you directing your attention? [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-platform-policy-positions-2024/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kamala-harris-platform-policy-p...

rayiner 2y ago

> Yet "tangled up in social issues" remains a popular misconception. Why? It’s not a “misconception.” Democrats choose to spend their political capital changing the status quo on social issues. For example, Americans overwhelmingly oppose affirmative action: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans-and-affirmative-action-how-the-public-sees-the-consideration-of-race-in-college-admissions-hiring/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/06/16/americans... Affirmative action was banned in California in 1996. Which party tried to repeal the ban in 2020? Republicans didn’t pass a law to ban affirmative action even more!

jakelazaroff 2y ago
Did you read your own link? It says that affirmative action enjoys at least plurality if not majority support: > Americans who had heard the phrase affirmative action in the Center’s December survey were asked whether they saw it as a good or a bad thing. Among those who had ever heard the term, 36% said affirmative action is a good thing, 29% said it is a bad thing and a third weren’t sure. > By comparison, Gallup has asked U.S. adults whether they “generally favor or oppose affirmative action programs for racial minorities.” In 2021, the last time Gallup asked this question, a 62% majority of Americans favored such programs.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Keep reading! > Public attitudes about affirmative action can also vary depending on the specific context in which it is being discussed, such as in higher education or the workplace. > A larger share of Americans disapprove than approve of higher education institutions taking race and ethnicity into account when admitting students, according to several recent Center surveys. > In that survey, 74% of U.S. adults said that, when making decisions about hiring and promotions, companies and organizations should take only a person’s qualifications into account, even if it results in less diversity. Around a quarter (24%) said companies and organizations should take a person’s race and ethnicity into account – in addition to qualifications – to increase diversity. The unpopular approach of considering race is what Democrats have pushed recently. E.g. Prop 16: > A "yes" vote supported this constitutional amendment to repeal Proposition 209 (1996), which stated that the government and public institutions cannot discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to persons on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in public employment, public education, and public contracting.