Support NeoGAF

[Piecake]

I actually don't really agree with this. It's important for the Democrats to be pushing bills that would be good ideas. No, none of them will pass or even get out of committee, but having them written is healthy for the party. Today's example should make clear what happens to a party that spends years running on opposition without having actual practical policy proposals to pass when they get into power.

I have no problems with Democrats doing this, and agree that they should be putting forth workable policy proposals to the floor.

My point is that they shouldn't go on all the news channels and focusing on decriminalizing marijuana as a political strategy to show that Trump doesn't keep his campaign promises. What the OP is talking about is creating a media narrative, and that takes a significant amount of time and effort. And that time and effort is simply not worth it when you have the gift of Trumpcare.

 

[Rentahamster]

But that is the result if you want democrats to start making a big deal about decriminalizing marijuana. It takes a lot of work to create a media narrative and sustain it. Frankly, I doubt it is even possible because it requires the media to go along with you. The result of that is democrats focusing a lot less on health care. That is just simple reality.

That is not the result. There are several core progressive issues they can focus on at the same time. They can walk and chew gum at the same time. whynotboth.gif

You say the democrats learned nothing from the campaign, but it is pretty clear that you didn't learn one of the most important lessons as well.

That is to keep the message simple and keep it only focused on a few topics. Nothing stuck with Trump because it was just way too much while Hilary had emails and Benghazi that the media constantly focused on.

I didn't learn anything huh? How about you didn't learn the lessons of the analysis of how Clinton's campaign was one of the least policy-focused campaigns ever.

 

[pigeon]

I have no problems with Democrats doing this, and agree that they should be putting forth workable policy proposals to the floor.

My point is that they shouldn't go on all the news channels and focusing on decriminalizing marijuana as a political strategy to show that Trump doesn't keep his campaign promises. What the OP is talking about is creating a media narrative, and that takes a significant amount of time and effort. And that time and effort is simply not worth it when you have the gift of Trumpcare.

Ah, yes. I totally agree with this. The people on GAF who think marijuana is an obvious issue that will win elections all on its own are, uh, high.

 

[Aaronrules380]

That is not the result. There are several core progressive issues they can focus on at the same time. They can walk and chew gum at the same time. whynotboth.gif



I didn't learn anything huh? How about you didn't learn the lessons of the analysis of how Clinton's campaign was one of the least policy-focused campaigns ever.

Because any time you do two things at once it's going to detract from both. And that analysis was only focused on the campaign ads (of which can you name a single policy focused Trump ad either). Clinton's website was filled with detailed policy information

 

[Rentahamster]

What the OP is talking about is creating a media narrative

Actually, I'm talking about them doing their damn jobs.

Because any time you do two things at once it's going to detract from both. And that analysis was only focused on the campaign ads (of which can you name a single policy focused Trump ad either). Clinton's website was filled with detailed policy information

So I guess you didn't take away anything meaningful from that, then.

 

[pigeon]

She's one of the most conservative Reps in the House but comes from one of the most Liberal states... Literally she's the perfect example of what those Justice Democrats should go after.

This is actually a constant puzzle for me. Why don't the Bernie supporters agitate for a challenger to Tulsi Gabbard? She literally campaigned against civil unions for GLBT people in Hawaii! She accused Honolulu Magazine of working for "homosexual extremists!"

 

[Aaronrules380]

Actually, I'm talking about them doing their damn jobs.



So I guess you didn't take away anything meaningful from that, then.

She may not have communicated her policy effectively, but Trump literally had no policy at all so I'm failing to see your point

 

[jack_package_200]

This is actually a constant puzzle for me. Why don't the Bernie supporters agitate for a challenger to Tulsi Gabbard? She literally campaigned against civil unions for GLBT people in Hawaii! She accused Honolulu Magazine of working for "homosexual extremists!"

I will say the Bernie coalition isn't a monolith. The people in my life who supported Bernie despise Tulsi for opportunistically and superficially piggybacking onto the movement to advance her career.

 

[Rentahamster]

She may not have communicated her policy effectively, but Trump literally had no policy at all so I'm failing to see your point

There was a lot of policy. It was just policy you didn't like.

 

[Aaronrules380]

There was a lot of policy. It was just policy you didn't like.

policy is more than vague ideas about what you want to get done. Policy is also concrete plans about how you want to achieve your goals, and Trump had none of those. Trump won because he had more charisma and because he made blatant lies to his constituencies about being able to do things he had no idea how he'd do

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

Ah, yes. I totally agree with this. The people on GAF who think marijuana is an obvious issue that will win elections all on its own are, uh, high.

I honestly don't really care about it either way but it seems to consistently win ballot initiatives in a variety of red and blue states. I don't think it should be the main platform plank but it seems like a good election winning policy.

This is actually a constant puzzle for me. Why don't the Bernie supporters agitate for a challenger to Tulsi Gabbard? She literally campaigned against civil unions for GLBT people in Hawaii! She accused Honolulu Magazine of working for "homosexual extremists!"

I do, but I think the amount people even know about her is overblown. If my roommate is a barometer of a normal Bernie support (young, male college student who begrudgingly voted for Hillary in the end) then I don't think people know who she is at all. Even on Neogaf dot com most of the references to her are people sarcastically calling her a "liberal icon" or worrying about her running in 2020.

 

[Piecake]

That is not the result. There are several core progressive issues they can focus on at the same time. They can walk and chew gum at the same time. whynotboth.gif

This is simply not true. There is a fixed amount of media time and a limited amount that voters pay attention to politics. You want the media and thus the public to be focused on issues that people care about and that impacts them deeply. Health Care and taxes is a lot better at that than

I didn't learn anything huh? How about you didn't learn the lessons of the analysis of how Clinton's campaign was one of the least policy-focused campaigns ever.

This makes no sense.

I am saying to focus on health care and then taxes when the Republicans do tax reform. Those are policy issues. What Clinton did was not focus on policy, but focus on how unfit Trump was for president. If she focused on a few policy issues ad nauseam that would have been a very policy-focused campaign.

I also think you are confused about what made Bernie popular because that is exactly what he did. He focused on a few key policy issues, gave easy to understand solutions to those problems, and beat that drum again and again and again and again. That is how you build a media narrative

 

[JustenP88]

Middle-of-the-road my ass. She's one of the most conservative Democrats from one of the most liberal states. She's helped prop-up a tyrant in Assad and is more than a little Islamophobic. She's the definitive craven politician who changes her stances on issues wildly when she thinks it will benefit her. No one cares that she backed Bernie over Clinton but you.

Conservative Democrats exist. I don't see.how that's a direct indictment of her character, but I'm not the authority on purity tests, I guess.

"More than a little Islamaphobic?" Eh, doesn't seem any moreso than the least-Islamophobic Republicans. But, whatever. If Islamophobes are going to advocate the decriminalization of marijuana then I'm with Sessions! Because this is all relevant to the topic at hand!

"Definitive craven politician?" "Changes her stances?" Is that supposed to move the needle? Is that not a blanket critique that is applied to any politician that someone doesn't like? What would that have to do with this bill?

No one cares that she backed Bernie over Clinton but you.

This thread wouldn't have been flooded with this shit that I'm hypocritically perpetuating with this post if that hadn't happened. This thread would have been about the bill if rhat hadnt happened. It's funny that two of you used almost that exact same line though.

This is actually a constant puzzle for me. Why don't the Bernie supporters agitate for a challenger to Tulsi Gabbard? She literally campaigned against civil unions for GLBT people in Hawaii! She accused Honolulu Magazine of working for "homosexual extremists!"

I mean, if 22 year-olds can't evolve on this issue then I don't see how we give a pass to politicians in their 60s but, again, I don't understand purity tests like you guys do. All I know is this thread went from "a bill to decriminalize marijuana" to "it's weird how much Bernie supporters just looooove crazy homophobes, amirite?!" Politics! Yay!

 

[Aaronrules380]

Conservative Democrats exist. I don't see.how that's a direct indictment of her character, but I'm not the authority on purity tests, I guess.

"More than a little Islamaphobic?" Eh, doesn't seem any moreso than the least-Islamophobic Republicans. But, whatever. If Islamophobes are going to advocate the decriminalization of marijuana then I'm with Sessions! Because this is all relevant to the topic at hand!

"Definitive craven politician?" "Changes her stances?" Is that supposed to move the needle? Is that not a blanket critique that is applied to any politician that someone doesn't like? What would that have to do with this bill?




This thread wouldn't have been flooded with this shit that I'm hypocritically perpetuating with this post if that hadn't happened. This thread would have been about the bill if rhat hadnt happened. It's funny that two of you used almost that exact same line though.

LOL. Not a single person here has said anything to suggest they were even slightly against the legalization of Marijuana, and pretty much everyone here has made it very obvious they support it. It doesn't help your arguement that the majority of the people who initially brought up their distaste for her also said they supported the bill at the EXACT SAME TIME

 

[Rentahamster]

policy is more than vague ideas about what you want to get done. Policy is also concrete plans about how you want to achieve your goals, and Trump had none of those. Trump won because he had more charisma and because he made blatant lies to his constituencies about being able to do things he had no idea how he'd do

Build a wall. Travel ban. Kill TPP. Renegotiate NAFTA. Make NATO pay their fair share. Bomb the shit out of ISIS. Don't get into new conflicts like we did in Iraq. Revitalize military. $1 trillion in infrastructure. Outsourcing bad. Fair trade. Tax manufacturers who move their jobs overseas. Repeal and replace Obamacare.

i.e. policies you didn't like and your brain tuned out.

This is simply not true. There is a fixed amount of media time and a limited amount that voters pay attention to politics. You want the media and thus the public to be focused on issues that people care about and that impacts them deeply. Health Care and taxes is a lot better at that than

Then we agree to disagree that the progressive message on all fronts can be taken directly to the American people. It can and it should.

 

[studyguy]

Expecting marijuana legislation to move at all on a federal level under this DOJ is probably not realistic, but w/e. Decriminalization should always come before legalization though, I don't disagree with that notion. One naturally begets the other, or at the very least invites broader coalitions.

 

[Rentahamster]

Expecting marijuana legislation to move at all on a federal level under this DOJ is probably not realistic, but w/e. Decriminalization should always come before legalization though, I don't disagree with that notion. One naturally begets the other, or at the very least invites broader coalitions.

Yeah. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Decriminalization has more public support, and it's almost all of what I want anyway. Baby steps.

 

[studyguy]

Yeah. Don't bite off more than you can chew. Decriminalization has more public support, and it's almost all of what I want anyway. Baby steps.

That being said I don't expect anything to come of this.

 

[Rentahamster]

That being said I don't expect anything to come of this.

Especially if more Democrats and Republicans (and especially Democrats) don't speak up to support it and advocate for it.

 

[JustenP88]

LOL. Not a single person here has said anything to suggest they were even slightly against the legalization of Marijuana, and pretty much everyone here has made it very obvious they support it. It doesn't help your arguement that the majority of the people who initially brought up their distaste for her also said they supported the bill at the EXACT SAME TIME

Oh, I know people in here aren't against the contents of the bill. That's the beef. What is the relevance of any of her weaknesses to this topic? Why frame the conversation around this bill with all of that hysteria? What purpose does it serve? To signal to the rest of GAF that you have the 'correct' opinion re: Tulsi Gabbard?

Conservative Democrats in conservative areas make sense... she's not in a conservative area.

Well they keep electing her so I dunno. Maybe you need to hop on over there and set those voters straight. Still, I don't see the relevance of her relative conservatism.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Conservative Democrats exist. I don't see.how that's a direct indictment of her character, but I'm not the authority on purity tests, I guess.

"More than a little Islamaphobic?" Eh, doesn't seem any moreso than the least-Islamophobic Republicans. But, whatever. If Islamophobes are going to advocate the decriminalization of marijuana then I'm with Sessions! Because this is all relevant to the topic at hand!

"Definitive craven politician?" "Changes her stances?" Is that supposed to move the needle? Is that not a blanket critique that is applied to any politician that someone doesn't like? What would that have to do with this bill?




This thread wouldn't have been flooded with this shit that I'm hypocritically perpetuating with this post if that hadn't happened. This thread would have been about the bill if rhat hadnt happened. It's funny that two of you used almost that exact same line though.



I mean, if 22 year-olds can't evolve on this issue then I don't see how we give a pass to politicians in their 60s but, again, I don't understand purity tests like you guys do. All I know is this thread went from "a bill to decriminalize marijuana" to "it's weird how much Bernie supporters just looooove crazy homophobes, amirite?!" Politics! Yay!

Conservative Democrats in conservative areas make sense... she's not in a conservative area.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Especially if more Democrats and Republicans (and especially Democrats) don't speak up to support it and advocate for it.

Democrats have pretty much no power to get anything done until the midterms

 

[Fat4all]

Conservative Democrats in conservative areas make sense... she's not in a conservative area.

Yeah, that's more a West Virginia sort of thing.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Oh, I know people in here aren't against the contents of the bill. That's the beef. What is the relevance of any of her weaknesses to this topic? Why frame the conversation around this bill with all of that hysteria? What purpose does it serve? To signal to the rest of GAF that you have the 'correct' opinion re: Tulsi Gabbard?

Probably to remind people that while she's not doing a bad thing in this specific instance that she is still very problematic and we should be trying to replace her? Again, I don't think you get what an ideological purity test is, because supporting a bill that goes a step in the right direction but nowhere near as far as the ideal penned by an individual who you greatly dislike is literally the exact opposite of an ideological purity test

 

[Rentahamster]

Democrats have pretty much no power to get anything done until the midterms

Yes they do. They're not utilizing it properly.

 

[highrider]

However this plays out, I'm confident I'll be doing bong hits.

 

[Fat4all]

However this plays out, I'm confident I'll be doing bong hits.

highrider
Member
(Today, 01:26 AM)

 

[Aaronrules380]

Yes they do. They're not utilizing it properly.

I meant more specifically the power to get anything brought into law. There are obviously things we can do, but no liberal bill has any chance of becoming law when Democrats are as outnumbered as they are now

 

[pigeon]

Oh, I know people in here aren't against the contents of the bill. That's the beef. What is the relevance of any of her weaknesses to this topic? Why frame the conversation around this bill with all of that hysteria? What purpose does it serve? To signal to the rest of GAF that you have the 'correct' opinion re: Tulsi Gabbard?

NeoGAF, where if you disagree with Justen88 on any topic than stating your opinion on it is suspect and shows you have nefarious motives.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Oh you mean "I secretly met the warcriminal Bashar Al Assad when I visited Syria" Tulsi Gabbard?

Does such an allegation invalidate her points? No.

 

[Quixzlizx]

I mean, if 22 year-olds can't evolve on this issue then I don't see how we give a pass to politicians in their 60s but, again, I don't understand purity tests like you guys do. All I know is this thread went from "a bill to decriminalize marijuana" to "it's weird how much Bernie supporters just looooove crazy homophobes, amirite?!" Politics! Yay!

You were the first person to bring up the Hillary vs Bernie bullshit, so I guess my answer to this would be "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

 

[Rentahamster]

I meant more specifically the power to get anything brought into law. There are obviously things we can do, but no liberal bill has any chance of becoming law when Democrats are as outnumbered as they are now

1. Take up vocal support of progressive issues that have more than a majority of public support.

2. Hammer those policies over the Republicans' heads and force them to either support it or admit to not having the majority's interests at heart.

3. Effectively show that to the electorate.

4A. Persuade more Republicans to vote with you or risk the wrath of their constituents.

4B. The Republicans don't support popular policy and have a higher chance of getting voted out in 2018.

But instead Trump's got everyone so fucked in the head, the Democrats can't put together a proper offensive.

 

[JustenP88]

Good thing I didn't do this during peak hours. It's like the first quarter of 2016 in here!

Probably to remind people that while she's not doing a bad thing in this specific instance that she is still very problematic and we should be trying to replace her? Again, I don't think you get what an ideological purity test is, because supporting a bill that goes a step in the right direction but nowhere near as far as the ideal penned by an individual who you greatly dislike is literally the exact opposite of an ideological purity test

Justice Democrats, assemble! Awesome.

NeoGAF, where if you disagree with Justen88 on any topic than stating your opinion on it is suspect and shows you have nefarious motives.

Eh, not about disagreeing with me. More about coming into a thread about "Topic A" with that "Yeah, yeah, yeah but LOOK AT TOPIC Z" nonsense. I'm no expert on anyone's motives, despite my suspicions. I certainly wouldn't call them 'nefarious' though. There's nothing nefarious about being a little bitter.

You were the first person to bring up the Hillary vs Bernie bullshit, so I guess my answer to this would be "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Well, I didn't necessarily want to boil it down to that but I can admit that I invited the tangent and that was quite a stupid prize.

 

[Rentahamster]

You were the first person to bring up the Hillary vs Bernie bullshit, so I guess my answer to this would be "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Which he brought up in part because there were a lot of posts that turned the attention to be not only about the substance of the bill, but the character of its sponsors.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Which he brought up in part because there were a lot of posts that turned the attention to be not only about the substance of the bill, but the character of its sponsors.

Probably due to the feeling that this bill is going nowhere fast

 

[Rentahamster]

Probably due to the feeling that this bill is going nowhere fast

Is that a good excuse?

 

[excelsiorlef]

Is that a good excuse?

Depends...

There's just also little to discuss about the bill

And Gabbard is uniquely problematic.

 

[Rentahamster]

Depends...

On what?

 

[excelsiorlef]

On what?

On what's the topic, who is the speaker...

Like I said Gabbard is a unique situation

 

[pigeon]

Eh, not about disagreeing with me. More about coming into a thread about "Topic A" with that "Yeah, yeah, yeah but LOOK AT TOPIC Z" nonsense. I'm no expert on anyone's motives, despite my suspicions. I certainly wouldn't call them 'nefarious' though. There's nothing nefarious about being a little bitter.

Which he brought up in part because there were a lot of posts that turned the attention to be not only about the substance of the bill, but the character of its sponsors.

I went back and checked, guys, and it turns out that the first two words of the thread title are "Tulsi Gabbard" and also the first thing in the OP is a link to her website and then a link to a video of her, so I mean, I think that's probably why people commented on her. Because the thread is about her.

 

[Rentahamster]

On what's the topic, who is the speaker...

Like I said Gabbard is a unique situation

OK, so does that mean it's appropriate to go after her character instead of the substance of the bill in this thread?

I went back and checked, guys, and it turns out that the first two words of the thread title are "Tulsi Gabbard", so I mean, I think that's probably why people commented on her.

Yes, and also editorialized more about her character instead of the bill itself.

 

[pigeon]

Yes, and also editorialized more about her character instead of the bill itself.

Sorry your thread didn't go the way you imagined it! PM a mod and maybe you can get it closed.

 

[Rentahamster]

Sorry your thread didn't go the way you imagined it! PM a mod and maybe you can get it closed.

Actually, this is how I imagined it would go. Why would I want it closed though?

 

[Piecake]

OK, so does that mean it's appropriate to go after her character instead of the substance of the bill in this thread?

I think it is a pretty natural reaction to not want your approval of an issue to be construed as approval of the awful person that introduced the bill.

If you somehow find that morally objectionable, then I'd say that is on you.

 

[Cyan]

I understand a lot of people dislike Gabbard, but let's please try to stay on topic. This thread is about a specific bill that as best I can tell has absolutely nothing to do with the reasons people dislike her.

 

[SapientWolf]

The DEA has a lot to lose if marijuana is decriminalized, I think it represents around half of their funding.

The reasons for criminalizing marijuana are budgetary, they aren't rooted in public safety.

As always, if you want the truth then follow the money.