• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-Tech Protesters Target VC With Vulgar Flyer

tie-obama_new_party_occupy_wall_street.jpg

New-Party-News-Obama-Davis.jpg

I have a picture of me at a Yankees game. That must mean I play for the Yankees.

The New Party seems to claim a lot of people as "members."
 
:roll:

Clearly a "socialist party" (and I've seen the sources on THAT and they're garbage) is no better than the KKK. Nice false equivalence you've drawn up there, RD.
Are you truly denying Obama;s flirtation with Communism?

Just because leftists didn't want his past investigated doesn't mean it never existed.
 
Several reports of this incident have made the news, all trying to re-categorize the protesters as something other than leftist OWS types. This is not far different than the discussion on another thread concerning the Mozilla exec forced to resign.

What are your thoughts as to this type of bullying by the extreme left?
I think the employers of these tech workers should threaten to encourage their employees to get POVs instead of taking a bus.Those tech companies are doing those protesting retards a favor by using a bus instead of a **** load of cars.Reading that note you can clearly tell that those retarded protesters think tech workers should be making the same as service workers.Those retarded protesters must also think Rose's neighbors must make the same as service workers. And this serves as an example why people should get their address unlisted.
 
Why does Obama's past come as such a shock to leftists when it was there all the time?

Because they think it's more important to know what color hair ribbons Sarah Palin wore on June 4th, 1968.
 
"A shock"? I've heard about this New Party stuff before. The vast majority of it strikes me as crap.
So you continue to believe in BHO despite all the evidence. Your devotion to the man borders on the Jim Jones story.
 
So you continue to believe in BHO despite all the evidence. Your devotion to the man borders on the Jim Jones story.

You mean the guy I've flat out said isn't a very good President and I've criticized repeatedly for the NSA stuff, drones, and other things? That Barack Obama? I just don't believe all the nonsense you guys puke up about his "shadowy past." But then again, I don't expect much nuance out of you. I don't constantly flame Obama as the worst human being on the planet = I am a cultist for Obama. You're too much sometimes, Grant.
 
You mean the guy I've flat out said isn't a very good President and I've criticized repeatedly for the NSA stuff, drones, and other things? That Barack Obama? I just don't believe all the nonsense you guys puke up about his "shadowy past." But then again, I don't expect much nuance out of you. I don't constantly flame Obama as the worst human being on the planet = I am a cultist for Obama. You're too much sometimes, Grant.

There were no claims made about any 'shadowy past'. The article is there for everyone to read and you called it 'crap'. If there were any 'conspiracy theories' here I would call them crap as well, but such is not the case.
 
How exactly did this turn into yet another discussion about how Obama is an eeeeeeeevil soshulist, anyway?
 
Did someone mention Southern Strategy?

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.

Here's how propagandists construct the Big Lie. They take some facts, overlook others, and the actually outright lie about the conclusions. What is the Big Lie about the Southern Strategy? Nixon did it. He flipped the South by appealing to their racism. Most of the South went for Wallace in 1968. The traditionally liberal parts of the country went for Humphrey and the rest of the nation went for Nixon. When the rest of the nation supports Nixon there are no nefarious motives assigned, but when a few Southern states follow the lead of the rest of the nation then they're doing it for the wrong reasons. What was their alternative, vote for Wallace or Humphrey and neither of those was palatable. Nixon didn't do anything.

Come 1972, the Big Lie has us believe that Nixon clamped a lock-down on the South. Well, he did the same everywhere except in Massachusetts. Now what happened in 1976, did that lock-down hold? Nope, look at all of those Democratic electoral votes in the South - a solid Democratic victory through every state which should be impossible if the Republicans had a lock on the Southern vote.

Jump forward to the Clinton years and let's see how much of a lock the Republicans have on the South. After the Reagan years, it should have been impossible for Clinton to win many of those states, remember the Southern Democrats were all Republicans now, except for the fact that evidence shows this not to be the case.

SouthernStrategy_zps34fe138f.jpg


So what did happen in the South? This:

The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.​
 
Here's a piece from RealClearPolitics which highlights how deeply ingrained the Big Lie has become:

But in the course of this argument, Bouie makes the following statement: “White Southerners jumped ship from Democratic presidential candidates in the 1960s, and this was followed by a similar shift on the congressional level, and eventually, the state legislative level. That the [last] two took time doesn’t discount the first.”

If you polled pundits, you’d probably get 90 percent agreement with this statement. And if you polled political scientists, you’d likely get a majority to sign off on it. That’s maddening, because it’s incorrect.

I’ve written at length on this, both in my book and here, but it is worth revisiting. In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South” (remember, at the beginning of the 20th century, New Orleans was the only thing approximating what we currently think of as a city in the South).

In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR performed worse in the South in every election following his 1932 election. By the mid-1940s, the GOP was winning about a quarter of the Southern vote in presidential elections. . . .

Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that something significant was afoot is Richard Nixon’s showing in 1960. He won 46.1 percent of the vote to John F. Kennedy’s 50.5 percent. One can write this off to JFK’s Catholicism, but writing off three elections in a row becomes problematic, especially given the other developments bubbling up at the local level. It’s even more problematic when you consider that JFK had the nation’s most prominent Southerner on the ticket with him.

But the biggest problem with the thesis comes when you consider what had been going on in the interim: Two civil rights bills pushed by the Eisenhower administration had cleared Congress, and the administration was pushing forward with the Brown decision, most famously by sending the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to assist with the integration of Little Rock Central High School.

It’s impossible to separate race and economics completely anywhere in the country, perhaps least of all in the South. But the inescapable truth is that the GOP was making its greatest gains in the South while it was also pushing a pro-civil rights agenda nationally. What was really driving the GOP at this time was economic development. As Southern cities continued to develop and sprout suburbs, Southern exceptionalism was eroded; Southern whites simply became wealthy enough to start voting Republican.
 
Great posts RD. But don't expect anything but pure dismissal
 
How exactly did this turn into yet another discussion about how Obama is an eeeeeeeevil soshulist, anyway?

That's all they have. Unfortunately, they haven't figured out how a bunch of racists like the Democrats embraced a bunch of black people from the New Party. When someone can explain that to me, I can't wait to hear it.
 
Did someone mention Southern Strategy?

If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.

Here's how propagandists construct the Big Lie. They take some facts, overlook others, and the actually outright lie about the conclusions. What is the Big Lie about the Southern Strategy? Nixon did it. He flipped the South by appealing to their racism. Most of the South went for Wallace in 1968. The traditionally liberal parts of the country went for Humphrey and the rest of the nation went for Nixon. When the rest of the nation supports Nixon there are no nefarious motives assigned, but when a few Southern states follow the lead of the rest of the nation then they're doing it for the wrong reasons. What was their alternative, vote for Wallace or Humphrey and neither of those was palatable. Nixon didn't do anything.

Come 1972, the Big Lie has us believe that Nixon clamped a lock-down on the South. Well, he did the same everywhere except in Massachusetts. Now what happened in 1976, did that lock-down hold? Nope, look at all of those Democratic electoral votes in the South - a solid Democratic victory through every state which should be impossible if the Republicans had a lock on the Southern vote.

Jump forward to the Clinton years and let's see how much of a lock the Republicans have on the South. After the Reagan years, it should have been impossible for Clinton to win many of those states, remember the Southern Democrats were all Republicans now, except for the fact that evidence shows this not to be the case.

SouthernStrategy_zps34fe138f.jpg


So what did happen in the South? This:

The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.​

You're the one who mentioned it, but you make no mention of the fact that Carter and Clinton did relatively well in the South because they were from the South. To the extent that a "Southern Strategy" exists it's because you can't win without at least some of the South. Republicans also like to win elections.
 
"The New Party was a third political party in the United States that tried to re-introduce the practice of electoral fusion. In electoral fusion, the same candidate receives nomination from more than one political party and occupies more than one ballot line. Fusion was once common in the United States but is now commonly practiced only in New York State, although it is allowed by law in seven other states. The party was active from 1992 to 1998. (There had been an earlier, unrelated New Party in 1968 that ran Eugene McCarthy for President.)


Founding

The New Party was founded in the early 1990s by Daniel Cantor, a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 presidential campaign, and by political science, sociology and law professor Joel Rogers as an effort to break with the largely unsuccessful history of progressive third parties in the United States. Their strategy was to run candidates only where they had a reasonable chance of winning, and to nominate on their ballot line (or where this was not legally possible, to endorse) the candidate they favored more from another party.[4]

After a false start in New York, the New Party built modestly successful chapters in several states. Some of these chapters—such as those in Chicago and Little Rock, Arkansas—had their main bases of support in the low-income community organizing group ACORN, along with some support from various labor unions. Other chapters—such as those in Minneapolis; Missoula, Montana; Montgomery County, Maryland; and Dane County, Wisconsin, received institutional support from a variety of other labor unions and community organizations. These chapters built local political organizations that ran or endorsed candidates, primarily in local non-partisan races but with occasional forays into Democratic Party primaries or (more rarely) traditional third party-style independent candidacies as well. Some New Party chapters introduced the idea of signed candidate contracts (saying the candidate agreed with the party's principles and would meet with party members after election) before endorsement, to encourage accountability after election—this was criticized by some of the party's detractors.[5][6][7] Party chapters were also active between elections, pressuring elected officials to pass legislation on issues such as living wages and affordable housing.
Influence

In Madison, Wisconsin and some other cities, the New Party partnered with Green Party candidates.[8]

The New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his successful 1996 run for the Illinois Senate.[9][10]

Although the party's founders hoped to foster a shift in the United States toward electoral fusion, they were not successful in doing so. Their hopes rested largely on the U.S. Supreme Court case Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party. In 1997, the Court, in a 6-3 decision, upheld the Minnesota ban on cross-endorsing candidates, rejecting the New Party's argument that electoral fusion was a right protected by the First Amendment's freedom of association clause.[11][12]

After the Timmons case, the New Party quickly declined and several chapters disaffiliated. Perhaps the only and certainly the most successful surviving local chapter, known as Progressive Dane, remains active and relevant in Dane County, Wisconsin. New Party founder Daniel Cantor and other key staff members left to found the Working Families Party of New York (1998),[12] an organization which has had considerable success in building a New Party-style organization within New York state, and which now has expanded into other states that have fusion voting."
Wikipedia

Sounds good to me. Electoral fusion is a an effective strategy for overcoming many of the problems of our rigged two party system that we should work on legalizing in every state. The Working Families Party has had some significant successes in NY state.
 
It is hard to build low income housing. Cities don't like it and neither do other people that live in the area. it also tends to bring in a lot of crime.

however you can't blame it on the tech industry. people cry that they want high paying jobs. when high paying jobs come in people complain.

you need to make up your mind.

The Chamber of Commerce and others seeing a prospect for higher profits wanted more high paying tech jobs in the city and so the Mayor created tax incentives to encourage them. At the grass roots, people were concerned it would create all the same gentrification problems that happened during the last tech boom. The concerns proved to be accurate and after several well-publicized incidents of evictions and displacement and numerous protests, the Mayor and other centrist politicians finally realized that they needed to appear to be addressing the issue. The protests continue so that the issue is not forgotten.
 
Pricing them out of their neighborhoods? Is he forcing them to sell or anything like that?

I've never heard of people protesting against prosperity before. Is this something we can now come to expect?

When "prosperity" only benefits a few people it does not improve the overall quality of life for a community, it can harm it.
 
Here's a piece from RealClearPolitics which highlights how deeply ingrained the Big Lie has become:
But in the course of this argument, Bouie makes the following statement: “White Southerners jumped ship from Democratic presidential candidates in the 1960s, and this was followed by a similar shift on the congressional level, and eventually, the state legislative level. That the [last] two took time doesn’t discount the first.”

If you polled pundits, you’d probably get 90 percent agreement with this statement. And if you polled political scientists, you’d likely get a majority to sign off on it. That’s maddening, because it’s incorrect.

I’ve written at length on this, both in my book and here, but it is worth revisiting. In truth, the white South began breaking away from the Democrats in the 1920s, as population centers began to develop in what was being called the “New South” (remember, at the beginning of the 20th century, New Orleans was the only thing approximating what we currently think of as a city in the South).

In the 1930s and 1940s, FDR performed worse in the South in every election following his 1932 election. By the mid-1940s, the GOP was winning about a quarter of the Southern vote in presidential elections. . . .

Perhaps the biggest piece of evidence that something significant was afoot is Richard Nixon’s showing in 1960. He won 46.1 percent of the vote to John F. Kennedy’s 50.5 percent. One can write this off to JFK’s Catholicism, but writing off three elections in a row becomes problematic, especially given the other developments bubbling up at the local level. It’s even more problematic when you consider that JFK had the nation’s most prominent Southerner on the ticket with him.

But the biggest problem with the thesis comes when you consider what had been going on in the interim: Two civil rights bills pushed by the Eisenhower administration had cleared Congress, and the administration was pushing forward with the Brown decision, most famously by sending the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas to assist with the integration of Little Rock Central High School.

It’s impossible to separate race and economics completely anywhere in the country, perhaps least of all in the South. But the inescapable truth is that the GOP was making its greatest gains in the South while it was also pushing a pro-civil rights agenda nationally. What was really driving the GOP at this time was economic development. As Southern cities continued to develop and sprout suburbs, Southern exceptionalism was eroded; Southern whites simply became wealthy enough to start voting Republican.

You may have seen this already but the final third involves Racism. Demos should watch it but it's unlikely they will. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwqhoVIh65k
 
When "prosperity" only benefits a few people it does not improve the overall quality of life for a community, it can harm it.

How would it harm the community? Usually when prosperity arrives neighborhoods and the infrastructure improves.
 
How exactly did this turn into yet another discussion about how Obama is an eeeeeeeevil soshulist, anyway?

Why do leftists so frequently feel the need to talk like hillbillies? Is it a throwback thing?
 
Why do leftists so frequently feel the need to talk like hillbillies? Is it a throwback thing?

No - but some of us (like myself) grew up in the Deep South and could and did talk a bit like that. But no, the 'thing' is that to an extent he's imitating (whether knowingly nor not) the Church Lady.
 
When "prosperity" only benefits a few people it does not improve the overall quality of life for a community, it can harm it.

It isn't benefiting a few people thousands of people work for those companies so evidently it is being a good source of income for a lot of people.
again if the people protesting did something like i don't know get the skills to maybe work for those companies they to could enjoy the benefits.

you cry about good wage jobs then when they come you cry about something else. there is no pleasing the leftist of this country.
 
What's especially precious about this particular protest is that it reveals that either these folks aren't from the Bay Area or they are ignorant of it's history. Long before there was a tech industry San Fran and the Bay Area was like this. A blend of feast and famine.
 
Back
Top Bottom