The problem is, and the bar graph on the previous page illustrates this, is that a fair number of voters in 2024 were disengaged voters, meaning they didn’t vote regularly or consistently and they didn’t follow “the news.” They overwhelmingly broke for COOTWH. God knows what motivated them but the question becomes, how do you reach those who are basically checked out and don’t or won’t take the time to review policy positions, listen to speeches or pay enough attention to legislation, either proposed or passed?
Are outlandish lies (they’re eating the cats….),amplified and scapegoating and fear mongering an alternative reality the answer?
Me thinks they need to suffer for their ignorance, unfortunately.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
The problem is, and the bar graph on the previous page illustrates this, is that a fair number of voters in 2024 were disengaged voters, meaning they didn’t vote regularly or consistently and they didn’t follow “the news.” They overwhelmingly broke for COOTWH. God knows what motivated them but the question becomes, how do you reach those who are basically checked out and don’t or won’t take the time to review policy positions, listen to speeches or pay enough attention to legislation, either proposed or passed?
Are outlandish lies (they’re eating the cats….),amplified and scapegoating and fear mongering an alternative reality the answer?
Me thinks they need to suffer for their ignorance, unfortunately.
It was the debate all those uninformed listened to everyone’s reaction to the terrible debate appearance!
I agree that they should be touting their accomplishments, but how do you expect Americans to associate those accomplishments with Democrats if you don't mention the word Democrat?
Again, you seem to be taking a minor portion of a party of 75 million voters and attributing (though really mis-attributing positions, whether intentionally or unintentionally I don't know though I have my suspicions) a fringe elements positions as the whole party's stance. Democrats are about as centrist as they come.
If you don't talk about Trump and how extreme his positions are and his dismantling of norms and democracy, you normalize everything he is doing leaving very little left to fight for, if you even can.
Rahms on board...WSJ interview...no chance he wins primary. We don't like truth
...
"Longtime Democratic political operative Rahm Emanuel offered a blistering assessment of his party in a Wall Street Journal article
published Monday, calling the Democratic brand “toxic” and “weak and
woke” as speculation mounts that he’ll run for president in 2028.
“I’m tired of sitting in the back seat when somebody’s gunning it at 90 miles an hour for a cliff,” Emanuel, 65, told the newspaper.
“If you want the country to give you the keys to the car, somebody’s
got to be articulating an agenda that’s fighting for America, not just
fighting [President] Trump.”
“Voters will be lucky,” Emanuel told the outlet of the next
presidential race. “They’ll have a real debate — one we didn’t have in
2024.”
Democrats had advanced then-President Biden’s reelection bid with little resistance before he dropped out of the race in July, leaving then-Vice President Kamala Harris to take up the top-of-ticket slot against Trump.
Someone accused me of being a Democrat this morning and told me to act like one. Spoiler Alert - I'm not a Democrat. And I’m definitely not a fucking Republican. I also do not see myself as some wishy washy independent with no political ideology.
And before you get your panties in a wad over these statements and give in to your defensiveness reflex - hear me out.
What I am is a utilitarian.
Utilitarianism is a philosophy developed by British thinkers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill in the 18th and 19th centuries. The core idea is simple: actions are morally right if they produce the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Fun fact - I started my college career as an annoying philosophy major. But I digress…
Utilitarianism is a way of thinking that cuts through tribal politics, focusing on one thing. It's not about picking teams or chasing ideological purity - it's about what actually works. My belief is that if humans could embrace this approach more often, we'd build a world that's more effective, more fair, and less dominated by feel-good misconceptions that sound right but cause real harm.
The biggest hurdle to this is the eternal tug-of-war between feeling and thinking. Both have their place, but emotions have this annoying tendency to hijack rational analysis just when we need it most.
When I first moved into my travel trailer to explore the country solo, people kept asking me if I planned to buy a gun, like it was some kind of survival requirement. My response was always “Hell no.”
Why? Because the data's crystal clear: you're far more likely to harm yourself or someone you know with that gun than to play hero with it.
A landmark study found that keeping a gun in the home was strongly associated with an increased risk of homicide, with virtually all of this risk involving homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance. Another study showed men who owned handguns were eight times more likely than men who didn't to die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds, while women who owned handguns were more than 35 times more likely to kill themselves with a gun.
The whole "defend yourself" fantasy is exactly that - a fantasy fueled by movies and machismo. Over 80 percent of firearm suicides by children involve a gun belonging to a family member. Yet millions cling to the myth that they are going to Dirty Harry a “bad guy” even as gun-related suicides and accidents pile up. This isn't anti-gun preaching; it's just math. Utilitarianism says follow the evidence, not the emotion.
That gun misconception is just one example of how Americans get seduced by ideas that feel empowering but backfire spectacularly. Another is the bootstrap mythology. Not only is it literally impossible to pull yourself up with your bootstraps, the very idea ignores how systemic barriers - wage stagnation, healthcare costs that would bankrupt most families, childcare costs, outrageous housing costs, etc - kneecap millions before they even start. Real wages for most workers have barely budged in decades while costs for basic necessities have exploded. Yet we keep pushing individual responsibility, blaming people for systemic failures.
The result? Policies that favor tax cuts for the wealthy over safety nets that could actually lift people up. Utilitarianism flips that equation, prioritizing what measurably reduces suffering for the most people, not what feeds our national mythology about rugged individualism.
There’s a famous quote from a Canadian that says:
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
The benefits of utilitarian thinking are stark. It forces clarity. Policies succeed or fail based on their measurable impact, period. Healthcare? The U.S. spends nearly double what other developed countries spend per capita, yet millions remain uninsured. A utilitarian system would cut the waste and cover the most people possible, regardless of ideology. It's not about political philosophy; it's about who lives and who dies.
Climate change? Scientists tell us inaction could cost massive GDP losses by decade’s end, while transitioning to renewables costs a fraction of that annually. Utilitarianism picks the path that prevents the most suffering for the most people, no debate required.
It's also inherently global. A life in Jakarta matters as much as one in Jacksonville. This perspective could push America toward funding global health initiatives or poverty reduction - not out of charity but because it's a net win for humanity. Smallpox eradication cost millions but saved billions in healthcare costs and countless lives. That's utilitarian math: big investment, bigger payoff.
Here's where it gets uncomfortable: to pursue the greatest good for the greatest number, you have to accept that some people will inevitably get a raw deal. No policy is perfect; every choice creates trade-offs. True immigration reform will mean very strict rules. Tax reform could squeeze certain households. These losses are real, but obsessing over them can paralyze progress that would benefit millions.
This is where misconceptions trip us up again. Emotional stories - the displaced homeowner, the worker replaced by automation - dominate headlines and drive policy decisions.
Drug prohibition reduces usage among casual users but creates violent black markets and mass incarceration. Portugal’s decriminalization cut drug-related deaths and crime, but increased overall usage rates.
School choice and vouchers help motivated families escape bad schools but drain resources from public schools serving kids whose parents can’t navigate the system. The motivated kids do better; everyone else gets worse schools.
Tax cuts for the wealthy increase after-tax income for the rich but don’t boost economic growth. Studies across 18 OECD countries over 50 years show major tax cuts for the rich had “no significant effect on economic growth or unemployment” but increased income inequality substantially.
Financial deregulation reduces compliance costs for banks but creates systemic risks for everyone else. The 2008 crisis showed how relaxed oversight led to reckless risk-taking that imposed massive costs on taxpayers while bank profits soared in good times.
Environmental deregulation cuts business costs but externalizes pollution and safety risks to communities. Texas’s light regulation attracts business but also brings chemical plant explosions and toxic emissions that neighboring residents can’t avoid.
Privatizing public services can improve efficiency but often just transfers costs from taxes to user fees that hit the poor harder. Private prisons cost taxpayers less per inmate but create incentives to maximize incarceration rates.
There are plenty of people that can present convincing arguments for all of these policies despite the studies that prove they are problematic. These emotional pulls are powerful, but utilitarian thinking demands we stick to the numbers.
No system's perfect. Utilitarianism can feel cold, struggling with concepts like justice or cultural heritage. If razing a historic site creates jobs for thousands, a strict utilitarian might say do it. That stings. But the alternative - letting every sob story dictate policy - leads to gridlock or choices that favor the few over the many.
If we embraced utilitarian thinking more broadly, we'd prioritize what actually lifts the most people up, shedding misconceptions like the gun-hero myth or the bootstrap fantasy. We'd accept the hard truth that some people will lose out, but we'd gain a world that works better for the majority. Anything less is just bad math dressed up as principle.
I agree that they should be touting their accomplishments, but how do you expect Americans to associate those accomplishments with Democrats if you don't mention the word Democrat?
Again, you seem to be taking a minor portion of a party of 75 million voters and attributing (though really mis-attributing positions, whether intentionally or unintentionally I don't know though I have my suspicions) a fringe elements positions as the whole party's stance. Democrats are about as centrist as they come.
If you don't talk about Trump and how extreme his positions are and his dismantling of norms and democracy, you normalize everything he is doing leaving very little left to fight for, if you even can.
Rahms on board...WSJ interview...no chance he wins primary. We don't like truth
...
"Longtime Democratic political operative Rahm Emanuel offered a blistering assessment of his party in a Wall Street Journal article
published Monday, calling the Democratic brand “toxic” and “weak and
woke” as speculation mounts that he’ll run for president in 2028.
“I’m tired of sitting in the back seat when somebody’s gunning it at 90 miles an hour for a cliff,” Emanuel, 65, told the newspaper.
“If you want the country to give you the keys to the car, somebody’s
got to be articulating an agenda that’s fighting for America, not just
fighting [President] Trump.”
“Voters will be lucky,” Emanuel told the outlet of the next
presidential race. “They’ll have a real debate — one we didn’t have in
2024.”
Democrats had advanced then-President Biden’s reelection bid with little resistance before he dropped out of the race in July, leaving then-Vice President Kamala Harris to take up the top-of-ticket slot against Trump.
Rahm is just sleazy and dirty. Listened to him on the Daily show a while back and absolutely cannot stand him. He'd be terrible.
Comments
https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1926734234464489614
Are outlandish lies (they’re eating the cats….),amplified and scapegoating and fear mongering an alternative reality the answer?
Me thinks they need to suffer for their ignorance, unfortunately.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
...
"Longtime Democratic political operative Rahm Emanuel offered a blistering assessment of his party in a Wall Street Journal article published Monday, calling the Democratic brand “toxic” and “weak and woke” as speculation mounts that he’ll run for president in 2028.
“I’m tired of sitting in the back seat when somebody’s gunning it at 90 miles an hour for a cliff,” Emanuel, 65, told the newspaper. “If you want the country to give you the keys to the car, somebody’s got to be articulating an agenda that’s fighting for America, not just fighting [President] Trump.”
“Voters will be lucky,” Emanuel told the outlet of the next presidential race. “They’ll have a real debate — one we didn’t have in 2024.”
Democrats had advanced then-President Biden’s reelection bid with little resistance before he dropped out of the race in July, leaving then-Vice President Kamala Harris to take up the top-of-ticket slot against Trump.
didn't know where to put this, so I put it here for now. I found it interesting.
Rachel Hurley ·Follow
https://x.com/DemocraticWins/status/1928112976017404256?t=yMuzIq7vDKtSR9zFVx2kuw&s=19
1996; 9/28 New York
1997: 11/14 Oakland, 11/15 Oakland
1998: 7/5 Dallas, 7/7 Albuquerque, 7/8 Phoenix, 7/10 San Diego, 7/11 Las Vegas
2000: 10/17 Dallas
2003: 4/3 OKC
2012: 11/17 Tulsa(EV), 11/18 Tulsa(EV)
2013: 11/16 OKC
2014: 10/8 Tulsa
2022: 9/20 OKC
2023: 9/13 Ft Worth, 9/15 Ft Worth