Google Outbids Facebook for Fitbit: $2.1 billion forums forums Politics and other things Google Outbids Facebook for Fitbit: $2.1 billion

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • Author
  • #43149

    Great – so start winning elections.


    Already happened. More to come.


    Yeah, bragging about Ocasio-Cortez winning a seat in New York’s 14th – where Trump lost by 55% (I mean, Clinton scored 55 points higher in the general) – is like a gun nut bragging about winning an election in Texas. It’s not exactly big achievement or a sign of anything but the status quo.

    Start winning some MEANINGFUL elections in swing districts. Not just in Congress, either. Start smaller. Need more than a “posse” in Congress to push meaningful change.


    Last time you said that, we ended up with a handful of good progressives in office.

    Please proceed.

    Listen, I get it. The current party was pretty good to you. What you do not understand is way too many Americans did not have the same experience.

    You yourself said get after it. No worries. That is absolutely happening.

    As for start smaller. Nah. Just run progressives, all levels. This is about who wants to act. When they do, they get whatever support they can garner.

    And some will win. Those people help others and grow the movement. That “posse” is awesome! They get to make news, publish, participate in hearings, grill Zuck (pretty great), and all that good stuff.

    Now they can endorse, rally, help fundraise, campaign for up and coming people too.

    The big races bring millions in. Both people and money. Small money.

    Without that, we end up with the last few decades of progressive politics. Basically lip service.

    That is why all this is going on.


    Missing: “Last time you said that, we ended up with a handful of good progressives in office.”

    No, you elected progressives in liberal districts – as I said, that’s about as impressive as electing a gun nut in Texas. The candidates you championed in other races lost.

    Same thing I said back then: elect people who support your priorities in more than just liberal areas (which have ALWAYS elected liberal reps) – in swing districts and swing states – and then maybe you’ll be on to something.


    Dude, they are in office period. They are part of the movement too. It all counts. Build where it can be done, leverage that to build more.

    As for how impressed you are, let’s say that matters exactly as much as your support for M4A does.

    Turns out, picking off corporate Dems in friendly districts makes sense. Great. They can join us, or more get picked off.

    Or, they can make a more compelling case, or seek more big bucks and stand their ground too.


    No, Dude, they are NOT in office – they LOST in 2018! Wake up! Your “posse” won in lefty-left districts that always elect very liberal reps. If this is your victory, then your movement is doomed.


    Well, prior to that time we did not have any movement people in office. Now there are people in office.

    First go, a ton ran, some won. This go, a ton will run, some more will win.

    Seating small money progressives counts ni matter where they get seated.

    You may disagree, but then again, you are not in favor of any of it anyway.

    Hardly a reputable position when it comes to sage advice.

    Andy Brown

    Once anyone is elected, they become part of an apparatus that is designed to prevent meaningful change.
    This time around is no different than it’s ever been and anyone that thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

    “Politicians can promise change every single election and never have to modify their basic message. Why? Because nothing substantially changes. Especially in the U.S. system, positive change is very difficult, because the system is designed to slow change down.
    Even when there is change, you’ll always find it tending — over the long term — to be in the direction of government taking more and more power. For those who would like to roll back the power of government — libertarians and some conservatives — that’s a problem. (It’s actually a problem for left liberals at times, too, at least the ones who want more individual rights in some social areas.)
    The weight of the evidence suggests that voting doesn’t produce change very often — and it never seems to produce change that actually reduces the size of government. Yet for some reason, some libertarians and all conservatives seem bound and determined that if they will just find a way to win this election — for whatever pathetic statist the Republicans have nominated — things are going to be different this time.”


    That is due to money.

    Our proposition is to compete with the money and get people involved to drive changes.

    Why else do you think we are working all fronts? Taking seats, building new media, organizing on small money?

    Without doing those things, voting won’t do jack. It won’t do jack because the options to vote for aren’t in line with anything needed. The politicians deliver that which the people paying them want. Big money will not fund progressive politics.

    So we need to be the politicians and we need to be paying too. That is the core basis for the progressive effort.

    The speed of things is what it is. Could go quicker than people expect, could take a decade or more too.

    Could get good stuff along the way.

    Not starting is the only no change play. And it has started. No going back on it now.


    By the way, several of us, Randy, you Andy, Chris, Vitalogy, CJ, myself, a few others all talked about the implications of Citizens United, and the hack it’s based on. (earlier decision where a clerk basically inserted corporations as people, and I can’t recall the case right now either, damn…)

    So, what? A decade or two later, here we are! Some of us are still here too.

    Have you guys forgotten? Serious question. Do you remember the dialog here post 9/11?

    I wish those archives were online. Perhaps they are. I can’t remember which time frame got borked up. Dan got most of it. Maybe he got those parts. It’s hard to search, and at one point my own searching crashed this place too. (sorry)

    So, I’ve ran on memory, and mine for conversations is quite good.



    Pretty much every ugly thing we said would come to pass, basically came to pass.

    I am not going to let that go. And that’s really the crux of it. We can return to something a lot better than this mess we are in right now.

    Might not be what I’m hoping for, but it can be a lot better than what we’ve got right now, and the one constant in all of it is the money. So, the idea here is to set the bar nice and high, get the people moving and get what can be gotten.

    Dems didn’t improve matters, just limited the rate of decline. Why? Because money. It’s not incompetence, it’s not how much better the GOP is at this, or any of that other bullshit. Money. Period.

    And that’s why returning to status quo, pre Trump, isn’t going to cut it. We know what that means, and it means more decline, just nicer, and maybe the trans people get a bigger break, and some better acceptance like everyone else outside the strict norms has gotten. (they need that anyway, just saying)

    On foreign policy, yeah we are aggressive and that should see a lot more discussion.

    On social policy, we posted up some real wins.

    Want to keep those in play? I do.

    Economic pressure and the party general failure to check it puts the entire social agenda at grave risk. Regression isn’t going to take much.

    It was a slow boil to get here. It’s not going to be a quick ride out either, but there is going to be a ride out, not just more coping essentially.

    You want to post up alternatives? Sell me, and others on how and why some other policy or overall party vision makes better sense, fine! The non stop insults and shit flinging is just beneath all of you. I know that. Not sure you do anymore. (but, I think you do)

    Yeah, just voting won’t do jack. Correctamundo! People getting into the political process WILL.


    One last thing I should say:

    There are damn few places where one can participate in what is nearly a three decade conversation.

    It’s one reason I will bother. Trust me, the shit I’ve received is no good reason to, but there are data points here, points of view, knowledge of one another that is extremely high value, if pointed and painful.

    I do not like most of your responses that get at me personally. Not a big deal mind you, just stating facts. But, those and the more substantive ones do have value, and they have it, because there is massive context here.

    There are a few other places I frequent that go back this far. None are the constant this one is. Most of you, who remain here, helped to shape my politics over time too. The first decade of conversation was awesome! I have thanked people, and Dan here in the past, but I will again, just in case it goes totally bad.

    Worth it. It was. Perhaps still is. I don’t know. However it plays out, thank you. Sincerely.

    Anyway, just know I mean it, am entirely sincere, and over the years you know damn well I can take way more than I would ever dish out.

    None of us are bad people. We know that. Try to keep that fact in mind. I do.

Viewing 12 posts - 16 through 27 (of 27 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.