Democratic (Party) Direction

Hamilton was a quasi-Tory who went batshit insane after 1796 but wrote often and well about exec power limits (and was anti-slavery).

Hamilton was also Washington's de facto prime minister, and Washington's good sense is still underrated.

from what i have heard it does a bad job of entirely ignoring the historical black voices of the time in favor of founder's chic & more glorifying white male culture. it is not to tell the story of historical black people but to use modern casting to sexify crusty old US nationalism. Thomas Jefferson's slave, with whom he had multiple children, is in the show, but she has a non speaking role and does a sexy dance. when he died he had promised her and her children freedom, but they were quickly sold anyways. now they are historically exploited once more by the act of a woke culture. there were black spies for the Revolution but there are none in this show. it is just more product of the oppressive culture. it is a vampire, like the media, feeding on the ally industrial complex.

yes these wonderful dudes that were anti slavery and even wrote All Men Are Created Equal what great people they were (in their writings)

saying and doing are different things. what you do is all that matters.

Thomas Jefferson's slave, with whom he had multiple children, is in the show

…not that I recall.

Unless you mean Sally Hemmings has joined the touring cast from beyond the grave

I don't think that's exactly true. And I had to consult Wiki:

Of the hundreds of slaves he owned, Jefferson formally freed only two slaves while he was living: Hemings' older brothers Robert, who had to buy his freedom, and James Hemings (who was required to train his brother Peter for three years to get his freedom). He freed five slaves in his will - all males from the extended Hemings family, including Madison and Eston Hemings, his two "natural" children. Harriet was the only female slave he allowed to go free.[43] In addition to manumission for the Hemings men in his will, he petitioned the legislature to allow them to stay in the state. No documentation has been found for Sally Hemings' emancipation.[37][38]

my jaw kind of dropped when i heard them singing "How lucky we are to be alive right now?" like are u kidding me? no wonder Mike Pence went to this.

the challopsy-at-the-time oped that accused it of "blackwashing" history seemed about right to me

I mean I don’t think anybody is being hoodwinked here. Maybe 14 year olds.

"from what i have heard" i think is the key phrase up there

thread now heading into even more fraught waters

you are killing my punch line

you had, as you now think, vainly flattered yourself, that without very much hamilton talk, it could be done

I will admit that while its politics suck it has a few really good tunes (none of which feature rapping)

On your first statement, you're just wrong. Polarization only prevents meaningful policy change when you're deadlocked. Right now politics is extremely polarized and Republicans are achieving "meaningful policy change" at an alarming rate. They achieve change through power, not through compromise.

― Fedora Dostoyevsky (man alive)

ok, "meaningful" was imprecise and, yeah, probably wrong. substitute "positive" for "meaningful". lot harder to fix things than it is to break them.

-

the near-silence about this at the time of the repeal (and now) was so odd. when the ACA was passed, a commonly-referenced analogy was that the individual mandate was one critical component of a three-legged stool (the others being preventing insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and providing subsidies for people who can't afford insurance). now that the mandate is gone, you'd think that the impending collapse of ACA would be top news, but it's not. cue the usual people trying to convince me that there's been wall-to-wall news coverage on this and everyone in the united states is very aware of the issue, but i haven't seen it. you'd think that at least there would be interviews with rightwing dipshits about how much better their life is now that they're not forced to purchase communist socialized healthcare or whatever.

― Karl Malone

not really odd at all. the democratic belief that nobody would get insurance if there weren't penalties for not getting insurance was ill-advised "austerity" rhetoric which didn't play out in practice. it turns out the main consideration for whether people get insurance is whether they can afford it, not whether they're penalized for not having it. nobody dropped their insurance once the "mandate" was repealed. all that happened was a bunch of people who couldn't afford insurance under obamacare anyway stopped having the prospect of a "poor tax" hanging over their head. there's no way for either party to really talk about this without looking utterly foolish, so neither party is.

So my understanding is that Hamilton is a broadway musical, correct?

xpost i think it's a little too early to say all that. for one thing, the individual mandate is still in place through 2018. it's possible that what you're describing will take place, but CBO estimated last year that 4 million people will drop their healthcare as a result of the repeal of the mandate in 2019, rising up to 13 million by 2027. if that's true, the conventional wisdom once suggested that the risk pool of the insurers would shift toward the more expensive, sicker people and premiums would increase as a result. if any of that's still likely, now would be a good time for everyone to make a fuss about it!

So my understanding is that Hamilton is a broadway musical, correct?

― Nerdstrom Poindexter

about one of the members of "hamilton, joe frank, and reynolds", correct

No wonder it’s so divisive. That sounds unbearable.

XP conservatives understand very well the value of slicing off even a sliver of something. Even 5-10% fewer healthy people buying insurance drives up costs for everyone and contributes to a further cycle of people dropping their plans.

Much like with Janus, you may only see a trickle of public workers leaving the unions in the beginning but this will gradually weaken the union and they’ll continue other attacks as well and over time the unions will diminish. T
Democrats have either failed to apprehend this strategy or just haven’t been able to stop it.

understandably, it's tough to muster the enthusiasm to defend the law since it was a compromise with immoral actors in the first place

why are you insulting the Hamilton cast like Adam Bruneau has

Okay when we get done with Hamilton let's work on Pocahontas and Braveheart. Lots of correcting to do, I'm sure this is a great use of our time

Federalist (Party) Direction

I'm sure this is a great use of our time

Not sure if the ad is as good as the tweet implies but it's definitely a good line of attack

DAMN. This is a devastating ad. This Trump contribution scandal should, and could, engulf Cuomo's reelection bid. pic.twitter.com/u6QThYIoBO

— Kumar Rao (@KumarRaoNYC) July 6, 2018

that is good

what is Nixon polling at right now, 20%...?

What was Ocasio polling at, 30%?

I mean to be clear I actually think she's more of a longshot than Ocasio, going against Cuomo is a tough game. But I wouldn't underestimate her chances this year.

also, AOC just made the probably-valid point that polling tends to favor likely voters, whereas lefty candidates' path to victory generally relies on mobilizing people who generally don't.

Shakey Downer

26% in a geographically big, politically heterogeneous state in which i'm guessing a minority of the population even know you're running is pretty good.

what is the status of her signature gathering? is that public information?

I would hope you guys can guess where my sympathies lie, but AOC won her primary, Nixon did not. Nixon's going into a general election that is quite a different landscape than AOC, involving a lot of voters who are not to the left of Cuomo, as well as an extensive network of Cuomo loyalists.

maybe i'm being too much of a dweeb but I'm not a big fan of Nixon dragging Trump stuff into this. I mean, I know she's trying to win an election, but her candidacy is a lot more inspiring when she's just hitting Cuomo on meat-and-potatoes issues like the subway, minimum wage, prisons, legal weed, etc. rather than even partly making this a guilt-by-Trump-association thing.

what is the status of her signature gathering? is that public information?

was wondering about this too - has she even secured a spot on the ballot yet, or is she hoping for write-ins? cuz if it's the latter...

wait, Nixon hasn't even had her primary yet, right? i thought the NY gubernatorial primary wasn't until September or something.

she has to gather 15k signatures to get on the democratic primary ballot in september (and so does anyone who wants to challenge her). i was asked to sign for her in brooklyn last week, so they're still working on it, but i assume they'll manage it.

*who wants to challenge cuomo

I would hope you guys can guess where my sympathies lie, but AOC won her primary, Nixon did not. Nixon's going into a general election that is quite a different landscape than AOC, involving a lot of voters who are not to the left of Cuomo, as well as an extensive network of Cuomo loyalists.

― Οὖτις, Friday, July 6, 2018 12:31 PM (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

The gubernatorial primary didn't happen yet. It's in September. One of the fucked up things about NY politics is that we hold our federal and state primaries on different days, making voting that much more of a pain in the ass and driving down turnout.

I would hope you guys can guess where my sympathies lie, but AOC won her primary, Nixon did not.

i agree with your implication (she's a long shot) but the state primary hasn't happened yet so this is a high standard to hold nixon to.

lol xp

But the primary for all intents and purposes IS the election, in both AOC's case and Nixon's.

Also my whole point was that AOC polled at 30% IN THE PRIMARY, i.e. before she won it.

the only ballot she's lost (so far) was the chance to get 25% by voice at the state convention in may, and thus avoid the signature gathering requirement. the democratic party in NYS appears to run a tighter ship than in california in this respect.

BTW total aside, but if you are in NYC and want to help John Liu get on the ballot for state senate in eastern queens (challenging a fake dem who caucuses with the republicans), they're petitioning this weekend.

sorry for any misunderstanding there about the schedule, I knew Nixon had lost out at the NY Dem Convention, which was what I was thinking of

xp

she has to gather 15k signatures to get on the democratic primary ballot in september (and so does anyone who wants to challenge her). i was asked to sign for her in brooklyn last week, so they're still working on it, but i assume they'll manage it.

yeah I wouldn't think this would be that hard a threshold to cross for a wealthy celebrity with good messaging tbh

I truly wish we had a more politically experienced challenger than Nixon, but Cuomo is a fucking snake and I don't really trust him to be #theresistance.

Nixon's about as experienced as Schwarzenegger was and probably about as smart so idk, take what you can get. She's definitely smarter and more capable than our current fearless leader.

Cuomo's running the kind of party machine that can p much *only* be challenged by an inexperienced outsider. any real challengers from within the party would have been co-opted and or strangled in the crib.

Shakey has erased Nixon bcz she didn't win the approval of the Central Committe of the NY Dems