Current Events > Katie porter is getting dog piled on twitter.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Pitbuller_26 posted...

So we're just going to ignore that a lot of voters in California just didn't like or trust her based on her own actions we've seen and heard on Capitol Hill?

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was addressing what Doom Art said.

To address you now, most people are not following things anywhere near that closely, they just go with who the party signals for them to support unless the other person has really fucked up, and Schiff hadn't. He was a hero to Resistance Liberals, not an out of touch and complacent dinosaur. I think that and his being more acceptable to money and having more money accounts for the strength of his victory.

The number of people who had not already decided they wanted to vote for the more moderate candidate and then found reasons to distrust her and who instead were neutral or favorable towards her but were turned off by her actions is likely miniscule.

CountCorvinus posted...

Get money out of politics.

LOL...How do people this naive live? Did you have a taste of baby formula when you made that profound statement?

CountCorvinus posted...

A bunch of people are. I said "Ya'll". If you're not one of the people defending Schiff and saying it's 'all part of the game", then good.

I very much like Porter as a politician, and find sonething sinister and ugly in the way she has been crucified over this.

legendary_zell posted...

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was addressing what Doom Art said.

To address you now, most people are not following things anywhere near that closely, they just go with who the party signals for them to support unless the other person has really fucked up, and Schiff hadn't. He was a hero to Resistance Liberals, not an out of touch and complacent dinosaur. I think that and his being more acceptable to money and having more money accounts for the strength of his victory.

The number of people who had not already decided they wanted to vote for the more moderate candidate and then found reasons to distrust her and who instead were neutral or favorable towards her but were turned off by her actions is likely miniscule.

Zell, the patience you have to deal with these people impresses me.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Reality: Adam Schiff won the primary. Katie Porter lost the primary. Barbara Lee lost the primary.

Reality: Katie Porter throwing temper tantrums because she didn't get what she want. Which she has done behind the scenes in Congress especially towards other Democrats.

Reality: Barabara taking the loss graciously and boosting her replacement so she can win the seat that Lee can't run for due to running for the Senate.

Check your own reality or sense of reality that you may or may not have before coming for me on some nonsense.

ai123 posted...

and find sonething sinister and ugly in the way she has been crucified over this.

It's possibly over the top, but if the point is to not undermine all faith in the institutions of Democracy, then maybe find a better way of saying there are problems than "RIGGED!" which has become a loaded word.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


If you say so.

ai123 posted...

I very much like Porter as a politician, and find sonething sinister and ugly in the way she has been crucified over this.

Okay great. Me too.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I turn the question to you. Let's see what you have to say.

aarrgus posted...

It's possibly over the top, but if the point is to not undermine all faith in the institutions of Democracy, then maybe find a better way of saying there are problems than "RIGGED!" which has become a loaded word.

Some things need to be undermined because they aren't working well. The role of money in politics is high on that list and we've known that for decades. There will never be anything wrong with acknowledging that just because bad faith actors misuse the word in a different context.

You seem highly concerned with the cost of using that word in any context. But I strongly believe the cost of not using it when appropriate is even higher because it presents the impression that the Democrats are fine with a money soaker and corrupt system and have no intention of changing anything. That impression is death for a left leaning party trying to win over a rightfully cynical and distrustful population.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Answer your own question. It ain't a difficult one. I answered the one from before. If my hunch is correct, we probably will have similar answers.

legendary_zell posted...

But I strongly believe the cost of not using it when appropriate is even higher

There is literally no cost in her having used better wording.

Shadow_Don posted...

There is literally no cost in her having used better wording.

There was nothing wrong with her wording. Only a small clique of extremely establishment focused liberals have a problem with it. Far more people want to hear this language than are offput by it. It's one of the few things agreed upon almost across all political cleavages.

CE and Twitter just have an oddly high concentration of these types of people. It'd be far more useful for all of you to sell Schiff and Biden to undecideds, independents, young voters, and leftists than the weird sniping and word policing that's only ever targeted towards the left.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


I pretty much agree with you. The only part would disagree is the competitiveness if it was Schiff vs. Porter. There would've been too many disadvantages that Porter would've had to overcome to make it a fight.

I don't agree with your assumption about me. But nothing we can do about that.

legendary_zell posted...

weird sniping and word policing that's only ever targeted towards the left.

As leftists stalk aoc in the streets because they don't like the way in which she's repeatedly called for ceasefires

She has a point. Schiff did manipulate the primary so it would be him vs the baseball guy in the general by boosting the baseball guy...

I can't remember baseball guy's name.

legendary_zell posted...

Let me just ask: do any of you know anyone who is bent out of shape about this who is:

1. In real life
2. Is not already a conservative
3. Is not a twitter clapback progressive hater

Yes. Literally every normal person I know thought Defund the police was stupid. They vote for the left pretty much every election. I know maybe 2 progressives that supported it and even they admitted the framing was pretty bad and could have been better.

One one hand she's right, on the other hand her PR team should've red flagged the term "rigged" because it's just bad optics since it got hijacked by Trump.

Shadow_Don posted...

As leftists stalk aoc in the streets because they don't like the way in which she's repeatedly called for ceasefires

This is a total non sequiter, it has nothing to do with anything anyone has said in this topic.

They are also not criticizing her for how she's called for a ceasefire, they're criticizing her for how she's shied away from calling a genocide a genocide and other related issues. This is an disingenuous twisting of words to avoid engaging on the actual substance of their complaint and to instead refocus on just how unreasonable they're being when she's doing what they want. She's not or they wouldn't be complaining. They're not saying anything to Tlaib or Bush, maybe reflect on why that is instead of creating alternate accounts of what they did.

In every other aspect of life, using variables and situations to help you increase your chances at winning is smart and wise. In Politics - it's rigging.

SunburnCostanza posted...

Yes. Literally every normal person I know thought Defund the police was stupid. They vote for the left pretty much every election. I know maybe 2 progressives that supported it and even they admitted the framing was pretty bad and could have been better.

I was talking about the issue with Porter, not defunding the police. Maybe that was unclear.

I don't dispute that most people weren't on board with defunding the police because they were essentially hearing the idea for the first time, out of context, heard it refracted through hostile sources, and were unfamiliar with all the ideological underpinnings of the idea. You'd see a similar pattern with any radical idea.

I'm not a genius, but if I was running in a race that I knew to be rigged, I would've been saying that a lot throughout my campaign. Not just dropping than in after I lost lol.

I don't think any of you trying to argue against a very well-spoken lawyer are going to make much headway. Don't try to be cute with deflections. He'll shred you apart.

EDIT: That was directed towards the last poster or anything. Just a general statement of things I noticed with Zell. The guy(?) is excellent at this.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Now why would I try to to mend fences with the random internet user who came at me sideways with no provocation?

Personally, I'm fine with the mutual dislike.

CheshireSimper posted...

"Defund [some program]" or "[some program] has been defunded" has always meant all funds have been removed and program shuttered. Everybody interprets it that way.

Clearly everybody doesn't hence how unpopular the slogan was.

Thank God, most realized it was a bad slogan including those that use to adore it.

Now there's just those rare few in denial who pop up to needlessly defend it their delusional idea that even most loved and understood it. Or that it didn't need to be constantly translated for what the slogan really means.

LightningThief posted...

Clearly everybody doesn't hence how unpopular the slogan was.

I'm not sure what you meant by this. Are you implying that if everyone interpreted it the way he described that it would have more popular? Or is this sarcasm? Sorry, I'm not great at reading into comments like this. Bare with me.

legendary_zell posted...

I was talking about the issue with Porter, not defunding the police. Maybe that was unclear.

I don't dispute that most people weren't on board with defunding the police because they were essentially hearing the idea for the first time, out of context, heard it refracted through hostile sources, and were unfamiliar with all the ideological underpinnings of the idea. You'd see a similar pattern with any radical idea.

Well no I haven't seen anyone talk about Katie Porter outside of Twitter or whatever. It's not nearly as bad as Defund the Police.

And Defund the Police should never have been the framing to begin with. An inaccurate 3 word slogan is indefensible. In the context of getting refracted by the right wing, you may as well be giving them a tennis ball and a 3 foot high basketball net

Sandalorn posted...

In every other aspect of life, using variables and situations to help you increase your chances at winning is smart and wise. In Politics - it's rigging.

It's telling that you have to be this vague and abstract about what actually happened here. Funding your opponent to screw over your primary obstacle is well within what most people would call rigging and shady as hell in any context.

Do you seriously think the average person is okay with or likes things like that, or do you think that kind of BS is exactly the problem with politics and is why things suck?

LightningThief posted...

Clearly everybody doesn't hence how unpopular the slogan was.

Thank God, most realized it was a bad slogan including those that use to adore it.

Now there's just those rare few who pop up to needlessly defend it.

You remind me of those people who took "black lives matter" to mean "*only* black lives matter". You're arguing that the slogan is worded poorly, but you and other diehard democrats don't care for directing funding meant for police to social services that would better serve situations that police aren't capable of handling properly. Biden came out and said that we shouldn't defund the police and that we should actually do the opposite and be funding the police MORE, as if they don't get enough funding.

legendary_zell posted...

It's telling that you have to be this vague and abstract about what actually happened here. Funding your opponent to screw over your primary obstacle is well within what most people would call rigging and shady as hell in any context.

Do you seriously think the average person is okay with or likes things like that, or do you think that kind of BS is exactly the problem with politics and is why things suck?

"we spiked the other team's water with steroids so they'd get banned, no shady behavior here"

Ryangrad posted...

I'm not sure what you meant by this. Are you implying that if everyone interpreted it the way he described that it would have more popular? Or is this sarcasm? Sorry, I'm not great at reading into comments like this. Bare with me.

That's my bad, read his post while reading that other user's post and mixed up their positions.

LightningThief posted...

That's my bad, read his post while reading that other user's post and mixed up their positions.

Ah, no worries. If we are keeping score, that's something that I do with far too much regularity.

1337toothbrush posted...

You remind me of those people who took "black lives matter" to mean "*only* black lives matter". You're arguing that the slogan is worded poorly, but you and other diehard democrats don't care for directing funding meant for police to social services that would better serve situations that police aren't capable of handling properly. Biden came out and said that we shouldn't defund the police and that we should actually do the opposite and be funding the police MORE, as if they don't get enough funding.

Biden might be right though. The solution to shit cops killing people isn't less money. It's better training, better hiring (requires better pay as well). They should probably be funded more.

1337toothbrush posted...

You remind me of those people who took "black lives matter" to mean "*only* black lives matter".

I'd give your entire post a serious, but I know you and your history.

So my post is now to anyone who compares the "Defund the police" slogan with "BLM." The 2 slogans do not compare.

legendary_zell posted...

This is a total non sequiter, it has nothing to do with anything anyone has said in this topic.

Nah just that part of your post was ridiculous, the idea that only liberals do tone/word policing and only leftists are the targets of it.

If Katie porter wants to run on a platform of dems rigging elections going forward then good luck, her career will be over.

SunburnCostanza posted...

Biden might be right though. The solution to shit cops killing people isn't less money. It's better training, better hiring (requires better pay as well). They should probably be funded more.

See, as always, it's not actually about the wording. You have a different and fundamentally incompatible political position than them. That is and has always been the issue, it's not marketing, phrasing, or any of that. You are simply to the right of them on policing and don't want their desired policy outcomes.

Same with the BLM issue. They just didn't want those specific pro-black and anti-police policies, and didn't consider police to be a fundamentally racist institutions or think issues of policing were connected to economics.

SunburnCostanza posted...

Biden might be right though. The solution to shit cops killing people isn't less money. It's better training, better hiring (requires better pay as well). They should probably be funded more.

That's assigning too many responsibilities to one department that is not meant to be addressing those responsibilities. "Better hiring" is easier said than done, especially since Biden said nothing about how he'd do that, just to throw more money at the problem.

LightningThief posted...

I'd give your entire post a serious, but I know you and your history.

Funny, since my supposed "history" hasn't stopped you from responding to me before. I guess you couldn't think of anything to say this time, huh? If you have no material, you could at least tell everyone what you think my history is. Could always go for entertainment.

LightningThief posted...

So my post is now to anyone who compares the "Defund the police" slogan with "BLM." The 2 slogans do not compare.

Your misinterpretation of the slogan and the fact that even when you know the meaning of the slogan you choose to not support it anyway shows that it compares very well and aligns with your modus operandi and your... history...

legendary_zell posted...

See, as always, it's not actually about the wording. You have a different and fundamentally incompatible political position than them. That is and has always been the issue, it's not marketing, phrasing, or any of that. You are simply to the right of them on policing and don't want their desired policy outcomes.

Same with the BLM issue. They just didn't want those specific pro-black and anti-police policies, and didn't consider police to be a fundamentally racist institutions or think issues of policing were connected to economics.

Yeah, no. Regardless of my stance, Defund the Police was an absolutely indefensible slogan assuming you meant divert the funds - unless you literally just wanted to Defund the Police and that's it. Then you can defend the slogan, but the position itself is pretty unpopular.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Mission? Yeah, you might need to go back some posts and see where you went so off track on such nonsensical presumptions about me.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

He wasn't spot on at all. The 2 slogans do not compare.

I edited my post while you posted this so I will just copy and paste.

"Defund the police" and "abolish the police" tried to be deep. Both slogans were used around the same time, and despite the revisionist history some were very serious about the total dismissal of the police. While some meant reform. Even when we focus strictly on those who meant reform, all to mean some deeper meaning of reforming the police is just dumb. Instead of just saying a slogan that cant be twisted like "Fix the Police" or "Reform the Police." The words "defund" and "abolish" does not mean reform or fix. Just a thought, how about not trying to be deep using a different word to mean something else. If you have to constantly clarify your deeper meaning, it's a dumb message. Because I know it's painfully difficult for those in their bubble who love the slogan to admit, not everyone is perpetually on TikTok and Twitter following your deep meaning of the word defund the police in a time frame that crime was being perceived to be high.

That doesn't compare to BLM which is much harder to twist the literal words which is simply, "black lives matter" as police were going around killing black lives. One has to intentionally twist it to mean only black lives matter.

CountCorvinus posted...

Adam Shit donated millions to help the republican win. The "game" fucking sucks. Instead of playing a game, maybe the so-called "Democratic Party", could I dunno.. try being democratic?

And you think the Republican voters who turned out were Katie Porter voters who got flipped to conservative? Get real. While I agree it's kinda dirty, that's what politics is, and it's no different from when Dems donated money to Todd Akin to help him win his primary to be an easier opponent in November, which was a celebrated tactic at the time.
Katie could've done a better job turning out this supposed "progressive vote" that seems to have trouble proving itself to exist, and it wouldn't have mattered. Him propping up a R should've been amazing campaign fodder for her to drive the vote, too.
Schiff wanted the R in 2nd place so he'd have an easy general election, it didn't help him win the primary. If anything, as the most moderate of the 3 Dems, he sacrificed some of his own potential votes now b/c he figured he had a better chance w/ Lee splitting the vote now than 1 v 1 w/ Katie later. I don't know how anyone can think it helped him in the primary, it was to push his toughest rival out of 2nd place.

With the benefit of hindsight, it looks like Schiff didn't even need to worry about Porter, he had such a wide lead over her in the 4-way, it was probably in the bag for a 1 v 1 considering the vast majority of the R votes would either not vote at all or vote for him over her.

Both of them running for the seat was always a colossal fuck up, I didn't know the ramifications. She should've kept holding her House seat that to her credit she guarded quite well in a very tough district. I guess now the best thing for her to do is to campaign for her Dem replacement hopeful and then look for a new spot to run next time, like governor or something.

LightningThief posted...

I'd give your entire post a serious, but I know you and your history.

So my post is now to anyone who compares the "Defund the police" slogan with "BLM." The 2 slogans do not compare. One tries to be deep with the word "defund" with some even going so far to argue "abolish" the police..... to mean some deeper meaning of reforming the police. Instead of just saying that cant be twisted like "Fix the Police" or "Reform the Police." The words "defund" and "abolish" does not mean reform or fix.

That doesn't compare to BLM which is much harder to twist the literal words which is simply, "black lives matter" as police were going around killing black lives. One has to intentionally twist it to mean only black lives matter.

This is completely ahistorical. As I already explained, defund does not mean reform, it's the abandonment of reform. You are trying to equate them because the concept of defunding or abolishing the police does not compute to you. But they meant defund or abolish not "fix" and they said so.

Additionally, people did twist the hell out of both reforming police and the meaning of BLM. The pre-2020 arguments were about reform and the battlelines were already drawn. Police were already refusing to police over calls for reform. Republicans were already saying Dems hate cops and want anarchy over calls for reform.

BLM was hated and equated to a radical or hate group in huge swaths of the country, pre-2020. There were vicious arguments over whether BLM was a black supremacist group/slogan on this very board. People called BLM terrorists after every riot. People created Blue Lives Matter and All Lives Matter in response. People suggested that the slogan be changed to Black Lives Matter Too to appease racists who didn't like a focus on black people. Your take is straight up revisionist.

legendary_zell posted...

This is completely ahistorical. As I already explained, defund does not mean reform, it's the abandonment of reform. You are trying to equate them because the concept of defunding or abolishing the police does not compute to you. But they meant defund or abolish not "fix" and they said so.

You are only piling onto my point here.....

Never the cluster circus of everyone not even agrees on the meaning of the slogan. We dont even need to debate what the slogan was really supposed to mean depending on who you asked. The fact that its a fucking circus to those that genuinely support fixing the police what that slogan means is exactly why its a horrible slogan. You can twist into a pretzel as much as you want to defend it. Not everyone was on the same page about your beloved slogan who genuinely supported fixing the police. Being deep with it is not helping. Having to debate or explain your deeper meaning of a slogan is counterintuitive to actually addressing the real issue which is your supposed deep meaning.

Lastly, I didn't say people didn't twist BLM. Read the post. I said twisting it made way less sense compared to Defund and abolish the police. Defund and abolish have actual definitions. They don't mean the deep meanings you want the slogan to mean. Especially during a time when crime was a hot topic. "Defund/abolish the police" while a flash theft was perceived to be a hot issue is just dumb.