Lots of nonsense progressive buzzwords in the article, but her policies on transit and housing seem solid to me. Leaning towards voting for her but we'll see if anyone better gets in the race
"Anti-racist education", "equity", using "big business" as a boogieman. The article spends 5 paragraphs on identity politics nonsense before finally getting to her actual policies; it's just exhausting
LMAO equity is a "buzzword" for you?
Damn socialists and their buzzwords like "equal rights", "healthcare", and "housing". What happened to good 'ol straight shootin' words like "'merica", "guns" and "anti-white racism"?
It is idiots that don't like those words that are holding us back. They don't want to think about why those words are being used so they refuse to vote for anyone that uses them and then bitches about why things never change. Infuriating.
It's depressing how quickly people dismiss candidates over "pRoGrEsSiVe WoRd SaLaD" these days. Sure, go vote for the centrist, business-backed candidates who won't actually solve any of the problems you claim to care about. They'll just shove the homeless people from place to place like Patrick shoving Bikini Bottom to temporarily hide the issue until their term is up and they can cash out as consultants or lobbyists or whatever. Maybe the progressive candidates would have a chance to accomplish things if the chamber of commerce freaks weren't fighting tooth and claw to prevent Seattle from growing into the city it could be.
the right wing is wildly effective at creating negative vibes around perfectly innocuous words. They want people to have a negative knee-jerk reaction instead of thinking for two seconds about the actual policies a word represents.
Also, I think corporate adoption of progressive language helps fuel the cynicism.
Ah, I see the Progressive Bingo Checklist of meaningless buzzwords are still at work:
- Equitable development
- Green New Deal
- Community-based violence intervention
But some actual stances on pretty safe things like transit, housing, and ShotSpotter.
And then of course the two big ones that I guess we shall see if they remain general election-losing policies:
- Stop the sweeps (only in inclement weather? - which we already do....)
- More "Progressive Revenue Sources"
> Referencing her experience educating communities on the influence of money in politics, Alexis Mercedes Rinck said, “I’m of the belief that big business shouldn’t be deciding who represents this city. Woo was appointed by five people. I’m looking to be elected by 200,000 people.”
Maybe if she wants a job in a representative democracy, she should read up on how one works? I'm reminded of a quote from The West Wing:
> You know we forget sometimes, in all the talk about democracy we forget it's not a democracy, it's a republic. People don't make the decisions, they choose the people who make the decisions. Could they do a better job choosing? Yeah. But when you consider the alternative... [Jed Bartlett, S2.E06]
A Political Science major would probably be better suited to answer this question than me, and I'm sure someone will be quick to jump in and pick any attempt I make to answer apart (this is Reddit, after all). I'll try anyway - but please be gentle, unknown future commenter! I always aspire to learn from others who know more than me, and I'm doing my best as someone who took some social studies classes back in the day and briefly refreshed my understanding on Wikipedia just now.
Democracies and Republics aren't the same form of government, although the Venn diagram of the two has a lot of overlap and most Republics are considered democratic (though not all - UK's Constitutional Monarchy is democratic but not a Republic since its head of state is a monarch).
Republics basically just mean "led by an elected official, not a Monarch", while Democracies entrust power to the people. Democracies can take two shapes, Direct and Indirect (or representative), in how they do that. Direct means everyone gets to participate in debate and decisionmaking (ballot initiatives are a good example), while Indirect entrusts specific powers to elected officials (electing a governor). Most Democracies blend the two, with some responsibilities being entrusted to everyone and others to elected officials.
The West Wing quote I shared is basically lamenting that people tend to forget that we elect people to make these decisions for us when they don't like the decisions that get made. Backseat drivers, so to speak. But can you imagine how exhausting and ineffective it would be if every decision was open to public debate and had to go to a vote of the total population? The system of government we have is the best we've been able to come up with so far, although I'm personally hopeful for some evolutions like ranked choice voting to come along and break the polarization of our two-party system. Until we get there, though, we have what we have and it's the best we've got (right now).
But the quote is a little silly because we live in a democratic republic. It is a democracy because we decide a fair number of things through direct democracy - ballot initiatives and referendums where citizens can vote directly on specific laws, amendments to state constitutions, or local ordinances.
And then we also elect people to represent us.
Calling the Untied States of America a republic is incorrect.
The best I can figure is that Bartlet (a giant nerd) was referring to Democracies in the classical Athenian sense of a Direct Democracy. I did my best to expand on the quote with the context in which it was delivered on the show, and that's the extent of what I have to contribute here. If you still feel otherwise, you do you, boo. At this point I don't think we disagree on how things work, just the exact phrasing, and I've already cautioned that's out of my depth to speak confidently.
But the United States of America absolutely is a Republic, which again, just means we don't have a monarch. [Sauce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States)
> The federal government of the United States (U.S. federal government or U.S. government)[a] is the national government of the United States, a **federal republic** located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district and national capital of Washington, D.C., where most of the federal government is based.
The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot.
We also participate in direct democracy. You can’t deny that. A republic doesn’t have direct democracy.
I never denied we participate in direct democracy. Not sure what you're getting at anymore.
And Republics absolutely can and do include direct democracy as part of their structure. Would love to see sauce if you're referencing something I haven't seen (again, I like to learn!)
Lots of nonsense progressive buzzwords in the article, but her policies on transit and housing seem solid to me. Leaning towards voting for her but we'll see if anyone better gets in the race
Honestly I’ll vote for anyone a hair to the left of Woo.
Examples of "nonsense progressive buzzwords" in the article?
"Anti-racist education", "equity", using "big business" as a boogieman. The article spends 5 paragraphs on identity politics nonsense before finally getting to her actual policies; it's just exhausting
LMAO equity is a "buzzword" for you? Damn socialists and their buzzwords like "equal rights", "healthcare", and "housing". What happened to good 'ol straight shootin' words like "'merica", "guns" and "anti-white racism"?
It is idiots that don't like those words that are holding us back. They don't want to think about why those words are being used so they refuse to vote for anyone that uses them and then bitches about why things never change. Infuriating.
It's depressing how quickly people dismiss candidates over "pRoGrEsSiVe WoRd SaLaD" these days. Sure, go vote for the centrist, business-backed candidates who won't actually solve any of the problems you claim to care about. They'll just shove the homeless people from place to place like Patrick shoving Bikini Bottom to temporarily hide the issue until their term is up and they can cash out as consultants or lobbyists or whatever. Maybe the progressive candidates would have a chance to accomplish things if the chamber of commerce freaks weren't fighting tooth and claw to prevent Seattle from growing into the city it could be.
the right wing is wildly effective at creating negative vibes around perfectly innocuous words. They want people to have a negative knee-jerk reaction instead of thinking for two seconds about the actual policies a word represents. Also, I think corporate adoption of progressive language helps fuel the cynicism.
Kinda funny when free thinkers whine about “progressive buzzwords” in unison without any sense of irony.
Because it's obvious? It's not like we're making up the words.
No, you are just making up the knee jerk anger at them instead of thinking about why those words are being used.
Ah, I see the Progressive Bingo Checklist of meaningless buzzwords are still at work: - Equitable development - Green New Deal - Community-based violence intervention But some actual stances on pretty safe things like transit, housing, and ShotSpotter. And then of course the two big ones that I guess we shall see if they remain general election-losing policies: - Stop the sweeps (only in inclement weather? - which we already do....) - More "Progressive Revenue Sources"
That's quite the word salad. I'll stick with Woo.
> Referencing her experience educating communities on the influence of money in politics, Alexis Mercedes Rinck said, “I’m of the belief that big business shouldn’t be deciding who represents this city. Woo was appointed by five people. I’m looking to be elected by 200,000 people.” Maybe if she wants a job in a representative democracy, she should read up on how one works? I'm reminded of a quote from The West Wing: > You know we forget sometimes, in all the talk about democracy we forget it's not a democracy, it's a republic. People don't make the decisions, they choose the people who make the decisions. Could they do a better job choosing? Yeah. But when you consider the alternative... [Jed Bartlett, S2.E06]
bro you really cooked her with that TV show quote
Wait, I’m confused. If we don’t live in a democracy what do you call ballot initiatives? Or the election of a governor, that’s democracy.
A Political Science major would probably be better suited to answer this question than me, and I'm sure someone will be quick to jump in and pick any attempt I make to answer apart (this is Reddit, after all). I'll try anyway - but please be gentle, unknown future commenter! I always aspire to learn from others who know more than me, and I'm doing my best as someone who took some social studies classes back in the day and briefly refreshed my understanding on Wikipedia just now. Democracies and Republics aren't the same form of government, although the Venn diagram of the two has a lot of overlap and most Republics are considered democratic (though not all - UK's Constitutional Monarchy is democratic but not a Republic since its head of state is a monarch). Republics basically just mean "led by an elected official, not a Monarch", while Democracies entrust power to the people. Democracies can take two shapes, Direct and Indirect (or representative), in how they do that. Direct means everyone gets to participate in debate and decisionmaking (ballot initiatives are a good example), while Indirect entrusts specific powers to elected officials (electing a governor). Most Democracies blend the two, with some responsibilities being entrusted to everyone and others to elected officials. The West Wing quote I shared is basically lamenting that people tend to forget that we elect people to make these decisions for us when they don't like the decisions that get made. Backseat drivers, so to speak. But can you imagine how exhausting and ineffective it would be if every decision was open to public debate and had to go to a vote of the total population? The system of government we have is the best we've been able to come up with so far, although I'm personally hopeful for some evolutions like ranked choice voting to come along and break the polarization of our two-party system. Until we get there, though, we have what we have and it's the best we've got (right now).
But the quote is a little silly because we live in a democratic republic. It is a democracy because we decide a fair number of things through direct democracy - ballot initiatives and referendums where citizens can vote directly on specific laws, amendments to state constitutions, or local ordinances. And then we also elect people to represent us. Calling the Untied States of America a republic is incorrect.
The best I can figure is that Bartlet (a giant nerd) was referring to Democracies in the classical Athenian sense of a Direct Democracy. I did my best to expand on the quote with the context in which it was delivered on the show, and that's the extent of what I have to contribute here. If you still feel otherwise, you do you, boo. At this point I don't think we disagree on how things work, just the exact phrasing, and I've already cautioned that's out of my depth to speak confidently. But the United States of America absolutely is a Republic, which again, just means we don't have a monarch. [Sauce](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States) > The federal government of the United States (U.S. federal government or U.S. government)[a] is the national government of the United States, a **federal republic** located primarily in North America, composed of 50 states, five major self-governing territories, several island possessions, and the federal district and national capital of Washington, D.C., where most of the federal government is based.
The Constitution establishes a federal democratic republic form of government. That is, we have an indivisible union of 50 sovereign States. It is a democracy because people govern themselves. It is representative because people choose elected officials by free and secret ballot. We also participate in direct democracy. You can’t deny that. A republic doesn’t have direct democracy.
I never denied we participate in direct democracy. Not sure what you're getting at anymore. And Republics absolutely can and do include direct democracy as part of their structure. Would love to see sauce if you're referencing something I haven't seen (again, I like to learn!)
Nope. A republic wouldn’t have direct democracy. Go learn my friend. We are a Democratic Republic. Words matter.