Secular Left

We Don't Want Empty Promises, Party Manipulations, Or Politcal Bridge Burning
We look into the ongoing political landscape in Ohio, dissecting the implications of a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at curbing gerrymandering that could potentially end the Republican supermajority in the state. The Ohio Ballot Board's recent attempt to manipulate the ballot summary for this measure raises serious concerns about transparency and fairness. We examine the political maneuvering behind this effort and discuss how it fits into the larger narrative of electoral integrity.
We reflect on Senator Chuck Schumer's remarks to reporters during the 2024 Democratic National Convention. Schumer's bold assertion that voting Democrat in November will lead to significant changes in the filibuster deserves scrutiny. We explore the skepticism that surrounds these promises, given past experiences where similar assertions did not materialize into action once the Democrats had power. The question remains: can we trust the Democratic leadership to follow through on commitments that can reshape legislative processes critical to our democracy?
Then we unpack the disappointing political ad from Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a longtime House Democrat facing re-election. The ad's attempt to appeal to conservative constituents while alienating progressives highlights a troubling trend within the party. Kaptur's rhetorical decisions, particularly her invocation of "the far left," indicate a strategy that sacrifices progressive values in a bid for political survival. We analyze the implications of such messaging and question whether it will succeed in winning over voters who are fundamentally opposed to her party's principles.
Throughout the episode, we engage with the underlying themes of accountability, representation, and the challenges facing candidates in a polarized political environment. As Ohioans prepare for a pivotal election, the conversations surrounding these issues become increasingly crucial. How can we encourage a more inclusive political discourse that genuinely represents the diversity of opinions and needs within our communities?
Full Show Notes

Send us a text

Support the show

Subscribe to our free newsletter
Check out our MerchFollow us on BlueskyFind us on Twitter(for now)
Find us on InstagramFind us on Counter SocialFind us on Mastadon

In this spicy episode, we give you many reasons why voting for Donald Trump in the upcoming election is not a wise choice. We look into the history of the 2024 presidential election, highlighting the lack of merit in considering Trump as a viable candidate due to his questionable character and numerous controversies during his previous presidency. We call out the absurdity in Trump's behavior, highlighting his divisive rhetoric and lack of concern for the well-being of the American people.
We look at the potential implications of a Trump presidency, drawing parallels to historical events and emphasizing the dangers of embracing divisive ideologies. We urge listeners to critically analyze the information presented to them, especially in the age of social media where misinformation can easily spread. Additionally, we touch on the importance of understanding the motives behind political posts and the responsibility of individuals to engage in meaningful conversations based on facts and context.
We then highlight the potential scenarios surrounding the upcoming election, expressing concerns about possible election interference and the need for vigilance in protecting democracy. We emphasize the importance of making informed choices and not falling prey to divisive tactics or fear-mongering strategies employed by certain political factions. Consider the long-term implications of your voting decisions and prioritize the well-being of the country and future generations by making informed and thoughtful choices at the ballot box.
Full Show Notes

Send us a text

Support the show

Subscribe to our free newsletter
Check out our MerchFollow us on BlueskyFind us on Twitter(for now)
Find us on InstagramFind us on Counter SocialFind us on Mastadon

We take a deep dive into the recent election and its ramifications, focusing particularly on the Democrats' surprising loss and the implications for future campaigns. We look at both the evident and subtle factors that contributed to this outcome. Being a black woman was a significant hurdle for Vice President Kamala Harris, which I argue led to a disheartening decline in support from key demographics, particularly among white women.
We reflect on the expansive backing Harris had throughout her campaign—endorsements from high-profile figures, a massive fundraising effort, and relentless campaigning in critical swing states. Despite these advantages, we dissect several conventional narratives that emerged post-election, including claims about "wokeness" hurting her candidacy. These perspectives fail to recognize the historical biases that women, and especially women of color, face in political arenas. The correlation between Harris's identity and the voting decisions by constituents shines a light on the entrenched prejudices in the electorate.
The the role of the media can't be overlooked in shaping public perception and the electoral outcome. We draw stark contrasts between how the media covered the candidacy of Trump versus Harris. The disparity in coverage serves as a significant barrier to the Democrats' message and outreach. Right-wing media not only sets the news agenda but also propagates narratives that undermine Democratic candidates.
We highlight the absurdity of critiques directed at Democratic strategies, especially in the face of a system that fundamentally prioritizes white male leadership and often disregards the complexities of intersectionality in politics.
There is a vital requirement for a counterbalance to the dominant right-wing platforms that distort narratives for political gain. If the Democrats are to regain ground, establishing robust media channels to promote liberal perspectives and to advocate for equitable policies is paramount.
Full Show Notes and Links Used

Send us a text

Support the show

Subscribe to our free newsletter
Check out our MerchFollow us on BlueskyFind us on Twitter(for now)
Find us on InstagramFind us on Counter SocialFind us on Mastadon

In this episode, we engage with Martin Armitage, co-author of the book "Tyrant in a Top Hat," which challenges the conventional narrative surrounding President Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. We delve into thought-provoking questions: Did Lincoln ignite a civil war unnecessarily? Are the consequences of that conflict still reverberating through our society today? And could the United States benefit from a reevaluation, perhaps even division, based on differing cultural values?
Armitage, bringing a rich background in history and political service, aims to encourage listeners to think critically about Lincoln's decision-making in 1861. His book seeks not to indoctrinate its readers with a particular viewpoint but rather to provoke discussion and self-reflection regarding historical interpretation and its implications for modern governance. We explore the historical context in which Lincoln operated, including the possibility that alternative measures could have been taken to address rising tensions rather than resorting to war.
One of the compelling arguments in the book is the exploration of Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus, a controversial move that prioritized national security over individual rights during a time of crisis. Armitage explains the significance of habeas corpus as a cornerstone of civil liberties, and we discuss whether Lincoln's actions set a troubling precedent for future governance.
As our conversation evolves, we also touch upon Armitage's proposals for how modern-day America, which he describes as a "fractured nation," might navigate its profound ideological divides. He suggests the potential for regions within the U.S. to separate based on cultural lines, advocating for a new political structure that emphasizes local governance while maintaining overarching national protections for rights. While these ideas might seem radical, they stem from a desire to find practical solutions to contemporary issues of polarization and disenfranchisement.
Throughout the episode, listeners are invited to engage with these challenging concepts and to reflect on what they mean for our understanding of modern democracy. At the end of the interview, Doug provides his own perspective, critiquing Armitage’s conclusions while acknowledging the value of his inquiries. Doug emphasizes the importance of spirited debate and the necessity for a strong central government dedicated to protecting universal rights for all citizens, expressing his belief that the fight for equality and civil liberties must continue unabated.

Full Show Notes and Links

Send us a text

Support the show

Subscribe to our free newsletter
Check out our MerchFollow us on BlueskyFind us on Twitter(for now)
Find us on InstagramFind us on Counter SocialFind us on Mastadon

In this episode, we look at the struggles of 'moderate' Republican and retired sports reporter Michele Tafoya as she tries to stop the world from making her babies feel bad in our 'post' racial era. Tucker Carlson celebrates her American Ideal. Then we look at how the Ohio GOP is trying to run out the clock to maintain their super majority in the legislature. They are on the finish line and want to change the rules.
Show NotesSubscribe our free newsletterCheck out our Merch
00:50 Michele Tafoya is a moderate?
21:36 Mapless Matt Huffman refuses to draw fair maps

Send us a text

Support the show

Subscribe to our free newsletter
Check out our MerchFollow us on BlueskyFind us on Twitter(for now)
Find us on InstagramFind us on Counter SocialFind us on Mastadon