AW Amazon Store

If this site is helpful to you,
Please consider a voluntary subscription to defray ongoing expenses.


 

Welcome to the AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler! Please read The Newbie Guide To Absolute Write

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567
Results 151 to 167 of 167

Thread: DNC purges progressives

  1. #151
    practical experience, FTW cornflake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13,789
    Quote Originally Posted by tenuki View Post
    I see the point. I get it now. This was Sander's failing and very and very not cool. Not exactly 'throw under the bus' but what's some well meaning hyperbole between friends.

    To be a bit of an apologist I'll just say this: I firmly believe that until we fix the larger issues I listed above that we are handicapped in taking care of the other issues. I think that was what Sanders was saying and certainly what I believe. I've had enough of this gerrymandering, money influence, etc - until that is fixed I despair of getting anything else fixed. I don't think we can give other social issues a fairer shake than the current lip service until we unstrangle the hold gerrymandering and money has on our politics.

    It's encouraging that Obama is working on the anti-gerrymandering issue through NDRC, I'm still waiting for Citizens United to get into someone's crosshairs in a meaningful way, although that is likely to be a long expensive state slog ala marriage equity from what I've read.
    Also, though I think this was the stupidest manufactured issue of the entire campaign (yes, let's not discuss that he has zero foreign policy experience, let's discuss that it's somehow [I have no idea why] wrong she got paid for giving a speech as a private citizen) the whole thing about Bernie not taking corporate money was a lie.

    I mentioned this during the election cycle and was told that it was 'different,' that it wasn't from Goldman Sachs (which just made it seem like the people had only heard that one soundbite), etc.

    Bernie took millions in corporate donations, and in SuperPAC money, and in donations we can't track.

    See here, oh and here --

    When he launched his presidential bid last May, he proclaimed: “Today, we stand here and say loudly and clearly that enough is enough. This great nation and its government belong to all of the people, and not to a handful of billionaires, their super PACs and their lobbyists.”

    It’s a theme Sanders has revisited time and again — on the campaign trail, in advertisements and during debates against front-runner Hillary Clinton.

    But unlike President Barack Obama, who refused campaign contributions from registered lobbyists, Sanders’ campaign confirmed it does not ban lobbyists from making contributions — even as Sanders has called on the Democratic Party to maintain a ban, implemented by Obama, on lobbyists giving to the Democratic National Committee.
    Lying, hypocritical, out-for-himself asshole.

  2. #152
    All the nopes. lizmonster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    3,694
    Quote Originally Posted by tenuki View Post
    To be a bit of an apologist I'll just say this: I firmly believe that until we fix the larger issues I listed above that we are handicapped in taking care of the other issues.
    I absolutely understand that perspective.

    But those "other issues" you're talking about are the basic civil rights of of everyone in this country who is not a cis hetero white male. What does a progressive party have left if they give up fighting for equality?

    And actually, as a person affected by Mr. Sanders' idea of "compromise," I absolutely feel thrown under the bus, no hyperbole intended.
    November goal: An additional 60K on WIP #2 (+52,976 : 69,242/~120,000)

    Hey, I got interviewed by AbsoluteWrite!




    Here are some books I wrote.

  3. #153
    practical experience, FTW cornflake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13,789
    Quote Originally Posted by lizmonster View Post
    I absolutely understand that perspective.

    But those "other issues" you're talking about are the basic civil rights of of everyone in this country who is not a cis hetero white male. What does a progressive party have left if they give up fighting for equality?

    And actually, as a person affected by Mr. Sanders' idea of "compromise," I absolutely feel thrown under the bus, no hyperbole intended.
    Also that.

    How is a basic right to one's own body and medical decisions 'those other issues' to be taken care of later, after we fix the all-important issue of corporate donations?

    Why are these always things to be taken care of later?

    The ERA has never passed -- why? Well, civil rights, then these other issues, like poverty (which might be helped by guaranteeing equal rights, equal pay, equal representation for public companies, etc.), then gay rights, then...

    Why is it never a discussion about whether Viagra should be paid for but it is for prescription birth control?

  4. #154
    Beastly Fido Roxxsmom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lost in space. And meaning.
    Posts
    15,935
    Well, see, there are regular, ordinary Americans. Then there are all those "special interest" groups who are accused of engaging in identity politics if they express frustration over their security, rights, and human dignity being regarded as issues of lesser importance.
    Please excuse me, I was raised by wolves.

    My twitter - My FB - My blog

  5. #155
    All about that action, boss. ElaineA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The Seattle suburbs
    Posts
    5,372
    Quote Originally Posted by tenuki View Post
    To be a bit of an apologist I'll just say this: I firmly believe that until we fix the larger issues I listed above that we are handicapped in taking care of the other issues. I think that was what Sanders was saying and certainly what I believe. I've had enough of this gerrymandering, money influence, etc - until that is fixed I despair of getting anything else fixed. I don't think we can give other social issues a fairer shake than the current lip service until we unstrangle the hold gerrymandering and money has on our politics.
    But that's NOT going to happen. Not right now, especially not with Trump filling the courts with his Jester Judges to sit for the next 30+ years. We have to insist on equality first, and prove it with action. That's the only way to convince people it's worth joining the progressive movement. They have to have a dog in the fight. If there's no sense that your values are valued, what's the point? Voter turn out can overcome gerrymandering. I give you Virginia, 2017 as proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by lizmonster View Post
    I absolutely understand that perspective.

    But those "other issues" you're talking about are the basic civil rights of of everyone in this country who is not a cis hetero white male. What does a progressive party have left if they give up fighting for equality?

    And actually, as a person affected by Mr. Sanders' idea of "compromise," I absolutely feel thrown under the bus, no hyperbole intended.
    Exactly.

    My focus continues to be turning out millennials, who were overwhelmingly beguiled by Sanders, and who are the biggest single voting bloc in the next election. (This includes my sons.) What they were still immature enough to do in 2016 was to take their ball and go home. (Not including my sons, who voted for HC rather than face the wrath of their mother. ) Bernie encouraged such behavior. He pouted and complained, and refused to whole-heartedly back Clinton. He failed to insist that his ardent supporters do the right thing or risk Trump. (see, how Tom Pieriello when on the full offensive for Northam in Virginia after he lost the primary) I'm actually convinced that many of the Bernie supporters believed, "fine, have Trump, then we'll get somewhere." I heard it from my kids, and from their friends.

    Bernie dragged the DNC platform multiple notches to the progressive side. It was a solid win for him and his beliefs. If he couldn't play nice after losing in the primary, that's something he'll have to live with, although I'm also convinced he has no conscience left, assuming he had one to begin with.
    Last edited by ElaineA; 11-14-2017 at 07:50 AM.


    Author me: Website | FB | Twitter

    IRL me: Random tweety things @outtamylaine

  6. #156
    figuring it all out
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    56
    Quote Originally Posted by lizmonster View Post
    I absolutely understand that perspective.

    But those "other issues" you're talking about are the basic civil rights of of everyone in this country who is not a cis hetero white male. What does a progressive party have left if they give up fighting for equality?

    And actually, as a person affected by Mr. Sanders' idea of "compromise," I absolutely feel thrown under the bus, no hyperbole intended.
    Got ya, then it's good everything turned out the way it did and he didn't get the nomination I suppose.

    You might have changed my mind today. I'm still a socialist though, so don't get too excited. And I'll still vote for the democrat in 2020 like I did for Hillary, but maybe I won't be as sour about it. I also believe Bernie is a good, well meaning person who supports equity. But tone deaf, ya, seems so.
    Last edited by tenuki; 11-14-2017 at 08:02 AM.

  7. #157
    Perpetually in transit Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Far North Queensland
    Posts
    6,304
    Quote Originally Posted by tenuki View Post
    Got ya, then it's good everything turned out the way it did and he didn't get the nomination I suppose.

    You might have changed my mind today. I'm still a socialist though, so don't get too excited. And I'll still vote for the democrat in 2020 like I did for Hillary, but maybe I won't be as sour about it. I also believe Bernie is a good, well meaning person who supports equity. But tone deaf, ya, seems so.
    Sanders isn't really a socialist, is he? Maybe in name, but not in action.

    As for the good, well-meaning stuff...well, a lot of misery has been caused by people who were well-meaning and that misery has been excused with 'oh, but s/he meant well'. The road to hell etc.


  8. #158
    I write novels
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    In the resistance
    Posts
    3,985
    Quote Originally Posted by tenuki View Post
    To be a bit of an apologist I'll just say this: I firmly believe that until we fix the larger issues I listed above that we are handicapped in taking care of the other issues.
    Since when are equal rights for women and minorities not part of the larger issues? Civil rights are economic issues as well.

  9. #159
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,101
    Quote Originally Posted by eqb View Post
    Since when are equal rights for women and minorities not part of the larger issues? Civil rights are economic issues as well.
    I'm horrified that basic humanity is seen as smaller than economics. Contrary to claims, economics is not natural law. It is a field of study focused on a certain subclass of human interactions. Ergo it is smaller than the overall study of human interactions. How humans treat each other is therefore a study that encompasses economics not the other way around.
    Therefore a basic error in how humans treat each other (e.g. not treating other humans as humans) is a larger scale error than economic disparity (which is a narrower form of that larger error).
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  10. #160
    I write novels
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    In the resistance
    Posts
    3,985
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle View Post
    I'm horrified that basic humanity is seen as smaller than economics. Contrary to claims, economics is not natural law. It is a field of study focused on a certain subclass of human interactions. Ergo it is smaller than the overall study of human interactions. How humans treat each other is therefore a study that encompasses economics not the other way around.
    Therefore a basic error in how humans treat each other (e.g. not treating other humans as humans) is a larger scale error than economic disparity (which is a narrower form of that larger error).
    I agree with you absolutely.

    At the same time, without equal rights, women and minorities earn less. Without access to abortion and birth control, many women end up losing out on the education they were aiming for, or the career they were pursuing. Or they do achieve all that, but only after a longer time, and at far greater cost of all kinds, including their health. I could go on with more examples. Equal rights is more than economic security, but there is most definitely an economic component.

  11. #161
    Mankind is my Business AW Moderator RichardGarfinkle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Walking the world
    Posts
    10,101
    Quote Originally Posted by eqb View Post
    I agree with you absolutely.

    At the same time, without equal rights, women and minorities earn less. Without access to abortion and birth control, many women end up losing out on the education they were aiming for, or the career they were pursuing. Or they do achieve all that, but only after a longer time, and at far greater cost of all kinds, including their health. I could go on with more examples. Equal rights is more than economic security, but there is most definitely an economic component.
    That is assuredly true and I don't dispute that in any way. What I object to is the reversal of causality and importance. Disregard of humanity causes economic disparity, not the other way around, and regard for humanity is far more important than economic parity. You cannot solve discrimination by equalizing paychecks, but if you remove discrimination paychecks will equalize.
    Undermine Pedantic Dadaism.




    Now on Smashwords

  12. #162
    Delerium ex Ennui Xelebes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    13,996
    The truth is even worse than that. You have to do both. Equal paycheques do not spring out of only one strategy.

  13. #163
    practical experience, FTW Twick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,750
    Yes, the Susan Sarandons of the country took the approach "Well, if Trump gets elected, that'll just send people scurrying to the progressives in the next election when they see how bad he is." But I'm honestly not sure what the options will be in three years' time. The GOP takeover of the judiciary is primed to make any progressive inroads almost impossible. They're appointing people in their thirties to lifetime positions, folks.

  14. #164
    I write novels
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    In the resistance
    Posts
    3,985
    Quote Originally Posted by RichardGarfinkle View Post
    That is assuredly true and I don't dispute that in any way. What I object to is the reversal of causality and importance. Disregard of humanity causes economic disparity, not the other way around, and regard for humanity is far more important than economic parity. You cannot solve discrimination by equalizing paychecks, but if you remove discrimination paychecks will equalize.
    Oh, I am totally with you.

    It's just I get frustrated when certain factions seem to think there's no economic factor in civil rights. But yes, if we achieve full civil rights, then the rest follows.

  15. #165
    practical experience, FTW cornflake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    13,789
    Quote Originally Posted by tenuki View Post
    Got ya, then it's good everything turned out the way it did and he didn't get the nomination I suppose.

    You might have changed my mind today. I'm still a socialist though, so don't get too excited. And I'll still vote for the democrat in 2020 like I did for Hillary, but maybe I won't be as sour about it. I also believe Bernie is a good, well meaning person who supports equity. But tone deaf, ya, seems so.
    If he were a good, well-meaning person who supports equity he'd have dropped out of the race several months before he did, and not played the idiotic 'we'll take the fight to the floor,' games that did NOTHING but encourage his base to not vote for Hillary. He'd lost by more than she had in '08 when she dropped to endorse Obama, because she actually cared about the election more than her own airtime. but he wouldn't stop, not for months, insisting maybe she hadn't won, it was a trick, he could still pull it out, etc., which only added to the idea that he was robbed somehow.

    Quote Originally Posted by Twick View Post
    Yes, the Susan Sarandons of the country took the approach "Well, if Trump gets elected, that'll just send people scurrying to the progressives in the next election when they see how bad he is." But I'm honestly not sure what the options will be in three years' time. The GOP takeover of the judiciary is primed to make any progressive inroads almost impossible. They're appointing people in their thirties to lifetime positions, folks.
    I really liked her before that whole mess. She was always such a NYer, seemed so normal, on the train, at hockey games, Then she went f'ing insane, talking about it'd be good if Trump won. Like, hi, Neil Gorsuch. Among others, but Neil fucking Gorsuch.

  16. #166
    Player of the Year nighttimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Cowtown
    Posts
    10,808
    Quote Originally Posted by Roxxsmom View Post
    Well, see, there are regular, ordinary Americans. Then there are all those "special interest" groups who are accused of engaging in identity politics if they express frustration over their security, rights, and human dignity being regarded as issues of lesser importance.
    It's always baffled me why it is identity politics always seems to be the term flung at women, people of color, LGBTQ folks as if White heterosexual males don't have vested interests all their own.

    I'd like to add these last words about the dumber-than-a-bag-of-broken-hammers, terminally useless Donna Brazile.
    The only thing worse than America's quadrennial exercise in pretending to care who gets to be president is the books that come afterward.

    The distinguishing feature of these books is that they are not really books at all in the sense of being something that people read for pleasure. They exist for the sole purpose of being speculated about, excerpted, chopped up, and pasted into hundreds of scooplets by breathless journalists days and weeks before they are actually published.


    The latest 2016 rehash is Donna Brazile's Hacks, a book we should all ignore. Slapdash, pseudo-confessional ("I lit a candle in my living room and put on some gospel music"), and full of strained dialogue that might have appeared in one of the Star Wars prequels, it is the kind of thing that only people who have written more books than they've ever dreamed of reading could not feel insulted by. If D.C. insiders believe unscripted human beings really talk like this in private, they are dumber than even Trump voters give them credit for being:


    "What?" I screamed. "I am an officer of the party and they've been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems." [...]

    "No! That can't be true!" I said. "The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers." [Hacks]
    When an excerpt from Brazile's memoir appeared in Politico, it was greeted with enthusiasm and even praised in some quarters for its candor among other literary qualities. At first Brazile seemed happy to accept this characterization. Then something changed and she began to appear on television lashing out at any reporter who suggested that she had claimed the Democratic primary was "rigged." Has she actually read her own book?

    I had tried to search out any other evidence of internal corruption that would show that the DNC was rigging the system to throw the primary to Hillary, but I could not find any in party affairs or among the staff. I had gone department by department, investigating individual conduct for evidence of skewed decisions, and I was happy to see that I had found none. Then I found this agreement. [Hacks]

    If you say that you could not find "evidence" of something at first but "then" you did, you are, in fact, saying that you found the something in question. It is not even possible to interpret this seeming about-face as a result of sloppy writing on her part that led to misinterpretation from readers. The fundraising agreement between Hillary Clinton's campaign and the DNC was public knowledge last year before the DNC leaks; to have written about it in this ludicrously sensational manner — she tells us that she sobbed when she first called Bernie Sanders to tell him about it — means you were going out of your way to argue that there was "rigging."

    Surely her backtracking could have nothing to do with the publication of an open letter signed by John Podesta, Robby Mook, Huma Abedin, and other Clintonite pals (or ex-pals as the case may be) dismissing her non-allegations and claiming that Brazile was a dupe of unnamed Russian propagandists. Nor is this likely to be the only point in the book about which she changes her mind post-publication; having claimed that she seriously considered replacing Clinton with Joe Biden in September 2016, it must no doubt have come as a shock to her that the former vice president has no memory of such a thing ever being floated. How long before she starts insisting that she made no such claim?
    Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright once said there was a special place in Hell for women who don't help other women. There should be a waiting room right next to that special place in Hell for women like Brazile who try to throw other women under the bus for their own selfish reasons.
    Most people don't want to change. They're comfortable and set in their ways. But in order to change, you have to be able to agitate people at times. And I think that's something that's very necessary for us to improve as a country.
    ~ Colin Kaepernick



    Watch This Space


  17. #167
    I meant to do that. Lyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Outside Boston
    Posts
    3,685
    Quote Originally Posted by rugcat View Post
    Perhaps she was mistaken – on another front, in spite of a long held support of LGTNQ people, she was late in supporting gay marriage – a political consideration. I'm sure she felt that originally actively supporting same-sex marriage would hurt her chances of being elected – you may consider that pragmatism or moral weakness but it's far different than the active hostility of Republicans.
    This isn't directed at you, but I was thinking about this a moment ago so am jumping off. One thing I liked (and what helped her to win the support of most LGBTQ organizations and activists) was that she owned up to her mistakes and tried to make up for them. It used to irk me when Bernie and supporters would say he was "always" there for LGBTQ people when in 2006, he spoke against marriage equality. That hurt us. In MA, we were trying hard to hang on to marriage equality with opponents fighting to put it on the ballot, and the supposed ultra-liberal, ultra-progressive senator of a neighboring state said he didn't want it in his state. Clinton and Sanders were both on the wrong side once and both came to the right side, but only one admitted it.

Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Custom Search