Notes for #200↑ Above Hillman, Melissa. "Why Women Are So Angry With Bernie Sanders". The Huffington Post. 24 April 2017. HuffingtonPost.com. 26 July 2017. http://huff.to/2qd29KY Marcotte, Amanda. "Democrats are still chasing rural white voters, and it's a strategy doomed to fail". Salon. 22 July 2017. Salon.com. 26 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2eF91zp
You mean white. The average Trump voter is white, racially bigoted, socially reactionary, religiously conservative, and has an income well above the American median. They have less to fear, are in less need, are faltering less and in less desperate circumstances, than almost anyone else in this country. All of their economic troubles - all of them, without exception - are due to their own mistakes, bad politics, and incompetence at citizenship over the past thirty or forty years. Nobody has done them wrong except their own chosen, voted for, and loudly supported representatives. And almost all of America's modern problems of governance - the stuff that isn't simply carryover from past errors, like Hanford or black and red poverty itself - can be traced to the continual perceived necessity of pandering to them for votes. We've dug ourselves into a hole trying to reach out to those people. We've allowed fascism to take over a major Party, and its media operations to take over our news and information sources. We did this by granting validity and respect to what earned or deserved neither one, in hopes of obtaining the same in return from whom we now know will never - can never, in their lost state - grant it. More pandering is more digging. There's no gold, no water, no good thing to be had from digging this hole any deeper.
Yeah, so? There are poor white people, with shit jobs, or no jobs, no future, living in dying towns? Should we ignore these people because they are white, they aren't suffering because other white people like trump are living it up? Well guess what happens when you ignore those white people, they vote trump. Once again I'm talking about the ones that are not that, millions of them, again this is not about getting all of the trump voters, this is about getting a few percentage of them. Also so where are you pulling this statistic out of? Holly fuck that is what alt-right say about black people! Your have once again prove to be as crazy as them! Once again: will giving them free healthcare, free education, higher wages, infrastructure, via taxing the rich, will all that be "pandering" or "appeasement" Seriously like the alt-right talking abut jews... Ok ok fine, how do you plan to fix it?
identity | attack Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is, admittedly, quite easy to convince oneself President Donald Trump would not be stupid enough to undertake this or that indignity, stupidity, or outright betrayal, yet two years after he declared his candidacy, and six months into his presidency, it is also, admittedly, quite easy to wonder why we were or would have been convinced at some point in the past. Once upon a time, maybe, or maybe not, because, once upon a time what? We are not so far removed from once upon a time; the Washington Post↱ brings news of some congressional Republicans saying what would seem the right things according to traditional norms not necessarily in effect. We can certainly fret about the political rhetoric in Republican regard and rebuke—far too many leave quiet doors open in their rhetoric, through which they step back and vote to support President Trump's desperate persecution. Then again, if those Republicans don't know they're dealing with a volatile and demanding market base, there won't be much anyone can do to help them. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) deserves some recognition, because principled conservatism is a rare sight in the Beltway, these days. His statement in support of transgender service members is actually an exhibit for future study. "I don't think we should be discriminating against anyone," the statement says at the outset. And while this is often, in conservative lexicon, a phrase intended to assert a person's right to discriminate against others in service of personal aesthetics, what comes next is significant an defining: "Transgender people are people," Sen. Hatch declares, "and deserve the best we can do for them." This will, certainly, rattle the base; there is much speculation that President Trump's surprising twittery was intended to shore up support among his base, which is perceived as flagging under siege against Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But here's where statecraft proper comes into play: Senator Hatch has not exactly been a friend to the queer, over the years. He and his faction threw in, threw down, threw hard, and threw dirty, and they lost. And he knows it. And saying he knows it isn't some smarmy satisfaction; it's important to recognize that he gets this part of the ritual. And this is how we used to do it in these United States: He fought; he lost; now he needs to get onboard reality in order to move forward and advance his moral and ethical values within a constitutionally faithful framework according to his own sacred oath, and quite clearly the senior U.S. Senator from the Beehive State follows through, because his entire political career is invested in and imbued with a belief that the facts of the United States of America and the Constitution thereof are supposed to mean something in this world. Mr. Hatch is the most explicit; Colorado junior Sen. Cory Gardner (R), for instance, landed on the proper side of history with a vague statement to reporters↱, saying, "I think anybody who wants to serve in the military should serve in the military." It is its own contrast; Mr. Gardner seeks to move past a question he doesn't wish to discuss; others, like Sens. Joni Ernst (R-IA) and Dan Sullivan (R-AK), would seem to leave the door open to finding other ways to remove transgender from the military. Sen. Hatch, however, is making a principled stand; he doesn't have to like queers, but he fought, he lost, this is how it goes, and if his lifetime of sacred oaths unto the U.S. Constitution should mean anything, then this is how it goes. It's rare that I get to raise a glass to Orrin Hatch, but there you go. Meanwhile, as the WaPo analysis notes: -- The real impetus behind Trump’s snap announcement, via Politico’s Rachael Bade and Josh Dawsey: “House Republicans were planning to pass a spending bill stacked with his campaign promises, including money to build his border wall with Mexico. But … insiders feared they might not have the votes to pass the legislation because defense hawks wanted a ban on Pentagon-funded sex reassignment operations — something GOP leaders wouldn’t give them. They turned to Trump, who didn’t hesitate. … (But) House Republicans were never debating expelling all transgender troops from the military. ‘This is like someone told the White House to light a candle on the table and the WH set the whole table on fire,’ a senior House Republican aide said in an email. The source said that although GOP leaders asked the White House for help on the taxpayer matter specifically, they weren’t expecting — and got no heads up on — Trump’s far-reaching directive.” ‡ -- A Trump administration official boasted shortly after the announcement: “This forces Democrats in Rust Belt states like Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin to take complete ownership of this issue,” the unnamed official told Axios’s Jonathan Swan. “How will the blue collar voters in these states respond when senators up for re-election in 2018 like [Michigan Sen.] Debbie Stabenow are forced to make their opposition to this a key plank of their campaigns?” We might consider, at the very least, two general points: One is the fact of continuing conservative identity politics; the other is a more particular difference in how those identity politics work. The first point recalls ideas posted at the beginning of this thread, to wit↑, "Appeasers aren't actually suggesting we give them their way, right?" Because that's the thing; as much as one might argue that Democrats should eschew identity politics, those arguments to date speak nothing of the constant invocation and injection of identity politics by Republicans. And it's one thing if a two-bit backbencher from the Texas Gulf Coast wants to stand on the House floor and use his office to insult women and homosexuals; President Donald Trump's attempt to deliver military orders via Twitter is an even more immediate question: What's that? No identity politics? Maybe if the Appeasers could explain what they mean, it wouldn't sound like they're saying Democrats should take this one on the chin and transgender should just learn to live with it. You know, because identity politics are bad, m'kay? Except that doesn't really play queer political theatre. Sen. Stabenow (D-MI), for instance, scores a hundred percent from Human Rights Campaign; neither are Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-OH) or Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) afraid to rally up for their transgender neighbors and constituents. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) is even willing to "agree with Senator McCain" in defense of transgender troops. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) faces her red-label electorate next year standing with transgender. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is ready to run on the issue. Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) might have won the argument in support by pointing out that she didn't really care if the people who saved her life in Iraq were gay, straight, transgender, or otherwise: "All that mattered was they didn't leave me behind." Donald Trump's flip against transgender really does look like craven politics, a bungled attempt to offer up a new shiny thing in hopes of drawing attention away from the crimes of his presidential campaign and administration, and also of his family. But it also seems to miscalculate. The fact of the continuing conservative culture war is what it is, and the President's transphobic twittery reminds in the a most spectacular and obvious manner what the critique advocating Democratic abandonment of identity politics overlooks. If history had been insufficient to make the point, Mr. Trump's shiny oblation unto the right wing is both clarifying and defining: What pitch do Democrats advocating sympathy with supremacism have left? Democrats simply cannot abandon "identity politics" unless they intend to aid and abet supremacist campaigns to institutionalize classist separation and disparate standards of justice. The manner of these identity politics is its own consideration; Democrats will not for a moment, it seems, back down on gender. When it comes to sex, however, just how flexible and compromising should they be? We already know the right wing isn't going to stop. ―End Part I―
Part the Second Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Thus, to reiterate: • "And the thing is, as much as you want to denounce identity politics, remember the identities involved. Christians came after gays. Whites went after blacks. Men are constantly after women. Gays shouldn't assert their rights? They shouldn't need to. Women shouldn't assert their rights? They shouldn't need to. People of color shouldn't assert their rights? They shouldn't need to." (Tiassa↑) • "The current zeitgeist in the U.S. is one of angry straight white people pushing back against social justice gains with open bigotry, revelling in causing others pain and delighting in boorishness and even violence." (Hillman↱) • "It's a tempting idea, of course: Just stop talking so much about racism and sexism so much and instead talk about jobs and wages (never mind that Hillary Clinton actually did focus more on jobs and wages than any other issue) and boom! Watch the white rural voters that handed states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan to Donald Trump come into the Democratic fold. "Who doesn't want to believe liberals have that much control—that Democrats alone could make the cultural struggles tearing apart this country go away by putting the focus on jobs and other economic issues, and watch white voters return to the flock, drawn by all those progressive policies?" (Marcotte↱) To my version of the point, it would seem Democrats agree when the question regards our transgender neighbors. What seems less clear is why the Party should buckle when it comes to women. Indeed, Democrats would be better served by their own faith in justice and equality; denouncing the human rights of women as problematic identity politics is about as straightforward an example of Democratic misogyny as we would hope to never see exceeded, but, you know, neither life nor history are so kindly. The question↑ remains: What's the gamble, here, that women have no place to go, so Democrats can afford to abuse them a little more? Or as Rebecca Traister↱ put it, back in April: Yes, the House majority allowed for a progressive win in the reform of health care, but it also led to a quagmire for progressives when anti-abortion Democrat Bart Stupak proposed an amendment to the ACA preventing federal insurance programs from paying for abortions; thanks in part to other anti-abortion Democrats, the amendment garnered enough support to pass the House, though it stalled in the Senate, and President Obama eventually broke the stalemate by promising an executive order that ensured that no taxpayer money would be used to cover abortion care. During that fight, there was much resentment directed toward the reproductive-rights activists and pro-choice Democrats who objected to passing health-care reform without equal protections and benefits for women: How could you stand in the way of greater progress? This circular formulation, in which reproductive-rights advocates are told that they must sacrifice their issues in order to make progress on those same issues, was repeated by Sanders in an NPR interview on Thursday, in which he explained that, "If we are going to protect a woman's right to choose, at the end of the day we are going to need Democratic control over the House and Senate, and state governments all over this nation. And we have got to appreciate where people come from, and do our best to fight for the pro-choice agenda. But I think you just can't exclude people who disagree with us on this one issue." Women have heard this argument again and again, and we have remained the reliable base of a party that has elected and elevated to positions of greater power anti-choice Democrats including Harry Reid, Joe Biden, Tim Kaine, and Bob Casey. In fact, it's hard not to feel that it's because of the dedication of women, and particularly women of color, to the Democratic Party—where else are they going to go?—that party leaders feel freer to take them for granted and trade their fundamental rights in obsessive pursuit of the great white male. This is how Dems always imagine that they can make inroads in red states. It's third-way centrist bullshit. (Boldface accent added) 'Tis a striking difference. Then again, in a weird way much akin to Sen. Hatch's adherence to institutional convention of contiguous American society, it's pretty easy to line up in support of the targets of bigotry when the whole question seems both mysterious—i.e., transgender is more of a question and myth to the average American than familiar and understood witness with which one can be somehow sympathetic—and, in the long run, small, as transgender is, in market terms, boutique compared to the market presence of women. Accepting a sliver of society that serves the military at dramatically higher proportional rates than average else as a political demonstration of nondiscrimination is actually a pretty easy call for Democrats, and even well within conventions of conservatism according to traditions including those observed and adhered by Sen. Orrin Hatch. Still, President Trump reminds that the right wing will reach out and pick fights in such a manner that Democratic abandonment of air- and scare-quoted "identity politics" would amount to surrendering human, civil, and constitutional rights. And we see a certain stratifying delineation: Transgender yes, Woman no. This is not a useful posture for Democrats. DNC Chairman Tom Perez and movement champion Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) would be wise to wrap their heads around this. Perez, for his part, seems to be trying; as Traister noted three months ago: In a sign that the political pressure of a female grassroots is more powerful than ever, both Perez and Sanders responded to criticism with course corrections on Friday afternoon. Perez released a statement reading in part: "Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman's right to make her own choices about her body and her health. That is not negotiable." Perez also said he fundamentally disagrees with Heath Mello's personal beliefs about reproductive rights and that he'll be meeting with women leaders from around the country next week to discuss "how we can make sure our Democratic candidates and elected leaders are living up to these fundamental values." This is good news, though it prompts the question: Why weren't women leaders central to the planning of the Unity Tour in the first place? It was and remains a fair question, and if we brush past it in the moment we should at least note the numbers and power of women in the Democratic Party: "And the dynamic," Traister explained, "the women doing the labor of organizing and protesting and campaigning, knocking on doors and making calls and sending postcards, while guys speak from the microphones about the need to compromise on their rights—is depressingly retro." She also recounts Ilyse Hogue of NARAL Pro-Choice America, "This is the Democratic party base. So why is the place to start negotiating the place that pulls the heart out of the resistance?" The answers, of course, are diverse, but they all come down to identity priorities; among the more severe are those who would virtually erase women from the discussion, describing a majority of the population an ever-smaller demographic group and describing a sliver focus of identity politics as representing a majority of the population. And while such rhetorical stunts sound nearly unbelievable, this is the internet, after all, and these are the United States of America in the twenty-first century we're discussing; incredible and blatant stupidity is a viable political platform, these days, sufficient to elect a president, and those who would rush to accommodate this American disaster find themselves plumbing new depths of craven desperation. ____________________ Notes: Hillman, Melissa. "Why Women Are So Angry With Bernie Sanders". The Huffington Post. 24 April 2017. HuffingtonPost.com. 27 July 2017. http://huff.to/2qd29KY Marcotte, Amanda. "Democrats are still chasing rural white voters, and it's a strategy doomed to fail". Salon. 22 July 2017. Salon.com. 27 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2eF91zp Traister, Rebecca. "Will We Abandon Women’s Rights in the Name of Progressive Politics?". New York. 21 April 2017. NYMag.com. 27 July 2017. http://thecut.io/2pEZpcc ―fin―
A writer that proclaims to talk for all women because she is a women, therefor she knows the mind of every women. An opinion piece with no data, long winded rant, as invalid as anything you say. I have already been over this about pro-life candidates in red counties: which would you rather have win, a pro-life republicans or a pro-life democrat? Let me give you a hint, you had no problem voting for a presidential candidate who for years said she was against gay marriage, we all knew she really was not right? Well at least this one has an argument and plan of action, which I have already proven wrong with surveys that shows we did not lose through lack of base, but because we lost enough of the white rural voter in specific blue wall states. But this is not one or the other, we need BOTH an energized base and those swing voters in specific key states certain we could do a better job energizing the base by not running a candidate as lackluster as Hillary Clinton. Now here what you need for your arguement, show me that Bernie will de-energize the base.
#identitypolitics | #WhatTheyVotedFor Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Yes, yes, we know, any excuse to ignore a woman. As Traister↱ reminded (see #2↑ above), and you ignored— [Sanders] and Perez were also wrong to view compromising on abortion as part of a pragmatic political path forward and to hold up an aggressively anti-abortion Democrat as some exemplar of progressivism's future. Heaps of contemporary polling shows abortion is not the divisive issue it was long assumed to be. In 2015, polls showed that seven in ten voters, including independents—and even in Kansas—not only supported safe and accessible abortion but were willing to vote based on that support. A postelection Pew study found support for Roe to be at 69 percent, an all-time high. Omaha, the city where Heath Mello is running for mayor, was carried by Clinton—who made the most full-throated case for reproductive rights ever offered by a presidential candidate in her final debate against Donald Trump—by eight points. —so it looks like what you've brought is just another cheap fallacy, in this case false dichotomy about candidates and counties. Furthermore, it seems an extraordinary proposition to juxtapose as similar the propositions of winning a revolutionary constitutional argument, to the one, and upholding status quo. So it looks like what you've brought is just another cheap fallacy, in this case false dilemma by insupportable juxtaposition 'twixt marriage equality and the human rights of women. Clearly, Sen. Sanders energized the base to vote for Hillary Clinton, else he would have won the nomination. Then again, your slothful prescriptions are dubious at best, framed as they are in adipose fallacy. ____________________ Notes: Traister, Rebecca. "Will We Abandon Women’s Rights in the Name of Progressive Politics?". New York. 21 April 2017. NYMag.com. 27 July 2017. http://thecut.io/2pEZpcc
Yes yes gross ad hom. fallacy from you. The writer said nothing but opinion and fallacies, bring no data. You have a penis right? and yet I ignore your opinions and fallacies, does that mean I ignore men? Oh then we are winning red counties with pro-choice candidates are we, oh wait we aren't. See the problem here is your using national polls and not accounting for how skewed red counties are in red states from those generalized national poles, in those areas abortion is still a divisive issue. If you and your ilk can't understand the concept of having tailored candidates to win specific counties then we are doomed to have republican majorities in congress forever. You had no problem supporting a candidate who was against gay marriage, yet you can't stomach a pro-life democrat replacing a pro-life republican? And Hillary Clinton energized the base and that why she president now, oh wait she isn't. Clearly "the base" fucked up and choose poorly. Worse your suggesting the base wanted Hillary yet when the general election came around they just couldn't get to the polls? Where was the base when it really counted? See this really hits the nail on the coffin here: "the base" was strong enough to win Hillary the nomination but not strong enough to win Hillary the presidency? Clearly that means we need more then the base to win the presidency. Now if "the base" consist of your ilk, people that can't tolerate tailored candidates that steal republican seats by pretending to be pro-life to do it (just as Hillary pretended to be pro-traditional marriage) and can't tolerate a general massage of anything other then 'women and blacks and fuck white males' then "the base" will lead to democrat doom in 2018 and 2020 and 2022, and so forth. Meaningless slander.
Yes, you do. Unless the likes of kangaroo boy are your idea of "men". You aren't winning red Congressional districts with pro-life Democratic candidates either - witness the sixth district in Minnesota, last election. Compare Tim Walz, in the 1st. Why sell out your basic principles, when you lose anyway? Is another Blue Dog like Collin Peterson in the 7th - who will help the Republicans trash all your economic policies and block your entire economic agenda - that big a gain?
Well then I'm an misanthrope, and I unabashingly accept that I aim, Oh we lost ALOT last election, as Ken Martin told me personally the down ballot affects of Clinton washed out everything and anything else we attempted to do to bring up votes in local districts. Clinton was a wave of utter fucking devastation at a state and local level for democrats, Trump nearly won Minnesota, not even Reagan at his prime could get Minnesota, but Clinton so dejected the liberals up here. WHAT BASIC PRINCIPLES ARE WE SELLING OUT??? Name one, give me specifics! BETTER THEN NOTHING! Despite the blue dogs we managed to get at least something between 2008-2010. You would rather the republicans rape us all anally forever then get even a comprised mild improvement? The world is not fair, learn that, live with that, embrace it.
#resist Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Your deliberate omission in order to reiterate a question that was, in fact, addressed in the omission— Furthermore, it seems an extraordinary proposition to juxtapose as similar the propositions of winning a revolutionary constitutional argument, to the one, and upholding status quo. So it looks like what you've brought is just another cheap fallacy, in this case false dilemma by insupportable juxtaposition 'twixt marriage equality and the human rights of women. (#207↑) —is yet another example of the fundamental dishonesty required to make your case. Really, even you should be capable of discerning the difference 'twixt winning the law of the land and simply maintaining it. And, actually, you know, there's the difference right there: The constitutional lawyer and the civil rights lawyer, generally on our side, and uncertain how to make the argument, say the safe thing. As a matter of conscience, people are free to believe what they will; but as a matter of policy, no, Democrats should not seek to inflict harm with mandatory ultrasounds or a Hyde Amendment for the ACA. Most people can tell the difference 'twixt the Democratic Party emerging from traditionalism and the Democratic Party going after women. And I'm pretty sure you can, too. History shows that when opportunity finally presented, Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did the right thing to secure the law of the land in a manner that recognized the civil rights of homosexuals. Heath Mello, Bart Stupak, and others would seek to secure the law of the land in a manner that harms women in particular. And Bernie Sanders thinks Democrats should help them because why? For the sake of eighty thousand Rust Belt crybabies? In fact, it's hard not to feel that it's because of the dedication of women, and particularly women of color, to the Democratic Party—where else are they going to go?—that party leaders feel freer to take them for granted and trade their fundamental rights in obsessive pursuit of the great white male. This is how Dems always imagine that they can make inroads in red states. It's third-way centrist bullshit. But right now, perhaps unlike at any other moment in history, it is also crazily blind to what's actually happening around the country, as this week's fierce pushback to Perez and Sanders showed. As Hogue—who went on a Twitter tirade about the proposed compromise on Wednesday night—pointed out, in 2006 Rahm Emanuel could get away with de-emphasizing women's rights in part because the organized resistance of the moment was anti-war. This time, she says, “the organized resistance is women.” In fact, one recent poll showed that 86 percent of the people making daily calls to Senate and House offices are women, most of them middle aged. And after his better-than-expected showing in Tuesday's primary, Ossoff said, “This is a story of women in this community,” noting the “thousands of volunteers and organizers … led by women who have been pounding the pavement and knocking on doors for months.” In the midst of one of the most activated, energized, ground-up movements in modern Democratic political history—where the energy is coming from women who remain underrepresented in state and federal legislatures—the Unity Tour, with its two men making pronouncements about what the party should do next, felt exceedingly out of touch. And the dynamic—the women doing the labor of organizing and protesting and campaigning, knocking on doors and making calls and sending postcards, while guys speak from the microphones about the need to compromise on their rights—is depressingly retro. “Open your eyes to where the resistance is really coming from,” Hogue urged on Thursday. “There are literally millions of women who have been pouring calls into Senate offices, House offices, going to town halls, filing to run for office; we are literally three months out from the largest protest in U.S. history that was overwhelmingly women, in the name of women; that's where the resistance is. This is the Democratic party base. So why is the place to start negotiating the place that pulls the heart out of the resistance?” (Traister↱)____________________ Notes: Traister, Rebecca. "Will We Abandon Women's Rights in the Name of Progressive Politics?". New York. 21 April 2017. NYMag.com. 27 July 2017. http://thecut.io/2pEZpcc
Do you have no idea what a reality check is - how some people can be right, and others wrong, about the real world? The idea isn't to ignore them. The idea is to welcome them into the community of decent adults in a democracy, or failing that to beat them at the polls. Oh please. What wave of devastation? https://ballotpedia.org/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Minnesota,_2016 Every single Obama era incumbent Congressman that ran won, and not a single national seat changed Parties. The only two close races with an incumbent Dem were in a district where the incumbent Dem endorsed Sanders and focused on jobs above all, and a district where the incumbent Dem was prolife and focused on economic issues from a conservative (Blue Dog) pov (worthless, for your economic agenda - he'll even make it harder for the Dems to adopt it). This is the Minnesota that voted for Norm Coleman, Tim Pawlenty, et al, the sixth district that voted in Bachmann and Emmer when the state went for Obama. And even so, in the 67 State Senate races the Dems took every close one that didn't have a Libertarian cutting the Rep vote except the 44th. http://electionresults.sos.state.mn.us/Results/StateSenate/100?districttype=SN Women's and other human rights, progress in reducing racism in the governance of the State (particularly education and law enforcement), environmental caretaking and other scientific matters, demilitarization of civilian life, and so forth. And failure to embody and represent them will kill your economic agenda - even if, against all odds, you "win". You almost got nothing, in those two races. Running as Republican Lite is a risky tactic - people will tend to vote for the real thing, given a choice. Good thing they were incumbents, eh? Double down on the Blue Dog candidates elsewhere, as you recommend, and see what happens.
Tiassa, So your argument is that as long as its something new of course democrats will be for it, but if its against the "status quo" thats bad? Ok back to my original question which you refuse to answer: why not have pro-life democrats in replacement of pro-life republicans? See those "eighty thousand Rust Belt crybabies" are people, with problems like everyone else, in needs of rights like everyone else, but if you can't understand that then understand that they vote, and if you have not notice those crybabies HAVE WON THE WHOLE GOVERNMENT AND PUT A PIG BOAR AS PRESIDENT, so we can't ignore them. Now back to my question: if we replace a few pro-life republicans house members with democrat ones, do you honestly think they would push some kind of law that would take way women rights, or would they simply be quite when the time comes to expand abortion rights? Again when democrats like Hillary Clinton said they were for traditional marriage, when push comes to shove they flipped with ease, so why not the same on abortion, oh that right because somehow that is different.... I'm not understanding how that is different?
Far from ignoring them, we've been battling them for decades. Centuries. Collin Peterson, 7th District MN, has voted several times to take away women's rights (and others). He also has been influential in blocking your economic agenda within the Democratic Party - if you ever wonder how the Dems lost sight of your economic agenda, that's partly how it happened: guys like him. That's how we got Clinton in the first place - it's sometimes called "triangulation", and it's what the Dems fell back on in the panic after Reagan. Trump's election is the culmination of that approach. Your approach. It turns out that if you run compromising, bad-government, rightwing leaning Dems against uncompromising, no government, farther right Republicans you can lose more than the election - you can also lose your ability to communicate basic, good government, leftwing principles to voters, or formulate them in a coherent Party strategy.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Click to go and tell the captain. I don't believe you are capable of explaining what that random excrement actually means. Quit making up random bullshit, and #StartMakingSense. Liar. If, as they say, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, what is the difference to you? The rest of us need not be God, as we pay attention to things like the laws of humankind. Or, to reiterate↑: Really, even you should be capable of discerning the difference 'twixt winning the law of the land and simply maintaining it. And, actually, you know, there's the difference right there: The constitutional lawyer and the civil rights lawyer, generally on our side, and uncertain how to make the argument, say the safe thing. As a matter of conscience, people are free to believe what they will; but as a matter of policy, no, Democrats should not seek to inflict harm with mandatory ultrasounds or a Hyde Amendment for the ACA. Most people can tell the difference 'twixt the Democratic Party emerging from traditionalism and the Democratic Party going after women. And I'm pretty sure you can, too. History shows that when opportunity finally presented, Democrats like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton did the right thing to secure the law of the land in a manner that recognized the civil rights of homosexuals. Heath Mello, Bart Stupak, and others would seek to secure the law of the land in a manner that harms women in particular. And Bernie Sanders thinks Democrats should help them because why? The best you can manage is to ignore the answer and bawl that nobody is answering your question? Oh, poor you. Or, you know, here's your compromise: We are willing to accept that you are unable to discern the difference between access to civil rights and restriction of civil rights, 'twixt human rights and the absence thereof. Everybody knew how to advocate for abortion rights. Before about, oh, 2010, or so, when Massachusetts scored an Amendment X win for marriage equality, no elected politician knew how to make the gay rights pitch. Your bone ignorance of American history in general and political history in particular is pretty much disqualifying. As a provocateur trying to discredit the right wing, you would be doing a really bad job; as a provocateur trying to discredit liberalism, you would be doing an even worse job; as an informed advocate, however, you are a thorough failure. People who have actually attended American politics for a while are already familiar with your routine. We've seen it many times before, and the people who attempt it always think they're way smarter than they actually are. There comes a point at which the constant barrage of inquiry postured from crippling ignorance can only be taken at face value; that is to say, even if you don't like what people are telling you, at some point you ought to be actually learning something. And if the only thing you're actually learning is new variations on how to pretend you haven't learned a damn thing, you're doing it wrong. Then again, neither would that be surprising. You're not understanding how it's different? I'm not understanding what your problem is. And the thing is, I can tell you what I think, and you can certainly ignore me, but you? You apparently have nothing to say. Just make shit up, ignore what's there, and cry at the pretended lack. I mean, I know you think you're wasting people's time, and it's true that to some degree you are. But for all your own time you waste on this venture, really, dude, I would have thought it worth the effort to at least have something to say.
Tiassa your argument strategy is to throw slander, ignore and eject and then eventually come up with some kind of argument, that I easily put down, your reply to "why not have pro-life democrats in replacement of pro-life republicans?" is "If, as they say, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, what is the difference to you? The rest of us need not be God, as we pay attention to things like the laws of humankind." what the fuck does that mean? When did I say such a thing? You have gone right back to slander, ignore and eject, and you eject by making long winded rants, worse quoting old rand, consisting of utter non-sense! Answer the question, if we have red states with red districts, if we replace few pro-life republicans with pro-life democrats, what is the problem? Anyways more opinion pieces for you to consider, since you love them so: "Of course there is some truth to this, and looking at the Clinton campaign alone proves this point. Though Clinton defenders often tell critics that her campaign put forward a detailed policy agenda, the fact is that the campaign put little energy into promoting those policies. Indeed, a March analysis by the Wesleyan Media Project found that only 25 percent of the Clinton campaign’s advertising went after her opponent on policy grounds, while the rest was devoted to personal attacks. “By comparison,” notes Jeff Stein in Vox, “every other presidential candidate going back to at least 2000 devoted more than 40 percent of his or her advertising to policy-based attacks. None spent nearly as much time going after an opponent’s personality as Clinton’s ads did.” --- http://www.salon.com/2017/07/29/we-...blem-isnt-their-messaging-its-their-politics/ “What this research shows is there’s a fluidity to this electorate … they are open to solutions and we have an opportunity, we just need to have a better economic appeal,” said Charlie Kelly, House Majority PAC’s executive director. “We need to get back to the conversations we’ve had in cycles past and we need to get back to and focus on issues and things that actually matter to these families, which is jobs, jobs, jobs.” --- http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article164158372.html
That's been the working Democratic strategy since Reagan. It's the Clinton pitch - it's how the Clintons rose in the Party. It's what killed Wellstone's health care proposal, and brought us NAFTA, the drug laws, and "welfare reform". Also banking deregulation, tax cuts for rich people, and probably the Iraq War. You can look at Peterson, MN 7th Congressional, and see exactly what you are talking about - check his record. Do you see a problem?
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ElectricFetus, you're a liar. The italic portion above represents an argumentative assertion of some sort; the boldface represents you making up random nonsense in lieu of actually sayihng anything significant or relevant. It's like the nonsense about, "When did I say such a thing?" Consider that the alternative is that you're not actually making anything up, but somehow actually so ignorant. There's a reason people think you're trolling, because the alternative is a virtually unbelievable magnitude of stupidity. "When did I say such a thing?" you ask. At best, you're just generating words at this point, and they do not appear connected to anything other than the words immediately preceding and following any given word in that nonsense paragraph you posted. You've been answered↑, repeatedly↑, already↑, liar. And, really, if you're not smart enough to understand the basic difference 'twixt expansion and contraction, or gain and loss, or more and less, it's your own damn problem and you need to find a better approach than the sort of petulant lying I wouldn't call childish for the sake of not badmouthing children. These articles don't support your argument: Like the Clintons, Chuck Schumer is a political chameleon who has changed his political identity throughout his four decades in politics. In the 1990s, for example, he was one of the leading Democrats to embrace "angry centrism," along with President Bill Clinton. Now, 20 years later, he recognizes the current populist explosion, and is thus hoping to rebrand the Democrats as a bold—yet pragmatic—populist party. When one looks closely, however, it is apparent that Schumer and the Democratic establishment are still committed to the ideology (or lack of ideology) of centrism. "Our better deal is not about expanding the government, or moving our party in one direction or another along the political spectrum," insisted the senator in his Times column, as if to assure his Wall Street donors that the Democrats are still very much a pro-capitalist party and are simply trying to stave off the growing threat of socialism. In 1990, at the dawn of the Democratic Party's neoliberal shift to the right, former Republican strategist Kevin Phillips described the party as "history's second-most enthusiastic capitalist party," right after the GOP. "They do not interfere with capitalist momentum," observed Phillips, "but wait for excesses and the inevitable popular reaction." Almost 30 years later, a popular reaction has arrived after decades of capitalist excess, and the Democrats are once again rebranding themselves to acclimate to the times; yet they are still very much history's second-most enthusiastic capitalist party. During his interview last weekend, Schumer remarked that Democrats had been "too cautious" and "too namby-pamby," and while there is no doubt some truth to that, the party's underlying problem is that it has been too corporate, too centrist and—yes—too pro-capitalist. (Lynch↱) It's an interesting analysis, but it hasn't anything to do with to your argument supporting the forfeiture of human rights as some manner of bargaining chip for voters who won't go along, anyway. The McClatchy↱ piece actually reveals certain flaws about the economic justice approach that Democrats do, in fact, need to wake up and deal with: Kelly says the data proves that in working-class heavy places such as Iowa, Michigan and upstate New York—each of which has a targeted House race next year—Democratic candidates can win. But he and other strategists who worked on the project concede it'll take a focused effort to make it happen because the party's problems with these voters run deep. “It's not just a Hillary Clinton problem that she suffered with this particular constituency,” said Jill Normington, a Democratic strategist who helped produce the report. “This is a long-term issue with the Democratic Party, a steady erosion. This didn't happen from 2012 to 2016; it wasn't an overnight issue.” Sixty-one percent of these voters disapprove of congressional Democrats, the survey found, while just 32 percent approve. The numbers are better for the congressional GOP: 56 percent disapprove of them, while 39 percent approve. And even as Trump's approval rating sags overall, a majority—52 percent—of white working-class voters approve of his job performance. “We do have a Republican Party who is led by somebody who, when he is focused, does speak to some of the concerns of these voters,” said Pete Brodnitz, a pollster who worked on the project. “It's more of a challenge in that environment than it had been in the past.” White working-class voters also favor the GOP over Democrats on nearly every metric, the poll found. When it comes to which party will “improve the economy and create jobs,” Republicans have a 35-point edge. They have a 19-point edge when it comes to ensuring people are rewarded for their hard work, and a 15-point edge on middle-class tax cut. The only area where Democrats come out ahead is on health care—and even then, they best the GOP by just four points despite the deep unpopularity of the congressional Republicans' health care plan. People who pay attention to politics already know this. It's why it's easy for a Salon.com writer, or a PAC director, to push the idea of returning to and focusing on "issues and things that actually matter to these families, which is jobs, jobs, jobs", as Charlie Kelly put it, while deliberately avoiding the detail of "some of the concerns of these voters" described by pollster Pete Brodnitz, who goes on to say, "It's more of a challenge in that environment than it had been in the past." That is to say, these voters don't trust Democrats— These voters aren't really moved by policy. Hell, 41 percent of Republican voters actually want a single-payer system. The issue isn't with Democratic policy, but with Democrats, who are perceived as snooty, educated, racially diverse city-dwellers, and therefore hated. Even if Democratic politicians tried to abandon “identity politics” entirely, it wouldn't matter. Conservative voters can see, with their own two eyes, that the nation is changing culturally. They will continue to use the Republican Party as a cudgel to beat up the people that threaten them. This recent New Yorker article about Trump country is a sobering reminder of these dynamics. No one seems to believe that the problem with the Democrats is that they aren't doing enough to raise wages. Instead, there's an inchoate anger over cultural changes that largely fall outside either party's control. It's telling that the media was the “enemy” Trump was best able to whip up rage against among crowds in rural areas. Journalists are the Fox News-assigned symbol of the cosmopolitanism that the Trump-voting masses see as a threat to their cultural dominance. None of this is to say that Democrats shouldn't embrace progressive policies. If anything, they need to be bolder and offer a more robust health care safety net (such as an option to buy into Medicaid) and a guaranteed jobs program. But doing this in hopes of winning over rural white voters is a fool's errand. Those voters mostly aren't voting their economic self-interest, and won't start doing so anytime soon. Instead, they are clinging to a mythological past of Christian white dominance, and the Republicans, especially Donald Trump, are promising to restore it. (Marcotte↱) —but we've already been over this, and you passed on addressing these aspects the first time through. The history of flaccid, third-way centrism in Democratic politics describes dubious success, at best, if not long-term failure; cf., Lynch. It is instructive, actually, to attend the suppression that doesn't even pass for euphemization; Lynch, for instance, writes around it, and that's not necessarily his unshakeable loathing of Hillary Clinton; Marcotte addresses it directly, and Roarty's piece for McClatchy describes part of the detail. These voters trust Republicans despite the evidence because of their identity politics. Simply pitching an economic justice platform is itself insufficient to win these voters. And that's where Bernie and the Appeasers come in. What can we possibly offer these voters that will win them over? We know what we can offer them: Human rights. Supremacism. Stratification. And the answer is no.
Notes for #218↑ Above Lynch, Conor. "We need better than 'A Better Deal': Democrats' real problem isn't their messaging—it's their politics". Salon. 29 July 2017. Salon.com. 29 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2hbIElB Marcotte, Amanda. "Democrats are still chasing rural white voters, and it's a strategy doomed to fail". Salon. 22 July 2017. Salon.com. 26 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2eF91zp Roarty, Alex. "Democrats see chance to win back working class whites". McClatchy DC. 28 July 2017. McClatchyDC.com. 29 July 2017. http://bit.ly/2v6Zckt
"ElectricFetus, you're a liar. The italic portion above represents an argumentative assertion of some sort; the boldface represents you making up random nonsense in lieu of actually sayihng anything significant or relevant." ... I don't think we can progress at this point, your clearly emotional and need of Thorazine. Anyways. Iceaura, My district was in the 90's a blue district, this was once the Democratic FARM and LABOR Party, We lost both the farm vote and the labor vote (well at least the labor vote of lower union members) things change, you know nothing.
