On American Appeasement

[Tiassa]

#governmentdoesntwork | #WhatTheyVotedFor​

​

So here's the secret:

President Donald Trump has appointed Teresa Manning, an anti-abortion activist who has argued that "contraception doesn't work," to oversee a federal family planning program for low-income Americans.

Manning, a former lobbyist with the National Right to Life Committee and legislative analyst for the conservative Family Research Council, will serve as deputy assistant secretary for population affairs at the Department of Health and Human Services. The Office of Population Affairs administers the Title X program, which subsidizes contraception, Pap smears and other preventive health care services for 4 million low-income Americans, roughly half of whom are uninsured.

Manning has said she opposes federal family planning funding, and she has a long history of making false claims about birth control and women's health.

"Of course, contraception doesn't work," she said in a 2003 NPR interview. "Its efficacy is very low especially when you consider over years, which you know a lot of contraception health advocates want, to start women in their adolescent years when they're extremely fertile, incidentally. And continue for 10, 20, 30 years, over that span of time the prospect that contraception would always prevent the conception of a child is preposterous."

(Laura Bassett↱)​

If we redefine "conception" to mean "fertilization", then Teresa Manning is correct.

No, really, that's the tricky part. It comes up again—see?

The United States is currently at an all-time low for teen pregnancies and a 30-year low for unintended pregnancies, thanks in large part to the government's investment in family planning. According to the Guttmacher Institute, in 2014, the birth control distributed by Title X–funded providers helped women prevent 904,000 unintended pregnancies, which would have resulted in an estimated 439,000 unplanned births and 326,000 abortions. No federal money can be used to pay for abortion services.

But Trump is now stacking his administration with anti-abortion activists who do not appear to support the federal family planning program. Before the Manning announcement, Trump tapped Charmaine Yoest to be assistant secretary of public affairs at HHS. Yoest, the former president of Americans United for Life, has been fighting Planned Parenthood for years and has said that the IUD —a common form of birth control—"has life-ending properties."​

At any rate, would disdaining and disputing the disruption of life-saving preventative health care count as "identity politics" or "economic justice"?

Let us, then, consider the cycle: Bully picks a fight (attack reproductive rights), someone says no (reject anti-abortion politics), bully cries that someone picked a fight (complains of identity politics), and who will carry their lament far and wide?
____________________

Notes:

Bassett, Laura. "Donald Trump Taps Anti-Contraceptive Activist To Oversee Family Planning Program". The Huffington Post. 1 May 2017. HuffingtonPost.com. 1 May 2017. http://huff.to/2qywa7o

 

[Bells]

I do, however, freely confess that I simply do not understand how women become the threat to that perceived stake. That is, I can give you any number of psychoanalyses, depending on the circumstances, but I have no visceral grasp. Yet it is clear something about women really bugs the hell out of our neighbor. I can even remember his bit about ontology, and it isn't that we don't get the political two bits about convincing the opposition, but the demand to fulfill a fallacy—i.e., prove a negative—unto an argumentative scheme that does not abide logic, was telling. After all, nor was setting an impossible standard his threshold of a woman's humanity; it was, rather, simply the distraction, something—anything—to avoid the subject of a woman's humanity. The degree to which he erased women↑ in his earlier rant is, quite frankly, striking.

It's educated women, mostly. Those who dare to threaten the status quo, who do not comply or conform with the idea of what he and others like him actually want.

Take for example his views on which woman could become the party's nominee or even President..

Heck we could even have a female president so long as she is Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard and her primary concern is fixing the economy first and foremost.

She can be a woman, so long as she does what he wants and demands. She must focus on the "economy first and foremost", while completely ignoring all who are the most affected by said economy.

I'm not running for office (but I am already an elected chair for my county, was just re-elected last month) as for your slander: utterly useless. What use are those words now with trump in power? has it not dawned on you how useless such slander is? Your slanders could not stop that pig boar from becoming president even after his on-tape admission of garbing pussy without consent, what makes you think those words have any value anymore?

I take it those in your country are unaware of your posting history online?

I don't get what the problem here is, are you against taxing the rich to finance free healthcare, free education, debt relief, BIG, higher wages, for all? Would that not benefit what ever demographic it is you care about?

Why are you spouting Republican talking points?

Do you even understand what is meant by distribution of wealth in this context?

Your comments about just making the rich pay for everything is, well, naive and shows a clear lack of understanding of how the wealth is distributed and what is meant by 'contributing one's fair share'. Do you understand why the wealthy are expected to provide a bigger share of the pie, as opposed to someone who earns the minimum wage, for example? All contribute, but that contribution should, in theory, be based on how much you can contribute.. in simple terms that is. Unequal distribution of wealth has been the result, because those who can afford to contribute the most, have contributed the least, while the bigger share, has been provided by those who can least afford it. When the right go on about tax cuts for the rich, it is a means to reduce the tax burden on the rich, which in turns means that they provide even less. This then results in an ability to accumulate their wealth and their salary, in a way, while those who can least afford it are being made to provide more and lose more. The bigger burden falls on middle income earners who are breaking into the housing market, have families, college debts that they need to pay and a complete lack of savings for their retirement, which in turns put an even bigger strain on the system, be it the health system and pension safety nets. When applied to women and minorities, for example, the problem becomes even worse. Women and minorities, for example, suffer in this because they are more often than not, excluded from obtaining wealth, because of how they are repeatedly marginalised, historically and most importantly, economically. This is as simple as I can explain it. How you claim to be an elected representative and still fail to understand how any of this works is truly beyond me.

So your repeated comments about the rich financing everything is fundamentally wrong and flawed and is simply a Republican talking point. Frankly, you just sound like Rush Limbaugh. Why do you keep repeating something that is so incorrect and false?

Franklyn the left is already dead, we lost everything, by all means suggestion how we return, let me guess double down on yelling sexist misogynist over and over again, that will work right?

If you continue to exclude those most affected economically, then those people will not vote for you.

So your repeated braying for economic reform, while openly refusing to acknowledge how any of this affects women and minorities. So leaving their plight out of the equation or discussion, means that they will be less likely to vote for your party or candidate, and they will continue to be further marginalised.

Bernie Sanders arguments for economic reform astonishingly completely ignored the economic reality of minorities. Which is why he had such a low turnout from minority voters.

Do you understand now?

How am I ignoring, mocking and insulting them? I'm not the one calling people hateful names here. I'm focused on their BIGGEST UNIFYING CONCERNS so I'm certainly not ignoring them either.

You are solely concerned with re-establishing the white vote, while openly mocking and insulting women (the various videos with offensive memes about feminists being one form) and minorities (by further perpetuating offensive myths about them). And you question why you aren't winning?

Minorities failed to turn out to vote for as much as they did for Obama, in the last election, because they felt the Democrats were ignoring their plight and not taking it seriously enough. Bernie Sanders economic reform platform completely left them out of the equation and when he lost in the primaries, his voters went elsewhere, a large portion went to Stein instead of Clinton, but most importantly, he forced the Democrats to absorb many of his economic reforms in their election platform. And you wonder why you lost?

Continuing to ignore minorities and women, when promoting economic reforms, and simply expecting them to fall into line, is not a winning strategy.

So why, pray tell, would you want to keep pushing the same mistakes Sanders made and then the Democrats made?

Are you telling me it is an insult to minorities, gays and women, and the educated to think they want free healthcare, free education, debt relief, BIG, higher wages. I'm pretty sure this is a concern they share with ignorant uneducated white people (whom you want to ignore and mock and insult, what did that get us, or right: president Trump), whom also deserve free healthcare, free education, debt relief, BIG, higher wages. This UNIFYING concern would give us a coalition of voters to win back everything. You instead want us to focus on a minority of the population's specific issues and lose, again.

You are simply perpetuating the myth that minorities and women, for example, just want free stuff. This is a Republican talking point and a bigoted one that is pushed by the right. Just as it is a push to claim that LGBT simply want more rights than everyone else, when all they want is equality without discrimination.

You are demanding that the left cave to the ultra right, and completely ignore and dismiss concerns of women, minorities and LGBT, just to win. You won't win. Ever. If you continue to leave those most affected, they won't vote for you. It is not a unifying concern, if you repeatedly dismiss the issues that affect portions of your society, especially when those issues affect the fundamental rights of women, minorities and LGBT.

Frankly, if the left came out with a platform that you are pushing on this site, I would not vote for you, because you are pushing for further marginalisation of women, minorities and LGBT.

You are pushing for a trickle down effect, which we know does not work. In effect, you are pushing the Republican trickle down economics, with the expectation that once certain groups have had their share, then women, minorities and others will get the rest and screw everything else. This is failed policy.

 

[Bells]

Pretty sure the blue state pro-choice liberal democrats would still outnumber by several times the red-state barely pro-life democrats we would get. So it is not burning down a house, it is adding an addition. You on the other hand would rather someone else own that house and take from you everything you hold dear.

You mean the pro-life democrats who could vote with Republicans in Congress and the Senate to further restrict reproductive health care in those blue state pro choice liberal States?

Do you even understand what is at stake here? Do you understand how the system works? Why in the hell would you run pro-life candidates and then simply hope for the best? By running pro-life candidates in different levels of Government, you further restrict access to reproductive healthcare for women across even more States and areas.

I mean really, how can you fail to note the friggin' obvious?

How did prioritizing economic reform turn into promising everything and anything just to win?

Because that is what you keep arguing for. You are pushing for compromise and appeasement from the left, simply to win.

Well yes your strawman is a radioactive turd. Yes we need to win, but we need to do something that will drastically improve the economic outlook of the middle and lower classes, we missed our chance in 2009-2013 as a wave of democrats won because of the stunning ECONOMIC FAILURE of the republicans and yet we did very little to take advantage of that wave resulting in our slow decline, followed by you and your ilk making liberals a laughing stock of cry-bullies sjw regressives and powered a wave of alt-right reactionaries to power.

Again, you are demanding something that would exclude a huge chunk of the population and most importantly, your voting base. Why deliberately do this?

And you question how you mock women and minorities?

Honestly, surely you cannot be so obtuse and blind..

No I meant cry-bully sjw regressives that powered a wave of alt-right reactionaries to power. Also I'm pleased with my self as your cry-bullying claims that I'm somekind of sexist misogynist simply re-affirms my belief that you and your ilk brought us president trump.

So you are pleased that you are a bigoted and sexist misogynist who keeps pushing misogynistic youtube videos on this site? Dude, you are simply telling us something we already know.

As I said, if you want to know how they won, look in the mirror.

Imitation is the greatest form of flattery, I guess. What is pathetic in this instance is that you don't even understand the core issues of this discussion.

Again I voted for Hillary in the general, also what rumors did I spread? That she had the FBI investigating her? That she had a decades long list of scandals and baggage that renders her unelectable and the most hated politician (well second most hate politician now)? No that is a FACT, proven by the FACT should could not even beat an ignorant moronic pussy grabbing pig boar to the presidency!

I think you are a fraud and I think you are one of the many reasons why you are completely unable to garner votes from women, minorities and LGBT. You don't even understand what the problems are and you are solely focused on the white vote, at the expense of everyone else. Failing strategy.

Sure sexism played a role, and your solution is what? Racism played a role against Obama as well, yet he still won. If we are going to run a female candidate we need one that is principled and popular and has opinions that ride the present wave of top issues, like Elizabeth Warren or Tulsi Gabbard, to overcome any sexism against them. Just as in 2008 we ran a squeaky clean black guy who promised vague "hope" and "change" (as you say a "dangerous candidate") to victory despite the racism against him.

Actually, racism played a role against Obama after he won and during his Presidency. Sexism played a big role in the last election, not least because of Sanders failure to account for and silence his Bernie Bros repeated sexism and misogyny throughout the Primary campaign.

And Obama was able to garner the minority vote, by addressing the issues that affect them directly. By offering them hope, by promising change. You are demanding that those issues be ignored to focus on economic reform that would win back the right white vote. Again, why do you think so few minorities came out to vote for Sanders? I'd say think about it, but I suspect that may be testing your abilities...

How is giving free healthcare, free education, debt relief, wages increases, BIG... ignoring the "most affected"?

It's not free, EF.

Refer back to income and wealth distribution above. Understand now?

Why do you keep pushing this right wing belief and then claim you are a Democrat or voted for Clinton?

So your saying I should blame them for president trump as well, sure. I would say he lost the black vote because Hillary had spent decades courting the black vote, and Bernie was an unheard of name to them. But if you want to make minorities issues first and foremost lets see where that gets us, oh it got us president trump.

I have provided you with many links to explain why Sanders lost the minority vote. Reading and comprehension an issue?

Youtube provides videos of real events showing real people spouting there unedited opinion, while some article is just some blogger regurgitating what they believe to you. Now polls and statistics would be better though. If you can't handle how the students of Yale's behavior, caught on tape, is a product of you and your ilks ideology and how that makes us liberals look like racists and sexist crazed authoritarian, might as well start denying that 2+2=4.

Youtube is more often than not when dealing with politics and issues surrounding women, minorities, LGBT, the environment, etc, videos of morons pushing their own agenda, that are watched and relayed by other morons. I provided you with polling information and breakdowns and articles discussing and linking studies as to why women and minorities did not vote for Sanders, studies which explain why uneducated white women voted for Trump, and you still don't understand any of it and you just keep rehashing right wing talking points that are based on complete fallacies. It's no wonder you watch youtube and keep relaying it and posting it on this site. If you cannot support any of your arguments with something substantial, instead of agenda driven youtube videos that completely lack substance and context, then perhaps you should sit back down and shut up and stop making unsubstantiated claims with no basis in reality.

 

[iceaura]

The blue dogs were corpistists and sell outs, and yes the political pendulum does swing, what matters is we implement effective economic changes in the time we have.

The Blue Dogs got beat. You wanted to win, remember? Don't imitate them.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I do, however, freely confess that I simply do not understand how women become the threat to that perceived stake.

Whaaaat? How is going to a economic refrom first agenda mean that women have become a threat to that perceived stake. Has it ever occurred to you and Bells that you live in your own little hugbox?

It's not free, EF.

What is pathetic in this instance is that you don't even understand the core issues of this discussion... and now unlike you I will provide and argument instead of snark. You want to appease minorities specifically, I want to appease everyone (well except for the rich), your minorities first policy has cost us the presidency, house, senate, supreme court, state governors, state senates, state houses, everything, none the less you demand ideological purity to them and call anyone that disagrees hateful but completely outmoded slander that you and your ilk have over used to the point of rendering useless and meaningless such that we now have a pussy garbing sexist racist pig boar commander and chief and most people don't bat an eyelash. I demand no purity other then to tax the rich to fund social services for everyone for that is the only way to get enough votes and stave off economic collapse and most likely fascist revolution. Next you claim I'm not liberal, a democrate and even a conservative despite my tax the rich and large goverment social safety net priority and being a registered democrat and elected chair, why don't you crawl out of your hugbox and do something to grow the party, too much work?

Now I have a life to get to so I'm not going to respond point by point to you two so please feel free to continue intercourse, but do consider watching this and ask yourself had these students been as concerned about medicare for all as they are Marachi band halloween costumes we would probably not have president trump now:

Of course rich pampered yale students are not going to give a fuck about the poor, of course skin color and gender are bigger issues for them then money, they have trust funds! "let them eat cake! woo have my stock dividends count as income to be taxed heavily to finance services for the poor, no wait how many of those poor will be white cis and straight? No, marachi band costumes, that the problem!" And that is a direct product of you and your ilks ideology that has gotten us here to this era of trump.

 

[ElectricFetus]

The Blue Dogs got beat. You wanted to win, remember? Don't imitate them.

Blue Dogs wave was a product of the 2008 recession when anyone that was not republican won: we had no core agenda and just elected anyone that would call themselves a a democrat. None the less the blue dogs did managed to get a lot of progressive changes through:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress

So yes even if we were to hold power for just 2 years with alot of barely blue democrats it is a massive improvement over total republican control with a pig boar as president!

 

[iceaura]

I want to appease everyone (well except for the rich), your minorities first policy has cost us the presidency, house, senate, supreme court, state governors, state senates, state houses, everything,

The Democratic Party has been moving away from it's left, liberal, and minority base and toward the Republican positions on everything since Reagan. It hasn't worked.

 

[ElectricFetus]

The Democratic Party has been moving away from it's left, liberal, and minority base and toward the Republican positions on everything since Reagan. It hasn't worked.

Yes yes your in the past fallacy. Please go back to living there. I don't care if it won't work, I rather die trying.

 

[iceaura]

Blue Dogs were a product of the 2008 recession when anyone that was not republican won: we had no core agenda

The Blue Dogs formed in the 90s, and got taken out one by one by Republicans in the 2000s - especially in the first election after the black President won, 2010.

Yes yes your in the past fallacy. Please go back to living there. I don't care if it won't work, I rather die trying.

Not knowing the past will not protect you from the consequences of repeating it.

 

[Randwolf]

You want to appease minorities specifically, I want to appease everyone (well except for the rich)

So do tell - how do you address the wingnuts' perniciously racist "tough on crime" policies? Do we throw money at this problem too? Or maybe just assign a lower priority to black kids' lives in the pursuit of appeasing everyone?

15-year-old unarmed honor student leaving house party shot and killed by rifle-wielding cop​

If you’re a white, 15-year-old honor student, chances are you won’t get shot and killed by police officers with rifles. This is worth noting because someone, somewhere will eventually try to defend this act and derail this conversation. But Jordan Edwards is dead. He was leaving a house party in Balch Springs, Texas, on Saturday night. He was unarmed. He was in a car with his friends, who were also unarmed. And while we do not know all the facts surrounding his death, we also know that these things do not generally earn white kids a death sentence.

[Lee Merritt, the family’s attorney] challenged the police account that the vehicle Jordan was riding in was driving aggressively.

It "will not hold water when the facts come out," he said.

Merritt said Jordan and the others in the vehicle were not the teens police had initially been called about and had not been drinking. He said they did not face any charges.

In fact, Merritt says he “was leaving a house party because he thought it was getting dangerous.” Jordan was a ninth grader on the Mesquite High School football team with a GPA above 3.5. He was described by his football coach as a really great kid.

"The best thing in the world or the worst thing in the world would happen, and he'd smile and everything would be OK," [Head Coach Jeff Fleener said.] "You create a checklist of everything you would want in a player, a son, a teammate, a friend and Jordan had all that. He was that kid."
​

So here’s a kid smart enough to leave a rowdy party before he got caught up in trouble—and he ends up dead, anyway. How long before the police department and the media try to paint him as a thug who caused his own death? How long before they start dredging up his parents’ pasts and paint him as another stereotype? How long before a random social media post shows up with him quoting gangsta rap lyrics and using the n-word? He may turn out to have been the perfect student (doubtful at age 15), but even so, we don’t need to make Jordan Edwards out to be a noble victim to see a problem here. The fact remains that this shouldn’t happen.

This is an all-too-common occurrence: black teens are 21 more times likely to be shot and killed by police than their white peers. So despite what naysayers want to believe, this happens routinely. It is happening with alarming frequency. White bodies are not met with the kind of state-sanctioned violence that black bodies are met with. Again, white honor students do not go to parties and get shot by police. Police violence against black people is a serious problem—one that needs to be addressed immediately, and one that will only get worse with unabashed white supremacists running our government. [Italics emphasis mine]
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2017/...y-rifle-wielding-cop-as-he-leaves-house-party​

Sure enough (update)...

Car was driving away from officer when he shot boy with rifle, Balch Springs chief says

The police chief in Balch Springs admitted Monday that a car full of teens was driving away from police when an officer armed with a rifle fatally shot a 15-year-old boy in the head.

After reviewing body-cam footage, Police Chief Jonathan Haber reversed his initial account about Saturday's deadly confrontation, saying the teen behind the wheel Saturday night at first backed down the street but was fleeing the scene when the officer opened fire. "It did not meet our core values," Haber said of his officer's actions. Haber had initially said the car was driving backward when Jordan Edwards was shot.
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas/2017/04/30/officer-fatally-shoots-15-year-old-balch-springs​

I suppose if only everyone had a little more scratch we wouldn't need police reform either - right, EF? Surely if we just meet them in the middle they will do the right thing...

Sessions orders sweeping review of police reform

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Jeff Sessions ordered a review Monday of all police reform agreements and investigations initiated by the Justice Department, part of an effort to cut back on federal oversight of local law enforcement.

The directive, issued in a two-page memorandum, effectively opens a re-examination of an aggressive effort by the Obama administration to force local police to reform many policies, from the use of deadly force to how officers deal with minority communities.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ns-orders-review-police-agreements/100009448/
​

Edited to add:

Just don't laugh at him...

A woman is on trial for laughing when a senator said Jeff Sessions treats 'all Americans equally'

A woman is on trial this week for laughing during Jeff Sessions' congressional confirmation hearing in January when Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) attested the attorney general nominee had a record of "treating all Americans equally under the law." Desiree Fairooz, 61, is accused of "disorderly and disruptive conduct" that was intended to "impede, disrupt, and disturb the orderly conduct" of the hearing, The Huffington Post reports.​

Another protester escorted out of Sessions hearing. Her original offense appeared to be simply laughing. https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/818837991217123328​

Fairooz is an activist associated with the group Code Pink, but she said she had not planned to disrupt the hearing. Writer Elizabeth Croydon dismissed Fairooz's charges on Twitter, claiming "if my hero Desiree Fairooz wanted to make a scene, she would have made a scene. Desiree just had an involuntary reaction to a bogus lie that was told bold-faced in front of the American people. Jefferson Sessions has a record of not treating every American equally."
http://theweek.com/speedreads/69600...id-jeff-sessions-treats-all-americans-equally​

 

[Bells]

Whaaaat? How is going to a economic refrom first agenda mean that women have become a threat to that perceived stake. Has it ever occurred to you and Bells that you live in your own little hugbox?

Because to put it simply, EF, you are failing to recognise how women's rights are tied to the economy.. Tiassa's post on page one and the quotes he provided, explains this in minute detail. Really, how can you not understand this yet?

Just as when Bernie Sanders pushed economic reform, without understanding how the economy and how the rights of minorities are so closely tied to the economy and therefore, minorities did not vote for him. Rights of women and minorities are literally economically entrenched. It's a vicious circle. Minorities cannot access better education, health care, housing, even employment, without being bigger players in the economy. But they are locked out, historically and currently, with economic policies that fail to recognise their urgent needs, and on and on it goes. So when you repeatedly bray and whine about economic reform and then complain about how Democrats pushing for the rights of minorities and women and LGBT costing you the election (it did not by the way, but then again, had you bothered to read studies and stopped watching shockjocks on youtube, you'd know this), then it is clear what economic reform you are whining about.

You won't win. If minorities and women turn from the Democrats for the manner in which the Democrats are moving to the right, you won't win. It will not work. Why? Because minorities and the majority of the women who vote for Democrats will not vote for you.

What is pathetic in this instance is that you don't even understand the core issues of this discussion... and now unlike you I will provide and argument instead of snark. You want to appease minorities specifically, I want to appease everyone (well except for the rich), your minorities first policy has cost us the presidency, house, senate, supreme court, state governors, state senates, state houses, everything, none the less you demand ideological purity to them and call anyone that disagrees hateful but completely outmoded slander that you and your ilk have over used to the point of rendering useless and meaningless such that we now have a pussy garbing sexist racist pig boar commander and chief and most people don't bat an eyelash.

But you aren't appealing to everyone, EF. You are mocking and insulting huge portions of the Democratic voting base by completely leaving them out of the equation and worse still, blaming them for losing the election.

And again, you push right wing rhetoric by classifying recognising the equal rights of women, minorities and LGBT as somehow giving them "first priority".

The reason you lost all houses of Government, etc, is because you are too far to the right. Going further to the right will result in even more women and minorities staying home than they did in the last election.

Seriously dude, if you admire Republican policy so much, just switch sides already and stop trying to force the Democrats even further to the right.

The abject failure to recognise how the economy affects large swathes of the population will result in your party continuing to lose and attempting to pander to the right, supporting pro-life candidates, continuing to fail to understand how fundamental human rights of women, minorities and LGBT is tied to economic issues, will just see you lose by even bigger margins.

I demand no purity other then to tax the rich to fund social services for everyone for that is the only way to get enough votes and stave off economic collapse and most likely fascist revolution. Next you claim I'm not liberal, a democrate and even a conservative despite my tax the rich and large goverment social safety net priority and being a registered democrat and elected chair, why don't you crawl out of your hugbox and do something to grow the party, too much work?

Even the poor would not vote for something so stupid and naive as that.

Because women, minorities and middle income earners who are starting to move forward and make greater strides economically, will not support a tax system that will tax them more. It's not about making the rich pay for everyone else. It is about ensuring that people contribute their fair share in accordance to their wealth. So the wealthy, because they are wealthy, are able to contribute more. If you think making the rich pay is going to fix your economy, then you are sadly mistaken. The rich will simply move their businesses and companies off shore, and their earnings off shore, where the US cannot touch it. And what happens then? Oh yes, the poor lose their jobs, their salaries go down, creating an even bigger financial and economic divide. You want to stimulate the economy. But most importantly, you want to ensure that those who are affected the most, have the ability to benefit from economic reform and you cannot do so without addressing their fundamental rights.

Of course rich pampered yale students are not going to give a fuck about the poor, of course skin color and gender are bigger issues for them then money, they have trust funds! "let them eat cake! woo have my stock dividends count as income to be taxed heavily to finance services for the poor, no wait how many of those poor will be white cis and straight? No, marachi band costumes, that the problem!" And that is a direct product of you and your ilks ideology that has gotten us here to this era of trump.

You know, it really would help if you actually had a clue and stopped discriminating against people who dare to seek to get an education. Just because they attend Yale does not mean they are wealthy.

Do you know what is interesting about Yale? They understand the points of recognising the rights of access to an education for minorities and people from low income families, better than you do. They also understand that providing access to a better education is the best way to lift people out of poverty and low incomes.. Especially for minorities and women.

 

[Tiassa]

Click for the conspiracy.​

Whaaaat? How is going to a economic refrom first agenda mean that women have become a threat to that perceived stake.

You're the one who needs us to abandon women in favor of an economic justice platform. Or, you know, maybe a little less attitude problem and a modicum of sincerity might actually be helpful; you know, as long as you pretend to want us to believe your poseur routine.

Try it this way: You tell this bizarre, right-wing narrative as the basis for your liberal-Democratic action plan, which isn't much on action or a plan. All we know about it is that you disdain what you denounce as "identity politics" in such a manner that excluding what you denounce accordingly prevents fulfillment of an economic justice platform.

It all just seems a steam-driven cycle by which you get to fume about what's wrong with women. That really does seem the whole point of your illiterate ranting.

Maybe if you actually had something to argue for, you know, instead of purely arguing against what you hate.

So learn this: Feminism isn't what some YouTuber who hates women tells you it is. If you're not smart enough to figure that out, you're not smart enough to pull off your swindle.

Would you honestly pretend that just because we're behind handles it doesn't matter? Because it clearly matters to you what others think of your performance, and you're showing yourself to be an uneducated waste of humanity. Sorry, but when you line up with the infliction of harm, you will be perceived as harmful, and no amount of bawling for your ego can change that.

I don't need to know someone's name to call hatred by its name.

But you? Apparently your hatred needs some manner of communal compassion. And no, you can't have it.

Your clueless routine, for instance. Okay. I'll bite, which in turn means I must now assess your utter lack of sincerity, your priorities other than actual discussion of the issues, and the bigotry that is the heart of your posting.

Tell me, ElectricFetus, do you think there is anything about you as a human being that counts as redeeming? The reason I ask is because you don't show it; you're too obsessed with your revenge fantasy, or whatever your troll routine is supposed to be.

Your pretense of ignorance depends on showing apathy toward the rest of what passes for your political argument as well as your penchant for anti-equality petulance. And when you repeatedly pretend ignorance—e.g., of history, political theory, yourself—the message people get is that you're ignorant.

Which, in the end, is what it is, but how do you expect to convince people of anything when all you do is caricaturize yourself as an obsessed, dysfunctional ignoramus?

So, let's try this again:

• You are told:

→ "A rising tide cannot lift sabotaged boats". (#31↑)

→ "What is an insult to women and minorities is yet another round of blithe promises predicated on appeasing the influences that would prevent the rising tide of economic justice from lifting their boats." (#38↑)​

• You respond:

→ If your saying the rich then we agree do we not: tax the rich boats down a little to raise EVERYONE else boats up? (#39↑)​

You notice how you didn't directly addresss the sabotaged boats? You just pretended ignorance about those who would disrupt economic justice by denigrating human rights and participation in society? See, as near as anyone can tell—

→ If your saying we need to ignore or even punish poor uneducated white cis straight man simply for being ignorant white cis straight and male, well then you get president trump. Heck you have even lost the white cis straight female to! To put it to you pragmatically: the rich is a demographic small enough to win against, white cis straight people are not. Now here you will spit on me for wanting to appease the white straight cis people, because I dare to believe that they like everyone else deserve and want free healthcare, free education, debt relief, BIG, higher wages, etc... and I gladly swallow that spit and smile. (ibid)​

—you seem to pretend that attending the human rights of anyone who is not a cisgendered, heterosexual, white male is somehow an attack or punishment of white, cishet males. But it's hard to tell because you also seem unable to write a coherent argument of any sort.

Meanwhile, your heroic fantasy of having a queer dude spit in your mouth is more useful for psychoanalysis than as any political argument, though in either case there would be reasons nobody knows quite what to do with it.

What's next? Gladiators and baby oil? Bestial ass to mouth?

Honestly, dude, my latest appeasement for white, cishet males is to figure out how to explain to them that no, repeated dating and mating behavior between two males does not heterosexual masculitnity reaffirm, without hurting their feelings. It's probably easier to just stay the hell out of it. Which is all well and fine, since they don't want queer guys—they think we're too much like women. Still, though, no, gay dating and sexual intercourse are not heterosexual.

In truth, it doesn't surprise me when I encounter people who think the fact of other human beings is somehow a threat to white, cishet males, but it is also true that among the diversely opaque psychoanalyses there is among the patterns they seem to have in common a certain degree of seeming dishonesty apparently derived from neurotic distress. For instance, nobody has yet explained to me how gay marriage denigrates the fact of a cishet, traditional marriage. The problem, of course, is that the denigration degrades an offensive notion; that's why they can't say it. With interracial marriage, the complaint was that we mix white blood; as offensive as this is, the answer was, "So, what?" With gay marriage, the complaint doesn't even involve assertions of blood and heritage, merely pride: The denigration comes from the loss of prideful exclusivity. And, you know, nobody else got those sorts of exemptions, so if traditionalist majorities are going to throw fits, they're going to throw fits. Every once in a while, they get something out of doing so; that's how it works when one is part of an empowerment majority, and, come on, we men already know that. We might be a statistical minority, but we're in charge. And that's what white identity politics fear, that as "white people" become a "minority" compared to "people of color", in the first place white people will lose racist privilege, and, secondly, that people of color will behave just as badly as a unified majority as white people. And, you know, watching the hispanic and black communities have at each other from time to time in ways I just don't see between white Americans of diverse European heritage, I just don't have much faith in the paranoid and hateful projections of racists terrified by their own contrivance.

The Gay Fray, by the way, runs straight through misogyny. If it was just a bunch of guys celebrating their heterosexual masculinity by getting on one another from time to time, or circle jerking in the no-women-allowed clubhouse or workplace, there would be no gay controversy. But when the sufficiently invisible lesbian is to be accounted for, now queers have done gone and fucked up. That is what we're disrupting. No, really, why else did they try to scare people with stories of gay males going after little girls? Why else do they want women to prove they're women? Seriously, the Gay Fray is virtually all about women. The only time gay men are a threat to straight men is when straight man can't tell who is or isn't a woman; it's the closet cases who presume their slobby asses cute enough for sex-machine gay men to want in predatory fashion.

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.

And you? Well, that's the thing. You would fault people for answering. White identity feels threatened by color; masculine identity feels threatened by woman. So they pick fights, people answer, and ElectricFetus complains that people would answer.

Characters like the one you assert are almost as common online as, well, wankers. I mean, you know, actual wankers viewing pornography. Seriously, though, the routine verges toward archetypal: Unstudied but passionate advocate also coincidentally fluent in political tactics and lexicon of opposition group advocated in ostensible hope of defeating by surrendering to it. Sure, we believe you. Just like we believed the sex experience letters to the men's magazines. Just like we believed pro wrestling. Just like we believed Liberace was such a gentleman who would make any wife a fabulous husband. Oh, wait, that last was my grandmother.

 

[billvon]

None the less the blue dogs did managed to get a lot of progressive changes through: . . .

Yep. I guess that's why we won the last election.

 

[iceaura]

Just as when Bernie Sanders pushed economic reform, without understanding how the economy and how the rights of minorities are so closely tied to the economy and therefore, minorities did not vote for him.

In fairness, name recognition and personal familiarity was almost certainly a bigger deal than the details of Sanders's economic policies or racial issue priorities.

That this would have killed Sanders in the general also, in all likelihood, seems to have been lost on a lot of folks.

 

[ElectricFetus]

So do tell - how do you address the wingnuts' perniciously racist "tough on crime" policies? Do we throw money at this problem too? Or maybe just assign a lower priority to black kids' lives in the pursuit of appeasing everyone?

Simple question: how many people die by police: ~1000, a quarter of which are black, ~250. Ok how many blacks are murder by criminals: ~2500. If we get blacks free healthcare, free education, debt relief, higher wages and a basic income do you not think the crime rate, thus murder rate will go down, at least by more then 10%? And with less crimes that means less need for pigs roaming the street demanding authoritah respected. So total lives saved would be greater and piggery would go down, all by yes throwing money at the problem, which is poverty, the problem is poverty. And yes with more money from the rich we can pay police reform as well, put cameras on them, EQ tests, ect, without money all we got are pigs with guns.

Right now the conservative solution to poverty is not to help the poor, but put the poor in ghettos, have pigs keep the poor in check and put them in private prisons as ready as possible to make money.

The social justice solution is to protest the police, cause riots and only embolden the conservative argument for a police state to keep the untermensch in line.

Because to put it simply, EF, you are failing to recognise how women's rights are tied to the economy.. Tiassa's post on page one and the quotes he provided, explains this in minute detail. Really, how can you not understand this yet?

Ok how about how men's rights are tied to the economy, how about how black rights are tide to the economy, how about how native American rights are tied to the economy? How the fuck would higher wages, free healthcare, free education, debt relief, ect, NOT help women? Focusing on the big unifying problem will do more to help solve everyone's identity problem then trying to focus on identity politics alone and getting republicans in charge and getting nothing, NOTHING, worse then nothing, getting a ignorant moronic pig boar in charge, thanks alot.

Just as when Bernie Sanders pushed economic reform, without understanding how the economy and how the rights of minorities are so closely tied to the economy and therefore, minorities did not vote for him. Rights of women and minorities are literally economically entrenched. It's a vicious circle. Minorities cannot access better education, health care, housing, even employment, without being bigger players in the economy. But they are locked out, historically and currently, with economic policies that fail to recognise their urgent needs, and on and on it goes. So when you repeatedly bray and whine about economic reform and then complain about how Democrats pushing for the rights of minorities and women and LGBT costing you the election (it did not by the way, but then again, had you bothered to read studies and stopped watching shockjocks on youtube, you'd know this), then it is clear what economic reform you are whining about.

And that is just your opinion, but please cite me these studies that showed we did not lose because of a inability to appeal to whites.

What percentage of the poor are white: A plurality, 41%. These poor whites cannot access better education, health care, housing, even employment, without being bigger players in the economy. What locks them out, is it because they are lazy and stupid, or is it because they are poor and poverty breeds poverty? Now here is the point: your tell a plurality of the poor to go fuck themselves because of their skin color, so they turn around and vote for Trump. If instead we say we are going to help everyone by taxing the rich and giving to the poor, are the minorities going to turn around and vote for Trump because we are not specifically appeasing them?

But you aren't appealing to everyone, EF. You are mocking and insulting huge portions of the Democratic voting base by completely leaving them out of the equation and worse still, blaming them for losing the election.

How am I leaving them out of the equation? Would they not benefit from free healthcare, free education, debt relief, higher wages, basic income? I'm blaming you for losing the election not them (unless they voted for Hillary in the primary then I blame them).

The reason you lost all houses of Government, etc, is because you are too far to the right. Going further to the right will result in even more women and minorities staying home than they did in the last election.

I'm talking about democrats, not my self, the reason democrat lost was because they followed your ilk, not me.

Seriously dude, if you admire Republican policy so much, just switch sides already and stop trying to force the Democrats even further to the right.

And what republican policy am I admiring?

The abject failure to recognise how the economy affects large swathes of the population will result in your party continuing to lose

Oh I get it your not a democrat, so you just like the bitch and do nothing?

and attempting to pander to the right, supporting pro-life candidates, continuing to fail to understand how fundamental human rights of women, minorities and LGBT is tied to economic issues, will just see you lose by even bigger margins.

Can't be worse then it is at present, all this strawmaning though is not an argument for me to reply too, though I already have.

Because women, minorities and middle income earners who are starting to move forward and make greater strides economically, will not support a tax system that will tax them more.

Are you on crack? I'm talking about the top 1% as they are the only demographic that has growing economically, the rest have been in total stagnating for roughly 2 decade now.

And again, you push right wing rhetoric by classifying recognising the equal rights of women, minorities and LGBT as somehow giving them "first priority".

Oooh well that is some sophistry there.

It is about ensuring that people contribute their fair share in accordance to their wealth.

Yeah we agree on that.

So the wealthy, because they are wealthy, are able to contribute more. If you think making the rich pay is going to fix your economy, then you are sadly mistaken. The rich will simply move their businesses and companies off shore, and their earnings off shore, where the US cannot touch it. And what happens then?

wow, wow, spoken like a true republican. First of all we need to tax the rich's personal income, not business, business taxes we should reduce, making the US business market more competitive and attractive while we make taking out dividends as personal income unattractive, thus keeping money in business to be invested in making infrastructure, which hires people, which grows the economy. The economy is stagnating because the rich don't buy products, they take business profits out as personal income, and smuggle away the money to be basically sat or worse replicated a digital virtual assets that have no real world value. This is because tax laws let them, even encourage them to do so, we change all by taxing personal dividends heavily, can in fact tax them very heavily for moving offshore and earning offshore as well.

have the ability to benefit from economic reform and you cannot do so without addressing their fundamental rights.

Oh by all means tell me how? Name me a specific fundamental right for a minority that if we just make sure they have that right it will fix everything else. Also tell me how by letting a few blue dog like democrats in as replacement for republicans, how that will fuck up your grand fundamental-rights-for-minorities-will-fix-every scheme. How about fundamental rights for EVERYONE, why not that? At least the latter is easy to convince people about, trying telling some poor white male straight cis hick in a red county how abortion rights is going to give him a job.

You know, it really would help if you actually had a clue and stopped discriminating against people who dare to seek to get an education. Just because they attend Yale does not mean they are wealthy.

Oh not all, look at that a "not all" fallacy, so surprised.

Do you know what is interesting about Yale? They understand the points of recognising the rights of access to an education for minorities and people from low income families, better than you do. They also understand that providing access to a better education is the best way to lift people out of poverty and low incomes.. Especially for minorities and women.

Yeah and? I have no problem with better education to lift people out of poverty, and the poor tend to be minorities, that is why I advocate we tax the rich to finance peoples educations so they can get better jobs, be more productive, you see it is all about investing in people so they can give back to society and not end up on welfare living off everyone else, smoking crack and committing crimes... see when I say it like that then even republicans node in favor, say it as "We need to give to blacks and women because fuck you cis white male scum" then they vote for trump.

 

[ElectricFetus]

[worked all day, grade homeworks, wrote up answers: Oh god who knew CSTR could be so complected! I swear if I see one more variant of monod model I will murder! I guess I should chill out and reply to people on sciforums, lot of replies, walls of text I will just skim it and quote parts at random to reply to]

Tell me, ElectricFetus, do you think there is anything about you as a human being that counts as redeeming? The reason I ask is because you don't show it; you're too obsessed with your revenge fantasy, or whatever your troll routine is supposed to be.

Everything is meaningless, there is no value, plug flow reactors are better... Why should I care to "show it" is everything about virtue signaling to you? As for revenge fantasy, no this is reality, trump is president and the only joy I can derive from it is knowing your hating it too.

Meanwhile, your heroic fantasy of having a queer dude spit in your mouth is more useful for psychoanalysis than as any political argument, though in either case there would be reasons nobody knows quite what to do with it.

What's next? Gladiators and baby oil? Bestial ass to mouth?

And you? Well, that's the thing. You would fault people for answering. White identity feels threatened by color; masculine identity feels threatened by woman. So they pick fights, people answer, and ElectricFetus complains that people would answer.

How does this happen, how is it I ask for us to focus on taxing the rich to provide services for everyone to stave off economic collapse and fascist revolution and you people are like "what about the gays, what about the blacks, what about the women" I SAID EVERYONE

"Yeah well this is just because white masculinity identity feels threat" what, that has nothing to do with anything! and this right here is why we have president Trump, you and your ilks inability to understand that minorities are not the only ones with problems, there are universal problems that need to be addressed first, that focusing on will win enough votes, focusing on minorities first, demanding we all vote from someone just because she has a vagina and is not trump, does not garner us enough votes, that is fact.

Yep. I guess that's why we won the last election.

Yeah just not enough change, like obamacare instead of single payer.

In fairness, name recognition and personal familiarity was almost certainly a bigger deal than the details of Sanders's economic policies or racial issue priorities.

That this would have killed Sanders in the general also, in all likelihood, seems to have been lost on a lot of folks.

Oh by all means compare Sanders who we will never know if he would have lost, to someone that undeniably failed to win against an ignorant moronic pig boar.

 

[Tiassa]

Click to have nothing to say.​

Why should I care to "show it" is everything about virtue signaling to you?

Don't you get it? It's not about signaling virtue; you present yourself such that there is nothing and no one to communicate with. You're not communicating, but simply broadcasting while saying nothing.

 

[iceaura]

Oh by all means compare Sanders who we will never know if he would have lost, to someone that undeniably failed to win against an ignorant moronic pig boar.

There's no evidence Sanders would even have made it necessary to steal, as Clinton did by taking a majority of the vote.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Don't you get it? It's not about signaling virtue; you present yourself such that there is nothing and no one to communicate with.

Nothing to communicate with, how did you get there from questioning if I was a human worth redeeming? Perhaps you mean you don't believe in communicating with anyone you disagree with ideologically, just ignore them right, they totally won't vote for a pig boar for president in numbers that actually wins.

You're not communicating, but simply broadcasting while saying nothing.

I say things, you say things in response, I responded to your response, you respond... we are communicating already! If you believing I'm not communicating just broadcaisting and saying nothing, then don't respond.

Also tell me where is your offense to what this republican said?

 

[Tiassa]

Click to send a signal.​

How does this happen, how is it I ask for us to focus on taxing the rich to provide services for everyone to stave off economic collapse and fascist revolution and you people are like "what about the gays, what about the blacks, what about the women" I SAID EVERYONE

Do you really not know?

See, here's the way it works:

• Let's pass a $15/hr. minimum wage. I mean, minorities, gays, women, and the educated all want a raise, right?

→ Today, Bob hired Jack and Julie. They are both fresh, new hires with no experience. Bob offers Jack $17/hr. He offers Julie the minimum wage, $15/hr.

→ Okay, they've both put in their time, and by coincidence are moving on to similar jobs. Jack is offered $21/hr. Julie gets $19.

→ You know what? I ran into Jack today. Funny how that happened, since I ran into Julie last week. Turns out, they're both working equivalent jobs. Jack is making $2k a week; Julie gets $1,500. The reason for this is their salary history. See, even though we figured out Julie has been paid less specifically because she's a woman, her current employer isn't really discriminating against her sex, but merely reflecting her salary history.

↳ Is correcting this disparity "economic justice", or "identity politics"?​

You say everyone, but you presently ignore the detail you have previously denounced. It seems unlikely you are somehow unaware of this.

You bawled about the shaming that comes with words like misogyny:

"You and yours helped built the alt-right as a reaction to your shaming, to your bullying, screaming racist, misogynist, sexist, homophobia, etc, at the drop of hat, shutting down all conversation, breeding animosity." (#3448425↗)​

That's what you think of the fight for equality. Your prescription of economic justice, as far as anyone can tell according to your own advocacy, discourages these fights: Just pass the general policy, and all the prejudice and injustice just magically goes away.

First of all, that's bullshit.

Secondly, you don't appear to give a fuck about the people who continue to be hurt along the way to your white-cishet-masculine utopia↑. Because, after all, when the traditional supremacists are finally, at long last, satiated, so, too, will everyone else be, but only because the traditional supremacists say so.

Honestly, no matter how much of a basket case you make yourself out to be, few if any actually believe you really are that fucking stupid. And, you know, maybe that's the reason people find you so offensive. Really, to the one, you're supposed to be smarter than that. To the other, fine whatever; it's just tragic that you have nothing to say.

Most of us think highly of ourselves, even when we don't; you're neither original nor alone in that. But, you know: There's making a point, and there's being pointless. You can't do both.