Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 04-23-2019, 05:12 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Sanders followers are accusing Biden of being a creepy pedophile.

We need to keep this Issue based and Sanders needs to keep a leash on his supporters.

All he needs to do is make a public statement to that effect.
Oh yeah, still waiting for that cite of someone connected to the Sanders campaign using the phrase "creepy pedophile" in regard to Biden.
  #152  
Old 04-23-2019, 06:33 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So how would you feel about a Democratic candidate taking money from, say, the Russian government? We know GOP voters don't seem to have a problem with that sort of thing...does that make it OK as far as you're concerned?

Oil companies have spent billions of dollars obfuscating the science on climate change, sacrificing the future of our world for their short-term profits. They are as much the enemy of the American people as Putin or ISIS are.
Does $10,000,000+ from Saudi Arabia to the Clinton foundation count? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/u...n-charity.html
  #153  
Old 04-23-2019, 09:22 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Does $10,000,000+ from Saudi Arabia to the Clinton foundation count? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/u...n-charity.html
Well, your own cite says that the Foundation decided that if Hillary Clinton won the election, the Foundation would no longer accept foreign or corporate donations.

Heh. Remember back then when it was considered normal and necessary for a sitting President to cut any possible financial ties with business or foreign governments that might personally influence the President's policy choices? Seems so quaint these days.
  #154  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:09 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Does $10,000,000+ from Saudi Arabia to the Clinton foundation count? https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/u...n-charity.html
Wwo, the GOP still hammering on Hillary, eh?

She didnt get a nickel of that.

It's a charitable foundation.
  #155  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:21 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
it's pointless to try and advocate that very progressive folks stop trying to make the party more progressive.

That would be pointless, wouldn't it? But that's not, I believe, what Obama was talking about. It's certainly not what I'm talking about. The problem is when the far left of the party gets full of self-righteousness and declares that any position slightly closer to the center is (fill in the blank: misogynistic, reeks of white privilege, corporate sellout, etc.). Take national health care for instance. I generally advocate for a less transformative, patchwork method of making sure everyone has basic coverage. Universal coverage by filling in the gaps. But still universal! The reaction I inevitably get from the Medicare For All crowd is invariably the same: intense hostility, combined with strawmanning my position as though I'm saying people who don't have the money to pay for their own health care should be thrown in the street to die. There's no nuance, no flexibility.

Worst of all, there is no recognition that "hey, we may love our principles and proposals, but we are in the minority so we need to work with a coalition of interest groups and compromise". They think they are the white knights in shining armor, who have the perfect solutions to every issue, and anyone with a slightly different view is either stupid or corrupt.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
Oil companies have spent billions of dollars obfuscating the science on climate change, sacrificing the future of our world for their short-term profits. They are as much the enemy of the American people as Putin or ISIS are.

Okay, but if a candidate from Texas gets a good number of contributions from people who work in the oil industry, that's just to be expected because it's a big industry in the state. It's a very conspiratorial "Manchurian Candidate" notion to think it means there's a secret plan for him to support the fossil fuels agenda, when he makes it clear that his position is the opposite.

In 2017, in reaction to Trump's pulling out of the Paris climate accords, Beto wrote the following:

https://medium.com/@RepBetoORourke/o...t-f38c520d3de8
Quote:
Removing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement makes us one of only three countries, along with Syria and Nicaragua, to not join ó even North Korea is part of the agreement. Historically, the U.S. has put more carbon into the atmosphere than any other country, so we must be a leader in curbing worldwide emissions.
Beto's lifetime League of Conservation Voters environmental score is 95 percent:

http://scorecard.lcv.org/moc/beto-orourke

(Bernie's is 92 percent.)
__________________
SlackerInc on Twitter: http://twitter.com/slackerinc
  #156  
Old 04-23-2019, 10:59 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
I don’t mind if a lot of working and middle class people who happen to work in the oil industry support him. If he has taken large sums from the oil companies themselves— and again, I don’t know if he has or hasn’t— that’s a problem. Not necessarily an absolute disqualifier, but a serious problem.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 04-23-2019 at 10:59 PM.
  #157  
Old 04-23-2019, 11:16 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
I donít mind if a lot of working and middle class people who happen to work in the oil industry support him. If he has taken large sums from the oil companies themselvesó and again, I donít know if he has or hasnító thatís a problem. Not necessarily an absolute disqualifier, but a serious problem.
It's actually a Good Thing. Especially if the candidate is a known voted to reduce Global warming. Remember, Oil companies spend billions on solar, etc now.

But let us say it comes down to Beto vs Trump- who would you rather win?

I hope it's Beto.

But without massive campaign funds, Beto (or any other Dem candidate) can't win. Period. No chance. Hobbling them by a Purity test is a certain way for Trump to win.

I want to see Oil companies donating to the guy working to end Global warming.
  #158  
Old 04-24-2019, 12:16 AM
Lord Feldon's Avatar
Lord Feldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ohio, USA
Posts: 6,552
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
You are under the impression that it is illegal for corporations to donate to political candidates? That is not my understanding. Please explain.
Yes, it's illegal* for corporations to donate to political candidates. The only partial loophole is "corporate PACs" that pass money on to candidates, but even then, the corporation can only donate to cover the costs of operating the PAC; donations to candidates must not exceed the amount of money given by qualified donors. Lots of Democratic candidates have recently started pledging not to accept money from corporate PACs, but I don't know who has made that pledge this time around.

*Cite:

Quote:
Campaigns are prohibited from accepting contributions from certain types of organizations and individuals. These prohibited sources are:

Corporations, including nonprofit corporations (although funds from a corporate separate segregated fund are permissible)
Labor organizations (although funds from a separate segregated fund are permissible)
Federal government contractors
Foreign nationals
Contributions in the name of another

Last edited by Lord Feldon; 04-24-2019 at 12:20 AM.
  #159  
Old 04-24-2019, 12:29 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Feldon View Post
Yes, it's illegal* for corporations to donate to political candidates. The only partial loophole is "corporate PACs" that pass money on to candidates, but even then, the corporation can only donate to cover the costs of operating the PAC; donations to candidates must not exceed the amount of money given by qualified donors. Lots of Democratic candidates have recently started pledging not to accept money from corporate PACs, but I don't know who has made that pledge this time around.

*Cite:
Iím not sure if you are being disingenuous here or if you actually believe that American law substantially restricts corporations from donating to their preferred candidates. Anyway, youíre wrong, and getting into a detailed discussion of campaign finance law would derail this thread.
  #160  
Old 04-24-2019, 12:41 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
It's actually a Good Thing. Especially if the candidate is a known voted to reduce Global warming. Remember, Oil companies spend billions on solar, etc now.

But let us say it comes down to Beto vs Trump- who would you rather win?

I hope it's Beto.

But without massive campaign funds, Beto (or any other Dem candidate) can't win. Period. No chance. Hobbling them by a Purity test is a certain way for Trump to win.

I want to see Oil companies donating to the guy working to end Global warming.
Of course I will unconditionally support ANY Democratic candidate against Trump, and I hope you can say the same.

I think you are being very naive about the motives of Big Oil, and are overvaluing the importance of massive campaign funds. Clinton outspent Trump by a huge margin, and it didn’t help. Not going to look it up right now but IIRC Trump also made fools of several better funded Republicans. Sanders funded his campaign entirely through grassroots contributions; he didn’t win, but I haven’t heard anyone arguing that he would have won if he’d only had a few more tens of millions to spend.

Many voters today regard a refusal to accept corporate donations as a badge of honor, and That trend IMO is a very good sign for our democracy.

In fact, I’m not sure, but I believe Beto is refusing corporate PAC donations for his Presidential run.

Last edited by Thing Fish; 04-24-2019 at 12:42 AM.
  #161  
Old 04-24-2019, 12:46 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
So, for like the nineteenth time, does anybody have any factual information speaking to whether it is actually legitimate to accuse Beto of being “in the pocket of Big Oil”?
  #162  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:03 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,177
Open Secrets doesn't list any petroleum business as a significant donator for his Senate campaign.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-...=CAREER&type=I
  #163  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:04 AM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
I just offered you some, which you are ignoring. Of course, if the implication is that he is operating under deep cover, that’s basically unfalsifiable.

And yes: Beto does not accept PAC money.
  #164  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:19 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Open Secrets doesn't list any petroleum business as a significant donator for his Senate campaign.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-...=CAREER&type=I
Thanks! That site is a bit baffling to navigate, but it appears that he has not received any significant funding from oil industry PACs. I declare him pure.

He must shave his head and wash his clothes, and after sundown he may return to the camp. (Biblical humor)
  #165  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:23 AM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
I just offered you some, which you are ignoring. Of course, if the implication is that he is operating under deep cover, thatís basically unfalsifiable.

And yes: Beto does not accept PAC money.
Well, you offered some inspiring quotes, but talk is cheap. Iím much more interested in following the money. The LCV rating was useful information, but although I generally have a positive impression of that organization, I have no idea how they calculate their ratings, so that was only marginally useful to me.
  #166  
Old 04-24-2019, 09:32 AM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
So, for like the nineteenth time, does anybody have any factual information speaking to whether it is actually legitimate to accuse Beto of being ďin the pocket of Big OilĒ?
You were the one that brought this up. People have provided info that sez No, now you are asking for proof he didnt?
  #167  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:30 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
No, you were the one who brought it up. You accused unnamed pro-Bernie parties of "claiming that Beto is in the pocket of Big Oil", and that was how this whole sidetrack got started. And unless I missed it, at the time I posted what you quote, nobody had in fact offered any useful information as to whether that accusation was true. Unless maybe you count cites that he says global warming is bad as useful information, which I don't.
  #168  
Old 04-24-2019, 01:33 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Anyway, I assume this whole conversation is now beside the point for you. You've surely ruled out voting for Beto now that you know he has voluntarily hobbled himself by rejecting PAC donations, right?
  #169  
Old 04-24-2019, 02:39 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 41,940
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thing Fish View Post
No, you were the one who brought it up. You accused unnamed pro-Bernie parties of "claiming that Beto is in the pocket of Big Oil", and that was how this whole sidetrack got started. And unless I missed it, at the time I posted what you quote, nobody had in fact offered any useful information as to whether that accusation was true. Unless maybe you count cites that he says global warming is bad as useful information, which I don't.
No, I did not.

You did:

Thing Fish
How much money has Beto taken from oil companies? (Serious question, I have no idea). If it's a nontrivial amount, that's a legitimate criticism, regardless of what he might "constantly talk" about.
  #170  
Old 04-24-2019, 04:12 PM
Thing Fish is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago (NL)
Posts: 3,384
Which was a response to...uh, Slacker, not you. Apologies.
  #171  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:38 AM
Covfefe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: 100 miles N. of Chicago
Posts: 1,544
You would have to have your head in the sand not to see what's happening. I can't recall of a time one of the two parties has been in such public disarray. It would be one thing if this were strictly a battle over issues.
Black Caucus Member William Lacy Clay Says Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Is Playing the Race Card in Pelosi Fight
  #172  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:44 AM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,755
? Different groups within a political party disagreeing with each other is "public disarray"? Maybe I'm just older than you, but I can remember lots of times in the past when such things happened.

I think the relatively recent Republican clampdown on internal dissent is skewing our standards for what counts as normal party factionalism.
  #173  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:56 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
? Different groups within a political party disagreeing with each other is "public disarray"? Maybe I'm just older than you, but I can remember lots of times in the past when such things happened.
Maybe so, but we're talking about polarization along demographic lines, which is different and potentially much more toxic than what we observed with the Tea Party and Freedom Caucus wars against the Establishment. Race and identity are potentially divisive wedge issues. It's fine if AOC wants to confront Pelosi on whether she's doing enough for the progressive cause, and I'd say that even her challenging Pelosi on issues like border funding are okay up to a point. But Ocasio-Cortez is just flaming now, and it's not helping anyone. My sense is that AOC views Pelosi as another Joe Crowley, another old timer establishment figure whom she can dispose of. Nancy Pelosi ain't Joe Crowley, but even if she is, what good does AOC accomplish if she's weakening the Speaker? What good is it if an angry AOC becomes the face of the Democratic party in places where people are much less committed to voting Democrat? She needs to stop talking shit. She needs to realize most districts around the country aren't in the Bronx.

The Democratic party is strong enough to have intense discussions about strategy, but once we start saying that the party is being ruled by old white hags and closet bigots, then we're in real trouble. I am extremely progressive, pro-immigrant, married to an immigrant, pro-Black, pro-Latino/Latina, pro-LGBT, pro-Jew, pro-Muslim, pro-Christian, pro-Atheist, pro-Whatever...and I can tell you that if this is the direction the party goes in, I'll still show up to vote against Trump but not necessarily with enthusiasm. And it wouldn't surprise me if others with less enthusiasm simply don't show up to vote at all. If that happens, then it's four, or eight, or 12 more years of Trump.
  #174  
Old 07-12-2019, 11:14 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
? Different groups within a political party disagreeing with each other is "public disarray"? Maybe I'm just older than you, but I can remember lots of times in the past when such things happened.

I think the relatively recent Republican clampdown on internal dissent is skewing our standards for what counts as normal party factionalism.
Factional warfare is different in the social media era. The combination of speed, accessibility to publish, reach, and demand for purity are new. This is a very exploitable schism and Iíll be surprised if Putin and other foreign leaders donít.
  #175  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:03 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Race and identity are potentially divisive wedge issues.
Except if a Congressional Black Caucus member is calling out younger more left-wing Congresspersons of color, then that's not really a division along racial-identity lines. It's basically about younger radicals versus the older establishment, same as it ever was. (AFAICT, btw, a majority of Ocasio-Cortez fans among voters are white people.) See also: Nader supporters and the "Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)" protestors, "Sanders socialists" versus establishment Dems, etc.

I kind of wonder whether the current knicker-twisting about exceptional levels of Democratic "disarray" isn't due in part to the unprecedented fact that the main figures now occupying the controversy stage happen to be mostly women. We're culturally conditioned to view acrimonious disputes between men as part of normal partisanship and competition, while acrimonious disputes between women connote "hysteria", "catfighting", all sorts of irrational instability. Men in particular tend to be embarrassed by the idea of being associated with, or in any way subordinate to, quarreling women.
  #176  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:53 PM
RTFirefly is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 39,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
And it wouldn't surprise me if others with less enthusiasm simply don't show up to vote at all. If that happens, then it's four, or eight, or 12 more years of Trump.
Pelosi's certainly doing her best to dampen the interest, let alone enthusiasm, of prospective Dem voters.
  #177  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:53 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Except if a Congressional Black Caucus member is calling out younger more left-wing Congresspersons of color, then that's not really a division along racial-identity lines. It's basically about younger radicals versus the older establishment, same as it ever was. (AFAICT, btw, a majority of Ocasio-Cortez fans among voters are white people.) See also: Nader supporters and the "Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)" protestors, "Sanders socialists" versus establishment Dems, etc.
I think the older member of the CBC recognizes that AOC really has no place to be using a race card as a way to crank up the pressure on Pelosi. There definitely is an element of old guard vs new guard, but AOC called out the Speaker of the House by implying that she's allowing bias to color her relationships with new members of Congress. It's no different than Kamala Harris' "That little girl was me" attacks on Joe Biden. They can backtrack and say "I wasn't bringing race into it, I wasn't saying he's a racist" all they want, but...they brought race into it, and it has real consequences. In Biden's case, it brought him down anywhere from 4-8% in the polls and made him look like a much more vulnerable front runner. In the case of the Pelosi-AOC spat, it makes the Democratic party look like a less attractive alternative to the Republican party. If independents and centrists are repulsed by the Republican party's politics of race, I don't think they're going to find the Democratic party more appealing if some of its most visible members are calling out senior leadership by implying they're closet bigots or by having their staff wearing tee shirts suggesting that their more moderate colleagues are Nazi collaborators.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
I kind of wonder whether the current knicker-twisting about exceptional levels of Democratic "disarray" isn't due in part to the unprecedented fact that the main figures now occupying the controversy stage happen to be mostly women. We're culturally conditioned to view acrimonious disputes between men as part of normal partisanship and competition, while acrimonious disputes between women connote "hysteria", "catfighting", all sorts of irrational instability. Men in particular tend to be embarrassed by the idea of being associated with, or in any way subordinate to, quarreling women.
The fact that they're women really has nothing to do with it. I think a real source of tension is that the energy that fueled the rise of Bernie Sanders' campaign, and many of the same people who were involved in it, have stubbornly refused to accept their role in getting Donald Trump elected, and many of them have moved on to participate in other campaigns. In fact AOC's chief of staff is a former Bernie Bro himself. Having passion for progressive causes is okay, but not when the effort includes having people like Mark Pocan call colleagues child abusers, having AOC suggest that Pelosi's singling out women of color, and having her chief of state throw incendiary attacks at her critics. It's not good energy at all, and has nothing to do with the fact that we're watching women get into 'cat fights'
  #178  
Old 07-12-2019, 12:59 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Except if a Congressional Black Caucus member is calling out younger more left-wing Congresspersons of color, then that's not really a division along racial-identity lines.
That's a weird thing to say. You realize there's no Puerto Ricans in the Congressional Black Caucus?
  #179  
Old 07-12-2019, 01:46 PM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Having passion for progressive causes is okay, but not when the effort includes having people like Mark Pocan call colleagues child abusers, having AOC suggest that Pelosi's singling out women of color, and having her chief of state throw incendiary attacks at her critics. It's not good energy at all, and has nothing to do with the fact that we're watching women get into 'cat fights'
I've been largely impressed by AOC's ability to articulate her positions, the fire and energy she brings, and her rationale for picking the fights she picks. That being said, her feud with Pelosi has been eroding my opinion of her by degrees. AOC's "women of color" jab at Pelosi was plainly unwarranted, and her attempts to spin herself out of it haven't been particularly convincing. I can excuse a certain amount of political naivete that comes with youth and passion, but I have no respect for this thinly veiled public accusation of racism. I think she and her staff are certainly living up to the sentiment in the OP.
  #180  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:03 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
AOC and her little gang of four can fuck right off. This has nothing to do with race—I despise Bernie for his attacks on the party, and I felt the same way about Lieberman BTW—except that AOC has now despicably played the race card, like Clarence Thomas did with his “high tech lynching of an uppity Negro” comment. And she tries to pretend she’s not doing it. GMAFB
  #181  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:46 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by RTFirefly View Post
Pelosi's certainly doing her best to dampen the interest, let alone enthusiasm, of prospective Dem voters.
What does she have to gain or lose from the ascension of the far left? Political power that she doesnít need vs money that sheíd like her and her family to keep.
  #182  
Old 07-12-2019, 03:54 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's a weird thing to say. You realize there's no Puerto Ricans in the Congressional Black Caucus?
Yup, sorry, I was clumsy in expressing the idea of a "POC vs. white" racial-identity division. Even identifying racial identities more precisely, however, I still think that divisions in today's Democratic Party are not based on racial identity in any significant sense. There are white people and people of color, of a wide variety of ethnic identities, on all sides of the disputes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi
The fact that they're women really has nothing to do with it.
Oh well, that settles that, then. Oh wait, no it doesn't: your personal opinion on the matter is no more authoritative than mine.
  #183  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:01 PM
Dale Sams is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post



having AOC suggest that Pelosi's singling out women of color, and having her chief of state throw incendiary attacks at her critics. It's not good energy at all, and has nothing to do with the fact that we're watching women get into 'cat fights'
That's what happens when you think real life is Twitter and clapping back, getting adulation from followers and winning an argument is the only point to living.
  #184  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:05 PM
Dale Sams is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by octopus View Post
Factional warfare is different in the social media era. The combination of speed, accessibility to publish, reach, and demand for purity are new. This is a very exploitable schism and Iíll be surprised if Putin and other foreign leaders donít.
Putin: "I don't need to do anything but sit back and eat popcorn....I GUESS I could poke the nest a little with a stick. If anything to get you McCarthyites to call people like Stein and Sanders 'Russian stooges' just for visiting Russia."
  #185  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:06 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yup, sorry, I was clumsy in expressing the idea of a "POC vs. white" racial-identity division. Even identifying racial identities more precisely, however, I still think that divisions in today's Democratic Party are not based on racial identity in any significant sense. There are white people and people of color, of a wide variety of ethnic identities, on all sides of the disputes.
There are also potential fault lines among people of color, which is why AOC is dumb to go there unless there's an obvious reason to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Oh well, that settles that, then. Oh wait, no it doesn't: your personal opinion on the matter is no more authoritative than mine.
I'm not saying it is; I'm saying that if you look at AOC's tactics, they're problematic irrespective of whether she's a female or male. I called out Mark Pocan, and I called out AOC's male chief of staff. People are interested in this "cat fight" not because it's a cat fight but because it involves one of the two most powerful people in congress and a rising, outspoken star, and both happen to be women. It was news when Jeff Flake called out Donald Trump and vice versa. Sometimes, news is news, and gender has nothing to do with it.
  #186  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:18 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
I'm saying that if you look at AOC's tactics, they're problematic irrespective of whether she's a female or male.
I don't disagree with that, nor do I think it's necessarily sexist to criticize AOC's tactics. What I'm not quite buying, as I said before, are the claims that this sort of party infighting is somehow super-exceptional or even unprecedented in its dysfunction or "public disarray".

Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi
Sometimes, news is news, and gender has nothing to do with it.
Sure, but sometimes when people say things like "this particular piece of news about some women is massively different from all the pieces of news about some men that it very closely resembles in other ways", then gender does have something to do with it.
  #187  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:19 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dale Sams View Post
Putin: "I don't need to do anything but sit back and eat popcorn....I GUESS I could poke the nest a little with a stick. If anything to get you McCarthyites to call people like Stein and Sanders 'Russian stooges' just for visiting Russia."
McCarthyism in an era where the Soviet Union had killed more people than Nazi Germany while bad in the sense that innocent folks shouldnít be punished for things they did not do is at least somewhat understandable given the threats and the actions of the communists. What is not understandable is the support that politicians that actually showed support to the Soviet Union actually receive.
  #188  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Yup, sorry, I was clumsy in expressing the idea of a "POC vs. white" racial-identity division. Even identifying racial identities more precisely, however, I still think that divisions in today's Democratic Party are not based on racial identity in any significant sense. There are white people and people of color, of a wide variety of ethnic identities, on all sides of the disputes.
Not that I expect some black-hispanic public spat to evolve out of this, but they really are very different voting demographics. "A wide variety of ethnic identities" is a tad too blase.
  #189  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:46 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 22,755
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Not that I expect some black-hispanic public spat to evolve out of this, but they really are very different voting demographics.
Yeah, but my point is that there are people in all those demographics on all sides of these disputes.
  #190  
Old 07-12-2019, 04:48 PM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 194
I despise the whole "SQUAD!" mentality. AOC and co may have some interesting ideas but the way they conduct themselves is akin to trying to be the most popular girls in high school. The mean, bitchy type. It's too much "if you're not 100% with us you're against us and we're going to humiliate you".
  #191  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:28 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
... My sense is that AOC views Pelosi as another Joe Crowley, another old timer establishment figure whom she can dispose of. Nancy Pelosi ain't Joe Crowley, but even if she is, what good does AOC accomplish if she's weakening the Speaker? What good is it if an angry AOC becomes the face of the Democratic party in places where people are much less committed to voting Democrat? She needs to stop talking shit. She needs to realize most districts around the country aren't in the Bronx. ...
That's right. There are many vocal progressives repeating the idea that since AOC won in November 2018, that means 'the nation is ready and eager for a radical-left agenda' and other similarly dubious claims.

As a centrist never-Trumper put it in a Politico article entitled "Dear Democrats, Here's How to Guarantee Trump's Reelection,"

Quote:
Hold firmly to the idea that Twitter is the beating heart of the real Democratic Party.
Woke Twitter is convinced that anger over Trump means that voters want to move hard left. You should ignore polls showing that most Democrats, not to mention swing voters, are much more likely to be centrist.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/st...on-2020-227215

A fascinating poll-graphic appears at about the 18-minute mark of this excerpt from today's "Inside Politics" show: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29cxUB7X8Do

It takes three pitches by current Democratic candidates, and shows the percentage of Independents, voters over 65, and white voters with no college, who oppose them:
  • "Healthcare for undocumented Immigrants"---opposed by 63% of independents, 66% of over-65 voters, and 75% of white no-college voters.
  • "Free public-college tuition"---opposed by 53% of independents, 60% of over-65, and 57% of white no-college voters.
  • "Support allowing prisoners to vote"---opposed by 68% of independents, 73% of over-65, and 76% of white no-college voters.



In a poll of Democratic voters as a whole, only 30% favored the elimination of private health insurance-----70% opposed it. (The same You-Tube clip shows this and related findings at about the 16-minute mark.)

The Democratic electorate is far more centrist than AOC and her allies believe. And, yes, of course the worker-bees at 55 Savushkina are laboring mightily to encourage AOC in her false beliefs, and to encourage the idea that Dems who fail to push for the most extreme-left policies are nasty old racists who should be purged.

Why wouldn't they be pushing that idea?
  #192  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:43 PM
SlackerInc's Avatar
SlackerInc is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 12,361
Let’s remember that of the three viable presidential contenders in spring 2016 (Sanders, Trump, Clinton), only Hillary was not backed by the Kremlin. They later helped Jill Stein as well. But never Hillary.
  #193  
Old 07-12-2019, 08:54 PM
Sherrerd's Avatar
Sherrerd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 7,071
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerInc View Post
Letís remember that of the three viable presidential contenders in spring 2016 (Sanders, Trump, Clinton), only Hillary was not backed by the Kremlin. They later helped Jill Stein as well. But never Hillary.
True. But of course we don't know how much of that was based on Hillary's policy positions, and how much was based on Putin's personal animus toward her (for actions she took as Secretary of State, or at least that he believed she'd taken).
  #194  
Old 07-12-2019, 09:06 PM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sherrerd View Post
It takes three pitches by current Democratic candidates, and shows the percentage of Independents, voters over 65, and white voters with no college, who oppose them:
  • "Healthcare for undocumented Immigrants"---opposed by 63% of independents, 66% of over-65 voters, and 75% of white no-college voters.
  • "Free public-college tuition"---opposed by 53% of independents, 60% of over-65, and 57% of white no-college voters.
  • "Support allowing prisoners to vote"---opposed by 68% of independents, 73% of over-65, and 76% of white no-college voters.
I'm a strong supporter of two out of the three (the first and third you mentioned), and I'm definitely in favor of making community and trade schools very low cost. But I also know a smart candidate doesn't campaign on that shit. The smart move, and what Obama did even better than Bill Clinton some 15-20 years earlier, was to take the issue that voters are concerned about most (i.e, ONE issue), campaign on it, offer some borderline Overton Window stuff but pivot a bit back to the mainstream. Healthcare is going to be the number one issue again. So that's where you start. Immigration's *an* issue but it's not the most important issue in voters' minds, and neither is social justice. That doesn't mean they avoid those issues but when Dems stump they need to focus on pocketbook issues, plain and simple.
  #195  
Old 07-12-2019, 09:39 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 26,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
That's a weird thing to say. You realize there's no Puerto Ricans in the Congressional Black Caucus?
There are 36 Democrats in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Bob Menendez is a Senator, the other 35 are members of the House. How many of them have backed AOC?
  #196  
Old 07-13-2019, 02:40 AM
CAH66 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Sure, but sometimes when people say things like "this particular piece of news about some women is massively different from all the pieces of news about some men that it very closely resembles in other ways", then gender does have something to do with it.
Honest question: Has anything comparable happened on the other side of the gender line recently? AFAIK, a freshman lawmaker apparently calling the party leader racist in the most thinly veiled way is pretty awful, especially for the party that makes race and gender equality a banner issue. Even when I don't 100% agree with AOC, I genuinely like and respect her. Lately that's been... more difficult for me. (And it kind of bums me out to be honest.)
  #197  
Old 07-13-2019, 03:37 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAH66 View Post
Honest question: Has anything comparable happened on the other side of the gender line recently? AFAIK, a freshman lawmaker apparently calling the party leader racist in the most thinly veiled way is pretty awful, especially for the party that makes race and gender equality a banner issue. Even when I don't 100% agree with AOC, I genuinely like and respect her. Lately that's been... more difficult for me. (And it kind of bums me out to be honest.)
How in the world is this "awful"? If she believes that she acted in a racist manner, then she should in fact point that out. It would be racist for her to remain silent and allow it to continue.

Calling that awful seems more like the right's usual reaction. But we're the left. We're supposed to take accusations of racism seriously. If someone (especially a person of color who ran on a social justice campaign) calls me racist, the response should be introspection and dialog. See if I can figure out what may have been or seemed racist, and then talk to them about what they perceived.

There are three outcomes: (1) I was being racist, and I should stop, apologize, make amends, etc. (2) It was all a misunderstanding, and we'll clear it up. (3) We have different ideas of what is racist, and we probably should be working that out since we're on the same side.

The one that I reject is considering the person awful for the accusation. Yes, there are a small minority of people who will lie about someone being racist to attack them. But it's really, really small. And nothing about AOC suggests she is that type of person. Her campaign ran on social justice and she's a person of color, so she's likely just better acquainted with the issue. Young people are less set in their ways and find it easier to learn the new norms, too.

So, if AOC is saying that Pelosi was being racist, then, while I can't say she definitely was being racist, I can say that a decent portion of the United States probably thinks she was, and so Pelosi might want to deal with that. Because she's leader of the anti-racist party. It's not the time to make enemies of a progressive portion of the big tent that is the Democratic Party.

And sorry the post is so long, but I've rewritten this post several times, and it always winds up being like this. It's not a lecture, just me trying to explain what I think is the way we should be looking at these things. We clearly see this very differently, so it takes some doing to explain it.

Edit: And, as far as the OP goes, what I describe is not a purity test. It's not saying "you can't be a Democrat if you don't agree with me." And I don't believe AOC is saying that, either.

Last edited by BigT; 07-13-2019 at 03:40 AM.
  #198  
Old 07-13-2019, 04:37 AM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 36,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
I despise the whole "SQUAD!" mentality. AOC and co may have some interesting ideas but the way they conduct themselves is akin to trying to be the most popular girls in high school. The mean, bitchy type. It's too much "if you're not 100% with us you're against us and we're going to humiliate you".
The problem with these sorts of arguments is that you are participating in the very thing you are decrying. You've just made "AOC and co" (whoever that means) as not being part of your squad.

I also take issue with gendered stereotypes. The Democrats are the pro-women party. Yet "bitchy" is one of those terms that is used against women who aren't demure and keep their head down.

I mean, it's not like AOC was elected by those who wanted her to keep her head down. She made promises to shake things up, and she is. If she is being immature (which I can see), then I expect the more mature side of the party to be the more mature ones and listen to her. She represents a significant number of people.

Even if she's rough around the edges, as you guys claim, she's asset for one big reason: younger Democrats and left-leaning people tend to love her. She's gotten them excited. She doesn't feel like the same-old, same-old. These things you see as problems are part of what allows her to motivate people.

I mean, how recently did we have a thread about Democrats being "spineless", and how this was a problem? Well, say what you want about her--she's got a spine. And maybe that's the spine injection we need.

I mean, the thing everyone is upset about is that she called someone racist. That is the type of thing that, if you aren't racist, you shouldn't get upset about, per what I said before. But that's exactly what is going on. Why?

I get an initial reaction, but, otherwise, the correct response remains "Ms. Ocasio-Cortez, what do you mean by that?" Instead, I'm seeing people help the Republicans push their narrative about her.

We're all Democrats here. If you want to argue that she should be standing with the other Democrats, then we need to model that and do it ourselves. We should stand with her against those who want to go after her. Not helping those who are using her to attack us.
  #199  
Old 07-13-2019, 06:44 AM
asahi's Avatar
asahi is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: On your computer screen
Posts: 10,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
So, if AOC is saying that Pelosi was being racist, then, while I can't say she definitely was being racist, I can say that a decent portion of the United States probably thinks she was, and so Pelosi might want to deal with that. Because she's leader of the anti-racist party. It's not the time to make enemies of a progressive portion of the big tent that is the Democratic Party.
I think you're framing it wrong. Achieving a legislative outcome is a team sport; you have to build coalitions, and you have to understand when your coalition is capable of achieving a specific outcome and when it's not. If anyone understands that, it's Nancy Pelosi. It's AOC and her ex-Bernie Bro "burn down the house" chief of staff Chakrabarti who don't seem to get that part of their job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
Edit: And, as far as the OP goes, what I describe is not a purity test. It's not saying "you can't be a Democrat if you don't agree with me." And I don't believe AOC is saying that, either.
I think the message that some might take away, whether it's accurate or not, is that the Squad is trying to use accusations of racism as a way to intimidate the mostly white leadership of the party and white moderates into taking more aggressive positions that frankly lead to nowhere. Their tactics are only going to alienate voters in districts won by people such as Tim Ryan, Seth Moulton, and Connor Lamb.
  #200  
Old 07-13-2019, 09:53 AM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 8,742
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
How in the world is this "awful"? If she believes that she acted in a racist manner, then she should in fact point that out. It would be racist for her to remain silent and allow it to continue.

Calling that awful seems more like the right's usual reaction. But we're the left. We're supposed to take accusations of racism seriously. If someone (especially a person of color who ran on a social justice campaign) calls me racist, the response should be introspection and dialog. See if I can figure out what may have been or seemed racist, and then talk to them about what they perceived.

There are three outcomes: (1) I was being racist, and I should stop, apologize, make amends, etc. (2) It was all a misunderstanding, and we'll clear it up. (3) We have different ideas of what is racist, and we probably should be working that out since we're on the same side.

The one that I reject is considering the person awful for the accusation. Yes, there are a small minority of people who will lie about someone being racist to attack them. But it's really, really small. And nothing about AOC suggests she is that type of person. Her campaign ran on social justice and she's a person of color, so she's likely just better acquainted with the issue. Young people are less set in their ways and find it easier to learn the new norms, too.

So, if AOC is saying that Pelosi was being racist, then, while I can't say she definitely was being racist, I can say that a decent portion of the United States probably thinks she was, and so Pelosi might want to deal with that. Because she's leader of the anti-racist party. It's not the time to make enemies of a progressive portion of the big tent that is the Democratic Party.

And sorry the post is so long, but I've rewritten this post several times, and it always winds up being like this. It's not a lecture, just me trying to explain what I think is the way we should be looking at these things. We clearly see this very differently, so it takes some doing to explain it.

Edit: And, as far as the OP goes, what I describe is not a purity test. It's not saying "you can't be a Democrat if you don't agree with me." And I don't believe AOC is saying that, either.
Itís dangerous to continue to appease those who use weaponized language.

And what is a big tent political party? Is that shorthand for we welcome your votes and money but not your agenda?
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017