Jump to content

U.S. Politics-Getting a Handel On Why the DNC Is Pissing Ossof


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

Sigh.  Once again, it is not going to be the case for quite awhile - it takes a long time for MCs to build that type of name ID.  If it eventually happens I don't know.  You're asking me to answer a question about a hypothetical person with a hypothetical situation in the distant future with no context.

I think it's pretty clear @Tywin et al. is referring to posters in this thread.  When has anybody said that?

It's not a hypothetical that women in politics are treated very differently than men in politics.  Same with minorities.

2 hours ago, Fez said:

White men are the people who vote the most, so yeah, if you want to get things done, don't piss them off too much. Or you can figure out a way to get other people to vote more; I wish you all the best.

And yeah, they're trying to roll back some things, but its at the margins and the push back has always been incredibly intense. Its social conservatives trying to salvage some symbolic victories before they are utterly crushed on the issue. They've gone from denying marriage benefits and adoption to arguing about wedding cakes.

I don't even know how to address any of this because it's so offensive that it's nearly comical.

White men are a dying demographic in the US.  Continuing to cater to them only delays progress for everyone else.  Yes, we need to figure out how to get progressives and liberals to vote more since they are the majority demographic.  

Now, the rollback of LGBT rights is not on the margins.  Perhaps it's on YOUR margins because you aren't concerned with these things or it doesn't affect you, but it's definitely not on the margins for those it does impact.  These aren't 'symbolic victories' for conservatives.  They are things that are actually happening and they cover large swaths of the country.  This isn't about arguing wedding cakes.  It's about whether or not transgender folks can occupy public spaces including schools and government offices, LGBT folks can adopt or live in housing or be employed, and much more.  And yes, there are still a lot of questions about adoption considering several state legislatures have been reintroducing and even passing laws that prevent gay singles and couples from fostering and adopting.  Insisting that all of this is symbolic is a huge offensive slap in the face to all of us who are impacted by these things.  

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Nobody here does, and next to no one in the Democratic Party does either. Otherwise Senators Harris, Klobuchar, Warren and Gillibrand wouldn't be leading early contenders to be the nominee in 2020. The reason why some people are calling for Clinton and Pelosi to go away isn't because they are women. It's because their presence presents liabilities for Democrats. 

See several posts in the last thread and the one before and the one before and this one.  See Fez's posts, including the one quoted above.  The fact is that female politicians are more frequently cited as the ones who need to step aside so the Dem party can proceed.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as expected there were never any tapes of Comey and Trump's conversations.  Either that or the Russians and/or Obama are refusing to hand them over. 

http://www.npr.org/2017/06/22/533965746/trump-i-did-not-make-and-do-not-have-recordings-of-comey
 

Quote

 

President Trump gave a straight answer on Thursday as to whether he has recordings of his private conversations with fired FBI Director James Comey — No.


 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Paul's put out a joint statement with Cruz, Lee, and Johnson saying they oppose the bill as it currently stands.

Its not clear if Heller, Murkowski, Collins, Capito, Portman, etc. support it either. I did see it noted that the bill is currently missing some easy-to-add sweeteners that could probably get them on board. But that's based on where the bill currently is; if the conservatives get the bill moved significantly further to the right, that'll probably be much harder.

 

Interesting. I would have thought it would have been the moderates who walked away, given that the bill is similar to the House bill, if not a bit to the right of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Except no one is saying that Clinton or Pelosi should step aside because they're women; the suggestion is that they should step aside because they're unpoular.

The assertion is that their (un)popularity is fueled by misogyny -- by asking them (specifically and only them) to step aside is abdicating responsibility and support of progressive views. I'm not 100% on board with this view, however there is absolutely validity here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read this facebook post from Obama today:

Quote

 

Our politics are divided. They have been for a long time. And while I know that division makes it difficult to listen to Americans with whom we disagree, that’s what we need to do today.


I recognize that repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act has become a core tenet of the Republican Party. Still, I hope that our Senators, many of whom I know well, step back and measure what’s really at stake, and consider that the rationale for action, on health care or any other issue, must be something more than simply undoing something that Democrats did.


We didn’t fight for the Affordable Care Act for more than a year in the public square for any personal or political gain – we fought for it because we knew it would save lives, prevent financial misery, and ultimately set this country we love on a better, healthier course.


Nor did we fight for it alone. Thousands upon thousands of Americans, including Republicans, threw themselves into that collective effort, not for political reasons, but for intensely personal ones – a sick child, a parent lost to cancer, the memory of medical bills that threatened to derail their dreams.


And you made a difference. For the first time, more than ninety percent of Americans know the security of health insurance. Health care costs, while still rising, have been rising at the slowest pace in fifty years. Women can’t be charged more for their insurance, young adults can stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26, contraceptive care and preventive care are now free. Paying more, or being denied insurance altogether due to a preexisting condition – we made that a thing of the past.
We did these things together. So many of you made that change possible.


At the same time, I was careful to say again and again that while the Affordable Care Act represented a significant step forward for America, it was not perfect, nor could it be the end of our efforts – and that if Republicans could put together a plan that is demonstrably better than the improvements we made to our health care system, that covers as many people at less cost, I would gladly and publicly support it.
That remains true. So I still hope that there are enough Republicans in Congress who remember that public service is not about sport or notching a political win, that there’s a reason we all chose to serve in the first place, and that hopefully, it’s to make people’s lives better, not worse.


But right now, after eight years, the legislation rushed through the House and the Senate without public hearings or debate would do the opposite. It would raise costs, reduce coverage, roll back protections, and ruin Medicaid as we know it. That’s not my opinion, but rather the conclusion of all objective analyses, from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which found that 23 million Americans would lose insurance, to America’s doctors, nurses, and hospitals on the front lines of our health care system.


The Senate bill, unveiled today, is not a health care bill. It’s a massive transfer of wealth from middle-class and poor families to the richest people in America. It hands enormous tax cuts to the rich and to the drug and insurance industries, paid for by cutting health care for everybody else. Those with private insurance will experience higher premiums and higher deductibles, with lower tax credits to help working families cover the costs, even as their plans might no longer cover pregnancy, mental health care, or expensive prescriptions. Discrimination based on pre-existing conditions could become the norm again. Millions of families will lose coverage entirely.


Simply put, if there’s a chance you might get sick, get old, or start a family – this bill will do you harm. And small tweaks over the course of the next couple weeks, under the guise of making these bills easier to stomach, cannot change the fundamental meanness at the core of this legislation.


I hope our Senators ask themselves – what will happen to the Americans grappling with opioid addiction who suddenly lose their coverage? What will happen to pregnant mothers, children with disabilities, poor adults and seniors who need long-term care once they can no longer count on Medicaid? What will happen if you have a medical emergency when insurance companies are once again allowed to exclude the benefits you need, send you unlimited bills, or set unaffordable deductibles? What impossible choices will working parents be forced to make if their child’s cancer treatment costs them more than their life savings?


To put the American people through that pain – while giving billionaires and corporations a massive tax cut in return – that’s tough to fathom. But it’s what’s at stake right now. So it remains my fervent hope that we step back and try to deliver on what the American people need.


That might take some time and compromise between Democrats and Republicans. But I believe that’s what people want to see. I believe it would demonstrate the kind of leadership that appeals to Americans across party lines. And I believe that it’s possible – if you are willing to make a difference again. If you’re willing to call your members of Congress. If you are willing to visit their offices. If you are willing to speak out, let them and the country know, in very real terms, what this means for you and your family.


After all, this debate has always been about something bigger than politics. It’s about the character of our country – who we are, and who we aspire to be. And that’s always worth fighting for.

 

Man, what a difference between that plea and the level of rhetoric we get from our current Commander in Chief.  It's like we were all preparing to take our SAT's for college and suddenly got bumped down to third grade.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The Great Unwashed said:

Except no one is saying that Clinton or Pelosi should step aside because they're women; the suggestion is that they should step aside because they're unpoular. Certainly no one appears to be suggesting that Warren or Duckworth or Booker should be stepping aside and that's because they are Democratic politicians who have net favorability ratings (the last I saw, both Clinton and Pelosi were around net -15 in favorability polls).

I just don't understand how suggesting that extremely unpopular, extremely visible politicians step aside to make room for others with less baggage to lead the party is somehow akin to suggesting that it's time for women and other minorities to start riding in the back of the bus again. 

What @Week said.

Just because people aren't explicitly saying these women should step aside because they are women doesn't mean that criticism against them hasn't been steeped in misogyny.  

My issue isn't a problem with suggesting that unpopular politicians step aside.  I'm concerned that there is a lot of extra focus on the unpopular women without considering why they might be unpopular with conservatives or when that focus excludes other unpopular men.  There's always a lot of focus on the female politicians and that's largely because women are hated at much higher rates.  We Democrats shouldn't be capitulating to people who aren't even interested in voting for our party just because they don't like someone.  So fucking what if Republicans don't like Pelosi or Clinton, they were never going to vote Dem anyway.  What we should be doing is selling to our would-be voters what certain politicians add to the party or to the political sphere in general.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

What @Week said.

Just because people aren't explicitly saying these women should step aside because they are women doesn't mean that criticism against them hasn't been steeped in misogyny.  

My issue isn't a problem with suggesting that unpopular politicians step aside.  I'm concerned that there is a lot of extra focus on the unpopular women without considering why they might be unpopular with conservatives or when that focus excludes other unpopular men.  There's always a lot of focus on the female politicians and that's largely because women are hated at much higher rates.  We Democrats shouldn't be capitulating to people who aren't even interested in voting for our party just because they don't like someone.  So fucking what if Republicans don't like Pelosi or Clinton, they were never going to vote Dem anyway.  What we should be doing is selling to our would-be voters what certain politicians add to the party or to the political sphere in general.  

This is the most important take-away in my mind. 

Democrats need to develop and push a broad strategy instead of a reactionary "why did we lose? || how do we win?". There will always be imperfect (fucking understatement) information and/or analysis which then leads directly into ineffective, shitty responses like "we need to cut Pelosi because GA6 had a lot of anti-Pelosi ads."

 

-- To DP's point, showing solidarity while also acknowledge challenges shows prospective (or former) democrats that they will need be cut at the first sign of resistance. Consider the number of times (rightly or wrongly) Trump and conservatives paint the democratic party as taking minority voters for granted because they (not all -- and not all the time but it clearly exists) pay lip-service to issues and then do not deliver. A steadfast, principled stance for the party where economics and identity politics (i.e. from the prog Left, actually having respect for anyone other than rich, white men) are inextricably enmeshed. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dr. Pepper said:

It's not a hypothetical that women in politics are treated very differently than men in politics.  Same with minorities.

And no one here is arguing against that, you're creating a straw(wo)man.  Criticism towards Pelosi in her capacity as leader does not mean criticism towards all women in politics.  Frankly, that's an offensive false equivalency - towards women.

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Interesting. I would have thought it would have been the moderates who walked away, given that the bill is similar to the House bill, if not a bit to the right of it. 

Funny, who would have thought Paul would be among the first out against the bill? :P

1 hour ago, Week said:

The assertion is that their (un)popularity is fueled by misogyny -- by asking them (specifically and only them) to step aside is abdicating responsibility and support of progressive views. I'm not 100% on board with this view, however there is absolutely validity here.

I think this is a mischaracterization.  Is Pelosi's unpopularity fueled by misogyny?  Sure.  But I have repeatedly said I think essential all of the (male) congressional leadership should go as well, sans Schumer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dmc515 said:

I think this is a mischaracterization.  Is Pelosi's unpopularity fueled by misogyny?  Sure.  But I have repeatedly said I think essential all of the (male) congressional leadership should go as well, sans Schumer.

Fair -- I didn't intend to cast any specific posters in a negative light.

Leadership positions (e.g. Speaker) ought to be fairly regularly rotated IMO -- elder party big-wigs will retain power and influence if they are able to continue to show their value as opposed to keeping anyone in a position of power for a long time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talking about asking female politicians to step down because they may be unpopular in certain parts of the country is not the answer.  Personally when I am confronted by people not liking my perfectly legal behaviour of standing up for the rights of others to have the same ones that I, as an older white male enjoy,  I tend to rub it in their faces that those rights are not just ours but theirs also. People get annoyed sometimes but that is not my problem.  Asking for people to stand in line and wait their turn for rights to be granted to them is not a reasonable policy at all. Rights have never been given in this way. People have fought and died for those rights. They did not die over the argument that the pace was too fast or too slow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Week said:

Fair -- I didn't intend to cast any specific posters in a negative light.

Leadership positions (e.g. Speaker) ought to be fairly regularly rotated IMO -- elder party big-wigs will retain power and influence if they are able to continue to show their value as opposed to keeping anyone in a position of power for a long time.

Agreed, especially with the bolded - which has been my argument this whole damn thread.  Sorry I was in catchup mode and probably jumped the gun there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Talking about asking female politicians to step down because they may be unpopular in certain parts of the country is not the answer.  Personally when I am confronted by people not liking my perfectly legal behaviour of standing up for the rights of others to have the same ones that I, as an older white male enjoy,  I tend to rub it in their faces that those rights are not just ours but theirs also. People get annoyed sometimes but that is not my problem.  Asking for people to stand in line and wait their turn for rights to be granted to them is not a reasonable policy at all. Rights have never been given in this way. People have fought and died for those rights. They did not die over the argument that the pace was too fast or too slow. 

Does 'rubbing it in their faces' ever change their minds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, maarsen said:

Talking about asking female politicians to step down because they may be unpopular in certain parts of the country is not the answer.  Personally when I am confronted by people not liking my perfectly legal behaviour of standing up for the rights of others to have the same ones that I, as an older white male enjoy,  I tend to rub it in their faces that those rights are not just ours but theirs also ...

While this is a sentiment I can certainly empathize with, it is entirely estranged from pragmatic politics and the topic at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Inigima said:

So, is there any chance this fucking turd of a bill isn't law two weeks from today? This bill is incredibly, catastrophically bad.

Very low chance.  It will become law in one form or another.  This is the hill they chose to die on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Does 'rubbing it in their faces' ever change their minds?

Frankly, I'm not sure how telling people that equality is a good thing is rubbing it in their faces.  Would it be rubbing it in a slaveowners face to say that slavery is bad?  

2 hours ago, dmc515 said:

And no one here is arguing against that, you're creating a straw(wo)man.  Criticism towards Pelosi in her capacity as leader does not mean criticism towards all women in politics.  Frankly, that's an offensive false equivalency - towards women.

Lol, no. For all the reasons I've already stated.  See previous posts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...