Jump to content
Fragile Bird

US Politics: The Accountability Problem

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

When I see the weasel words about a woman who has been a top notch professor move up in the world being called a liar, a hypocrite and everything else Cas called Warren, yes, that's my reaction. I am older than you and every step of the way in my career men said women got the jobs by using their sex or lying about their credentials or because they were women. 'You can't prove she didn't get those jobs because she said Native American!' is what Cas said. I call it out when I see it, the world is better now but there are a lot of dinosaur attitudes even among the young. "I'm not a feminist" makes me grate my teeth, for example, not because I think every woman has to be a feminist because of the inherent dismissal of every fight that had to be fought for a 100 years and more.

 

FB - The "I'm older than you" card is what opposing counsel uses when they are losing an argument.  You are better than this.  Look, whether I agree with Warren politically or not (I don't on many, many, fronts) she probably deserved each and every position she has ever held on merit alone.  And I also firmly believe that women and under-represented minorities get high ranking positions in spite of rather than because of their status (that is, the person does have to be that much better).  However, I can also acknowledge that her use of her purported Native American ancestry over the years is inappropriate.  I thought Ormond put it very, very, very well, and I can't really improve upon it, so I refer you to his post in the prior thread. 

But please, argue with Cas on the substance.  That is what this thread is for.  Please don't attack anyone here because of assumptions you make about their gender, or what you believe their gender should be based on the expressions of their beliefs (or imply that a person's beliefs are not "correct" because of their gender).    

3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Hey, you're the one who said I was assuming you were a man, which, uh, I take as you telling me I'm wrong in my response because actually you're a woman. Simple.

And it always ends with "I'm outta here!" when the fish rises to the bait, lol.

So do I change my name to Fragile Guppy?

Again, why is this about her gender?  Can we please drop this and talk about tax policy or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, that last bit was me saying I rose to the bait. I admit it, I got heated and argumentative. And I already said I agreed with everything Ormond said.

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

Carry on!

Quote

Hahahahahahahahahahaahahahhaha!

Try that after you tell the police officer you didn't know you were speeding and would like to apologize.

The point is being deliberately clueless and thoughtless and using that as a defense. 

And Trump had nooooooooo idea half his staff at golf courses were undocumented workers. If only he had known those drug dealers and murderers were there!

 

BIRD!, I thought you were white. Are you seriously telling me you’ve never used the “I didn’t know I couldn’t do that, Sir,” defense?

You’re wasting your white privileges, silly BIRD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To go back to something @Altherion said - the analogy of Sanders giving up at the convention is not the Rams and kicking the field goal; it's when, say, a team can kneel it out and the defense decides to try and dive at the knees of the other team when they're down 2 or 3 scores. There was no real chance Sanders was going to win, he gained nothing by not conceding, and he ended up just being a poor sport and fracturing things, all so he could make the people who supported him support him more, or something. I don't really understand honestly. It wasn't to gain leverage, and if Clinton bowed out his concession is not something that's legally binding.

As I said, him sticking in it late isn't as big a deal to me as most of his other bullshit. It's shortsighted and tactically unsound and stupid, but it isn't that big a deal. The notion that it was somehow a good thing for him to do or he had a right is immaterial; he absolutely CAN do it (obviously), but it was dumb, and it's the kind of mistake Sanders consistently and repeatedly makes (and continues to make) that is indicative of the poor candidate that he is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just watched a youtube clip of Joni Ernst talking about the born alive abortion survivor bill. I hate watching her talk because I most always disagree with her, but prefer being informed by her own words rather than second hand reports. Anyway - I'm not bringing this up because I want to discuss the bill, but she infuriated me. She uses the fact that she's a mother and can't imagine having a baby and then lying in the hospital letting someone else decide if the baby lives or dies. Of course she can't imagine it - she was lucky to have a pregnancy that was wanted and cherished and resulted in a healthy baby that was going to have a loving home.

Just fuck her and her narrow bubble of right and wrong and not being able to consider a different viewpoint. Discuss the merits for or against the bill on current law or your own convictions, but don't weaponize your own state of motherhood and personal experience. Sorry, I just had to vent a little because it infuriated me that god damned much.

Edited by Gertrude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Kalbear from the last thread. 

17 hours ago, Kalbear said:

You could argue that, but you'd be wrong. He had the most leverage in April, by a large margin. Once he lost for sure, he had much less leverage, and if he had bowed out early in exchange for platform changes he would have had a lot more to bargain for. Instead, he stuck through it even past the last primary and begged for the superdelegates to support him, which was hilarious given how he thought they sucked. 

By what metric could you possibly argue that Sanders would have had more leverage by bowing out in April when he had every reason to believe that the DNC would make some vague promises towards his platform suggestions to get him to concede, and then turn around and stick the knife in during the convention because by conceding he wouldn't have ANY fucking leverage? I mean, can you honestly sit here and tell me that Sanders could totally trust the Democratic establishment to follow through on any promises they made to him when the DNC made clear during the entire course of the primary that even his candidacy was an affront to Clinton's coronation?

Quote

Superdelegates are a feature, not a bug, and while they're not purely democratic they're hugely important in giving the parties more control over who is and isn't nominated, as well as giving important minorities voices. Sanders railing against them is a great example of how shitty his understanding of coalitions and how shitty his understanding of the Democratic party is. 

And Sanders criticizing antidemocratic parts of the system like superdelegates while saying how caucuses - those completely bullshit antidemocratic outmoded fuckfests - are really awesome - well, that's extra self-serving. 

Superdelegates aren't "not purely undemocratic"; they're purposefully entirely undemocratic. They also don't look very much like the actual Democratic party coalition, as the majority of them are white men. 

I don't recall Clinton foregoing the delegates she gained from her wins in caucus states like Iowa, Nevada, etc. And part of Obama's primary strategy in 2008 was running up the score in caucus states to offset primary losses. But apparently it's only an issue with you when Sanders wins caucuses.

Quote

He really hasn't. He just shat all over the black caucus again, as an example. A coalition isn't a bunch of people who share your view. That's what Trump thinks, and that's what Sanders thinks. Sanders has spent the last two years supporting people who back his specific worldview. That's cool, but that ain't a coalition any more than David duke supporting alt-right groups is a coalition.

The Democratic party does not need a populist willing to sacrifice minorities and women to woo increasingly conservative uneducated white men. I will be opposed to anyone who espouses this viewpoint. Sanders has had a chance to learn. He continues to not. Fuck him. 

What?! A politician with specific policy preferences trying to get other people with similar policy preferences elected because they believe the party they caucus with has been on the wrong path for decades? Surely his evilness knows no bounds!!!

And yeah, you're just being disingenuous by characterizing his position as advocating "sacrificing" women and minorities. Most of his policy proposals will be beneficial to everyone. I'm not sure how proposing a policy that benefits both poor and working class minority women and poor and working class white men sacrifices women or minorities, but you apparently have that one figured out.

And it's really hard to parse your assertion that Sanders doesn't give a shit about women or minorities when his 2018 endorsement list pretty much says exactly the opposite. Ballotpedia lists 38 endorsements Sanders gave over the course of the 2018 election cycle, and of those by my quick count 15, or 40% of them were women,  and 18, or 47% of them were minorities.

So if there are any chickens being fucked here, you're the one violating those poor birds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of accountability, apparently CNN is giving Howard Schultz a fucking town hall.  Geez, guys, glad you're out there giving free air time to people who (a) haven't even announced they're running for office (b) have enough money to finance their own campaign (c) enjoy less popularity than Joe Exotic.  

Won't someone think of the poor billionaires?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

@Kalbear from the last thread. 

By what metric could you possibly argue that Sanders would have had more leverage by bowing out in April when he had every reason to believe that the DNC would make some vague promises towards his platform suggestions to get him to concede, and then turn around and stick the knife in during the convention because by conceding he wouldn't have ANY fucking leverage? I mean, can you honestly sit here and tell me that Sanders could totally trust the Democratic establishment to follow through on any promises they made to him when the DNC made clear during the entire course of the primary that even his candidacy was an affront to Clinton's coronation?

Yes, I do think that, because I think that he would have been able to raise massive, holy hell if they had rescinded their deal. And him conceding in April had actual monetary value to the party and would be worth a lot more than it was in June or July. Obviously he doesn't concede first - he concedes after the platform has been worked out, and then announces it AND the platform. But the idea that he doesn't have a weapon in case they back out is obviously wrong. 

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

Superdelegates aren't "not purely undemocratic"; they're purposefully entirely undemocratic. They also don't look very much like the actual Democratic party coalition, as the majority of them are white men. 

This is false, or at least misleading. The majority are white men, but there are overrepresentations of the CBC and other caucuses in the superdelegates compared to the democratic base, and one of the biggest objections to getting rid of superdelegates comes directly from the CBC because they are literally afraid of Democrats catering to white voters and ignoring them. That is literally what they want the superdelegates for. 

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

I don't recall Clinton foregoing the delegates she gained from her wins in caucus states like Iowa, Nevada, etc. And part of Obama's primary strategy in 2008 was running up the score in caucus states to offset primary losses. But apparently it's only an issue with you when Sanders wins caucuses. 

I have an issue with caucuses, period. They all suck, and they've sucked for a long time. Using them as proof that you are a better representative of 'true' Democrats is even more bullshit. Again, this ain't about Clinton at all or comparing the two - it's Sanders decrying things like superdelegates while loving caucuses, it's Sanders saying how the South is 'too conservative' and that's why they don't count in voting for him, but Washington's caucus is somehow more representative of the true party. 

I honestly didn't know enough about caucuses in 2008, but they need to go away, no matter who they benefit most. 2016 was the first time I voted in a primary caucus, and it was a massive, huge, ugly hassle that also makes it incredibly hard for people to vote. In a state like Washington that has all vote-by-mail, anything that makes voting harder needs to fuck off. 

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

What?! A politician with specific policy preferences trying to get other people with similar policy preferences elected because they believe the party they caucus with has been on the wrong path for decades? Surely his evilness knows no bounds!!!

When you won't compromise with others in a party that requires compromise to survive, it's a problem. It's especially a problem when you want to be the leader of that party. 

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

And yeah, you're just being disingenuous by characterizing his position as advocating "sacrificing" women and minorities. Most of his policy proposals will be beneficial to everyone.

Keeping guns unrestricted, removing most vestiges of affirmative action, ignoring recommendations for police oversight, ignoring family leave and parenting issues, and willfully promoting pro-life Democrats because they believe in his policy goals are sacrificing women and minorities. Really, the last one alone should be the nail in the coffin there. 

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

I'm not sure how proposing a policy that benefits both poor and working class minority women and poor and working class white men sacrifices women or minorities, but you apparently have that one figured out. 

Yep, because if you don't support abortion rights and you're willing to support pro-lifers in exchange for those policies, you are sacrificing women's rights.

Just now, The Great Unwashed said:

And it's really hard to parse your assertion that Sanders doesn't give a shit about women or minorities when his 2018 endorsement list pretty much says exactly the opposite. Ballotpedia lists 38 endorsements Sanders gave over the course of the 2018 election cycle, and of those by my quick count 15, or 40% of them were women,  and 18, or 47% of them were minorities.

While personnel is policy, policy is policy too. Again, how fast will he support someone who is pro-life? How fast will he support someone who wants fewer restrictions on police or gun rights? These are things that he, personally, has supported, and he has also found people to support on these. Then there's the way he handled the sexual harassment claims in his own group and how lame that came out, saying he was 'a little bit busy at the time'. That's his leadership style - excuses and saying it isn't as important as what he really cares about. 

And that is AWESOME for someone who wants to push things to a certain direction and focus on one or two issues. Sanders has been and continues to be great on healthcare. But our president cannot be only about healthcare, and has to be able to stop fucking things up with other groups if he wants to get anything done. In 2016 he was the only real progressive candidate; we now have a whole raft of them, all with better overall records on a lot of things. We don't need Sanders to push the party any more. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

BIRD!, I thought you were white. Are you seriously telling me you’ve never used the “I didn’t know I couldn’t do that, Sir,” defense?

You’re wasting your white privileges, silly BIRD!

Noooooo, I used sex!

When that really cute police officer pulled me over (I confess, 30 years ago) and said, ma'am, your license sticker is out of date, I pulled out the form with the check attached and said but...but...I'm literally on the way to get it, and smiled sweetly at him, but he was already saying 'I can't believe I'm doing this' and he told me to get going.

Nothing helped me with speeding tickets years later, though. Nothing. But I haven't had one in 9 years, so I'm good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By happenstance my commute has been accompanied by the revisionist history podcast the last couple weeks, and the two episodes I most recently finished seem rather relevant to the topic of past misdeeds and how even with constant repetition, memory is a fickle and malleable thing that is utterly unreliable. Not to cast aspersions on anyone or anything (the coda of the free Brian Williams episode ties into the me too era), but I’m always fascinated by the utter foibles of the human brain.

Both episodes focus on repeated stories that conjoined with others stories to be conflated themselves into bigger lived experiences, the memory grew in the telling so to speak. The first is about a raid on a nazi safe house in liberated Berlin (Or was it) and the second is about how Brian Williams can’t tell the difference between his own memories and conflated memories even when confronted with documentary evidence (and as it turns out, neither can the soldiers)

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/23-a-polite-word-for-liar-memory-part-1

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/24-free-brian-williams

Edited by lokisnow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we werent going to re-litigate 2016?

George Packer from the Atlantic had a fairly sympathetic take on Sherrod Brown (who, lest people forget, is also in the race for 2020). I admit, his lack of charisma probably meant I ignored him completely (which isnt fair to him), and his policies are perfectly reasonable and even in some cases progressive (maybe he is one of those Reasonable CentristsTM ).

Still, I am worried about nominating a Kerry-Lite candidate who wouldnt excite anyone, and for that reason, I am out. Unfortunately he may also be one of the best bets for delivering the PA/MI/WI/(maybe OH) belt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, IheartIheartTesla said:

I thought we werent going to re-litigate 2016?

George Packer from the Atlantic had a fairly sympathetic take on Sherrod Brown (who, lest people forget, is also in the race for 2020). I admit, his lack of charisma probably meant I ignored him completely (which isnt fair to him), and his policies are perfectly reasonable and even in some cases progressive (maybe he is one of those Reasonable CentristsTM ).

My take on Sherrod Brown is that he has a remarkable ability to get elected in Ohio which seemingly is going red. People seem to like him. Once he's gone, I don't if it will be possible to get another Democrat elected as a Senator in Ohio. Also, I don't think he's got what it takes to win the presidency. He's seem popular enough in Ohio, but I don't see that carrying over to the rest of the country.

As far as being a "reasonable centrist", he's not the sort of person I like to lampoon for that because while I have my disagreements with him, principally over trade issues, he's always been a strong pro labor Democrat, with a decent record on social issues.

Edited by OldGimletEye

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just chatting with my brother about what’s going on in Virginia, and he said even in the 1970s when he attended Lincoln Memorial University in Tennessee for four years, they were a pretty fun loving bunch but even then no one would ever dream of doing a blackface or a KKK costume, they a knew it was wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fragile Bird said:

Noooooo, I used sex!

When that really cute police officer pulled me over (I confess, 30 years ago) and said, ma'am, your license sticker is out of date, I pulled out the form with the check attached and said but...but...I'm literally on the way to get it, and smiled sweetly at him, but he was already saying 'I can't believe I'm doing this' and he told me to get going.

Nothing helped me with speeding tickets years later, though. Nothing. But I haven't had one in 9 years, so I'm good.

Fragile Bird? More like Dirty BIRD! 

I'll send you a Jamal Anderson jersey next year for Christmas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was just chatting with my brother about what’s going on in Virginia, and he said even in the 1970s when he attended Lincoln Memorial University in Tennessee for four years, they were a pretty fun loving bunch but even then no one would ever dream of doing a blackface or a KKK costume, they a knew it was wrong.

No one is going to let a Canadian witness their racism.  

I'm totally cool with Northam and Fairfax resigning, probably Herring too, would be nice though if they could figure out a way to do this without turning the state over to an unelected Republican. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Fragile Bird said:

I was just chatting with my brother about what’s going on in Virginia, and he said even in the 1970s when he attended Lincoln Memorial University in Tennessee for four years, they were a pretty fun loving bunch but even then no one would ever dream of doing a blackface or a KKK costume, they a knew it was wrong.

Is that an assumption, or an assertion based on a vividly remembered conversation specifically on the topic of appropriateness of fancy dress costuming? How reliable is a 40+ year old memory of conversations about social attitudes and party attire?

Back in the 70's, as a kid, I was only just starting to learn that in order to determine who would be "it" in a game you figuratively caught a tiger by the toe and not the toe of an abused and exploited African slave (or ancestor of the same). But it probably took into the 80's before the tiger became the universally toe-caught object in that choosing rhyme.

But even if someone was an un-mitigated racist arsehole 30 years ago, a person deserves to be judged as the person they are today, and not the person they were in decades past. I assume that most of us we would like to be sufficiently enlightened that convicted rapists and murderers get a shot at living a redeemed life once they've paid their debt to society. And we should do such people the courtesy to treating them according to the person they are today, not the criminal they were back then.

Indeed any time someone has gone through a teachable moment and come out the other side a better person they should be largely forgiven for their previous transgression, even if it was yesterday. If their transformation from areshole to enlightened is genuine, why should they continue to be condemned as the person they no longer are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

.

Indeed any time someone has gone through a teachable moment and come out the other side a better person they should be largely forgiven for their previous transgression, even if it was yesterday. If their transformation from areshole to enlightened is genuine, why should they continue to be condemned as the person they no longer are?

Because they are public servants and should be held to a higher standard.  How are Northam's black constituents supposed to just accept this, especially when he was such a douchebag about how he handled it?  

Edit: and I'm not saying they should even be condemned - they just don't get to be a fucking Governor!

Edited by larrytheimp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×