0
   

Black Women Send Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi in Support of Maxine Waters

 
 
Real Music
 
  3  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2018 06:51 pm
Auntie Maxine on Trump: ‘We’ve Got to Stop His Ass’

April 16, 2017

Quote:
Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Auntie Maxine to us, continues to speak truth to power. On Saturday the congresswoman kept it real and succinct as she spoke on President Donald Trump: “We’ve got to stop his ass,” Waters said to a cheering crowd.

As noted before, Mama Max takes no tea for the fever, and as a 78-year-old black woman in America, she done ran out of fucks to give about 30 years ago.

According to Mic, Waters hosted a fundraiser at socially conscious watering hole, Busboys and Poets, a day before Washington, D.C.’s Tax March.

The event was actually called “Auntie Maxine’s Tax Day March Open Mic Reception.”

The mic was indeed open, and Waters let her thoughts pour on our current commander in chief.

“He is a con man. He is someone who will do whatever is necessary to get over at the moment,” she said. She also urged attendees to become politically active.

Her rock-star status continues, and the very next day, at the Tax March, she said she doesn’t trust the president and will not rest until he is outta here.

“I will fight every day until he is impeached,” she said to the usual cheers.

https://thegrapevine.theroot.com/maxine-waters-on-trump-we-ve-got-to-stop-his-ass-1794366303
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  5  
Reply Fri 13 Jul, 2018 10:29 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
If this behavior becomes acceptable, you'll understand why it is wrong when the pro-lifers start using it against leftists
This is about the fifth time you've been threatening to start behavior that the Right has already been doing for decades. The Right has already stalked people. Now what are you going to do when the Right gets confronted back?

Surely you are not calling for the Right to escalate to violence, are you? Because the Right has already started that at the Trump rallies in addition to shooting abortion providers and workers.

Real Music
 
  6  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 03:48 am
Angela Rye Rallies ESSENCE Fest Crowd In Support Of Rep. Maxine Waters:

'We Stand With Maxine'


Quote:
Angela Rye had a message for anyone who thought that Rep. Maxine Waters does not have a strong support system behind her.

The CNN commentator took a moment during the Sister Love panel on the 2018 ESSENCE Festival Empowerment Stage, in which Waters also participated, to ask the audience of Black women to rally behind Waters.

“We stand with Maxine,” she instructed the crowd to chant.

The congresswoman has been on the receiving end of death threats after calling for the public to “push back” on the Trump administration's zero tolerance immigration policy that separates families.

President Donald Trump also directly threatened Waters on Twitter, while the top Democratic leadership seemingly refused to come to her defense.

"We want to make an illustrative point,” Rye told the audience while asking them to hold hands. “And this is what we’re going to say to Chuck to Nancy and to Donald (Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and President Donald Trump)."

In a recent panel discussion, Rye called the recent criticism and death threats aimed at Waters as a result of her being a Black woman.

“It has everything to do with the fact that this Black woman is intimidating to some people who can't handle the truth,” she said during a CNN panel discussion Thursday with Steve Cortes of the Trump re-election Advisory Council. “It has everything to do with race.”

https://www.essence.com/culture/angela-rye-essence-stand-with-maxine-waters
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 10:00 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
This is about the fifth time you've been threatening to start behavior that the Right has already been doing for decades.
The right has not been doing this for decades. This is a new abuse that the left is hoping to perpetrate.

I'm not threatening to do anything. I'm far too lazy to follow someone around endlessly and ruin their life.

All I'm going to do is point out to the left that they brought it on themselves when it starts being used against them.

Sort of like when Merrick Garland was blocked from the Supreme Court. I had warned the left for years that their abuses were going to be turned against them. As always, they refused to listen to my warnings. Then when Merrick Garland was blocked, the left had only themselves to blame for it.

Blickers wrote:
The Right has already stalked people.
Not really. You are referring to the acts of lone nutcases, not to the right organizing in large numbers with the support of conservative leaders.

Blickers wrote:
Surely you are not calling for the Right to escalate to violence, are you?
No. I mean exactly what I say. No more and no less.
Blickers
 
  7  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 03:39 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Sort of like when Merrick Garland was blocked from the Supreme Court. I had warned the left for years that their abuses were going to be turned against them. As always, they refused to listen to my warnings. Then when Merrick Garland was blocked, the left had only themselves to blame for it.
What warnings? For the first time in history, no action was taken on a Supreme Court nomination by the President. They announced they would take no action, no hearings in committee, nothing. Did the Senate have the right to reject Merrick Garland? Absolutely. But they had no right to go against a Constitutional mandate and simply ignore the President's nomination of him.

And no, the Democrats had never done such a thing. Nor the Republicans, until the True Believer Tea Party took over what used to be the Republican Party.
Blickers
 
  6  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 03:45 pm
@oralloy,
Quote Blickers:
Quote:
The Right has already stalked people.

Quote oralloy:
Quote:
Not really. You are referring to the acts of lone nutcases, not to the right organizing in large numbers with the support of conservative leaders.
But conservative leaders have paid homage to the groups these stalkers belong to. And what's more, the Right does not confine itself to mere stalking with the aim of a verbal confrontatation with a policy maker, the Right extends it to shooting with the aim of killing the person the Right opposes.

So conservatives have no basis for complaint against Maxine.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 04:18 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
What warnings?
When the Democrats were happily doing the same thing to Bush, I did my best to explain to them that the Republicans would do it to them in return.

Blickers wrote:
For the first time in history, no action was taken on a Supreme Court nomination by the President. They announced they would take no action, no hearings in committee, nothing. Did the Senate have the right to reject Merrick Garland? Absolutely. But they had no right to go against a Constitutional mandate and simply ignore the President's nomination of him.
The Democrats shouldn't have started that fight if they didn't want to lose it.

Blickers wrote:
And no, the Democrats had never done such a thing. Nor the Republicans, until the True Believer Tea Party took over what used to be the Republican Party.
That is incorrect. The Democrats did it to the Republicans first. The Republicans were just returning fire when they blocked Merrick Garland.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 04:19 pm
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
So conservatives have no basis for complaint against Maxine.
Democrats will have no basis for complaint when pro-lifers use the same tactic against them.

But like I said, there might be money to be made doing shopping for Democrats who will have to spend the rest of their lives in hiding.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  7  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 07:23 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
being more aggressive does seem to have started to make a difference for the Democrats. As much as I love the Obama aesthetic, being too cool for school might not be a longterm winning strategy. Digging in and fighting looks like it is paying off at the ballot box.

AGREED Smile
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  6  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 07:31 pm
Maxine Waters and the burden of the “strong black woman”

August 24, 2017

Quote:
Anyone who doesn’t know that Rep. Maxine Waters is not to be trifled with has not been paying attention.

A few weeks ago, during a congressional hearing, the California Democrat silenced the U.S. treasury secretary and gave voice to legions of exasperated women by repeating the phrase, “Reclaiming my time!” She has been an unyielding critic of President Donald Trump, calling for his impeachment. The president’s supporters have pushed back hard, disparaging her record in Congress and, in one highly public instance, her appearance.

But Waters, 79, has not seemed shaken by the blowback. As she declared Tuesday night after receiving the social humanitarian award at BET’s Black Girls Rock ceremony, “I’m simply a strong black woman.”

The crowd of mostly black women roared in agreement. Waters is perhaps the most popular fighter in “the resistance” against the Trump administration, especially to millennials, who have affectionately named her “Auntie Maxine.” Her signature visage — a disapproving glare over the top of her glasses — has been printed on t-shirts, and her retort to Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin became a social media hashtag and the inspiration for gospel song. When I interviewed her in April for a profile, she seemed confident, resolute — strong.

Yet as the celebration continued on social media, with memes quoting Waters’s self-affirming statement, I winced, as I thought about what it means to be a strong black woman.

When it’s time to rumble, everybody looks to you to take the first swing. And if you don’t show up, some folks are upset or suspicious, wondering if you’ve lost your super powers or maybe cut a deal. And you have to calibrate that show of strength just so, or you become marginalized as an angry black woman.

Being a strong black woman can be physically and emotionally exhausting.

Kaila Story, an associate professor of women’s and gender studies at the University of Louisville, said that people use the phrase in the most positive and affirmative sense. But it carries historical and present-day connotations that “pigeonhole black women’s images.”

“I don’t think Maxine meant any harm and I saw it as an affirmation of herself,” Story said. “But in these times and especially in this climate, with all of the violence affecting black girls and women constantly every day, we need to leave room for a more holistic picture and understanding of who we are as human beings, not stereotypes.”

The term “strong black woman” has been used to laud the bravery of historical heroines such as Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth and Ida B. Wells. But it also has been abused in popular culture, from the tart-tongued, emasculating Sapphire character of the 1950s Amos and Andy Show, to the more contemporary works of comedians and filmmakers such as Martin Lawrence and Tyler Perry, who don drag to portray cartoonishly powerful black matriarchs.

Either way, the dominant image of the boss black woman is incomplete portrait. What of those black women who, because of oppressive or unsafe circumstances, are unable to push back. What if the strong black woman needs to take a sick day or a vacation?

“It doesn’t leave any room for vulnerability, to say, ‘Hey, I quit today. I’m tired. I’m resting today,” Story said.

The overexposed image of the strong black woman also puts African American girls and women at risk for violence and harsher treatment by society. Story cited a recent study that found adults see black girls as less innocent and less in need of protection than white girls. Black girls are disciplined more harshly, in schools and in the juvenile justice system.

“Violence becomes rationalized for black women and care and tenderness goes out the window for black women and girls,” Story said.

In recent years, when black women have been the dominant faces in politics and popular culture, we have been reminded that even at to top of their games, black women are not bullet proof. Beyoncé, one of the most successful female artists in history, addressed the pain of her husband’s infidelity via her album Lemonade. Serena Williams is constantly a target of racist and sexist comments about her body type and dominating tennis game, and recently has had to endure bigoted taunts directed at her unborn biracial child. Michelle Obama publicly acknowledged last month the “small tiny cuts” that she lives with, inflicted by people who could not accept the notion of an African American first lady.

“I’ve been called a strong black woman before. I think people who use it mean you have a developed racial consciousness, you are deliberate and intentional about the things you say and the things you advocate for,” Story said. “I think people honestly feel it’s an affirmation, a compliment and are unaware of all historical and somewhat present ramifications of what that statement really means.”

Waters, in her speech Tuesday, indicated that she does understand the challenge of being a strong black woman. She told the crowd that her antidote for the “right-wing haters” who come after her is “the love and respect shown to me by black women.”

“I am you and you are me,” she said. “We have power. We have influence. We can do things that others have told us we can’t do.”

https://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/24/maxine-waters-and-the-burden-of-the-strong-black-woman/
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  6  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 07:37 pm
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
That is incorrect. The Democrats did it to the Republicans first. The Republicans were just returning fire when they blocked Merrick Garland.
Please cite the instance where, with almost a year left in a Republican President's term, the majority Democratic Senate refused to take action on aa President's Supreme Court nominee. No discussion in committee, no action at all. Can you do that?

If you cannot, then the Republicans' refusal to even hold a committee hearing on President Obama's nomination of a Supreme Court justice is unprecedented. And against the Constitution.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 07:44 pm
@Blickers,
It wasn't a Supreme Court nominee that the Democrats blocked. They blocked a massive number of nominations to all sorts of positions, but the Supreme Court was not one of the positions.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2008/02/bush-ups-the-ante-in-nomination-fight-005990
Blickers
 
  6  
Reply Sat 14 Jul, 2018 10:45 pm
@oralloy,
There are two things wrong with what you are saying. One is that the Supreme Court nomination is far more important than lower court rulings and therefore those Supreme Court nominations always get a floor vote unless the nominee withdraws or the president withdraws the nomination.

The second thing wrong is that those lower court judges Bush appointed at least had action taken on their nominations. Like bills, nominations first go to committee and if they are passed there, they go to the floor of the Senate. However, if a lower court nomination is having trouble getting out of committee, that doesn't mean it is ignored. Action was taken, but the lower court nominee was having trouble getting passed.

Looking up the rejections of Bush lower court appointees, I find that of the ones I checked out, they ALL went to committee. Check out the fate of one of Bush's conservative appointees, Terrence Boyle.


4 Nominees To Appeals Courts Are Dropped
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 10, 2007


The Bush administration officially withdrew four of its most controversial nominations to the federal appellate bench yesterday, bowing to the political reality of a Senate Judiciary Committee under the control of Democrats who show no inclination to confirm them.

Signaling at the same time that President Bush is committed to placing more conservatives on the bench, the White House renominated 32 other federal judicial candidates that the previous Senate did not confirm. Bush also nominated a previous candidate for a federal district court to fill one of the four appellate positions.

Those withdrawn yesterday included Defense Department general counsel William J. Haynes II, nominated for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, which covers Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the Carolinas; U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle, also nominated for the 4th Circuit; and former Interior Department solicitor William G. Myers III, nominated for the 9th Circuit, which covers seven Western states, plus Alaska and Hawaii.
ad_icon

The fourth nominee withdrawn, Mississippi lawyer Michael B. Wallace, had announced in December that he was no longer seeking to become a 5th Circuit appellate judge, with jurisdiction over Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. White House officials said Leslie H. Southwick, a former Mississippi state appeals judge and chairman of the state's Bush-Quayle steering committee in 1988, will be nominated to fill the slot Wallace had sought.

The withdrawals provoked rare praise from liberal groups People for the American Way and Alliance for Justice, which had lobbied against many of the administration's judicial nominees. They said that they hope the moves herald a shift in Bush's approach to such appointments.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.), likewise, praised Bush for making "the right decision in not resubmitting these controversial and problematic nominees who failed to win confirmation from a Republican-controlled Senate." He said the withdrawals are "a welcome beginning" in emphasizing "qualifications and bipartisan consensus."
Source

Merrick Garland, on the other hand, received NO consideration even in committee. McConnell said he's not going to deal with it until after the election, and the committee never even got a chance to consider Garland.

So your claim of "The Democrats did it first" is simply wrong. When the Democrats were in charge, every nominee by a Republican president was at least acted on in committee, fulfilling the Constitutional mandate to advise and consent. The Republicans went out of their way to proclaim they would NOT do this, which is against the Constitution.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2018 01:29 am
@Blickers,
The large mass of nominees that Democrats halted in 2007 and 2008 did not seem to get any hearings:
http://www.catholicconvert.com/blog/2007/12/11/bushs-catholic-choice-for-ambassador-to-vatican-blocked/

But I don't see how the absence of hearings would matter regardless. It is just one way for the Senate to block a nominee. Regardless of the method, blocking Merrick Garland was payback for all the nominees that were blocked in 2007 and 2008.
Blickers
 
  5  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2018 10:17 am
@oralloy,
Oralloy:
Your own reference just said that she did get a hearing in committee. From your own source:
Quote:
President Bush's nomination of Harvard Law School professor Mary Ann Glendon as U.S. ambassador to the Vatican is being held up in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, raising the possibility that the post may be vacant when Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States in April.
Which means that the normal committee which handles these things is dealing with it, has talked it over or is talking it over. In short, they are advising and may or may not consent, as the Constitution directs.

With Merrick Garland, there was no discussions, advisement or anything else. The committee didn't even raise the issue of Garland's nomination. The head of the Senate Republicans, Mitch McConnell, said the nomination is not even going to be dealt with, introduced in committee, or talked over or considered in any way. And that was that.

And yes, it matters, because the Constitution says the Senate is to advise and consent, which is what they did with all of Bush's nominees who did not withdraw themselves. The Constiitution does not say the nominee has to pass, it says the nominee must be considered. You are trying to gl0ss over the difference, and it is obvious.

That's never been done before, all nominees previously at least got dealt with by committee. Also, as befits the importance of the appointment, all presidential nominees, if they haven't been withdrawn, get a vote on the floor of the Senate.

So no, what happened to Merrick Garland has never happened before, the Republicans are tearing apart the functioning of the government to suit their narrowly focused political aims.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2018 10:41 am
@Blickers,
Note this sentence from the article:
"No official holds on her confirmation have been filed, but failure to schedule a hearing blocks her confirmation."

But even if the Republicans did use a new tactic, I don't see why that is a big deal. It was still blocking Obama's nominee as revenge for Bush's nominees being blocked.

If this stalking that the Democrats are proposing is allowed to become acceptable behavior, the pro-lifers who adopt the tactic might do things slightly differently as well. But the result will still be the same.
Blickers
 
  5  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2018 11:22 am
@oralloy,
She got confirmed by the Senate a month after Bush nominated her!

Quote:
Glendon was appointed by President Bush to the President's Council on Bioethics. Her nomination as United States Ambassador to the Holy See was announced on November 5, 2007. The U.S. Senate voted to confirm her on December 19, 2007. She presented her Letters of Credence to Pope Benedict XVI on February 29, 2008,


Will you puh-leeze stop posting excerpts from nutty partisan websites? I think the boss of that website lets his annoying nephew write some articles just to keep him out of his hair.

This is your idea of blocking a nomination? She gets confirmed a month after she's nominated, but according to you that counts as a block so the Republicans have the right to refuse to "advise and consent" as the Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution.

Mind you, her nomination did not need to be confirmed, all the Senate had to do was discuss the nomination in committee, they did not have to pass on the nomination. Instead, the Senate confirmed her.

With Merrick Garland, the head Republican in the Senate decreed that there will be NO advising or vote on consent on the floor of the Senate OR in committee. That is unConstitutional. And only the Republicans did it.
Blickers
 
  5  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2018 11:38 am
@oralloy,
Quote oralloy:
Quote:
If this stalking that the Democrats are proposing is allowed to become acceptable behavior, the pro-lifers who adopt the tactic might do things slightly differently as well. But the result will still be the same.
As the Republican politicians for decades have been supporting the organizations who advocate forcefully stopping legal abortions, this is nothing new.

For several posts you have been "threatening" that conservatives might start stalking, when conservatives have been both stalking and shooting people involved in providing reproductive choice for several decades.

You certainly don't like the aggressive posture the Democrats have begun to adopt as far as citizens using their Constitutional right to verbally confront high level government officials whom they think are doing great harm to the country.

What ever happened to the Republicans always hollering about "getting the government off our backs"? Republicans want to ramp up violence against people who have the nerve to tell government officials that their policies are harmful!
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2018 11:42 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
This is your idea of blocking a nomination? She gets confirmed a month after she's nominated,
OK so I guess she wasn't one of the many who were blocked. But there were many others who did get blocked, and that is what inspired the Republicans to block Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court.
oralloy
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 15 Jul, 2018 11:48 am
@Blickers,
Blickers wrote:
As the Republican politicians for decades have been supporting the organizations who advocate forcefully stopping legal abortions, this is nothing new.
That is incorrect. When pro-lifers begin organized stalking so that their opponents can never escape it, that will be a new experience for the left.

Just like when the Republicans blocked Obama's Supreme Court nominee, that was a new experience for the left.

Blickers wrote:
You certainly don't like the aggressive posture the Democrats have begun to adopt as far as citizens using their Constitutional right to verbally confront high level government officials whom they think are doing great harm to the country.
It is questionable whether there is a Constitutional right to stalk people and yell in their face constantly for their entire life.

But if that is indeed a Constitutional right, the pro-lifers are going to make good use of it.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 07:23:35