Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 02:23 pm
@MontereyJack,
Some of you will contend that this is a favorable distinction, that you are aren't all monolithic, but take a look at what you vehemently criticize among your own. Fundamental differences of thought? Nope. Personal preferences? Yep.

It's like a High School clique.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 02:34 pm
@blatham,
No, you are wrong.

I recognize that racism still exists in the US and around the world. It is a scourge of human tribalism.

I also recognize as, apparently, you refuse to, that in America there has been great progress in the effort to rid our society of this scourge.

It is, of course, a far more complex issue than "this is good; that is bad"

There are aspects of African-American culture which deliberately alienate white Americans. I understand where the motivation arises from but I also understand how it is not, ultimately, helpful to racial relations.

There are plenty of ignorant fools among all of the races and to suggest that the ignorant fools among one race are somehow noble because they trigger someone's sympathy is nonsense

White's caterwauling about racism, leave me cold. Sorry, Whitey but you aren't going to become an honorary brother.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 02:58 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
It's like a High School clique.

A high school clique is nothing but group think.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 04:42 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I also recognize as, apparently, you refuse to, that in America there has been great progress in the effort to rid our society of this scourge.
I actually said the opposite above.

Quote:
There are aspects of African-American culture which deliberately alienate white Americans.
Well, don't you think that's bound to happen after long periods of oppression, prejudice and cultural denigration? As with a child growing up and stretching for independence, pushing parents' buttons is predictable. Early Americans, rejecting Brit domination, can be excused for all that they did to project self-identity and to answer Brit notions of superiority. To say, "We're black and we're proud" or to wear different and unique fashions or to create and perform different musical styles or whatever it is you might mean might (and has) result in offended whites but surely it's a shallow wound.

Quote:
White's caterwauling about racism, leave me cold. Sorry, Whitey but you aren't going to become an honorary brother.
That's why I always despised christians who express solidarity with Jews when anti-semitism rises up. They just want to be Jews.
coldjoint
 
  0  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 04:51 pm
@blatham,
Quote:
That's why I always despised christians who express solidarity with Jews when anti-semitism rises up. They just want to be Jews.

Why do they want to be Jews? (I know this winner has me on ignore, someone should ask him.) I can only view that comment as anti-Semitic, if it matters, which is kind of what I'd like to know. Does it matter?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 05:35 pm
Quote:
Voting in the Democratic presidential primaries begins in just a few months, and yet with a couple of momentary exceptions, the race has barely gotten personal at all.

There have been some policy differences over things such as Medicare-for-all and immigration, and arguments about the most effective approach to governing, but almost no charges of nefarious behavior, snide insinuations about character, or insistence that another candidate is everything that’s wrong with our political system. And that’s at a time when some personal factors are becoming rather urgent.

So it’s worth thinking about what Democrats are saying to each other privately and what the politicians seeking to lead the party are saying publicly, because they aren’t the same thing. That isn’t inherently problematic — there are some things candidates shouldn’t say — but it is revealing.

Let’s start with the fact that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), one of the leading candidates throughout the campaign, just had a heart attack. By all appearances, it was mild and was treated with a routine procedure, and he seems to be recovering well. Nevertheless, because Sanders is 78 years old, one reaction I’ve heard from Democrats (to be clear, I’m not talking about public officials, just people I know) was “Well, that’s too bad, but his campaign is probably over.”

If that seems unfair, it certainly is. Sanders doesn’t have a history of heart problems that would suggest his life is in imminent danger. And whether you agree with his politics or not, it’s difficult to deny that, at an age when many people are beginning to experience some cognitive decline, he seems extremely mentally sharp, with an answer for any question and a clever response for any criticism.

But the assumption is that though he’s probably no less able to do the job of president today than he was a month ago, the public just won’t be forgiving, even if the currently 73-year-old president eats nothing but fast food and frequently devolves into incoherent gibberish when speaking in public.

Like many assumptions about what other people believe, the idea that the public would reject Sanders because of his age and health is based less on hard evidence than gut feeling. I can’t say exactly how widespread that feeling is among Democrats, but its existence is undeniable, even if his opponents will only offer him their good wishes.

Likewise, the Democrats running for president are standing behind Joe Biden as he gets attacked by President Trump over his son Hunter’s work in Ukraine. When asked directly whether they’d allow their children to sit on the boards of foreign companies, the Democratic candidates either have tried to change the subject or have said no while attempting to make the discussion as abstract as possible so as not to appear to be criticizing Biden.

Yet, in private, you won’t get much disagreement among Democrats that as dishonest as Trump’s attacks on Biden are, and notwithstanding the fact that Trump is the most corrupt president in history, Hunter Biden’s deal with a Ukrainian energy company was, well, kind of sleazy.

He was doing what mediocre children of famous and powerful people have done for hundreds of years: Trade on their names for money. It’s the same thing that Trump’s children do, and that various members of the Bush clan have done, and that the children of senators and congressmen and mayors do, and that’s done by the children of people who are influential in realms outside of politics.

That tells you nothing about what sort of president Joe Biden would be, but there’s still a widespread discomfort with the possibility that the Hunter Biden story could allow Trump to muddy the waters at a time when his corruption should and will be one of the main issues of the campaign. Again, that might happen or it might not, but the fear among Democrats is there.

The third candidate at the top of the pack, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), mostly causes unease among Democrats who worry that she has made too many commitments for large government programs and progressive initiatives, commitments Republicans could exploit. The attempt to smear her over the fact that she lost her job in 1971 when she got pregnant seems to have failed, but she’ll inevitably make Democrats nervous, too.

That’s because dread is the default mode for Democrats. They always think they’re about to screw everything up, a fear that, given their history, is not completely unwarranted. But you won’t hear their candidates say it on the campaign trail or from a debate stage, where optimism and solidarity reign.
Paul Waldman
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  3  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 05:47 pm
@coldjoint,
It was sarcasm, genius.
coldjoint
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 06:02 pm
@snood,
Quote:
It was sarcasm, genius.

No it wasn't. Have you ever seen one of his many posts wishing misfortune or death on certain people? I have, as others have. But maybe you can answer, is hating Jews alright with Leftists?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Fri 11 Oct, 2019 06:34 pm
This video is so good I want to have it in both of my threads,
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 06:39 am
@snood,
If what you say is true, then, you would disprove the veracity of my comments rather than attack me personally.

So, you DO make it all about me.

I assert that people who claim to be liberal are lying unless they vote for Sanders.

I assert that because of the many policy and political allegiance switches, that Liz Warren has shown herself to be a liar—and that poor and average Americans who are desperate to survive can only count on Bernie Sanders to make the changes many are desperate for.

You can’t stand up to that argument, so you attack me personally.

All of you are liars and pretenders, avoiding the real issue.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 06:40 am
@blatham,
Plenty of progressives agree with my sentiments. You just don’t know any progressives.
Lash
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 06:43 am
@blatham,
You come here to ‘influence’ people? You’re here to do some job on people? That’s sick. Who’s paying you?

For about 20 years, I’ve found this place to be the one place in my world where I can say exactly what I think with no filters.

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 07:01 am
@Lash,
Lash wrote:
You just don’t know any progressives.
But if he joins a self-awareness group, he could meet his progressive ego.
blatham
 
  3  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 09:46 am
Quote:
What, Exactly, Is Tulsi Gabbard Up To?

As she injects chaos into the 2020 Democratic primary by accusing her own party of “rigging” the election, an array of alt-right internet stars, white nationalists and Russians have praised her.

Stephen K. Bannon, President Trump’s former chief strategist, is impressed with her political talent. Richard B. Spencer, the white nationalist leader, says he could vote for her. Former Representative Ron Paul praises her “libertarian instincts,” while Franklin Graham, the influential evangelist, finds her “refreshing.”

And far-right conspiracy theorists like Mike Cernovich sees a certain MAGA sais quoi.

“She’s got a good energy, a good vibe. You feel like this is just a serious person,” Mr. Cernovich said. “She seems very Trumpian.”

Among her fellow Democrats, Representative Tulsi Gabbard has struggled to make headway as a presidential candidate, barely cracking the 2 percent mark in the polls needed to qualify for Tuesday night’s debate. She is now injecting a bit of chaos into her own party’s primary race, threatening to boycott that debate to protest what she sees as a “rigging” of the 2020 election. That’s left some Democrats wondering what, exactly, she is up to in the race, while others worry about supportive signs from online bot activity and the Russian news media.

Perhaps strangest of all is the unusual array of Americans who cannot seem to get enough of her.

On podcasts and online videos, in interviews and twitter feeds, alt-right internet stars, white nationalists, libertarian activists and some of the biggest boosters of Mr. Trump heap praise on Ms. Gabbard. They like the Hawaiian congresswoman’s isolationist foreign policy views. They like her support for drug decriminalization. They like what she sees as censorship by big technology platforms.

Then there is 4chan, the notoriously toxic online message board, where some right-wing trolls and anti-Semites fawn over Ms. Gabbard, calling her “Mommy” and praising her willingness to criticize Israel. In April, the Daily Stormer, a neo-Nazi website, took credit for Ms. Gabbard’s qualification for the first two Democratic primary debates.

Brian Levin, the head of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino, said Ms. Gabbard had “the seal of approval” within white nationalist circles. “If people have that isolationist worldview, there is one candidate that could best express them on each side: Gabbard on the Democratic side and Trump on the Republican side,” Mr. Levin said.

Ms. Gabbard has disavowed some of her most hateful supporters, castigating the news media for giving “any oxygen at all” to the endorsement she won from the white nationalist leader David Duke. But her frequent appearances on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News show has buoyed her support in right-wing circles.

Both Ms. Gabbard and her campaign refused requests for comment about her support in right-wing circles or threat to boycott the debate. Even some political strategists who have worked with her are at a loss to explain her approach to politics.

“She’s a very talented person but I’m not sure, I just don’t know what to say about the campaign exactly,” said Mark Longabaugh, a Democratic strategist who worked with Ms. Gabbard when she was campaigning for Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in 2016.

There is potential upside for Ms. Gabbard: Drawing more attention could energize her donors and perhaps attract more supporters, extending her candidacy’s life span.

Yet there is only confusion for several Democratic officials, activists and party officials, who privately say they have been a little spooked by Ms. Gabbard. Rival campaigns worry about her unpredictable attacks, if she participates in the debate, pointing to her sharp jabs against Senator Kamala Harris of California in an earlier matchup.

“She’s taken a series of policy steps which signal to the right that she has deep areas of alignment,” said Neera Tanden, a longtime policy adviser to Hillary Clinton who now leads the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

The questions deepened on Thursday after Ms. Gabbard threatened to boycott Tuesday’s debate, arguing that the corporate news media and the Democratic National Committee are working together to rig the event. (The New York Times is a co-sponsor of the debate with CNN.)

That message resonates with many of Ms. Gabbard’s supporters. In a moment marked by fractured politics, Ms. Gabbard’s nontraditional positions are a major part of her appeal for voters seeking to break out of polarized partisan divisions. Joe Rogan, the popular podcast host, said he planned to vote for her. Jack Dorsey, the chief executive of Twitter, donated to her campaign.

But it’s also an argument that reminds some Democrats of the narrative pushed by Russian actors during the 2016 presidential contest, when an operation by internet trolls worked to manipulate American public opinion: that the electoral system is broken and cannot be trusted.

Some of those who have worked with Ms. Gabbard say that, as an Iraq war veteran whose chief message is that America should stop trying to police the world, she is representing viewpoints that draw support from an array of people in the United States as well as abroad.

“In reality, Tulsi is really running on an antiwar message that’s consistent with where a lot of veterans are,” said Jon Soltz, chairman of the liberal veterans organization VoteVets.org, which worked closely with Ms. Gabbard during her first congressional campaign. ”I know everyone thinks there’s a conspiracy theory here but that’s really what she’s doing.”

Still, Democrats are on high alert about foreign interference in the next election and the D.N.C. is well aware of the frequent mentions of Ms. Gabbard in the Russian state news media.

An independent analysis of the Russian news media found that RT, the Kremlin-backed news agency, mentioned Ms. Gabbard frequently for a candidate polling in single digits, according to data collected by the Alliance for Securing Democracy, a group that seeks to track and expose efforts by authoritarian regimes to undermine democratic elections.

Disinformation experts have also pointed to instances of suspicious activity surrounding Ms. Gabbard’s campaign — in particular, a Twitter hashtag, #KamalaHarrisDestroyed, that trended among Ms. Gabbard’s supporters after the first Democratic debate, and appeared to be amplified by a coordinated network of bot-like accounts — but there is no evidence of coordination between these networks and the campaign itself.


Laura Rosenberger, a former policy aide to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign and director of the Alliance, sees Ms. Gabbard as a potentially useful vector for Russian efforts to sew division within the Democratic Party.

“The Russian activity could be part of a longer-term effort to drive a wedge among Democrats,” she said. “This messaging has echoes of 2016.”

That kind of speculation inflames Ms. Gabbard’s supporters online, who are known for swarming Ms. Gabbard’s critics on Twitter, for attacking the news media and the Democratic establishment for perceived bias against her and for compiling YouTube clips of her “destroying” and “shutting down” her Democratic rivals.

Ms. Gabbard’s fans are especially sensitive to claims that she is supported by Russian bots and amplified by the Russian state-funded news media outlets — a conspiracy theory, they say, that is designed to delegitimize her campaign and her foreign policy views.

“This whole thing the Democratic Party has done by putting forward this false idea that there was collusion between Russia and Trump has hurt our relations in a huge way with the Russians,” Mr. Graham said. “I can’t speak for Tulsi, but I think she feels kind of the same way on some of these things.”

While Democrats in Washington fret about Ms. Gabbard, her primary rivals have largely stayed silent, seeing little advantage in attacking a low-polling candidate.

She is likely to get harsher treatment back in Hawaii, where a cottage industry of researchers, former opponents and Democratic strategists have sprung up to track her connections and background — as well as her ties to the teachings of Chris Butler, the controversial guru who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her. Ms Gabbard has said the focus on her relationship with Mr. Butler and her faith was fueled by anti-Hindu bigotry.

She already faces a serious primary challenge for her House seat from Democratic State Senator Kai Kahele. Though his campaign is focused on economic issues, he sees Ms. Gabbard’s support from extremists as a potential liability.

“Clearly there’s something about her and her policies that attacks and appeals to these type of people who are white nationalists, anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers,” Mr. Kahele said. “To her credit she has denounced David Duke, rejected these endorsements. But it does beg the question why.”

Ms. Gabbard, once a Democratic darling as a telegenic newcomer and the first Hindu member of Congress, began falling out of party favor during the Obama administration, when she picked a series of fights over foreign policy, joining Republicans in demanding that President Barack Obama use the term “radical Islam.”

In 2016, she resigned her position as vice chair of the D.N.C. to endorse Mr. Sanders over Mrs. Clinton.

While Ms. Gabbard has opposed recent military interventions in the Middle East, she has developed relationships with leaders known for their authoritarian tendencies. She touts her support for Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who has empowered Hindu fundamentalists at great cost to India’s minorities.Ms. Gabbard also met with Egypt’s strongman leader, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, during a 2015 trip to Paris with Dana Rohrabacher, a former Republican congressman known for his ties to Russians.

Most controversially, she has repeatedly defended the brutal Syrian dictator, Bashar al-Assad, who she met in January 2017.

Those positions confound even some of her former Republican supporters.

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a pro-Israel activist who founded the World Values Network, said he first met Ms. Gabbard through Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey, who brought the congresswoman to dinner at a kosher restaurant in Washington.

His group, which is funded by Republican megadonors Sheldon and Miriam Adelson, awarded Ms. Gabbard their “Champion of Freedom Award” at their annual gala in 2016. A picture from the event shows a grinning Ms. Gabbard posing with Mr. Boteach and Ms. Adelson.

In the three years since, Ms. Gabbard has criticized Israel for its reaction to protests, met with Mr. Assad and made several statements defending his regime.

“To have a moral woman like Tulsi who is a military hero suddenly sit with a man who did that was inexplicable,” Mr. Boteach said. “I don’t understand it until today. I can’t figure her out.”NYT
Lash
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 09:58 am
I don’t know what Tulsi has to gain by boycotting the debate. She should attend and speak her mind—although she does seem all over the place.

Boycotting seems like a dodge.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 10:00 am
@Walter Hinteler,
I would never join any group that would have someone like me for a member.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  0  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 11:44 am
@blatham,
Quote:
Well, don't you think that's bound to happen after long periods of oppression, prejudice and cultural denigration?


What part of "I understand the motivation" did you not get?
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 12:02 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
You said
Quote:
I understand where the motivation arises from but I also understand how it is not, ultimately, helpful to racial relations.
There's no way out of this dilemma, I think. The two cultures have many points of similarity but also many points of difference. Friction of some sort is inevitable. And we can't insist that black culture (we'll use that example as it is the most pertinent) sublimate or erase its unique features.

But perhaps I'm missing some point you have in mind?
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  2  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 12:03 pm
@blatham,
If we're lucky, one of the most respected Democrats on A2K will stop in and praise her qualities here as he has on other threads:

Quote:
She seems like the most center candidate on the left, nothing extreme about her policies. That's the reason the left leaning media are going to really push for this Russia story, they used it in 2018 to discredit candidates, they will use it again in 2019 and 2020 to smear Gabbard. It's so transparent what they are doing.

(...)

She's the only sane sounding Dem running in the race, with her gone, the rest of them sound normal and not crazy. Face it, the DNC has taken a hard left turn into anti-Americanism.

(...)

Let us hope that Google doesn't play any more games with her, and people can actually look her up and then she will get some good support. The left has to cheat to beat.


Nice ringing endorsement from Comrade Baldimo!

Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Oct, 2019 12:25 pm
https://medium.com/@jemtoback/calling-all-class-traitors-33d12f9aa219

Excerpt:
The working class of everyday people living paycheck-to-paycheck will determine the outcome of this election. The Sanders campaign is organizing an army of one million-plus volunteers to call, text, canvas and inspire millions of new voters over the next many months. When we bring those millions into this movement, we will not only win the primary but dispense of Trump in the general. We will also be poised to fight and win the larger post-election struggle for transformative policy.

Excerpt:
More importantly, Warren, the chosen PMC hero of the moment, is equally fatally flawed. The embarrassing video of Warren lying about her Native American grift will prove lethal versus a deeply bankrolled bully incumbent, who will hammer it home over & over again. Her handling of the story not only reveals the craven hypocrisy in woke liberal deplorable claims, it shows a contempt for struggling working people that amplifies their natural resentment toward one of their own, who appears to have lied and cheated her way to becoming a multi-millionaire. This will not be wished away.

Then there’s the fact of Warren’s performance incompetence. Though she’s been given a free MSM pass during the primary, when challenged, Liz tends to become a dissembling mess. Finally, Warren’s campaign has absolutely failed to attract a working-class coalition that can win. With tone-deaf advertisements that speak to the middle but bizarrely neglect the working class, she’s built a coalition of college educated White folk that simply won’t get it done. Should Warren win the nomination, she will lose decisively and embarrassingly to Trump. Act accordingly.
As for that first portion of the PMC, who remain inclined or even dedicated to winning transformative material change in solidarity with our working-class sisters and brothers, we need to be honest with each other. Warren will never deliver. From her early anti-regulation REPUB days, to her mid-life Third Way DEM transition, to her impotent regulatory gestures via the CFPB & COP, she is and has always been a basic neoliberal.
Warren’s ongoing lies about the fact that she does not support M4A in any meaningful material sense make her an enemy of the movement. Her means-tested “plans for that” are not only insufficient to counter forty years of neoliberal social contract decimation, they cannot catalyze the solidarity necessary to win those feeble reforms in the first place. I have substantiated all of the above in depth here.
Warren’s puerile theory of change is of particular interest:

“I think this is one of the reasons to run on plans because if I get elected on those plans, it gives me the capacity to turn around and say to my colleagues, ‘Hey that’s what I ran on, that’s what the majority of the American people voted for, that’s what they got out and fought for. So, as the Democratic Party, that’s what we got to do.’”— Elizabeth Warren
Read that again. Warren’s “plan” is to show her colleagues her plans. To be fair, she also wants to begin by passing a “corruption package” so she can tell congresspeople, “Hey, this is your job, and you’re not going to have an opportunity to lobby afterward so don’t be looking over the horizon at your next job and adjusting your behavior accordingly.” Of course, she has no plan for passing that plan. Her entire strategy, if you can call it that, is a pathetically naïve appeal to power’s better nature. In the context of the COP & CFPB, as well as Warren’s credulous words, the common wisdom that she is in fact the candidate, who knows best how to work the levers of power, becomes a delusional, dangerous joke.
In stark contrast, we’ve seen Sanders already demonstrate his movement-leveraging tack in the primary. He clarifies the stakes, puts enemies inside and outside of governance on blast, and organizes his volunteers to support worker protests. The zombie pundit and academic set likes to pretend that we live in an eternal present, unshakeable stasis of non-representation, which Sanders couldn’t possibly break. They studiously forget the history of change in this country and beyond, with every pragmatic concern circumscribed by convenient surrenders to power and the ongoing decimation of the social contract. They are, to quote the poet:

Educated fools from uneducated schools — Curtis Mayfield

Four years of Sanders bully pulpit clarifying discourse, as he catalyzes millions to apply pressure to power will be materially better than the incremental nonsense any other DEM might get. Liberal-to-left cognoscenti waxing about procedural obstacles to fundamental change miss the damn point. The only way we win fundamental change is if we force power to cede it by making representatives fear for their careers, and institutions fear for their legitimacy. Nobody’s underestimating the necessity or scale of the fight. Sanders and our still-inchoate movement is already striking that fear. Warren absolutely is not and never will.


0 Replies
 
 

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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 03/11/2025 at 12:17:35