Reddy

Working on this: 'The DREAM Act bill, which would have provided a pathway to permanent residency for unauthorized immigrants brought to the United States upon meeting certain qualifications, was considered by Congress in 2007. It failed to overcome a bipartisan filibuster in the Senate.[22] It was considered again in 2011. The bill passed the House, but did not get the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster in the Senate.[23][22] In 2013, legislation had comprehensively reformed the immigration system, including allowing Dreamers permission to stay in the country, work and attend school; this passed the Senate but was not brought up for a vote in the House.[22]The New York Times credits the failure of Congress to pass the DREAM Act bill as the driver behind Obama's decision to sign DACA.[22]'

Democrats are absolutely the party of justice in the American political system. Just because you sometimes don't get the changes as fast as you want, doesn't mean one part of the party "doesn't care" about those issues. For instance, DACA. Pelosi mentioned yesterday that in the omnibus negotiations, the GOP offered to do something on DACA if Dems would give them money for more ICE agents and resources to aid with deportation. Pelosi refused. Now the soundbyte that comes out is that Dems threw DACA recipients under the bus and didn't get anything for them in the spending package, but the TRUTH is that the changes to DACA that the GOP were offering would've made a difference to such a small number of people that the impact of this deal on undocumented immigrants would've been a huge net negative overall, even if the Dems got good press over it. So Pelosi told them to go to hell. Tell me. Which is the correct implementation of social justice in that scenario? Taking the deal for the good headlines, or doing the right thing for undocumented immigrants even if it hurts you politically?

Were you paying attention to what happened with the omnibus spending package?

You mean Dems are going to take the House despite Pelosi being in charge? Great. Then let's keep the most effective legislator and caucus leader we've damn near ever had right where she is for 2019. I'm all for new blood if they can do the job as well as her and take away the GOPs talking points, but who is that person? He or she hasn't stepped up to the plate yet, and until they do, I'd like to celebrate our effective female leaders instead of let the GOP dictate our decisions with their sexism. Cool?

I don't think anyone should focus their campaign around attacking Trump.

Also, in honor of my day, I think this is a pretty important read for all Dems and progressives. It's pretty surprising to me after hearing her speak on the issues today that anyone on the left dislikes her. But hey. Such is life. (Click the headline for the full article. I decided not to post the whole thing because it seemed obnoxious.) The Nancy Pelosi Problem The first female speaker of the House has become the most effec­tive congressional leader of modern times—and, not coinciden­tally, the most vilified. Ryan Melgar

Thanks Balta. You're going to regret giving me that info in 3...2...1... (Got to see her speak today at an event at Georgetown, and I guess they liked my tweets lol ?)

How do y'all embed tweets? I did 30 seconds of skimming and figured I'd just ask.

Sqwert that's awesome man. Wish I had a yard to landscape... Personally: - I've cut back drastically on my red meat purchasing. Like, maybe once every few months if I'm at a place that just so happens to have the "greatest burger ever", but 95% of the time it's no beef for me. The cattle industry produces more greenhouse gasses than all transportation combined. Just unreal. - Try not to use plastic straws whenever possible, minimize my plastic use in general (paper/canvas bags) - Recycle as much as possible - Support organizations like 4Ocean that pull plastic out of the ocean and recycle it (they've done over 530,000 pounds so far) - Vote (y'all know what I'm getting at, but keeping it SLAM worthy) OK EXCEPT here I am writing this and I just realized I'm drinking my starbucks out of a damn straw. Can you get starbucks to like... fill your own container orrrr lol. #workinprogress

In honor of the day, and the White Sox announcing that they're no longer going to use plastic straws (which is flippin' awesome), what do y'all do to lessen your impact on the environment and the world? Side note: (Let's not argue about climate change itself. This isn't meant to be a 'buster thread. If you don't buy into it, feel free to ignore)

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 08:59 PM) https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/18/politics/dem...rump/index.html Dem operatives trying to find the right (type and amount of) messaging on Trump for the midterms Very little, if any, is the correct call in most places. Politics is local.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 06:24 PM) Who are you quoting? Provide some context. For realz?

Okay I'm gonna learn from my history here at ST and let this go, even though I stand behind every single comment I've made 100%.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 12:02 PM) That is just lame. You bring it up in that context, but then pretend you didn't mean exactly what you meant when you get called out on it? If it wasn't something you were saying, and didn't believe, you wouldn't have brought it up in the first place. That is just trash. Lord. You don't get to decide what I meant. I didn't say that. I didn't use those words. I meant EXACTLY what I said. You don't get to magically add some other contextual meaning because you don't like me. It's absolutely ridiculous that you're always inferring the worst based on your own personal biases. Show me where I said what you're saying I said. If you can't, then stop making up bulls***. And ease off on the attacks, bud.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 11:48 AM) Yet you are telling someone that they can't be qualified on a topic because of their race. How on earth have you come to that conclusion? Lol I've made no comments regarding anyone's qualification to do anything. Please quote for me where I made the argument you're suggesting here. As far as I'm aware, I mentioned his race, gender, and sexual orientation as an explanation for why he doesn't care about social issues (they don't affect him).

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 11:37 AM) Barack Obama literally was a community activist on the South Side. He was a community organizer. I'm a community organizer. Yes, he was an activist in the way I'm an activist, but when it came to politics he was pragmatic and didn't try to break the mold. He was not an activist as a politician. He wasn't going to move on gay marriage until Uncle Joe forced him to by making a public statement of support for it.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 11:35 AM) Here’s the thing. The Dems are losing the social issues/political correctness battle. Identity politics and obfuscation/diversionary tactics favor the Trump wing...while DACA itself, those particular individuals, are “popular” or poll well, broader immigration policies in general are not. If it’s about kitchen table economics, trade, wealth disparity, rights and protections for women, protection of Medicare/Social Security (safety net), the environment, the $1 trillion plus deficits, the Dems SHOULD clean up. The tax cuts were surrendered by the GOP as a talking point in PA by the end of that race. That was supposed to be their ace in the hole to save an electoral bloodbath. The only thing that can save the GOP would be a miraculous breakthrough in North Korea or on the foreign policy side in general, and their strategy is so scattershot and lacking in cohesion that it’s actually hard to imagine not screwing any negotiation up. I agree with all of this.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 11:12 AM) The opposite would be the Clinton wing which sits and waits for things to be politically palatable before adopting them as policy goals, and then forgetting that you spent a long period of time being against them. Um. Yeah. Basically. Let activists do their job and politicians do theirs. That's how things actually get accomplished. Activist politicians usually lose their elections. At that point what good are they?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 11:10 AM) And this is why the Democratic Party continues to flounder. Your credentials are apparently directly tied to your race. Your credentials aren't, but your privilege is. I know this isn't a winning argument for Democrats to make nationally, so I would never use it in a campaign setting. But that doesn't make it untrue.

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 11:00 AM) The left doesn't "prioritize" economic issues over social. You also seem to think they don't have anything to we each other. The idea that one issue dosen't affect the other is ridiculous. Of course they're connected. But scroll back. Dam literally said he doesn't care about social issues. It's that to which I'm responding.

QUOTE (caulfield12 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 10:56 AM) What is the opposite of a Bernie Bro in the Democratic Party? Ossoff? Lamb? Cheri Bustos? Feinstein? There?€™s one problem with all this reasonableness and pragmatism...it?€™s not coming from the GOP in return. Only obstructionism, even against their own party. That was essentially their main philosophy for 8 years. The Democratic Party needs leaders who will fight for the middle class. Period. Somehow, Trump convinced those voters he would/could do more for them than Hillary. How was that even possible? I agree with you. The GOP are masters of simplistic, easily digestible misinformation campaigns. If we want to shift to a discussion about what the Democratic Party can do better, I'm happy to have that talk. There are a number of things. We message terribly, there's little cohesion, and because we're a party of warring ideologies, finding that cohesive message is incredibly difficult. Fortunately, the party has already started implementing a lot of good changes within the past year. Ellison and Perez are doing one hell of a job. Our performance in these specials is a testament to that. But I still would like a response from Dam regarding his prioritization of issues. (Also, a Bernie Bro is usually a straight white guy who prioritizes economics over social justice and doesn't recognize the privilege he has that allows for that perspective. He uses terms like "neoliberal" "corporate shill" and "oligarchy" far too much and incorrectly. He also often criticizes Hillary's personality and equates her with Trump in attacks that he may not recognize as sexist but... they are.)

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 10:53 AM) Do you think people on the left don't support gay marriage and interracial marriage? Who do you think was at the front of that movement back when centrists were bringing in the defense of marriage act. Strikes. Teachers striking is that what you think the left isn't supporting? You better look up the history of wildcat strikes. Also, the continued use of the word "Bernie Bro" is just something I don't understand. Dam said social issues don't matter to him. That's what I was addressing. And yes, the Bernie wing prioritizes economic policy over social policy, which is one of the reasons they struggle with minorities and marginalized communities. (As for DOMA/DADT/etc, Clinton did the best he could on that issue at that time, in that political environment. Activists kept working, and eventually, we got to a much better place. But progress is progress and it happens one stepping stone at a time)

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 10:35 AM) Speaking of using stereotypes. Care to respond to any of my points? So far both Bernie supporters have just deflected.

QUOTE (Dam8610 @ Apr 18, 2018 -> 02:22 AM) whereas we protest and fight for social justice (and don't get it). What's the status of interracial and gay marriage in this country? What's the status of minority and female voting rights? What's the status of abortion rights? What's the status of the strikes for teacher pay in places like OK, WV, AZ, etc? You have a very skewed world-view my friend. Just because we're still fighting for social justice doesn't mean we haven't been winning those battles throughout history - including very recently. To say they don't matter to you is the height of white privilege. You are the prototypical Bernie Bro, and you are why a Bernie candidacy would be disastrous for the Democratic Party in 2020. It would hand Trump or Pence another term easily. But like you said, you'd rather have them in office if it means having a better chance of replacing them with a progressive afterwards, no matter how much damage they do to people who don't have the same privilege you do. Fortunately, you and I get to avoid most of the fallout from a Trump or a Presidency. Aren't we lucky? The difference is, I want to fight to fix that imbalance in the system, and you're fine with it because it doesn't hurt YOU, and you think it'll help you achieve your economic agenda ... at some point. That's pretty messed up, man.

You actually responded to none of my points. You created a straw man instead. Care to actually respond? Or are you sticking to the logical fallacy game?