2017 Democratic Thread

[Reddy]

1. Gorsuch

2. McMaster/Mattis, stabilization of national defense team and prevention of WWIII, return to traditional NATO/anti-Russian posture

3. Rollback of some but not all regulations (37 executive orders so far)

4. This is a big one for traditional Republicans, military (albeit largely symbolic) action against Syria after Obama bluffed but didn't pull the trigger

5. Belief instilled in quite a few members of the middle class that Trump cares more about protecting American jobs than "globalists" Obama/Clinton, this is one of the areas where he's above 50% in public opinion polls/surveys

6. Standing up to "illegal immigrants/sanctuary cities" and labeling radical Islamic terrorism, which has been reinforced by recent events in Europe, the French elections, Brexit, etc.

 

That's what I would expect to hear.

 

 

Sixty-seven percent of respondents said the Democratic Party was out of touch, as did 62% for the Republican Party. Less than a third said either party was "in touch."

 

Trump fared slightly better than the parties, with 58% saying he was out of touch.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/23/politics/don...poll/index.html

 

In what world have we seen stabilization and "prevention" of WWIII??? As far as I've seen we've accelerated towards it.

 

And everything you listed are things he's SAID - not things he's actually DONE. He hasn't legislated a damn thing. The only accomplishment, as far as I've seen, is Gorsuch.

[caulfield12]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/23/politics/ber...ello/index.html

 

Reddy will enjoy this one, Sanders taking heat for supporting Democratic anti-abortion mayoral candidate in Omaha.

 

There are definitely two sides to this one, and both are easy to see but hard to reconcile as a Democrat.

[bmags]

Sometimes Tex speaks like Dumbledore, I would not be surprised if he is framing it as success of American institutions to endure holding back someone like Trump.

[Reddy]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/23/politics/ber...ello/index.html

 

Reddy will enjoy this one, Sanders taking heat for supporting Democratic anti-abortion mayoral candidate in Omaha.

 

There are definitely two sides to this one, and both are easy to see but hard to reconcile as a Democrat.

This is old news. At least 4 days ago news. And it coincided with his diss on Ossoff. It's part of why I was so pissed about the latter situation. Fortunately, enough people like me tweeted the hell out of it that it forced him to change his view on Ossoff (at least publicly). As for Mello, I think Bernie has always been this way. He's always prioritized his economic policies ahead of everything else, including human/women's rights, and I'm glad people are seeing that now.

[GoSox05]

This is old news. At least 4 days ago news. And it coincided with his diss on Ossoff. It's part of why I was so pissed about the latter situation. Fortunately, enough people like me tweeted the hell out of it that it forced him to change his view on Ossoff (at least publicly). As for Mello, I think Bernie has always been this way. He's always prioritized his economic policies ahead of everything else, including human/women's rights, and I'm glad people are seeing that now.

 

 

Bernie Sanders is against human rights. He also hates women.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Reddy]

Bernie Sanders is against human rights. He also hates women.

Yes, because saying someone prioritizes one thing over another, that's equivalent to saying he's AGAINST the latter.

 

GMAFB. You're not that dense.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Reddy

[GoSox05]

Yes, because saying someone prioritizes one thing over another, that's equivalent to saying he's AGAINST the latter.

 

GMAFB. You're not that dense.

 

Maybe, but even saying he "prioritizes" economic issues over women's rights is ridiculous. You also say that as if these two issues are somehow totally separate from each other and are not deeply related.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Maybe, but even saying he "prioritizes" economic issues over women's rights is ridiculous. You also say that as if these two issues are somehow totally separate from each other and are not deeply related.

 

Sanders can't have more than one priority.

[Reddy]

Maybe, but even saying he "prioritizes" economic issues over women's rights is ridiculous. You also say that as if these two issues are somehow totally separate from each other and are not deeply related.

So if he's willing to overlook an anti-choice stance in a fellow "progressive" because they agree on economic policy, that doesn't mean he clearly prioritizes one over the other?

 

Explain.

[Reddy]

Although honestly, having a conversation about Bernie Sanders and his problematic history on women's rights issues with a bunch of straight dudes probably isn't the best use of my time.

[southsider2k5]

Although honestly, having a conversation about Bernie Sanders and his problematic history on women's rights issues with a bunch of straight dudes probably isn't the best use of my time.

 

lol, weren't you just complaining that people wouldn't listen to you because of who you were and your background? Nice work there.

[Reddy]

lol, weren't you just complaining that people wouldn't listen to you because of who you were and your background? Nice work there.

Straight men just don't exactly tend to have a very good frame of reference regarding women's rights issues. I finally came face to face with the abortion issue the other night for the first time (wasn't me, but a very good female friend), and it was much, much different to deal with it in reality than it is hypothetically on internet message boards. And since none of us have that context, I don't think it does much good discussing it. I think we should take our cues from and listen to women regarding this issue, and a lot of women have problems with Bernie's history on this topic.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Reddy

[GoSox05]

Although honestly, having a conversation about Bernie Sanders and his problematic history on women's rights issues with a bunch of straight dudes probably isn't the best use of my time.

 

Lmao, his problematic history on women's rights issues.

 

 

Poll: Bernie Sanders country’s most popular active politician

 

He's polling better with women than men.

Edited April 24, 2017 by GoSox05

[southsider2k5]

Throughout these months of the Resistance, I've run into this crazy phenomenon known as the raging progressive. A person who is so wrapped up in their victimhood and the righteousness of their fight, that they've made all straight white men the enemy - even those of us equally as progressive as they. I've found that there's literally no way to have a debate with these people regarding ANYTHING without it devolving into an angry attack at my white male privilege and my "fragility" - even when we're discussing something unrelated to politics.

 

My question is.... how the f*** do you talk with these people? How do I debate or offer a tactical suggestion (ie: regarding the Resistance and how we fight rampant misogyny or bigotry)? What I don't understand is that for any of these issues to find success and progress, they'll NEED white men in their coalition! It's basic math! And this mindset is exactly why we have Trump in the first place, so why on EARTH are these people still so dead set against learning from their mistakes?

 

But really this post is about how I can better approach these conversations where I ALREADY feel like I'm walking on eggshells, but no matter how much I defer and validate their positions, the second I voice my opinion I'm told to "sit down" because of my white male-ness... which... you know... I totally chose (hypocrisy much?). My approach isn't working... I need to find something that does.

 

HALP.

 

 

Although honestly, having a conversation about Bernie Sanders and his problematic history on women's rights issues with a bunch of straight dudes probably isn't the best use of my time.

 

I mean come on dude.

[Reddy]

I mean come on dude.

I literally see nothing inconsistent there. I'm not calling you the enemy. I'm saying none of us have the frame of reference to adequately discuss this in an informed and unbiased way.

[Reddy]

Lmao, his problematic history on women's rights issues.

 

 

Poll: Bernie Sanders country’s most popular active politician

 

He's polling better with women than men.

 

Yes. In the context of Trump. But when he was actually RUNNING against a woman, he polled significantly worse. Context matters my friend.

[Reddy]

And for the record, my views on women's rights aren't as important as women's views on women's rights. The issue I was speaking about in my question, SS, was about dealing with a marginalized person who makes a factually incorrect comment or argument. There's actually a difference between these two concepts. I promise.

[GoSox05]

Yes. In the context of Trump. But when he was actually RUNNING against a woman, he polled significantly worse. Context matters my friend.

 

Possibly. I would assume he did better with younger women and Clinton did better with older women.

 

 

 

I would also like a few examples of Sanders long problematic history on women's rights. I don't want just a "he supported Mello".

[southsider2k5]

And for the record, my views on women's rights aren't as important as women's views on women's rights. The issue I was speaking about in my question, SS, was about dealing with a marginalized person who makes a factually incorrect comment or argument. There's actually a difference between these two concepts. I promise.

 

Say what now? I mean there is no other way to read this other than flat out hypocrisy.

 

But really this post is about how I can better approach these conversations where I ALREADY feel like I'm walking on eggshells, but no matter how much I defer and validate their positions, the second I voice my opinion I'm told to "sit down" because of my white male-ness... which... you know... I totally chose (hypocrisy much?). My approach isn't working... I need to find something that does.

[Reddy]

Say what now? I mean there is no other way to read this other than flat out hypocrisy.

What do you find hypocritical? That I think my views on women's rights are less important than women's views on women's rights, yet still feel frustrated when I'm shut down for trying to contribute my perspective/learn from theirs?

 

I don't think that's hypocritical. I think that's just called life. Both can exist simultaneously. The world isn't black or white. I just think that on this message board, no one's really trying to learn anything (besides greg, hilariously).

[Reddy]

Possibly. I would assume he did better with younger women and Clinton did better with older women.

 

 

 

I would also like a few examples of Sanders long problematic history on women's rights. I don't want just a "he supported Mello".

Rape fantasy essays, his treatment of HRC in the primaries, his failure to condemn misogynist Bernie Bros, calling HRC "unqualified" (if she wasn't qualified, what woman could possibly be qualified?), and now his willingness to overlook someone's anti-choice stance. It's a pattern.

 

An interesting look at Bernie's race for Governor in '86 as well (splitting the diff between the '72 essays and now): Boston Globe

 

Planned Parenthood's analysis: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blo...e-womens-health

[GoSox05]

Rape fantasy essays, his treatment of HRC in the primaries, his failure to condemn misogynist Bernie Bros, calling HRC "unqualified" (if she wasn't qualified, what woman could possibly be qualified?), and now his willingness to overlook someone's anti-choice stance. It's a pattern.

 

An interesting look at Bernie's race for Governor in '86 as well (splitting the diff between the '72 essays and now): Boston Globe

 

Planned Parenthood's analysis: https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/blo...e-womens-health

 

 

Ok. So the one thing you actually post about policies he's voted on is from Planned Parenthood. Who are giving him a 100%. Got it.

 

 

Other stuff is BS. He treated HRC fine, you know he even backed her when the primary was over. There is no such thing as "Bernie Bros". Also, the "rape fantasy letter" was a essay he wrote on gender roles in 1972. Just ridiculous.

[Reddy]

Ok. So the one thing you actually post about policies he's voted on is from Planned Parenthood. Who are giving him a 100%. Got it.

 

 

Other stuff is BS. He treated HRC fine, you know he even backed her when the primary was over. There is no such thing as "Bernie Bros". Also, the "rape fantasy letter" was a essay he wrote on gender roles in 1972. Just ridiculous.

Right. That he votes for things like that, but he rarely fights hard for or actually sponsors legislation on women's rights.

 

You have to look at Bernie through the lens of Vermont, which is the most liberal state in America. Would he have the same record elsewhere? I'm doubtful, but obviously that's just an opinion and everyone's welcome to their own.

[Reddy]

Ok. So the one thing you actually post about policies he's voted on is from Planned Parenthood. Who are giving him a 100%. Got it.

 

 

Other stuff is BS. He treated HRC fine, you know he even backed her when the primary was over. There is no such thing as "Bernie Bros". Also, the "rape fantasy letter" was a essay he wrote on gender roles in 1972. Just ridiculous.

^ this is why this discussion is usually pointless to have with straight white guys. You discredit women's views on Sanders as "ridiculous". That actually proves my point.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Reddy

[southsider2k5]

What do you find hypocritical? That I think my views on women's rights are less important than women's views on women's rights, yet still feel frustrated when I'm shut down for trying to contribute my perspective/learn from theirs?

 

I don't think that's hypocritical. I think that's just called life. Both can exist simultaneously. The world isn't black or white. I just think that on this message board, no one's really trying to learn anything (besides greg, hilariously).

 

You are quite honestly invalidating anyone's opinion you don't agree with as being inferior because of whatever arbitrary standards you can invent, yet in the same breath you threw a raging fit because someone quite literally did the exact same thing to you. I supposed you can rationalize it however to let you sleep at night, but it is the same sort of irrational rage that the far right also employs to both keep their people in line, and to invalidate anyone they don't agree with, so they don't actually have to offer a truly convincing argument, or engage in a conversation for the hearts and minds of people they don't agree with. The radicals on to the wings of both parties have become masters at brainwashing people into not even bothering with the arguments anymore. Just invalidate the messenger and you never have to worry about the message. If you can treat them as subhuman, or least below you, there is never a need to deal with them directly. How convenient. This invalidation of people into nice clean categories (oops white male, opinion = invalid) is the most black and white categorization possible for any issue out there.

 

I am pretty firmly convinced it is that inability for people to be heard that pushes them to candidates who seem to "understand" and "get what I am going through", like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. They have done an amazing job at connecting with the marginalized left and right respectively in this country. They have built power bases off of nothing other than "he gets me".