Democratic (Party) Direction

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
A thread for discussing the Democrats' "message"/framing/etc.

This is the most important-seeming article I've read yet.

g@bbneb (gabbneb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:33 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Golden Globes follies 2006 (239 new answers)
Show Me the Love for SNL's "Live Duluth" sketch (105 new answers)
Democratic (Party) Direction (Unanswered)
Celebrity Big Brother 2006 - Thread Two - We all stand together? (165 new answers)
the mongrels don't want to play like that, they just want to talk to the sheepfuxors (254 new answers)
UK Watercooler Conversation 5: TOmorrow Sometimes Knows (322 new answers)

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

That party is fucking dead and it's never coming back in a way that will change anything much.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 14:59 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved whig party will change something

,,, Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

maybe your beloved dick will change something

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:07 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

it's a long article. i got three phone calls while i was reading it!

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:23 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Pretty interesting stuff in that article -- I feel like I need to read it again to really digest all of it. The value shift it describes sort of reminds me of South Park -- the whole nihilistic individualistic thing -- is that what "South Park Conservatives" is about?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:27 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

and yeah, a lot of it is pretty otm, but i fear for what america will be like if BOTH parties are simultaneously doing the "moral yardstick" shtick. yes it's apparent that americans want to hear about christianity and family values, but if the dems start playing that card in earnest, hoo boy.

i'm also not convinced about some of those salary numbers -- how is he defining "household"? and is he giving salaries in cities like new york and san francisco equal weight to ones in poor rural regions? how does income tax figure in? it's kinda vague.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:32 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

For a while I've had the idea that the Democratic Party could improve its future by putting more money and resources into local party organizations, campus recruiting, things that give people real human connections to the party. People are much more likely to listen to their neighbor than some internet ad.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:36 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

xpost

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year. The article gets it right that those people don't receive any government assistance, but that's just where the problem lies -- they end up too well off to get assistance but still unable to afford their debt and medical bills.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

2ndxpost

or hollywood actor

josh w (jbweb), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

thanks for the link, reading now. glad to see there's a direction not chosen by Lakoff, I think he has no clue.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The real problems with the Dems over-focus on economic policy are that 1) Policy is not very exciting to talk about and hard to understand, and 2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:38 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

2x post back to Josh: OTM

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah, I'm not sure about the salary numbers either -- plenty of households still struggle on an income of $60,000 a year.

the article suggested that the dividing line between affluent and poor was $50K per household, but for a married couple where both spouses work that only comes out to $25K per person, which isn't much once you figure in the high cost of living in america. plus, the article doesn't say who in these salary ranges pay for their own insurance and retirement funds.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:43 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

2) No one actually believes the Dems when they say they'll "create jobs."

read: "we won't send your existing jobs to india."

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:45 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Right, but won't they?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:47 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

it remains to be seen. let's get some dems in office and we'll find out.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:48 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Well, by not "send your existing jobs to India," I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that." I'd be very surprised if that actually happened under Democrats.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:50 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I assume you mean "pass some kind of law to prevent companies from doing that."

it could happen, provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests. and monkeys might fly etc.

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

Polysix Bad Battery (cprek), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:53 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

provided the elected politicians don't have any vested corporate interests

hahahahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hohohohoHOHOHOHOHOHOOH
heheheheheHEHEHEHEEEHEHEEEHEEHAHAHAHAHAHASNORTSNORTSNORT!

sorry

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

OK, this is really depressing! not re: Democrats, but the direction of the country as a whole.

dar1a g (daria g), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:54 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Yeah, it is. I already had this vague fear that Americans were becoming these kind of paranoid, fat, lonely, nihilistic internet addicts who didn't talk to their neighbors.

Er wait, am I talking about Americans, or ILXors?

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:57 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I wonder how much of this affluence tipping point is skewed due to debtwarp. Take away the credit cards and there are a lot less Republicans, maybe?

it is funny how many "affluent" "property owners" are up to their necks in mortgages and high-interest loans. it's like that commercial where the rich white suburban lawnmower dude says "i'm in debt up to my eyeballs!"

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 15:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The most important part of the article is where they reveal that by telling people that you're espousing Christian values because you're actually a Christian, they decide they agree with you, even if they they claim Christian faith as well but are only down with the first half of the Bible.

In the vast swaths of country between the megapolises there are people raising families of 5 on $57,000 a year and doing it relatively painlessly. And yeah, economic issues don't mean a goddamned thing to them.

TOMBOT, Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Plenty of families of five with $57,000 a year would still like a better health insurance system, you just can't win an election on that alone.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:03 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

hey, gabbneb, thanks for posting that article. it takes some time to think about....

patrick bateman (mickeygraft), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:04 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

"the American Environics team argued that the way to move voters on progressive issues is to sometimes set aside policies in favor of values"

Wow, what an incredible insight. Very novel!

"Environics found social values moving away from the authority end of the scale, with its emphasis on responsibility, duty, and tradition, to a more atomized, rage-filled outlook that values consumption, sexual permissiveness, and xenophobia. The trend was toward values in the individuality quadrant."

I've long thought that if the Democratic party would focus their message on individualism (and the resulting freedom it implies) that they might get somewhere.

Today’s average American “worker” is, in short, very much on his or her own -- too prosperous to be eligible for most government assistance programs and, because of job laws that date back three quarters of a century, unable to unionize. Such isolation and atomization have not led to a new wave of social solidarity and economic populism, however. Instead, these changes have bred resentment toward those who do have outside aid, whether from government or from unions, and an escalating ethos of every man for himself. Against that ethos, voters have increasingly flocked to politicians who recognize that the combination of relative affluence and relative isolation has created an opening for cultural appeals.

"Every man for himself" has been an American credo for hundreds of years. It's the essence of competition, of capitalism, of industry. There's a bridge somewhere between individualism and community--is the Democratic party forcing people over a bridge or seeking one?

American voters have taken shelter under the various wings of conservative traditionalism because there has been no one on the Democratic side in recent years to defend traditional, sensible middle-class values against the onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows.

Maybe they're taking shelter because they don't think it's an economy that's pitting man against man, it's shelter from the resulting culture war. What are "traditional, sensible middle-class values" anyway? The only hint we get from this article is that candidates should talk about religion and that will mitigate their stance on the death penalty (in Virginia.)

I am happy to see the wasteland that is the Democratic Party looking inward. The Republicans wouldn't dare stare into their own dark abyss.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:35 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs. We've had a Republican president and congress for the past 5 years, and what have we got? A "jobless recovery". The brilliant Republican plan for creating jobs is to give more money back to the wealthy in the form of tax cuts. They are still trying to sell the country on a supply-side economics platform. Look at Gov. Pataki's new budget in NY that came out this week. 24% of the tax cuts going to those who make over $200K per year. His rationale: it will create jobs and boost the economy. I think people need to start to question if that strategy really helps to create the kind of jobs this country needs. The one thing that we can be sure it does is make the rich even richer. I mean maybe if you're a BMW dealer or you sell Piaget watches, then these tax cuts are good for your business, but the average middle class type of jobs are probably not getting much of a boost.

As for the "average American household" that makes $60K a year, it would have been more informative to see the median income, because the average is skewed upwards by those at the top of the scale - ie., less than 50% of Americans make the "average" income.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:37 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Campus recruiting is definitely needed. I went to Rutgers, nicknamed "Kremlin on the Raritan" by some for its supposedly left-leanings, yet the Dems had almost no visibility on campus. Granted I went to school during the Nader years, when being a Democrat seemed like the lamest possible option. But the Dems need to pull talent at that level -- that's where Republicans end up with people like Rove.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:44 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Hmm, maybe "almost no visibility" is an exaggeration.

Abbadavid Berman (Hurting), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:45 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Re: Lakoff, despite the writer's early dismissal of him, I don't think the article suggests anything significantly different that what he's been talking about for years.

Lakoff's extensively written about the need for Democratic candidates and progressives in general to start explicitly talking about values. Also, for campaigns to work at creating more of an overall narrative for a candidate than just a laundry list of policies. It's only his work on the framing aspect that's received attention lately, not so much his work on defining the values systems that right/left folks tend to hold(e.g. "maintaining authority" vs "care & responsibility").

He's offered up Schwarzneggar's campaign as an example of a guy who ran entirely on narrative & perceived identity, and expressively refused to offer up any policy suggestions. Most folks don't have the time/energy/inclination to get into policy specifics, but if they trust your guy, they're trust him to take care of the details.

As he says,

"The pollsters didn’t understand it because they thought that people voted on the issues and on self-interest. Well, sometimes they do. But mostly they vote on their identity -- on persons that they trust to be like them, or to be like people they admire"

which connects to that aspirational bit that the article mentions.

Jim Wallis has talked about several of these same issues over the last year as well, especially with on the whole "onslaught of the new nihilistic, macho, libertarian lawlessness unleashed by an economy that pits every man against his fellows" bit.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:52 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Also, re: the poorer folks freaking out more about culture, I don't see the article acknowledging that it was a deliberate multi-year campaign on the part of conservertive politicos to get folks so het up about cultural issues that they didn't worry so much about the economics. It's a causal thing similar to Ethan's thread yesterday about outrage used for political gain.

Wallis has written about conversations his group has had with Frank Luntz and some other Repub pollsters who were quite open about their m.o. being to get voters so caught in such intense issues that they vote against their economic interest.

As other folks have pointed out, the Republicans have been better that bring the polls to them(gay marriage is the biggest thing you care about) vs the Democrats moving to where the polls now seem to be(well i guess we need to move rightward on gay marriage).

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 16:53 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

interesting stuff. i don't really believe a lot of it, but i believe it's what people say, which still makes it significant. (i.e. a lot of people allegedly alarmed by the culture are also watching "desperate housewives" and "E!") it's not so much that the moral center is disgusted by the out-of-control culture, it's that a lot of people feel guilty about the very things in the culture that they participate in. massive moral cognitive dissonance, which the republicans exploit by convincing people that it's all someone else's fault (hollywood liberals, big-city elitists, gays gays gays). i'm not sure how the democrats can effectively tap into the same thing, and i sort of hate the idea that they need to, but maybe they don't have a choice.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:01 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

It's amazing to me that people still think that Republicans are better at creating jobs.

That's the thing, innit? If you build up an entire apparatus to both promote & reinforce certain narratives, people will believe them even if they have no basis in fact. George W. Bush is steadfast & strong, Kerry's a weak-willed flip-flopper, Republicans are all about a smaller government, supply-side economics works, etc

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:06 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

massive moral cognitive dissonance

oh fuck yeah this is a major bit of it, too. But since when did we start promoting self-reflection and critical thought?

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:07 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

hard to promote self-reflection and critical thought when you're fighting hand to hand and desperate for power.

don weiner (don weiner), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:39 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:47 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

very true. and I think that the number of folks who have to struggle is increasing.

xpost

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:49 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

The Democrats are fucked - a weak, demoralized, decentralized party with no unifying political will, no narrative, and no reliable bases of power. The only thing keeping them around is the fact that the two-party system is so heavily institutionalized and entrenched. They're coasting on past glories and slowly squandering away all of their political resources so that they can become the eternally emasculated "opposition" party.

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

Please God, take Hilary quietly so she won't fuck up the party with a presidential campaign. WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE EVER.

elmo, patron saint of nausea (allocryptic), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:54 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas. the democrats at the moment seem disconnected from whatever constitutes their base, and even suspicious of it. it seems very top-down.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:55 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Well, is John Edwards' "Robert Kennedyization" for real? Making corporate / lobbyist theft vs. poverty / economic struggle a moral issur for Church People hasn't worked so far.

Huh? He's only been going this stuff in the press for about two years. Second, there are plenty of other folks who have made the connection, but have gotten shit for coverage(not fitting in with "religious = rightwing conservative" media narrative?), even when they got arrested for it on the Capitol steps.


For real despair, look at how Sen. Rodham Clinton is pandering to libs and righties on alternate days. "Congress run like a plantation," "I'd bomb Iran," etc.

DLC-candidate-in-centrist-message shocker

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:56 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

i think something that's still missing from a lot of this is an understanding that the current republican base was built from the ground up. it wasn't just a matter of coming up with the right code words or whatever, it was a long and systematic takeover of the party by various interest groups with overlapping or at least complementary agendas.

very much otm. The change will come from the outside.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 17:58 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:00 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

Clinton is the worst. I'd stay home before I'd vote for her. Jonathan Tasini, who is pretty great on a lot of issues, and is a pretty good speaker as well, is running against her in the primaries. I really hope he has an impact.

Re the direction of the party, past actions indicate the party will be quicker to line up behind someone with Clinton's politics as opposed to Tasini's. I'm not too hopeful when it comes to the future of the Dems.

TRG (TRG), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:02 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters, and I agree that Democrats are going to keep losing national elections until they figure out how to participate in the values conversation. This doesn't necessarily mean they have to move to the right on cultural issues - I think it does mean they need to convince voters that they are people with integrity and mainstream values. Monica-gate did a lot of damage. People like to savor the voyeuristic souffles cooked up in Hollywood, but they won't buy Hollywood people preaching to them about values. I think the Dems need to take an antagonistic stance towards some of the amoral trends in our society. Evincing a sense of decency and morality is not the same thing as being conservative - but as long as the voters think it is, the Dems are going to have a hard time winning elections

do you think it's necessary for dems to use the religious right's language ("morals" and "values")? would a less-loaded word like "ethics" skew too liberal?

stockholm cindy (winter version) (Jody Beth Rosen), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:03 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I think values do matter to a lot of voters

my question is, when do they not? unless a voter has completely descended into some cynical nihilism, of course.

i mean, yeah, "values" has come to signify a very specific set of values, which just goes to further show that democratic types do need to start talking about theirs.

kingfish kuribo's shoe (kingfish 2.0), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:05 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

haha "what's the difference between morals, and ethics..."

Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 19 January 2006 18:06 (thirteen years ago) Permalink

I'm saying on occasion I RT ppl I don't broadly agree with if and when they make a valid point.

resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 25 January 2019 02:32 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Idk who Ben Norton is and I don't claim to know who pays RK

resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 25 January 2019 02:35 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Here's Ilhan Omar expressing the exact same position as Ro btw just for fun

A US backed coup in Venezuela is not a solution to the dire issues they face. Trump's efforts to install a far right opposition will only incite violence and further destabilize the region. We must support Mexico, Uruguay & the Vatican's efforts to facilitate a peaceful dialogue.

— Ilhan Omar (@IlhanMN) January 25, 2019

resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 25 January 2019 02:51 (three weeks ago) Permalink

You sure you don’t want to just say that you don’t care who pays her? It’s not like no one has looked into it.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 25 January 2019 02:53 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Tbh I don't really care since I stopped following her when she came out as a Tulsi stan

resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 25 January 2019 02:55 (three weeks ago) Permalink

chris hayes is bad?

k3vin k., Friday, 25 January 2019 03:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

That's purely me being petty, by TV newstalker standards I'm sure he's great

resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 25 January 2019 03:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink

what the hell's going on here

Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 25 January 2019 03:18 (three weeks ago) Permalink

appearing on msnbc is a mark of impurity, real progressive cred is earned by reporting via carrier pigeon / smoke signal, never saying the word "Russia"

Rhine Jive Click Bait (Hadrian VIII), Friday, 25 January 2019 03:19 (three weeks ago) Permalink

he actually is pretty great

Rhine Jive Click Bait (Hadrian VIII), Friday, 25 January 2019 03:20 (three weeks ago) Permalink

his good take ratio is p decent for a guy allowed on tv

A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Friday, 25 January 2019 03:22 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I don't watch/have MSNBC, it's his Twitter posturing that irks me. It was nice when he put Wallace Shawn on though

Anyway not really the thread for it, Soto sorry I insulted yr TV bf

resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 25 January 2019 03:26 (three weeks ago) Permalink

His Twitter comments are often sharper than his show, and his retweets are often of economic news. He gets that the Russia stuff gives his show ballast, but he uses the ballast to discuss the carceral state, tax policy, etc.

Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 25 January 2019 03:29 (three weeks ago) Permalink

He has the best MSNBC show for sure. He gave more coverage to stuff like the WV teachers strike last year than anyone.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Friday, 25 January 2019 03:39 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I also think Khanna's rebranding is weird and suspicious tbh

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Friday, 25 January 2019 04:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

ack, I'd thought Ro was one of the good ones and spidey senses hadn't been tingling, but Hoos is trustworthy on these things

anvil, Friday, 25 January 2019 04:56 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Btw it's not disqualifying or whatever but it is kinda weird to me that Warren used to be a republican even if she wisened up at the young age of (looks it up) uhh...45

resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 25 January 2019 05:07 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Otoh this sounds pretty dope

Don’t call Warren’s tax a 2% tax. Over 10 years it would wipe out 18% of wealth over $50M and over 50 years it would wipe out 64%. Over a billion dollars it would wipe out 27% over 10 years and 82% (!) over 50. And that’s not taking into account the returns on these assets.

— Patrick Ruffini (@PatrickRuffini) January 25, 2019

resident hack (Simon H.), Friday, 25 January 2019 05:13 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yes!

Dan S, Friday, 25 January 2019 05:15 (three weeks ago) Permalink

in 50 years you'll be dead and a separate 100% estate tax will take care of the rest. see ya suckers

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Friday, 25 January 2019 09:38 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Patrick Ruffini has a shot of Bush II's Cabinet as a wallpaper.

Your sweetie-pie-coo-coo I love ya (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Friday, 25 January 2019 11:48 (three weeks ago) Permalink

If we can't have a robust estate tax on the plutocracy (so that democracy might be saved), I'll take a wealth tax. Florida of all states has one.

innocence adjacent (Sanpaku), Thursday, 31 January 2019 02:20 (two weeks ago) Permalink

This from Stacey Abrams is really good:

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2019-02-01/stacey-abrams-response-to-francis-fukuyama-identity-politics-article

Frederik B, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 13:19 (one week ago) Permalink

Xxp lol Rania Khalek is not an “assadist” what liberal dumpster did you fish that ragged talking point out of?

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 15:04 (one week ago) Permalink

If she is an assadist than I’m a Baathist for opposing the Iraq war.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 15:05 (one week ago) Permalink

Eh, it's not the same at all, lol.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:19 (one week ago) Permalink

It’s Rania’s defining characteristic

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:25 (one week ago) Permalink

Ok, then I'm an Assadist for opposing intervention in Syria.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:28 (one week ago) Permalink

Rania Khalek (RK): I am not a fan of the Syrian government. I’m not out here to support the Syrian government.

What I oppose is the dismantling of the Syrian state which is what several powers have done in the past six years. I oppose that because we’ve seen what it looks like in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and I don’t want to see that happen to Syria.

I also oppose the current alternative to the Syrian government which is a patchwork of Salafi Jihadist groups that want to impose strict religious law, kill minorities, and stone women for adultery. That’s unacceptable to me, and to many people including my relatives who live in Syria who happen to be minorities.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:29 (one week ago) Permalink

It's not the same at all, because the war in Syria didn't begin as foreign intervention, but as a popular uprising. Goes without saying, but she's lying about the opposition being just islamists. She wants Assad to stay in place while the state is reformed, which won't happen, anf she must know that. Anyone saying tt just wants Assad to stay, which sounds pretty much like being an Assadist.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 16:41 (one week ago) Permalink

https://www.google.com/amp/s/pulsemedia.org/2017/08/22/did-a-kremlin-pilgrimage-cause-alternet-bloggers-damascene-conversion/amp/

“She soon delivered a scoop: according to a “UN report”, she claimed, U.S.-EU sanctions were “crippling aid work during the largest humanitarian emergency since World War II”. This was in stark contrast to the UN’s public position, which blamed the Assad regime for blocking 80% of the aid entering Syria. The story was sensational—and, as it turned out, also false. There was no such UN report. The document Khalek cited was an opinion piece written by a member of the British Bankers’ Association, which describes itself as “the voice of banking.”

“After her return from Damascus, as writing and public speaking opportunities started drying up, Khalek became less circumspect in her Assadism, at one point going so far as to promote a video produced by the pro-Assad and far-right activist Vanessa Beeley, who, in direct violation of the Geneva conventions, featured that testimony of a White Helmet extracted under torture. (The video that has been pointedly denounced by Amnesty International.)”

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 17:14 (one week ago) Permalink

Fred, it's mostly Islamists. Islamists are the strongest and most organized of the rebel groups in any case, and would undoubtedly dominate any replacement regime, just like has happened in every single one of these fucking situations.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 19:10 (one week ago) Permalink

Um, no?

Frederik B, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 19:15 (one week ago) Permalink

That's neither what she said, nor is it true. That's actually rather impressive.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 19:19 (one week ago) Permalink

Um, no?

― Frederik B, Wednesday, February 6, 2019 11:15 AM (four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

what?

( ͡☉ ͜ʖ ͡☉) (jim in vancouver), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 19:20 (one week ago) Permalink

Goes without saying, but she's lying about the opposition being just islamists.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, February 6, 2019 4:41 PM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

there's several dynamics at play here, right? there's 'the syrian opposition,' meaning the political opposition to assad that seeks a liberal democratic alternative to autocracy. then there are the kurds, of course, distinct from the political opposition and distinct from the islamist rebels. then there are 'the rebels' who are, whether your like it or not, primarily saudi-backed islamists. 'the syrian opposition,' the sectors of civil society that were the main players in the aborted popular revolution of 2011-12, have retreated from street protest out of concern for their safety in the midst of a civil war, and the prevailing mentality is 'first we save syria from collapse, then we reject this government.' that's a fact that you can verify talking to leaders of syrian civil society. that means that today the active fighters against the government are, if not entirely, certainly primarily islamist.

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 20:44 (one week ago) Permalink

Yeah, the situation is complicated, but the fact that she's lying is not.

Frederik B, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 20:52 (one week ago) Permalink

from a recent column, this person is sold on harris:

Which minute differences exist in the candidates’ various “Medicare for all” plans. I doubt that is how Democratic voters are thinking. Their immediate problem is Donald Trump, and the culture of shamelessness he has instigated.

To beat Trump, I suspect Democrats will want unity. They won’t want somebody who essentially runs against the Democratic establishment (Bernie Sanders); they’ll want somebody who embodies it (Harris). They’ll want somebody who seems able to pulverize Trump in a debate (Harris).

It will be interesting to see how primary voters wrestle with these questions: Is America too racist and sexist right now to elect a black woman? Or would nominating a black woman in fact be the perfect rebuttal to Trump?

But the larger issue may be temperament and toughness. Harris’s fearless, cut-the-crap rhetorical style will probably serve her well in this pugilistic political moment.

k3vin k., Wednesday, 6 February 2019 20:58 (one week ago) Permalink

Yeah, the situation is complicated, but the fact that she's lying is not.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, February 6, 2019 8:52 PM (twelve minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

no, fred, what's simple is you

BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Wednesday, 6 February 2019 21:05 (one week ago) Permalink

just a simple Danish arms dealer

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 22:49 (one week ago) Permalink

fred doesn't know what he's talking about, news at 11

(The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 23:02 (one week ago) Permalink

Fwiw I don’t find khalek’s analysis to be particularly strong but her concerns strike me as very valid and reasonable. And the accusations that she’s a paid propagandist are exceedingly thin.

longtime caller, first time listener (man alive), Wednesday, 6 February 2019 23:31 (one week ago) Permalink

If someone writes pieces for RT about how the Assad govt somehow wasn’t behind this latest gas attack, that’s the natural conclusion. It always turns out that Assad was responsible for the gas attack.

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Thursday, 7 February 2019 00:26 (one week ago) Permalink

Appreciate @SpeakerPelosi‘s strong statement of support. The U.S. stands united in its support of Venezuelan Interim President Juan Guaidó, and of the peaceful, constitutional transition to democracy in Venezuela. https://t.co/slwxPTHwoZ

— John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton) February 10, 2019

bhad bundy (Simon H.), Sunday, 10 February 2019 06:14 (five days ago) Permalink

I don’t think she’s exactly saying Mr Bolton has my blessing to go regime change crazy over there but w/e

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Sunday, 10 February 2019 06:45 (five days ago) Permalink

I eagerly await her denouncement of Mr. Bolton's endorsement

bhad bundy (Simon H.), Sunday, 10 February 2019 06:54 (five days ago) Permalink

(yeah, yeah, he didn't call for explicit regime change via US force in that particular statement, but we all know what that fucker wants)

bhad bundy (Simon H.), Sunday, 10 February 2019 06:59 (five days ago) Permalink

She’ll tweet whoa hey that’s not what I meant

Nerdstrom Poindexter, Sunday, 10 February 2019 07:23 (five days ago) Permalink

Isn't our normal opinion that you shouldn't wrestle with pigs? Pelosi wrote a good statement, fuck Bolton

Frederik B, Sunday, 10 February 2019 10:24 (five days ago) Permalink

a very American coup

a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 10 February 2019 14:07 (five days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.