|
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/939159662422716416
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 02:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:there is empirically literally nothing that the current Democratic party could do to satisfy you They could have done the right thing from the start, which would have been demand that Franken resign once the first accusation and admittance occurred. That would and should have been the absolute baseline and the dems found a way to limbo underneath that bar, being the spineless cretins that they are. Saying zero tolerance to sexual harassment and assault would satisfy me, even if it means expunging the majority of your members, because it's the right thing to do. Trying to hem and haw and spin and politic your way out of sexual assault charges under the guise of "but but but the mean ol' Republicans are worse!" does not satisfy me and shouldn't satisfy anyone who would like an opposition party that's more than GOP Lite. So it could be that you're right, that there is nothing that the current democrat party could do to satisfy me, and that's not on me it's on them. Replace the current party with people worth a poo poo and maybe, just maybe, things might be better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:They could have done the right thing from the start, which would have been demand that Franken resign once the first accusation and admittance occurred. I may be wrong about this but didn’t the first accuser specifically say she didn’t want Franken to resign. I believe she just wanted an apology and Franken to recognize what he did was hosed up. She might have changed her mind after after his initial lame-rear end apology and would be more than entitled to do so. But the way I remember it at least at first she didn’t want him to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:I may be wrong about this but didn’t the first accuser specifically say she didn’t want Franken to resign. I believe she just wanted an apology and Franken to recognize what he did was hosed up. There was a caveat of "unless other women step forward" attached to her comments. Which, uh, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 04:05
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:No they don't. If they did they would have demanded Franken step down as soon as the first accusation and admittance of guilt occurred. Instead they tried to play politics until it became so glaringly obvious that Franken had to go that even current day Ray Charles could see it. Thank you for specifying which era of Ray Charles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 04:28
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:Thank you for specifying which era of Ray Charles. I almost went Stevie but Stevie can see
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 04:47
|
|
|
C. Everett Koop posted:No they don't. If they did they would have demanded Franken step down as soon as the first accusation and admittance of guilt occurred. Instead they tried to play politics until it became so glaringly obvious that Franken had to go that even current day Ray Charles could see it. Democrats as in voters not the politicians themselves - if the voters didn't care Franken wouldn't be stepping down.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
I'm seeing a bit different about Franken from different surroundings (black people), and it's actually very different from what I'm seeing from upper/middle class white people. The black community does have a long standing history of false accusations towards men from white women and are generally more skeptical, as well. Remember that historical basis, which would be different from the average context of a white man or woman. I'm getting a lot of near universal disdain for the Party in my local (Detroit) feeds based on their outward expressions of this issue in general. Conyers had some argument back and forth, but Franken's far lesser proven/admitted charges just killed that argument and has created a more unanimous type of sentiment. Essentially, the summary/gist of the majority of what I see and hear is: - Franken took a bad taste photo where he fake groped an co-entertainer, after that, got accused of grabbing people's waists too hard or touching a butt while taking a photo, which could have been an accident, and some going-for-kiss stuff - he says he didn't do anything but the photo that he knows of and asks that he should be investigated, and the Democratic Party *still* forces him out big and proud in front of the media. After all, people always believe the white women. - But our children and men are getting shot in the streets and they're taking a "we have to see both sides" approach, and Kaepernick and other NFL players are protesting, and there's no standing with us or our side all of a sudden because they aren't white women. This is an area that was turned off by Clinton the last time (which led to her losing Michigan), a big part being that they were sold that the Democratic Party doesn't care about black people - and jumping all over Conyers (who is black, and what really started inflaming the area) and Franken for allegations immediately but being relatively silent about black police injustice is only worsening the divide among these demographics. The Democratic Party may be making a move to attempt to strengthen the support of upper/middle class white women, but they are cementing other divides in the process that they don't even realize. Darko fucked around with this message at 06:56 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:45
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:Democrats as in voters not the politicians themselves - if the voters didn't care Franken wouldn't be stepping down. I'm not sure about how that's working; I took a look at Gillibrand's FB page today, and she has a ratio of like one post of support for the other 99 saying she is just throwing him under the bus for an attempt at political gain. Facebook comments aren't the best gauge, especially because of trolls and such, but the overwhelming sentiment seems to be that since Franken denied the charges, it should have been investigated instead of her and other dems trying to use him to showboat. It doesn't help that her FB has a "her moment has arrived" post in response to what happened - what genius thought that was a good idea? Link: https://www.facebook.com/KirstenGillibrand/
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:55
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:there is empirically literally nothing that the current Democratic party could do to satisfy you love that i'm your boogeyman even when i'm barely posting in the thread anymore
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 06:57
|
|
|
Darko posted:I'm not sure about how that's working; I took a look at Gillibrand's FB page today, and she has a ratio of like one post of support for the other 99 saying she is just throwing him under the bus for an attempt at political gain. FB comments for politicians are pretty bad; I follow Gilibrand (and a lot of larger names in the Democratic party) and I find that that's not uncommon for her or say Elizabeth Warren (though Warren's fans are louder than Gilibrand's in terms of trying to "drown out the haters"). But as a counterpoint, I follow Republicans when they represent me. I lived in Pennsylvania from like March 2015 - March 2017, so I was following Pat Toomey until I moved to Massachusetts. Toomey's FB page was perpetually 90%+ angry people yelling at him, it's just sort of the nature of the platform. Congress persons are generally not popular even among their constituents (like people don't like McConnel, they just vote for him against Dems), so I think their social media draws more critics than supporters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:FB comments for politicians are pretty bad; I follow Gilibrand (and a lot of larger names in the Democratic party) and I find that that's not uncommon for her or say Elizabeth Warren (though Warren's fans are louder than Gilibrand's in terms of trying to "drown out the haters"). But as a counterpoint, I follow Republicans when they represent me. I lived in Pennsylvania from like March 2015 - March 2017, so I was following Pat Toomey until I moved to Massachusetts. Toomey's FB page was perpetually 90%+ angry people yelling at him, it's just sort of the nature of the platform. Congress persons are generally not popular even among their constituents (like people don't like McConnel, they just vote for him against Dems), so I think their social media draws more critics than supporters. Typically, negative comments outweigh positive, and you assume a 75/25 split politically in this type of circumstance, but 95/5 is a bit larger than normal, especially when profile glancing shows they are actual constituents and of the party and not just trolls. That's why the response surprised me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 07:32
|
|
|
Darko posted:Typically, negative comments outweigh positive, and you assume a 75/25 split politically in this type of circumstance, but 95/5 is a bit larger than normal, especially when profile glancing shows they are actual constituents and of the party and not just trolls. That's why the response surprised me. That's probably fair. I think that there are certainly a chunk of Dems who are just as lovely as Republicans about "BUT THE SENATE SEATS!" and will excuse reprehensible behavior for a vote. If you add that to the normal level of vitriol, I think that probably gets us pretty close to where we need to be. My personal FB was pretty much filled with people being "about time" on the Franken stories, so I can say anecdotally that in far left and moderate left land people wanted this to happen, and would have preferred if they had got poo poo right out of the gate. I have a feeling that center left people are less concerned about sexual harassment and more concerned about senate seats, but I'm not particularly fond of neoliberals and establishment democrats to begin with, and I think the party is starting to realize that they need to be farther left on certain issues if they want voter turnout (see how this was handled vs Clinton where you had prominent second wave feminists jumping on the bandwagon to support him.) In general, I think most politicians have a personal set of convictions but are generally malleable on intra-party issues if that's where the votes are. So, in this case, Democrats might think what Franken did wasn't great, but personally they wouldn't have kicked him out. However, they realized that the leftist bloc of democratic voters are really turned off by sexism, so you're going to suppress turnout/lose people to a third party protest candidates if you pretend this isn't a problem. Then they did some political calculus and said well we have a democratic governor, so we get a democrat until after the 2018 mid terms, and right now Democrats are up 8 points on the generic ballot, plus if the appointed senator runs, they'll get a partial incumbent effect, so we'll likely retain the seat in the short term. OK I can now speak out against sexual assault. What I'm getting at, is that if they democrats didn't have a sense that going saying Franken should resign was going to improve their net approval from their base, they wouldn't have decided to call for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
Darko posted:I'm seeing a bit different about Franken from different surroundings (black people), and it's actually very different from what I'm seeing from upper/middle class white people. That's an interesting perspective to read and thanks for it, but I wanna say be careful drawing conclusions about the accusation response from it. It seems to me that a much better response to police injustice would have been enough to blunt the effect you're seeing. It's very much how the left views economics vs identity politics when it comes to the Democrats. It's not that identity politics is bad, but that identity politics instead of economic justice is bad, and precisely because of that very unnecessary instead of. There's a danger though in interpreting that feeling as the left wanting to do away with identity politics, same as interpreting the black community as not wanting to act on sexual misconduct allegations. Much like how the left realised their true place in the Democratic party after the primary, I'm guessing black people are realising that support for their issues stops roughly where real actions against the institutions of power become necessary. Force out a senator here or there... okay fine. Make actual changes to the enforcement arm of the elite power structure? Mmmmmm, no thank you. Futuresight fucked around with this message at 09:33 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Nobody's saying it because nobody believes his dick still works (among other reasons like it being pure speculation). His entire body runs entirely on spite, why wouldn't his dick do the same?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:His entire body runs entirely on spite, why wouldn't his dick do the same? The Daily Beast posted:The book, by former Texas Monthly and Newsweek reporter Harry Hurt III, described a harrowing scene. After a painful scalp reduction surgery to remove a bald spot, Donald Trump confronted his then-wife, who had previously used the same plastic surgeon. Checks out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 11:14
|
|
|
moller posted:Checks out. I wish he was castrated and left to bleed out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 11:16
|
|
|
Darko posted:I'm seeing a bit different about Franken from different surroundings (black people), and it's actually very different from what I'm seeing from upper/middle class white people. This a bit of a tangent, but it's really interesting to me because I 100% get the skepticism of white women accusing black men of assault as diversion (Emmett Till, anyone?). Thus, if Franken was black and his accusers were white, I could see why the black community might be skeptical. However, that's not the case because Franken is a straight, cis, het, white man. I'm kind of curious where black democratic voters nationally (which, to be fair, pretty much just means black people) stand on this as op[posed to those in Detroit - as Michiganders (that's the term, right?) are a bit loser to the current congressional creep ousting via Conyers. From the black social media accounts I follow (meaning those focusing specifically on issues of being black in America or in some cases being black and queer in America), I've actually seen a lot of accounts using this moment of exposing creeps that we're having to talk about ignoring issues of sexual assault specifically in regard to R Kelly (a lot of the arguments pointing towards his victims being black women formatted as in, "Hey R Kelly would be getting serious attention tight if he had assaulted white women, but we're still playing his music and not doing anything because his victims are black). So, while I've also been getting "the police are murdering black folk" and "Kaepernick is unemployed because the NFL blackballed him so they they can pander to racists" (and ownership is thus racist) - both of which I feel pretty loving confident are true, most of the takes on Franken I've seen carry the tone of "yep, one more scumbag" (say this article from the Root for example https://www.theroot.com/after-another-woman-claims-that-al-franken-forcibly-kis-1821059925).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 12:10
|
|
|
Futuresight posted:That's an interesting perspective to read and thanks for it, but I wanna say be careful drawing conclusions about the accusation response from it. It seems to me that a much better response to police injustice would have been enough to blunt the effect you're seeing. It's very much how the left views economics vs identity politics when it comes to the Democrats. It's not that identity politics is bad, but that identity politics instead of economic justice is bad, and precisely because of that very unnecessary instead of. There's a danger though in interpreting that feeling as the left wanting to do away with identity politics, same as interpreting the black community as not wanting to act on sexual misconduct allegations. Much like how the left realised their true place in the Democratic party after the primary, I'm guessing black people are realising that support for their issues stops roughly where real actions against the institutions of power become necessary. Force out a senator here or there... okay fine. Make actual changes to the enforcement arm of the elite power structure? Mmmmmm, no thank you. One thing is also identity politics also can be prone to fragmentation, especially when there is incongruity to responses (like police violence). It is why identity politics is more of a process rather than a cause. That said, I wonder how the Democratic coalition is going to work in the future when at this point the only thing uniting them is basically Trump and even that is barely enough. There is still plenty of sniping between the left and center, and there seems to be less unity over social issues especially the tough ones. I think Franken eventually fell less because his colleagues actually wanted to get rid of him because of what he did, but the acknowledgment that some type of sacrifice had to happen and Franken had become an embarrassment (I mean the guy made a comedy/political career going after the right, in part for their sexism...it really isn't a good look.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 12:25
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:One thing is also identity politics also can be prone to fragmentation, especially when there is incongruity to responses (like police violence). It is why identity politics is more of a process rather than a cause. Eh...they've got a lot more in common than the Republican coalition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 12:30
|
|
|
The problem is the Republican coalition, however hosed up, is somehow functional, with negativity as a great uniter that the establishment knows how to use. While the Democrats are weighed down by incompetence and greed and the establishment insisting on tactics that don't win elections because actually addressing real problems people are increasingly publicly mad about would upset their millionaire donors. You get 'America is already great', you get Ossoff, you get snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and rolling over to the Republicans in the name of imaginary 'process'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 13:13
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:The problem is the Republican coalition, however hosed up, is somehow functional, with negativity as a great uniter that the establishment knows how to use. While the Democrats are weighed down by incompetence and greed and the establishment insisting on tactics that don't win elections because actually addressing real problems people are increasingly publicly mad about would upset their millionaire donors. You get 'America is already great', you get Ossoff, you get snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and rolling over to the Republicans in the name of imaginary 'process'. IMO this is why the best outcome in 2018 is to go back to neither party having full control, that scared me more last year than the fact that it was the GOP (though they've since done a lot to change my opinion on that). Completely unrelated, I just noticed that Vilerat is still listed as a mod for D&D and it made me very 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 13:30
|
|
|
Inescapable Duck posted:The problem is the Republican coalition, however hosed up, is somehow functional, with negativity as a great uniter that the establishment knows how to use. While the Democrats are weighed down by incompetence and greed and the establishment insisting on tactics that don't win elections because actually addressing real problems people are increasingly publicly mad about would upset their millionaire donors. You get 'America is already great', you get Ossoff, you get snatching defeat from the jaws of victory and rolling over to the Republicans in the name of imaginary 'process'. To be fair i think prior to having a reckoning because of Hillary losing, many of us, myself included didnt really bother examine all that closely what was going on with the Dems and has been historically. Just the other night there was two talking heads on O'Donnell's show talking about how they're "process people" and thats what bothers them (both women) about Franken's ousting. My point being even if some of us are slow, i dont think reality has yet been recognized by punditland yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Here’s something I don’t understand. America is one of the most armed countries in the world. It’s even easier under Trump to get as many guns and as much ammo as you please. The right wingers and police are becoming increasingly militant in their methods and the normal political process isn’t working and being subjugated towards authoritarianism. The current tax bill fundamentally violates the reasons the USA even exists in the first place. It’s taxation without representation. The people weren’t properly represented when this bill was hurriedly passed on a cafe napkin. Didn’t the founding fathers use the 2nd ammendment as a way to provide for another revolution if the US ever begins a descent into tyranny? Why aren’t left wing groups arming themselves?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 18:30
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Just the other night there was two talking heads on O'Donnell's show talking about how they're "process people" and thats what bothers them (both women) about Franken's ousting. My point being even if some of us are slow, i dont think reality has yet been recognized by punditland yet. tbf msnbc's evening lineup has quickly worked itself into the being the voice of the dispossessed hillary wing still trying to uncover russian collusion at every turn Kraftwerk posted:Didn’t the founding fathers use the 2nd ammendment as a way to provide for another revolution if the US ever begins a descent into tyranny? Why aren’t left wing groups arming themselves? the 2nd amendment was written in response to populist tax revolts and slave rebellions to guarantee the state's authority to quell any future protest The Muppets On PCP fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 18:31
|
|
|
The Muppets On PCP posted:tbf msnbc's evening lineup has quickly worked itself into the being the voice of the dispossessed hillary wing still trying to uncover russian collusion at every turn Well, that and the people who wrote it didn't think they needed to maintain a standing army. The Constitution reads "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy" The navy was going to be a constant, but an army would only be raised in times of war. History showed that it was not realistic to rely solely on the militia to form an army.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Yeah, the 2nd amendment is literally there as a way of providing cheap cannon fodder to the states who wanted to minimize their defense expenses. The Federal government initially had only 1 brigade-sized unit under its control. Even the early navy was mostly just revenue cutters until the XYZ affair. Basically, the navy existed basically to protect shipping. Most of early American history is just the elites of different states trying to get the best economic and political for themselves (then it becomes the national then trans-national elite). Btw, the reliance of militias was a continued issue for the US military all the way through the 19th century. (Btw, the US was lucky it was usually fighting either distracted powers not interested in a full war across the Atlantic or states/peoples significantly weaker than it.) Ardennes fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Dec 9, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
yeah, under the hood the purpose of the second amendment was to make the Virginian model of national defense- "the richest landowner hands out weaponry to his appointed like most Jeffersonian ideals it was revealed as a miserable failure within his lifetime, unlike most Jeffersonian ideals it happened before he could even become President. mid-Adams administration, it was discovered the militia solution to the French sinking American ships and the British stealing American ships was two guys in a rowboat asking "uh could you please not"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 21:07
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/939585498779193345 very normal responses to this
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 21:49
|
|
|
Motto posted:https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/939585498779193345 I'd like to see the supers gone completely, but this is...nice, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 21:52
|
|
|
Motto posted:https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/939585498779193345 Wow. There is a ton of Bernie hate in that tweet thread. Democrats really are their own worst enemy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:05
|
|
|
Macrame_God posted:Wow. There is a ton of Bernie hate in that tweet thread. Democrats really are their own worst enemy. There’s some kind of contention that they’re trying to change the rules to help Bernie by leaving caucuses alone but punishing closed primaries or some such. I didn’t look too much into it but there you go. Imo we should get rid of caucuses and superdelegates and try and drive primary turnout as much as possible but I’m not super familiar with the finer points of primary rules.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Macrame_God posted:Wow. There is a ton of Bernie hate in that tweet thread. Democrats really are their own worst enemy. also a lot of people saying "gently caress you this is garbage because it doesn't go far enough"
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:There’s some kind of contention that they’re trying to change the rules to help Bernie by leaving caucuses alone but punishing closed primaries or some such. I didn’t look too much into it but there you go. Primary elections are run by the state, caucus elections are run by the party. Since caucuses are party controlled, their actual implementation varies greatly. There are some that are basically done like a regular election and others where they lock people into halls for hours. It may not be entirely possible to run primaries in states that are running caucuses, since that requires actual changes to state law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:30
|
|
|
Karnegal posted:So, in this case, Democrats might think what Franken did wasn't great, but personally they wouldn't have kicked him out. However, they realized that the leftist bloc of democratic voters are really turned off by sexism, so you're going to suppress turnout/lose people to a third party protest candidates if you pretend this isn't a problem. Then they did some political calculus and said well we have a democratic governor, so we get a democrat until after the 2018 mid terms, and right now Democrats are up 8 points on the generic ballot, plus if the appointed senator runs, they'll get a partial incumbent effect, so we'll likely retain the seat in the short term. OK I can now speak out against sexual assault. What I'm getting at, is that if they democrats didn't have a sense that going saying Franken should resign was going to improve their net approval from their base, they wouldn't have decided to call for it. Which can be summed up with: Karnegal posted:Democrats might think what Franken did wasn't great, but personally they wouldn't have kicked him out. Which really means: C. Everett Koop posted:Democrats Do Not Care about sexual assault.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
Motto posted:https://twitter.com/TomPerez/status/939585498779193345 Wow, a lot of people got their brains broke when their bad candidate lost
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
exploded mummy posted:Primary elections are run by the state, caucus elections are run by the party. Huh. That’s weird. Wouldn’t it be better if caucuses were all run like normal elections? That twitter thread is really funny to me though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 23:53
|
|
|
The Hawaii democratic “primary” was a mismanaged debacle. You voted on just a photocopied piece of paper with two boxes that you put an X in and the polls were open for all of like 2 hours. A bunch of polling places never even opened. Bernie won like 80 to 20 but probably would have won by more if they actually tried to have a real election.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
Motto posted:very normal responses to this I think we need to roll with the assumption that a fair fraction of responses like that are bots/trolls with no real intent other than fostering discord. The top response is from "I support Al Franken", etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 04:02 |
|
|
Stereotype posted:The Hawaii democratic “primary” was a mismanaged debacle. You voted on just a photocopied piece of paper with two boxes that you put an X in and the polls were open for all of like 2 hours. A bunch of polling places never even opened. Bernie won like 80 to 20 but probably would have won by more if they actually tried to have a real election. That seems kind of really bad. Hieronymous Alloy posted:I think we need to roll with the assumption that a fair fraction of responses like that are bots/trolls with no real intent other than fostering discord. The top response is from "I support Al Franken", etc. I mean that’s possible but it’s more likely that people who are internet savvy tend to belong to one of a handful of archetypal groups that have certain types of opinions and aren’t necessarily fully representative of the broader voting public.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2017 00:08
|
|