|
Darkrenown posted:Maybe you made your point shittily then? A posted with a real point might try clarifying when misunderstood though, it's something to consider in the future. I'm sorry, did you genuinely think I was implying she would starve if she said no? Is that what you're claiming, here?
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Lemming posted:Thanks for completely missing the point, this will definitely be a very useful discussion to continue with you Thanks I just wanted to know what the standard is for Dems propping someone up it's fluff pieces from back at the beginning of the pandemic, thank you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:20
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I'm sorry, did you genuinely think I was implying she would starve if she said no? Is that what you're claiming, here? You seem to think she had to accept it or suffer negative consequences akin to you staving if you don't work your job rather than just saying no if she didn't want the position. What would the negative consequences be? Or perhaps... she wanted the position even if it wasn't her first choice?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:24
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Maybe you made your point shittily then? A posted with a real point might try clarifying when misunderstood though, it's something to consider in the future. it was hard to understand when you clipped out half of the context, yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:27
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:Thanks I just wanted to know what the standard is for Dems propping someone up it's fluff pieces from back at the beginning of the pandemic, thank you. Lemming posted:Now you can point out why this evidence is somehow unacceptable, and I can get more, and we can repeat this forever can't wait It's like I can see into the loving future, again, what evidence would you consider acceptable then, to avoid the situation where you dismiss anything I bring up out of hand? Just say what you would accept first and I'll find that, because the alternative is you just make poo poo up no matter what I link Darkrenown posted:You seem to think she had to accept it or suffer negative consequences akin to you staving if you don't work your job rather than just saying no if she didn't want the position. What would the negative consequences be? Or perhaps... she wanted the position even if it wasn't her first choice? I see the problem, you forgot how to read halfway through. Let me quote you the post again, and maybe you can get through the whole thing this time! Lemming posted:I don't want to work at my job, and yet here I am, because I also don't want to starve to death
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:29
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It's like I can see into the loving future, again, what evidence would you consider acceptable then, to avoid the situation where you dismiss anything I bring up out of hand? Just say what you would accept first and I'll find that, because the alternative is you just make poo poo up no matter what I link I haven't made up anything, I merely wanted a perspective on why people were getting so angry about and what the "Dems propping up Cuomo" meant it feels like some posters here live in some alternate reality where they just make declarations and everyone must agree without question so the same things keep getting repeated in the same circular arguments and I'm just trying to understand what's inside that bubble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:34
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:I haven't made up anything, I merely wanted a perspective on why people were getting so angry about and what the "Dems propping up Cuomo" meant it feels like some posters here live in some alternate reality where they just make declarations and everyone must agree without question so the same things keep getting repeated in the same circular arguments and I'm just trying to understand what's inside that bubble. Alright, if you're participating in this discussion in good faith, you'd have to admit that there would be some event or pattern of events that would prove that position, right? Like, there would be enough elected representatives praising him and saying he was doing a good job, and enough democratic voters would believe that for that to be true, right? Or are you saying that you think it's absolutely false, and nothing could change your mind? If there's some sufficient amount of proof, I'd like to know what it is so I could find it for you. If there's a standard you'd accept, you can just say what it is so you can't change your mind later. The point I was making is that if you don't stake out your position first, you will always be able to find a reason to dismiss something out of hand, like you did with your last post "Thanks I just wanted to know what the standard is for Dems propping someone up it's fluff pieces from back at the beginning of the pandemic, thank you." despite the fact that I included a direct quote from a Democratic house representative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:37
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I see the problem, you forgot how to read halfway through. Let me quote you the post again, and maybe you can get through the whole thing this time! So doing a slightly less than ideal job is basically the same as being forced to work on pain of death? I see. Sorry to have missed such and obvious point. Perhaps then: James Garfield posted:I think I will believe Marcia Fudge accepting the job over your interpretation of a one line quote in a random article, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:38
|
|
|
Darkrenown posted:So doing a slightly less than ideal job is basically the same as being forced to work on pain of death? I see. Sorry to have missed such and obvious point. Perhaps then: Is that really your takeaway from that post? Are you really that confused by my illustration that "want" has multiple meanings, and the disconnect is clearly that people were using different interpretations of what the word meant in that context, and that was likely a big part of the disagreement? And you're using this stupidity to avoid the core point, which I outlined very clearly in the post? I'll copy and paste it here again if it helps you, and I'll just keep the interesting part in so you can't pretend it's not there: Lemming posted:the discussion is that she was saying she didn't want to get pigeonholed there and then Biden pigeonholed her there
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:41
|
|
|
And yet she accepted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:47
|
|
|
Having a position in the WH is better than not for a politician. But that doesn't really change that they did exactly what she wrote didn't want to happen in plain words. You people argue like your in a loving court room.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:49
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:Having a position in the WH is better than not for a politician. But that doesn't really change that they did exactly what she wrote didn't want to happen in plain words. You people argue like your in a loving court room. Sorry we aren't all 100% into just being performatively angry all the time like you, and can actually look at facts without yelling at people. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 10:58
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Sorry we aren't all 100% into just being performatively angry all the time like you, and can actually look at facts without yelling at people. To be clear all this stupid bullshit was because someone made a good, well sourced post, full of actual facts and references Mat Cauthon posted:Fudge herself literally said that she was not interested in being tokenized and given HUD specifically as an empty gesture that reflects a fairly racist assumption that urban=Black, to say nothing of the fact that she has little to no expertise in housing policy and then like two days later Biden tapped her for HUD anyway. And the completely brain dead response was "uhhhh if she didn't WANT the job why did she TAKE it huh!!!!????????? HHUUUUHHHH??!?!?!?!" instead of addressing the loving point and it's like dealing with loving toddlers who don't want to eat their vegetables to bring the conversation back to the actual point I would much prefer yelling over stupid wrong tedious tantrums like the past few pages (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:00
|
|
|
E: NM, this is pointless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:02
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I much prefer yelling Evidently.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:03
|
|
|
Mat Cauthon posted:Fudge herself literally said that she was not interested in being tokenized and given HUD specifically as an empty gesture that reflects a fairly racist assumption that urban=Black, to say nothing of the fact that she has little to no expertise in housing policy and then like two days later Biden tapped her for HUD anyway. Rust Martialis posted:So Fudge wanted Agriculture, and I think Vilsack was a bad choice. I would have liked to see her get the job she clearly was deeply interested in. Rust Martialis posted:Sorry we aren't all 100% into just being performatively angry all the time like you, and can actually look at facts without yelling at people. At least I'm not into being performatively illiterate
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:15
|
|
And they're also mad at people who think that's... bizarre.
|
Clarste posted:For what it's worth, I remember Cuomo being praised early on in the pandemic and then criticized during the early BLM protests, and haven't heard much about him since then. Yeah, it happened during the first wave when New York was absolutely the center of covid deaths and he was the most prominent politician in the country saying how bad it was and giving daily updates while the feds were intercepting supply shipments and Trump was saying it was about to all go away. He got a lot of good words from a lot of people for just outwardly acting like a rational adult responding to a crisis when people were scared. I saw praise for him from people who normally loathed him and were disdainful of Democrats in general, if not really from the people who think "own the libs" is a goal above and beyond anything related to covid response of course. That shine faded somewhat over time though, between further reveals of what he'd hosed up, his response to BLM, and just the moment receding into memory. It's been months since I've seen anyone give him any deep praise, especially once he lost his stomach for tightening restrictions again as cases rose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:23
|
|
|
Lemming posted:At least I'm not into being performatively illiterate Clearly you are, since you bolded "what stopped her from turning it down" without answering the question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:33
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Clearly you are, since you bolded "what stopped her from turning it down" without answering the question. And we're back to the initial disagreement, again, because being tedious must be giving you some sort of insane high or something. None of this proves she wasn't willing to accept the job, because, like you so astutely pointed out, she did. The point was that she would have preferred a different outcome, for the reason she said and Mat elaborated on. The fact that she was willing to do the job in no way indicates that she thought it was a preferable option, and the entire discussion could have been about the real issue, which is how appropriate or reasonable Biden's appointments have been, but instead it's just been people making bad faith reading of posts so they can justify the appointment because she accepted it, even after she publicly explained what the problem was
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:41
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Sorry we aren't all 100% into just being performatively angry all the time like you, and can actually look at facts without yelling at people. Nothin performative about my anger, and those statements of hers about HUD being a token position for blacks is just as much a fact as her ultimately taking the job.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:54
|
|
|
Yeah, she wanted Agriculture and was politicking to get it. I think she would be a better choice than Vilsack, both on her own merit and Vilsack's prior record. Turns out Vilsack probably had it in the bag anyhow, due to his relationship with Biden. So she got offered a cabinet position anyhow, as your article says, first Democratic African American HUD nominee since 1979. Not, however, her first choice. What's left to discuss, exactly?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:56
|
|
|
Zedhe Khoja posted:Nothin performative about my anger, and those statements of hers about HUD being a token position for blacks is just as much a fact as her ultimately taking the job. The article points out no Democratic president has nominated a black HUD secretary since 1979, did I misread? Seems a bit odd to label it a token position if she'll be the first such token nominee in 42 years, but you just do your angry thing, guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 11:59
|
|
|
What, in your estimation, is the number one reason Marcia Fudge was chosen for HUD?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 12:02
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:The article points out no Democratic president has nominated a black HUD secretary since 1979, did I misread? “As this country becomes more and more diverse, we're going to have to stop looking at only certain agencies as those that people like me fit in,” she told Politico last month. “You know, it's always ‘we want to put the Black person in Labor or HUD.’” Let us know how it goes when you correct her
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 12:11
|
|
|
Lemming posted:“As this country becomes more and more diverse, we're going to have to stop looking at only certain agencies as those that people like me fit in,” she told Politico last month. “You know, it's always ‘we want to put the Black person in Labor or HUD.’” https://prospect.org/cabinet-watch/biden-selection-process-veering-off-course-fudge-hud/ "It’s actually been worse for Black policymakers than Fudge makes out. No Democrat has appointed a Black individual to run HUD since 1979 (Clinton and Obama did not have a Black HUD Secretary), and only one Black person in history has run the Department of Labor (Alexis Herman, under Clinton)." Rust Martialis fucked around with this message at 12:44 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 12:41
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:https://prospect.org/cabinet-watch/biden-selection-process-veering-off-course-fudge-hud/ I have no idea what point you think you're making, here. Do you think her opinion is fundamentally unreasonable somehow? Why isn't her perspective valid?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 12:49
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I have no idea what point you think you're making, here. Do you think her opinion is fundamentally unreasonable somehow? Why isn't her perspective valid? The article you posted says she's wrong. It's *your* source, dude. Fudge says blacks are only given token appointments: “You know, it's always ‘we want to put the Black person in Labor or HUD.’” yet review of the actual record shows that blacks don't regularly get appointed to Labor or HUD by Democrats. I mean there's been one black Labor Secretary *ever*, compared to two Secretaries of State and Attorneys General.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 13:02
|
|
|
Delthalaz posted:Didn’t see this here— cori bush will be on the house judiciary committee What does this committee tend to do, since all confirmation of judges is done in the Senate alone?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 13:20
|
|
|
Pick posted:Vilsack was the previous Secretary of Ag and knows it well, and is a close Biden ally. Much like it was odd to hear people make hay of recent pharma donations to Clyburn when he's known Biden for over 30 years (as well as other candidates he spent substantial time with in the House), to the extent that it warrants a side-eye, it's probably more appropriate to suspect cronyism than outside dollars. Yeah so Ive been aware of Vilsack since he was the governor of Iowa in the 90s. He's been a corporate lobbyist for Big Ag the few times he's not been in government, currently he's a lobbyist for a conglomerate of Big Dairy companies. His record as Secretary of Agriculture was controversial as he oversaw the shrinking of the number of small farmers in this country and he scuttled his tepid reform of grossly unfair big agricultural at the least hint of political pressurre. I'm glad you brought up the GIPSA debacle, it was emblematic of his governance, kowtowing to big business in an industry where monopolies are strangling small farmers and individuals quote:A full year-and-a-half after Tom Vilsack promised “a new rural economy,” neither the Department of Agriculture nor the Department of Justice had issued any new policy recommendations. No major antitrust cases were filed. No joint report was issued. Vilsack is unliked by critics of big ag quote:Critics said Vilsack failed to stand up to Big Ag and was disappointing on such issues as agricultural marketing rules, country-of-origin labels on meat, and support for small farmers. The Obama administration held a series of hearings on consolidation in the meat industry, but there was little follow-through. Reformers had hoped for a transformational leader at the USDA under Biden to elevate the importance of public nutrition programs, which account for two-thirds of the USDA budget, and to support small farmers and local marketing of food. But he's liked by Big Ag concerns. What's crazy us that he's the person that fell for the ACORN scam video and fired Shirly Sherrod, adding to a reputation of not caring about black farmers and farming. That recording of Biden berating civil rights leaders that came out recently is because they were advising him not to pick Vilsack, as Sherrod is a notable black figure in Georgia. Alas, Biden saw fit to ignore him instead. I don't know why Biden picked him. Maybe it's because he doesn't like being told what to do. Or it's because he likes familiar faces. Bit either way, in the tug of war between reformers and Big Ag, the latter def won this round. Their pick was either Vilsack or Heidi Heitkamp. Edit: Here's another article that goes into his record https://theintercept.com/2020/12/11/democrat-tom-vilsack-usda-secretary-farms/
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 13:40
|
|
. Not a favorite of mine.
|
John Wick of Dogs posted:What does this committee tend to do, since all confirmation of judges is done in the Senate alone? There's tons more stuff involved in the administration of justice than just appointments.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 13:43
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:
Ignoring the positions where any choice is going to be a purely horrible person like CIA, NSC, etc. I'm starting to feel like Vilsack is just the biggest "could have easily done better" pick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 13:46
|
|
|
Clarste posted:For what it's worth, I remember Cuomo being praised early on in the pandemic and then criticized during the early BLM protests, and haven't heard much about him since then. Interesting fact about Cuomo, his first executive action against covid was to immunize nursing homes from prosecution for giving ppl covid and cut Medicaid funds. Rust Martialis posted:Ignoring the positions where any choice is going to be a purely horrible person like CIA, NSC, etc. I'm starting to feel like Vilsack is just the biggest "could have easily done better" pick. It's blatant cronyism. But it also seems weirdly unconcerned with political realities, like Biden could have picked any person with significant Big Ag lobbying experience, but he had to pick the one that a constellation of black civil rights and farmers organization hate by name? It's really odd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 13:50
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:The article you posted says she's wrong. It's *your* source, dude. Why are y'all being obtuse about this? Regardless of historical accuracy Fudge's point was that there is a perception that the only cabinet positions that can be offered to Black politicians are things like Labor or HUD, because of racist stereotypes about the issues that Black people care about - jobs and/or (public) housing. She made this point explicitly because her career has been spent working on issues like expanding public assistance for both small farmers and needy families, policies that live under the umbrella of USDA, which is where she could've put her expertise to much better use, and preferred to go there rather than to "make history" by being the first Black female head of a department that she has little experience or interest in. Given that one of the entire rationales for a Biden presidency was a return to putting the smartest people to best use in the area of government where they are most qualified, why wasn't that logic applied in this case? It's silly to pretend that pointing out the problems with Biden's logic on this particular appointment is denying her agency as a person or that the representational precedent it sets somehow nullifies those issues. She's a politician, of course she's going to take the promotion and try to make the most of it, even if it's not ideal. She's not going to turn down an opportunity for more influence that might also be seen as a snub of the incoming administration where the guiding principle seems to be perceived loyalty and/or personal friendship with the man in charge. That'd be stupid to the level of career suicide. If we're really going to discuss this in earnest, it'd be great if one of y'all could answer two simple questions: 1. Why is sending Fudge to HUD an appropriate or even logical decision for the Biden administration to make, despite all evidence to the contrary? To put it more simply, why should we overlook the implications of Biden doing the exact thing that Fudge pointed out as a problem? 2. Broadly speaking, it seems that the defense of Biden's various minority cabinet nominees is that diversity is sufficient reason to overlook their records and expertise (or lack thereof). Can you clarify for me what the value is of having a "diverse" slate of nominees whose politics are mostly basically indistinguishable from their white counterparts? Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 14:22
|
|
|
Lemming posted:To be clear all this stupid bullshit was because someone made a good, well sourced post, full of actual facts and references this really is the most D&D bullshit, someone posted a sourced argument but it was against Uncle Joe so all they got was some weird creepy gaslighty 'WHY ARE YOU YELLING SO MUCH????' response, but telling those people to shut the gently caress up would be the real violation of 'discussion' (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 14:25
|
|
|
Social Studies 3rd Period posted:https://twitter.com/MarcusReports/status/1340053936569540610 This reminds me of that old Mainframe show: Reboot. Also I wonder if the establishment of the Space Force is a hint that aliens are real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 14:30
|
|
|
Fudge has spent years on various Agriculture committees and is a well known advocate for reforming the Dept of Agriculture. Welp better stick her in HUD instead why not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 14:32
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:It's blatant cronyism. But it also seems weirdly unconcerned with political realities, like Biden could have picked any person with significant Big Ag lobbying experience, but he had to pick the one that a constellation of black civil rights and farmers organization hate by name? It's really odd. That’s not to say other picks wouldn’t have done the same. It’s still one of the strangest and most disappointing picks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
"I won't be pidgeonholed! " I insist as I slowly resign my seat in the House to crawl into a pigeon hole when I could have just not.Mat Cauthon posted:Regardless of historical accuracy Fudge's point was that there is a perception that the only cabinet positions that can be offered to Black politicians are things like Labor or HUD, because of racist stereotypes about the issues that Black people care about - jobs and/or (public) housing. Beyond that, if goons are pissed about Vilsack, just be pissed about Vilsack, no need to try to concoct another issue to justify it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 14:49
|
|
|
So there's no point in having this conversation because none of you can answer the specific questions I asked or offer an affirmative argument beyond "well if she doesn't like it then why did she take it" even though that's the same rationale constantly bandied in defense of braindead liberal incrementalism at every turn - that people should just take whatever influential position they can get and work for better from there, even if it's not ideal. Weird! Also lol at this constant assertion that people discussing this are just looking for things to complain about like an entire cohort of progressive organizations didn't bring these same issues to Biden himself, who similarly had no defense beyond "you'll take what I give you and like it". Mat Cauthon fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Dec 19, 2020 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 14:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:09 |
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:Clearly you are, since you bolded "what stopped her from turning it down" without answering the question. Could you explain in detail how accepting the job anyway means she wasn't serious when she said "gee I hope they don't see a black woman and stick me in HUD". Like do you understand that a cabinet position could be beneficial for her to take yet it's still hosed up that it's all she was offered, or do you think that situation is physically impossible
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2020 15:00
|
|
