General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumskcr
(15,315 posts)Well, there's some optics for them to actually worry about. All the handwringing about how Dems suck because they don't know how to message. But nothing wrong with attacking the first black president who is hugely popular for giving a speech when he's no longer in office. While at the same time dismissing the criticisms of those who think abortion is a top concern as divisive. That will really get everyone unified and behind the cause to get money out of politics!
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)and it goes far deeper than optics.
Cha
(297,123 posts)Zoonart
(11,847 posts)Young women, prepare. The mothers and grandmothers of the women's reproductive rights movement will be here to hold you up, but you will have to fight.
Roe v Wade IS GOING AWAY.
As soon as this summer, Trump, or Pence or even Ryan will appoint another judge to the SCOTUS and soon thereafter the court will take a case to abolish ROE and IT WILL BE GONE.
When we fought for reproductive rights in the 70sand the 80s, we were counting on the concept of "Settled law" (the SCOTUS rarely overturns decisions that have been on the books for 30 years) to carry the day and protect ROE, but settled law is no longer any protection. The court has become irrevocably politicized and ROE is the carrot that the GOP has long promised to deliver to it's base.
The problem is compounded by recent hints by the Democrats that they will have very little appetite to expend energy to reinstate a women's right to choose as law of the land and would rather pick up those voters that will be newly freed from voting against their best economic interests because they no longer feel bound to the GOP because of abortion.
This is going to be a FIGHT.
SecularMotion
(7,981 posts)They're doing the same to Progressivism.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)when I saw it invoked in truly appalling ways.
Cha
(297,123 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)our elected officials going on book tours?
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)costing over a half million dollars.
Kirkwood
(58 posts)BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Apparently "progressives" are mad at Obama making his own money.
How do you suppose an elected official gets $600k in cash?
Kirkwood
(58 posts)They used that money to buy a beach house. Are we also against spouses making money? Or, is that wrong too?
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/bernie-sanders-summer-house
And, not sure what Obama has to do with any of this.
George II
(67,782 posts)Kirkwood
(58 posts)That an elected official shouldn't be allowed to buy a second home when they get to retirement age?
Or, that the elected official's spouse can't contribute their own money to such a purpose?
Which part is supposed to make me angry?
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)The OP is about people getting angry at a black man earning $400K. I made a point about hypocrisy. You insisted that there was no hypocrisy since the Sanders merely sold a home and bought another. Only somehow $150k magically became $600k--hence the third home.
Since you're busy trying to insist that there is nothing wrong with owning three homes or magically materializing $350k in CASH, you have provided evidence for my point. Progressives so upset about Obama justify wealth held by others. So obviously the outrage has absolutely nothing to do with principle, as you have demonstrated so perfectly.
Thanks for your contribution.
Kirkwood
(58 posts)And why does it matter that where they got the money? Do you have any proof that they just didn't save for it?
The post I was responding to was about Bernie buying another home. My comments had NOTHING to do with Obama. But, thanks for trying to deflect.
My comment was to BainsBane, btw. I really wasn't interested in your opinion.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Do you have a source?
George II
(67,782 posts)According to town records in Bridgton, Maine, Jane OMeara Sanders gave up her ownership stake in her familys summer home in June 2015. Two of her brothers, Francis G. OMeara and Gerard J. OMeara, are listed as the current owners. All three had owned the property.
A Maine property transfer tax document obtained by VTDigger on Thursday says Sanders sold her stake in the property for $150,000.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Thank you!
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Response to Kirkwood (Reply #14)
Post removed
George II
(67,782 posts)Kirkwood
(58 posts)Exactly what I thought.
lapucelle
(18,240 posts)According to The Burlington Free Press (18 August 2016)
On another financial matter, Jane Sanders said she and her husband paid cash $575,000 for the four-bedroom summer house they recently bought in North Hero on the Lake Champlain shore. She said she sold her share of her familys long-time vacation home in Bridgton, Maine, to her brother for $150,000, added some money from her retirement account and from an advance her husband got on a book he is writing to come up with the money to buy the couples third home.
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/08/18/jane-sanders-defends-non-disclosure-vacation-home/88972168/
George II
(67,782 posts)uponit7771
(90,335 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,938 posts)Response to Nanjeanne (Reply #8)
Post removed
Kirkwood
(58 posts)They love women.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Abandoning a position supported by the overwhelming majority of voters is a winning strategy? That is a transparent and weak excuse, and it shows how desperate those who make it are to engineer the subjegation of a population they feel too weak to compete with.
Frankly, it's pathetic.
Kirkwood
(58 posts)Is that what you're going with, really? That they "abandoned" women's rights because of this one politician?
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)and we've seen people like you insisting worrying about something as trivial as equal rights loses elections, which is obvious bullshit.
Kirkwood
(58 posts)I never came close to saying that.
As a matter of fact, I'm the one that is trying to keep Republicans from getting elected. Others, not so much. They are fine with letting it happen.
lapucelle
(18,240 posts)concerning the relative importance of an issue. That's certainly not the same as abandoning women's rights.
Prioritizing a woman's human right to bodily autonomy as secondary is what many find troubling.
Kirkwood
(58 posts)I don't know of any Progressive that is prioritizing women's rights as secondary.
Can you show me where someone has done that?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Can you show me where someone has done that?
Endorsement of three anti-choice candidates is an explicit, accurate and obvious example. Stay on track. fella.
Kirkwood
(58 posts)Thanks.
lapucelle
(18,240 posts)Thanks.
lapucelle
(18,240 posts)During the campaign when asked about Trump's troubling assertion that women who have abortions should be punished, a leading progressive responded:
"Any stupid, absurd remark made by Donald Trump becomes the story of the week. Maybe, just maybe, we might want to have a serious discussion about the serious issues facing America."
The same leading progressive refused to endorse the Democratic candidate over the Republican in a Georgia special election explaining, "I don't know if he's a progressive."
Yet the same man knew enough about a candidate in the VA gubernatorial primary to endorse him, even though the candidate has a voting history antithetical to pro-choice principles and even though the candidate has refused to take a stance on the issue. We don't know where the candidate stands on abortion issues, yet a leading progressive feels comfortable endorsing him.
A leading progressive asked the DNC chair to add a stop during the Unity Tour so he could make an appearance at a rally for a mayoral candidate with a virulently anti-choice record. The leading progressive (who is very selective about who he endorses) knew enough about this candidate to support him and arrange for an appearance at his side. Either the leading progressive knew about the candidate's anti-choice history, and he didn't care, or he never bothered to check the candidate's stance because it didn't matter.
There is nothing wrong with prioritizing issues; it's the denial that's troubling.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-jabs-sanders-over-trump-abortion-controversy/
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/329559-sanders-i-dont-know-if-ossoff-is-progressive
http://www.ontheissues.org/VA/Tom_Perriello.htm
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/democrats-vs-trump/bernie-sanders-clarifies-support-jon-ossoff-after-dustup-n749491
moriah
(8,311 posts)But FFS, if a person is going to run as a Democrat but say they want Roe v Wade to be repealed... they aren't likely going to get the female voters needed to win unless they're in a VERY conservative district. Mayors races are about the only thing they should be running for unless they agree that their conscience, and other people's consciences, are each person's own.
I get personal conscience. I doubt that I could have an abortion at this stage in my life. I am not sure when "life" starts, or when a fetus might feel pain.
But I still can't countenance physically enslaving someone against their will to even save another human being's life, for even nine months. I can't countenance exposing women who don't want to bear children to the health risks that accompany pregnancy and childbirth, when an early 1st trimester abortion is safer for the woman.
Nanjeanne
(4,938 posts)But merci for sharing your opinion. I had forgotten it from the previous zillion posts.
And your use of a dictionary and thesaurus is astounding, phenomenal, mind-blowing. I rarely post so it's quite amazing and incredible that, according to your wisdom, I have staked out my position so clearly and that I've changed it now to justify something. I didn't know that.
I thought I simply stated one sentence - that I can be outraged at forced ultra sounds and also have concerns about Pres. Obama's speech to a Wall Street firm.
What would I do without you telling me? I'm still unsure - maybe even betwixt and between - and in a quandry - about how I did that. But I'm sure you will probably educate and enlighten and edify me. While it's always such a pleasure to read your astute and mindful posts - truly you don't need to exert yourself!
Mais merci tout de même
lapucelle
(18,240 posts)that first came into use around 2008-2009. It signifies phony outrage.
While "pout" has an uncertain origin, "outrage" came to French from Vulgar Latin during the Roman occupation and made its way to English following the Norman conquest.
You were probably unable to source it due to your typo.
Nanjeanne
(4,938 posts)I enjoyed that.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)" that I can be outraged at forced ultra sounds and also have concerns about Pres. Obama's speech to a Wall Street firm..."
No doubt, you'll maintain a fictional pretense of relevance between the two, regardless of your mind blowing around, or what you may or may not do without a post instructing you to.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)It's not up to us to question it.
nycbos
(6,034 posts)NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)I won't forgive you for trashing the best president in memory because he dared to speak to "Wall Street," two words that bring on a Pavlovian response from all of you. That "Wall Street" firm was Cantor Fitzgerald. This Cantor Fitzgerald: The Amazing And Heartbreaking Story Of The CEO Who Lived And Rebuilt His Firm After 9/11: Howard Lutnick But it's all the same to you, isn't it?
I'm a Liberal myself, and proud of that term. You can have "Progressive." As a woman and a Democrat, I'm done with all of you.
Thanks for this OP, Bains
100%
MountCleaners
(1,148 posts)It doesn't mean we hate "liberals" or are avoiding the term. It is a term that refers to an approach to politics that is more than 100 years old. It was about reform and taming the influence of big money on politics.
https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/teachinger/glossary/progressive-era.cfm
In other words, they were people who believed that the problems society faced (poverty, violence, greed, racism, class warfare) could best be addressed by providing good education, a safe environment, and an efficient workplace. Progressives lived mainly in the cities, were college educated, and believed that government could be a tool for change. Social reformers, like Jane Addams, and journalists, like Jacob Riis and Ida Tarbel, were powerful voices for progressivism. They concentrated on exposing the evils of corporate greed, combating fear of immigrants, and urging Americans to think hard about what democracy meant. Other local leaders encouraged Americans to register to vote, fight political corruption, and let the voting public decide how issues should best be addressed (the initiative, the referendum, and the recall).
There is nothing suspect about a 130-year-old political approach. Since the progressive movement has been strongly aligned with labor unions, to attack progressives because you think they are a threat to "liberals" smacks of McCarthyism.
I am not a Sanders supporter, and voted Clinton in the primary.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)particularly in city machines, like Tammany Hall. Bribes were common, but they were largely relatively small amounts of money rather than a means by which the wealthy and large corporations exerted influence. Historians have suggested that one of the unintended consequences of cleaning up the city machines is that government actually became less responsive to ordinary citizens.
Progressivism was a middle-class reform movement, and women were central to it. I don't believe those who use the term today get their inspiration from the likes of Jane Addams, the prohibitionists, or suffragettes. Their focus is overwhelmingly on what they call the working class, but they really mean the middle- and upper middle class.
The problem is contemporary progressives have used the term as a club. They use it to differentiate and exclude. Since you didn't vote for Sanders, you don't quality to them.
MountCleaners
(1,148 posts)Progressives fought industry in the form of stronger regulation. The pro-regulation tendency comes out of the progressive era. It may be true that some who use the term don't know its history, but progressive institutions like the Progressive Caucus (https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=74§iontree=2,74) and magazines like The Progressive (http://progressive.org/) and Mother Jones certainly do.
I've attended meetings of progressive groups, and the people there were very aware of this tradition. For example, I volunteered for Howard Dean, and remember this very clearly:
Back when he was a rising phenomenon in Iowa and New Hampshire, Howard Dean used to revel in reeling off the names of the various politicians to whom journalists had taken to comparing him: Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George McGovern, even Barry Goldwater. (I myself, writing in The New York Times Magazine , drew a parallel between Dr. Dean and Jerry Brown.) But as Dr. Dean's once-soaring campaign lost altitude over the dairy farms of Wisconsin during the last month, Dr. Dean took to invoking a more distant historical figure: Robert LaFollette , Wisconsin's iconic early 20th century governor and senator, whose name is synonymous with progressivism.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/politics/the-dean-legacy.html?_r=0
There is a lot more to progressivism than suffrage and Prohibition. I find it ridiculous when you say they don't support the working class when progressives are most noted for their support of unions.
Someone who says I "don't qualify" is an ignorant progressive. Random people on the internet don't constitute the "progressive movement." There is a Progressive Caucus that is mostly Democrats:
https://cpc-grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=71§iontree=2,71
Gee, they say that their goals are:
1. Fighting for Economic Justice and Security in the U.S. and Global Economies
» To uphold the right to universal access to affordable, high quality healthcare for all.
» To preserve guaranteed Social Security benefits for all Americans, protect private pensions, and require corporate accountability.
» To invest in America and create new jobs in the U.S. by building more affordable housing, re-building Americas schools and physical infrastructure, cleaning up our environment, and improving homeland security.
» To export more American products and not more American jobs and demand fair trade.
» To reaffirm freedom of association and enforce the right to organize.
» To ensure working families can live above the poverty line and with dignity by raising and indexing the minimum wage.
You're disparaging a well-networked movement that is many decades old by implying that it is for the middle-class. I come from a working-class background. All of my family were steelworkers and we have always admired progressive causes and politics because they speak directly to our experience.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)The Progressive Movement was a middle-class reform movement. That is a historical fact. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era The labor leaders at the time often were anarcho-syndicalists, not Progressives reformers. Progressive-era presidents used the power of the federal government against unions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era
Your citation from the current US House or magazine articles is not evidence for the turn of the 20th century.
As for the contemporary use of the term, you can thank the sanctimonious keyboard warriors for disparaging it. I am simply telling you how I have seen it used for the past couple of years, and it's become increasingly narrow since.
The tweet in the OP reflects the kind of hypocrisy and absurdity many of us have seen espoused under the guise of progressivism. That experience is widespread. It is not in any way meant to disparage the causes and activism that you outline.
Hekate
(90,633 posts)Vinca
(50,258 posts)Sorry. I'd like us to win an election again. Earn, Obama, earn.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)R B Garr
(16,950 posts)mainstream news now. I hear it more and more, Rush Limbaugh, Fox etc. taking what was said by the so-called progressives and using it to associate it with the "failing" Democrat party. I hear those words directly from a certain Senator who claims to speak for Democrats.
David__77
(23,369 posts)Who is imposing purity tests on whom?
JI7
(89,244 posts)Running things as if it's their own business for their own profit.
Read about ivanka promoting their business in philippines just as they invite duterte to the white house and all the questionable fake names in money raised for inauguration.
Where in the world would you get the idea that someone criticizing something means they are any more upset about it than another outrage? Utter rot.
JI7
(89,244 posts)White mass shooters .
theaocp
(4,235 posts)LexVegas
(6,052 posts)moriah
(8,311 posts)Nope, Obama had an easy ride as President. He must now go to only public access boat launches.
stonecutter357
(12,695 posts)Warpy
(111,237 posts)There are alt-right assholes and Russian trolls who run fine combs through everything Sanders, Warren, or anyone else who sticks his neck out say and when they find something, like a very mild "distasteful" remark about a high paid speech to a Wall Street company, they trumpet it all over Farcebook and other "social" media.
Then Sanders haters or Warren haters or just plain left haters trumpet it here. "OH MY GOD, S/HE SAID SOMETHING STUPID IN AN UNGUARDED MOMENT! S/HE IS OUR ENEMY! I TOLD YOU SO!"
This is not what progressives or leftists are saying or doing. This is what conservatives are saying and doing.
Stop falling for it. Please.
BainsBane
(53,029 posts)Last edited Mon May 1, 2017, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)
But the fact is several of them are on this website. We also see long-term members who persistently defend the comments.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)David__77
(23,369 posts)...
Kaye_NY
(71 posts)yet not the other.
David__77
(23,369 posts)...
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Our party leadership needs to reflect and make some changes, and adjust some attitudes.
sheshe2
(83,728 posts)Truth
Cha
(297,123 posts)Thank you!
Shandris
(3,447 posts)Well, at least it's a unified, coherent definition I suppose...
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)But whatever.
JHan
(10,173 posts)a private citizen.