In recent news you may have heard about the proposed amendment 2093 to the Every Child Achieves Act. If enacted, it would have prohibited discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender orientation. Specifically, students could not have been excluded from participating in any federally-assisted programs based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation.
Sounds great right? Sadly it was voted against by the majority.
I found this website: http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/did_your_us_senator_just_vote_to_allow_lgbt_students_to_be_bullied_here_s_the_list
And learned that my Senator Thom Tillis of NC was one of many who voted against the bill. Stricken, and politically motivated for the first time on my life because of Bernie, I decided to write a letter to a politician for the first time in my life.
I kept it short, simple and respectful.
"Senator, why did you vote against protection of LGBT youth? No child deserves to be bullied."
Honestly, I didn't expect a reply. But I got one. And here it is:
Dear Mr. Bullock:
Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding Senator Franken's amendment 2093 to S. 1177, the Every Child Achieves Act (ECAA). I appreciate hearing from you.
As you are aware, Senator Franken (D-MN) introduced Amendment 2093 to the Every Child Achieves Act on July 7, 2015. If enacted Amendment 2093 would have prohibited discrimination in public schools based on sexual orientation or gender orientation. Specifically, students could not have been excluded from participating in any federally-assisted programs based on their actual or perceived sexual orientation. Ultimately, the amendment failed to reach the necessary votes for passage.
I had concerns with this amendment because it would have allowed the federal government to dictate local school gender identity policies when states, school boards, parents, and local communities know how to best prevent discrimination and harassment in public schools. I believe that no child should have to suffer bullying and harassment in school. The classroom should be a safe haven where students can focus on their studiesnot an environment of fear and intimidation.
The Senate passed S. 1177, which reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), on July 16, 2015 by a vote of 81 to 17. ECAA helps return responsibility for education standards and accountability measures to where it belongs -- the states. ECAA also repeals numerous federal mandates on standardized testing, allowing North Carolina and other states to test less frequently and customize testing strategies. I will continue to support efforts to ensure our children, especially low-income students and students who have special needs, receive the necessary resources and instruction they need to obtain a proper education.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. It is important to hear from citizens concerning issues that affect the state and the nation. Please do not hesitate to contact me again about other important issues.
I was surprised and somewhat honored that I got a reply at all. But his response was ridiculous. This was my reply today:
So you just didn't want federal involvement on something that could be handled on a state level because you believe the state is capable of handling that itself.
Thank you for the explanation. I didn't expect a thorough reply at all but I am grateful to have gotten one.
That said, this is akin to turning away a fire truck for a burning building simply because you don't like who owns the fire truck. Help is help. And all children need that protection state or federal.
I understand the republican mindset of believing in less federal control and more individual control, but consider the morality of those individuals who are in control. People like me and you. And you just voted to turn away a fire truck that could have helped put out that fire.
Voting against this amendment was counterproductive Senator. Next time, put that state vs the fed mentality behind you and think of the individual.
Thanks again for communicating with me. I do appreciate it.
He may be republican but he's still a senator. I wonder if my reasoning would ever help him see reason. I have hope. Many of you might call me naive or even insult me for being nice to a republican but, this is how the system works and if I can make my liberal, democratic voice heard then I shall do so.
Thanks for reading.
Spread these as far as they'll go!!! I made them quite some time ago honestly.
Text the word "Work" to 82623 to get started in Bernie's grassroots volunteer army! Wooo!!!
That would be a sight to see, the number one enemy of the 1% vs the poster child of the 1%.
I would pay to see that. wow.
WE WANT DEBATES!
Thank you for tuning in.
can't wait to watch Bernie's excellent performance.
Look at my post history for confirmation of this. I'm a true blue Bernie supporter and I will do whatever it takes!
But is this Netroots Nation controversy something to be worried about? I read that he handled it well, then I read that he seemed annoyed and was booed off the stage.
That said, is Netroots something that's well known? Is this going to do anything to Bernie in the long run?
I just wanna know. I'm a political noob, I've admitted this before. Bernie is the first politician to actually make me believe there's a chance. I'm new to all of this, I'm actually going to register to vote for the first time in my life for Bernie. Anyways, fill me in. I need knowledge. Thanks in advance.
a counterpoint thread.
This thread is provided as a fair counterpoint to this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/110712458
Here are some counterpoints from people that don't live in a "good news only for Hillary bubble"
1. "So you're pretending that bank tellers and janitors are donating to Clinton.
Ignoring that janitors don't actually work for Citibank. And that tellers don't exactly have a lot of pocket change to throw into a political campaign. And that the executive suite has plenty of maximum contributions to give."
2. "Hillary not only gets repeated donations from a large number of corporatebankers - - managers many of them, but she is paid high prices to give speeches to bankers. Some are just employees, some are top managers, some are giving to influence, some not. But the amount of money she receives from Wall Street firms, employees and management, is just too high.
Bankers run banks. Bankers are the banks.
As for the law firms, some are just private donations from employees of law firms who like her. But some law firms do a lot of lobbying, and some represent very wealthy corporate clients.
The fact is that her donor list shows who she appeals to, and it is very clear that she appeals to the oligarchs. Let's remember she doesn't just have that donor list. She also gives speeches to corporate groups for very large sums of money, she has PACs that donate to her, and she collects money for her foundation."
3. "In the end the fact remains, her top donor list, "private citizens" or not just HAPPENS to be all of those companies.... why? why not a bunch of unions that represent the people? its suspect, no matter how you spin it"
so yeah, its not debunked. just clarified. and it doesn't clean that stain, sorry.
It simply can't be denied where most of her money comes from. And it doesn't come from the people that speak for you and me. fact.
This is not an attack, it is a clarification. an educated voter is a good one. and if anyone could actually debunk the "meme" I would be grateful. If Hillary does win the presidency, I would like to feel better about it.
I don't want to live in a good news bubble myself either. we may all be afraid of criticizing our candidates but how else do you expect to make a good decision without some kind of scrutiny? don't you dare just accept what others tell you is an inevitability. if you want change to happen your way then scrutinize! Think for yourselves.
Update: I'm seeing the common retort that it's only 3.4% of financial institutions that ever gave that much to Hillary while 91% from many other organizations give more small donations (but not more money) than that. That sounds eerily parallel to 1% vs 99% to myself. it makes sense that the smaller amount of donators were able to give more than the larger amount.
Update: And even if the 3.4% number is in relation to her entire career and not just the 2016 campaign, there's no doubt that this smaller percentage of the wealthy is still the highest donor. I tried looking for figures specific to just this campaign, but the Hillary camp is only apt to speak of the 91% of donators and not that remaining 9%.
Profile InformationGender: Male
Hometown: North Carolina
Home country: USA
Member since: Sun May 31, 2015, 12:22 PM
Number of posts: 10,345
- 2017 (155)
- 2016 (308)
- 2015 (245)