Are We Recreating Daily Kos?
It saddens me to see some of the comments and essays here by people trashing candidates other than their preferred choice. In my view, it makes us little better than the bottom-dwellers slithering about on Daily Kos.
For example, recent comments regarding Pete Buttigieg claim that he is a drug dealing scumbag white boy. Other comments regarding Kamala Harris (a sociopath that does not care whether or not she lies) and Amy Klobuchar (Klobuchar is Kambama's twin) and Elizabeth Warren (a bomb dropping regime change neoliberalcon) are just as repulsive.
Are we not true Bern Believers unless we denigrate and libel opposing Democratic candidates?
Do we really want to be like Daily Kos, with purity tests and roving attack gangs and a pronouncement that anyone not supporting the preferred candidates (seemingly Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard) can leave?
I hope not. Repeating nasty memes and mischaracterizations of candidates we don't support isn't something I like seeing on this site. If our preferred candidate so lacks merit that we can't support them without bashing others, why are we supporting them? In the immortal words of c99 member Alligator Ed:
This tolerance for non-uniform opinions, coupled with mutual respect is what makes c99 great. We couldn't do this without JtC and Joe but here we are. Disagree if one must, but do so with rationality. If a decision is based upon emotion, say so. Alligator Ed
Comments
there's a huge difference
we might slam candidates but we're not banning anyone for saying such or for replying in opposition. We're not restricting what people say.
I have no idea if scumbag white boy Pete Buttigieg is a drug dealer so I won't say that. But I really dislike him for his sleazy, smarmy way of misrepresenting what other candidates say. I mean, upfront, I have reasons to dislike all the Dem candidates and I have no qualms letting others know about it. Perhaps I have good reasons! And maybe expressing them emphatically will ...don't want to say "help" because my help isn't needed...will confirm for others that they're right to mistrust these candidates.
sometimes if you see some disaster coming you've got to speak out.
This
Criticizing people for their politics is something that can never be stifled. As CTSM stated, it just deifies them. Went through that over there where Obama nor Hillary did anything wrong. Ever. But if someone does make an accusation against a candidate they should back it up with facts.
I stopped with the silly name calling like Warbama and Kamillary just cuz I think it's just as silly when people say Moscow Mitch and Leningrad Lindsay. But I am not giving up ByeDone. Mayo Pete? Yeah that's okay...
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Totally agree!!! Thank you.
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
I was going right to the comment section
to say what you have just said, but I doubt if I could have said it as eloquently as yourself.
Well done is better than well said-Ben Franklin
It's still early.
The hammer didn't fall until March of election year over at TOP. Of course I don't really expect the same thing to happen here as long as JtC is around.
that will never happen here
simply won't. The thought processes of the people here are very different from those at that place. The people there are fall in line, authoritarian lovers. We are anything but.
There's a Bob Dylan line that I identify with, from "To Ramona"
it might be debatable if he thinks that's good or bad! But I think that's a good thing and I think most of us (if not all) believe it. I look at people as equals. My opinion isn't better than anyone else's. It might be possible that I've mulled it over more than someone else....or maybe not. Maybe I can learn something from somebody else. Obviously, I know I can. Maybe I'll say something intelligent that sparks something in someone. You never can tell!
There's AOC, for example. I know enough people here don't like her. I do. So? I've read peoples' points against her. I'm unmoved by them. As they are, I'm sure, by me. They can insult her if they like but it's not personal against me. And that's an interesting distinction. Pretty much the worst I've seen in discussions is "oh, you're really wrong". When it gets uncivil we have JtC to let us know we need to cool it. But that's uncivil towards each other, not when we're uncivil to politicians.
I wish we were sitting around, having coffee discussing this. A back and forth in real time would be rewarding.
It's not so much
an issue of banning as making this place truly welcome to dissenting, minority points of view from the left in the election contest. It's fine and dandy that Bernie seems to have the support of 90% of the political posters here. But out there among the Great Unwashed, he doesn't get such near-unanimous backing and unlike here it's not a near-consensus opinion among that large group that Liz is a warmongering, sellout corporatist who can't be trusted.
It would be refreshing to hear from voices backing Liz, or Julian Castro, Yang or even Buttigieg. Would make for a more interesting board.
Exactly!
Good comment.
That's quite a fallacy.
Very much like the fallacy that the Clintons sold us in the nineties. The idea seems to be that we're in the minority, so we shouldn't say what we think because it might offend people. Then those people might not 1)vote for our candidates, 2)support our political party, 3)support our site, 4)think we're nice people. That might result in anything from a Republican winning the presidency to the end of the world via nuclear war.
But out there among the Great Unwashed, [INSERT progressive of your choice] doesn't get such near-unanimous backing and unlike here it's not a near-consensus opinion among that large group that Liz is a warmongering, sellout corporatist who can't be trusted.
Then there's the moral fallacy going on here, which seems to be a distortion of the old liberal value of tolerance, or the old American value of letting each person have his or her own opinion. But tolerance ceases to be a viable moral value when it erases the difference between allowing people to express their opinion and holding back from offending people to make them feel comfortable. The "large group" that disagrees with us about Warren and Bernie has not been prevented from coming here and expressing themselves. They simply haven't convinced most of the people who post here that their position is the right one.
Furthermore, the "large group" that disagrees with us about Warren has all of the corporate media except Fox, and all the Democratic-leaning and liberal indie media as well, in addition to the Democratic party itself, if they want a place where most people won't challenge their beliefs most of the time.
But the point of the site is not to make the site attractive to people who don't like the political views of the people here. The point of the site is to make the site a venue for the political expression of the people here, regardless of who likes it or doesn't. That's why the ownership of this site does not police the political beliefs and expression of its members. Unlike Daily Kos.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
You missed workamile's point by a mile.
Nice rant, though.
nice rant?
Doesn't sound like a very thoughtful reply to a contrasting opinion in an essay bemoaning the lack of thoughtful replies to contrasting opinions.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
I respect your opinion. n/t
nope
to say CStMS is "ranting" comes across as disrespectful,imo.
If you disagree with what she said, please make your case.
thanks.
yep
workamile's point was summarized in their 2nd paragraph: "It would be refreshing to hear from voices backing Liz, or Julian Castro, Yang or even Buttigieg. Would make for a more interesting board..
You're in the majority. You're supporting one candidate even though it's very early in the process. That's okay. What's not is that you may think there's nothing wrong with calling Buttigieg a drug dealer or Warren a warmonger or Castro a sellout to Hispanics. workamile is stating, with considerable merit, that that sort of behavior makes this site less welcoming and less interesting.
Music didn't address that at all in her comment.
Because I didn't want to say something pretty obvious.
If you feel like you want more supporters of Warren, Castro, Yang, Buttigieg, etc., then invite people you know with those views to the site. They'll either like it or they won't.
If they don't like it, and you still want a board that has a greater variety of opinion--though I think measuring diversity of opinion through which candidate a person supports is a little limiting--there are plenty of boards like that out there, and you don't have to subject yourself to Daily Kos' bullying nonsense to find such a space. I did a Google search, and I found this quite quickly:
https://bpcaucus.com/links/democratic-and-progressive-websites/
It's a list of Democratic and progressive websites, with links.
I'm sure there are more.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Okay. n/t
Just to clarify:
The people who have the right to determine what this site is are the following:
1) Those who initially founded it, because we had the idea and did the work. The work we did set up the site to be what it is today; therefore we had a sizable part in determining what it currently is.
2) In particular, founding member JtC, because he owns the site and does the work currently. This makes him the primary determinant of what this site is.
3) Those who are members of the site who are regular participants here (if you only comment once a year, or something, your words are likely to have less weight.)
You and wokkamile fall into the third category, but so do I and everybody else who regularly posts here. If there's disagreement, not everybody can get what they want. Therefore, whoever makes the most convincing argument generally gets his or her way.
It's not perfect. But it's better than living under censorship. And though better forms of organization exist, where decisions are made more methodically, I question whether people are willing to put the additional energy and time required to create and maintain them. More importantly, I also question whether those better forms can be maintained at all in an exclusively digital medium.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
have no problem with this one
Made your point without being insulting.
My objection to the first post was use of "rant".
thanks.
Of course...
there's no way of knowing whether or not I meant it in the British vernacular sense -- "a rousing good time".
You said it better than I could.
the main point I was going to make was:
This place runs on user created content. I’ve seen essays here pro-HRC and Trump, for Koresh sake! There’s no one stopping anyone from posting that content. But it’s not the responsibility of the folks here to create some artificial, all viewpoints are equal, “balance” either. As far as I can tell, all viewpoints are welcome, but don’t expect to be free from criticism either.
Personally, I more than welcome more information and discussion about the other candidates, but I’ve yet to hear anything to make me change my mind. about them.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
I detect a straw
man. I didn't contend the site "prevented" dissenters from posting -- I said the narrow range of views/preferences situation here can create a conformist atmosphere that is not very conducive to welcoming unapologetic proponents of other candidates (with the exception of the small constituencies of Tulsi, my pick, and Yang) and generally stymies an overall robust discussion of all the good options. And I noted the rather hostile reception I've received when straying from the reservation on Liz, who is not even my preferred candidate.
@wokkamile
I didn't contend the site "prevented" dissenters from posting --
No. Otherwise we would be Daily Kos.
I said the narrow range of views/preferences situation here can create a conformist atmosphere
that is not very conducive to welcoming unapologetic proponents of other candidates
In other words, the atmosphere would discourage dissenters from posting. Unless there's another meaning for "not very conducive to welcoming." Maybe the dissenters would show up and post, but would feel unhappy and uncomfortable.
(with the exception of the small constituencies of Tulsi, my pick, and Yang)
Meaning that Bernie, Tulsi and Yang are OK, but nobody else is? I'd imagine there's a fair amount of disagreement about that on the site. Especially considering that the site also has a fair number of members who don't support anybody running under the Democratic party banner, including some who think our electoral system is corrupt beyond help. Many of those members talk a lot less than they used to, and some of them feel this is a Democratic Party website.
None of that inspired me to think we were recreating Daily Kos here, however. Many site members have insisted, sometimes strenuously, that voting and party politics are the way forward. I disagree. I haven't asked those people to write fewer essays, tone down their rhetoric, or do anything else to make the environment more welcoming to people like me who think partisanship is a load of crap. I just wrote some essays that I hoped would be welcoming to people who think partisanship is a load of crap.
and generally stymies an overall robust discussion of all the good options.
As John Lennon once said, "That's sort of the question, then, isn't it?" People have differing views of what "all the good options" are.
As for the discussion, it seems pretty robust to me. That, like the amount of chili peppers you put in the sauce, is a matter of taste and will vary from person to person.
I will say that your desire for a more robust discussion sits oddly with the overall theme of the essay, which looks like a plea for more civility on the part of people who support Bernie and Tulsi, more sensitivity on their part toward those who support somebody else. But not, interestingly, toward people who support no one, or who think the entire electoral process is a farce. And probably not toward Trump supporters either. I believe we did have one here, once upon a time.
Oddly enough, I agree that calling politicians names is lame, inessential, childish crap and probably should be done only sparingly. Kind of like yelling "FUCK!" is forgivable if you just slammed a finger in the car door, but not so understandable if you regularly shout it while looking for the best bunch of grapes at the grocery store, calling Kamala "Kambama" or making some orange or tiny hands joke about Trump is OK, I think, in small amounts, situationally used. Regularly calling politicians names cheapens the discourse. Therefore, it would probably be better if we did less of it.
However, I unequivocally disagree with the idea that Bernie and Tulsi supporters need to tone it down so that Biden, Warren, Klobuchar, Harris, and Buttigieg supporters won't be made uncomfortable. There are four multinational media corporations, a major political party, and numerous indie media sites all making those people comfortable every day. Besides, it's not the business of this site to make anybody comfortable, beyond the basic demands of civility toward site users. Insulting a politician is not being uncivil to site users. It's an essential part of being in a republic. Sooner or later, in a republic, you're going to come across a politician who does and believes things you despise. Being able to insult them in conversation is one of the signs that we're in a republic rather than an authoritarian regime.
As for the words "purity test," they are always flung at progressive Democrats when they're unwilling to march to the centrist drum. They're just as untrue now as they usually are, being applied generally to anybody who holds to a standard rather than accepting whatever political representation they're given. Actually, if anything, it's the people running the Democratic party who administer purity tests, though it's hard to see that because they constantly change the definition of purity.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Wish I'd said that.
Somehow the use of slam names has grated on me for awhile, and I try to use at least a proper last name. Not so much out of respect for them but for us as mature debaters, essayists, commenters.
One thing about everyone having a champion: there are some candidates or politicians, who seem to me to be of less value than others or have less of the policies and plans that would make a stronger nation. One of the things I've seen for example in news media is the idea of equivalency, the big one being Climate Collapse. One hundred earth scientists saying we're in the soup; the one guy in the corner saying it ain't so. Where are the cameras pointing?
We can rank; we can come to consensus or not, but not all candidates have a similar value to the republic. I'm a big fan of grids with various policies listed and checks for each candidate or yes/no. Apples to apples comparisons.
As to slamming each other in comment threads: I've seen rather frequently, commenters coming in to say hey let's tone it down, rather than wait for JtC. Civility is in all our job descriptions. Keep it up.
Great discussion.
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
I agree with this:
We can rank; we can come to consensus or not, but not all candidates have a similar value to the republic.
Mainly because (I think) we're in agreement on a related issue. You brought up climate change. Not all issues are created equal. Issues that are likely to result in the fall of human civilization and the death of most of the life on the planet are kind of in their own category. Interestingly, they are not a priority for most of the candidates most of the time. And that does sort the candidates out in an interesting way.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Most certainly.
A society grows great when old men plant trees in whose shade they know they shall never sit. Allegedly Greek, but more possibly fairly modern quote.
Consider helping by donating using the button in the upper left hand corner. Thank you.
Interesting point.
That works both ways. My criticism as lodged in this essay is that name calling and false labeling (Mayor Pete's a drug dealer? Really?) should be beneath us. Some people take umbrage at that criticism.
I will agree with you on that point
Calling someone a drug dealer with no basis isn’t exactly on the up and up. There’s legit difference of opinion and there’s baseless accusations.
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
Fine.
Name calling is unnecessary and pointless.
Calling politicians names doesn't make us DK, though.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
It must be challenging finding a place to advocate
For a candidate that the media has deemed acceptable. Almost like being the head cheerleader at the National Cheerleading Championships and wandering instead into the math camp tent.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Hee hee. :-)
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
That Warren has the media behind her says a lot to me
reposting this in case it was missed. But so valid.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Feel free to become one of those voices then.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Heh --you must
have missed the 40-50 comments I've made here pushing back against all the Liz Hate.
On non-political topics, I occasionally offer my views. On never-or-rarely discussed other topics that one poster suggested an interest in discussing with the view towards broadening the range of topics here, I might well be interested in discussing those too.
Perhaps EL meant essays as opposed to comments?
Contributing content is open to anyone who would like to broaden the field of discussion. I try and do that with my Open Threads which are usually non-political. Perhaps you've missed them? You can also begin a discussion on the topics that interest you as well.
There is always Music amongst the trees in the Garden, but our hearts must be very quiet to hear it. ~ Minnie Aumonier
Well, I've spoken positively about warren
But I can't say I trust her. I don't like taking the dark money or even open corporate money. She was reluctant to come to MfA and her chosen finance mechanism is IMHO a poison pill. Still, I don't like the Orange Baboon calling her "Pocahontas" and I
d vote for her over Trump which I would not do for Biden or Harris.
But she's third choice. Sort of "hold your nose and vote".
I spent half my life working for the military and half of the other half working with a lot of veterans. I'm not anti-military but anti needless wars for profit or empire. I know people I respect here who think all wars are needless. Well, I think they are middle class and suburban and never had to fight a desperate fight for survival in a Chicago alley, so I forgive them and hope they forgive me.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Good comment.
Warren's MfA funding plan is also the opposite of progressive. Companies have to pay the same fixed dollar amount for low wage workers as for the most highly compensated workers. A percentage would be much more progressive and fair.
I agree with you on the military. It helped rescue me from a poverty level existence in the Detroit area. I'm the only one of four boys in my family that never went to prison.
Detroit, Chicago very similar
Maybe Detroit tougher, but it's like asking "Which is worse? Hell or Purgatory?"
Won't criticize your brothers as only the threat of "The Chair" kept me from killing certain people as a teenager. They say it isn't a deterrent, but I can only say that it deterred me. It's gone now, but I don't get quite that level of rage anymore.
Adolescence is stressful for sure even without Gitmo wannabees.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
If such bannings happened here
there would be no point to this place.
That's why it will never happen.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Johnny won't let it happen here, our official stance is that
we have none, and that is more likely to be enforced with hollering than banning. (speaking as a minor insider here)
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
No official stance.
I agree wholeheartedly. There is, however, an unofficial bias that hinders the expression of opposing viewpoints. Part of the negative culture on Kos is peer pressure driving conformity (a separate issue from the mismanagement by owners and moderators). I don't want to see that here.
When I hear . . .
"You can stick your flag and 16 of my friends and I are flagging you for flagging me." in a comment here, I'll start to worry.
Thankfully,
there are no flags here. Daily Kos is like the worst essences of high school distilled into a rancid pool of piranhas and backbiters.
MY point exactly. /nt
When I find out that people here
are organizing on Facebook so that they can more effectively mob a site member every time she or he speaks, *I'll* start to worry.
When a writer has a pattern of the same few people jumping into their essays and getting the first comment in so that they can make sure it's negative, I'll start to worry.
When a writer has a pattern of the same few people threadjacking their essays repeatedly, I'll start to worry.
When somebody here tells a woman who has just recounted the story of her rape that she made it up, I'll start to worry.
When JtC gives people a deadline by which they need to stop supporting a candidate--or no candidate at all--I'll start to worry.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Ha
Yeah me too. It won't happen, but it's funny that you mentioned it. Anyone who makes me laugh gets a kudo.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Well,
perfect.
Just Perfect.
For now, Don't Worry, be Happy! as regards c99!
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Heh.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Hmmmmm
I haven't actually seen those comments about the other candidates that you show--and mostly I see arguments against their neoliberal policies, although sometimes it may get personal. I imagine that's mostly because of lot of these neoliberal policies have been enacted in the past and have negatively affected people's lives here.
I think it is very fair to call out when you think a particular candidate is lying, because politicians do this all the time and many of the top and lesser candidates have been caught doing so. Honestly, most politicians are not really good people, and we need good people in office--people who care about honesty, and commitment to the people they represent, and fairness, and equality, and those less advantaged. To me, Tulsi and Bernie are vastly superior on those fronts than other candidates. I think Yang might be, but he is too invested in the current system to really change much (as is Steyer).
Biden, Harris, Booker, Buttigieg, and Warren just seem like they avoid honest answers and are playing people. Harris wants a M4A that will enrich insurers. Warren's M4A plan breaks the middle class long term. They are either being disingenuous (i.e., lying to people) or are stupid--take your pick. Either way it's not good, and either way it should be pointed out. Otherwise, people will overlook these things and nothing will ever change.
Over at Kos, there is no logic or arguments backing them up. Here, I often get Wally dumping questions regarding our support of Tulsi, but it is fact-based questioning.
I think things are fine here. Just my opinion.
I ask when I can't readily find answers
I'd genuinely like to read answers to the questions I pose about Tulsi, not because I have any ill feelings towards Tulsi, but because I haven't readily been able to find reasonably detailed answers on my own.
On the other hand, Warren has gone past my tipping point. I have no problem with Snoopdawg's previous use of Warbama aside from the reality that Obama isn't aligned with her, so Warillary might be better (I think Warren's fawning over HerHeionous and her voting for approving and increasing 2 of Trump's 3 military budgets is sufficient rationale for righteous animus).
When folks level criticisms at Bernie, I try to respond and not infrequently agree with them.
When I see what I consider illegitimate criticisms against him, I tend not to directly respond.
For example when I see claims (not yours) that Tulsi is the "only" candidate critical of the MIC, I'll try to get around to posting something like:
Tipping Point
I find all of the 2020 Democratic candidates with the exception of Biden to be vastly superior to Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. It's too early for me to have a choice among them at this point. I do find name calling and reputation tarnishing a bit much, as I think we can do better than that.
OK, but . . .
I'm not giving up Moscow Mitch. It really pisses him off.
How about “Tel Aviv Trump” or even “Protocols POTUS” then?
After Trump’s moves re Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, that would arguably even have some factual basis.
Not that facts mean much anymore — so many Democrats have now thrown in their lot with Republicans and gone completely post-factual.
How can it be too early for you to
have a choice among them? Did you not understand the part where all of them except Bernie and Tulsi are bought by lobbyists and only represent the wealthy?
You need some perspective then :
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TfQij4aQq1k
And warmongering, too.
All candidates but Bernie and Tulsi are warmongerers. Ignoring, of course, Bernie's support for Israel and its wars. Oh, and regime change in Syria. And Venezuela. And.....
Actually, there's been a lot of criticism of Bernie's
foreign policy on this site.
There's even been some criticism of Tulsi's foreign policy--for instance, her position on drone strikes.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Name calling is outright silly, though I do it sometimes
myself, but reputation tarnishing has two distinct aspects. So and so is a paedophile/cokehead/thief, etc. bad stuff, but one hopes that pretty much nobody would take it seriously (subject to documentation and verification). So and so is a warmonger, is heavily invested in banking/insurance/pharma/military hardware companies, etc. are all verifiable or falsifiable (subject to the semantics of warmonger) and if any that are factual tarnishes the reputation in question, so be it.
A certain amount of mud-slinging is as old as politics. Statements that are clearly opinion ( ... is an asshole) or not susceptible to verification or falsification ( ... indulges in self gratification while watching war movies) are classic examples of "afactual" or "content free" assertions, and what we need to do is not so much decry their existence, but recognize them and call them out for what they are.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Good comment.
I wrote this essay because I took exception to Mayor Pete being called a drug dealer. There is no evidence of that and the smear is based on an overstretched usage of guilt by association.
And some of us find ALL of the (D) candidates
undesirable, because they have one of the two Duopoly's letters preceding their names.
And (gasp), yes - that includes Bernie and Tulsi.
We're clearly in the minority, here, but we also enjoy (thanks to JtC et al) the privilege of expressing this viewpoint. What you seem to be missing is that C99 is not a capital-D Democratic political blog. If all you're seeking to do is argue the merits of your preferred D-candidate, there are other places to do that.
Just saying.
You said that a lot better,
and a lot more briefly, than I did.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Well, on that note:
Yang is the only candidate running with an immediate solution to the ungodly social pressures and continuing economic harm suffered by the 99 percent. It's going to happen anyway, in order to stop unregulated capitalism from eating us alive. So, why not implement Universal Basic Income immediately, as Yang suggests, and grant all Americans meaningful Liberty and real justice from their lifelong indentured servitude to the Rentier Class at the top.
This one pays for itself and will boost the GDP by a staggering 3 or 4 points in the first year. I was satisfied by the research and logic behind it.
On yet another note, I'm not so sure, as many others are, that the candidates are lying to the People. I think they are all mentally impaired. They seem to be living fully in each individual moment — but cannot see beyond the moment that they occupy. They are not connecting the moments making comparisons. It reminds me of "teaching -to-the-test" education, which completely disables critical thinking. The candidate's apparently shattered continuity is likely caused by the strain of pretending the US has a working democracy — when all the physical and historical evidence around us — like the hillbilly voting processes we use in the 21st century and recent legislation removing restrictions on mass brainwashing of the American people by the media — tell a very different story. Looking at evidence like Citizens United and seeing a democracy is a full-blown delusion. The evidence for this claim simply does not hold up.
____________________
The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato
Well
Yes, this is true, and part of why I kind of like him. It's his other views that I'm none too certain about.
On this you and I will have to respectfully disagree. These people are talking to their funders, and they want more money in the future (and ex-presidential speaking fees when they retire if they win, etc.), and because of that they are willing to push whatever the funders tell them to push. Some of them probably fool themselves on some of the things they push, but I gotta tell ya, most of them--Harris, Hillary, Biden, George W., Cheney, Obama, (and the list goes on) are plenty intelligent enough to see what is happening and why. They desire to be well situated for the forthcoming disasters (economic collapse, climate change). Or, they just desire power and fame.
That's the simpler explanation, and probably the right one.
I agree with you on this
But UBI can't work here unless the amount is much higher than what Yang wants it to be. If I'm understanding him correctly he is only offering people $1,000 per month which is no where near enough for people to live on and because he is doing away with other social programs. With rents and other costs of living as high as it it's going to take twice this amount if not more. But the massive job layoffs are already here. Thousands from car making companies. Thousands from banks, pharmacies and in the service industries and in lots of other areas. We will have to address this or we will be back to the dustbowl conditions with people scouring the country for jobs and places to live.
Seems that congress can bail out the banks to tunes of hundreds of billions a day. And find money for farmers and of course the wall and to keep people locked up and...buy none for helping the homeless. Oops. Sorry. Another rant.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Depending of course
on what the prices are.
A lot of people are receiving nowhere near enough to compensate for the enormous bills they're paying, so they go into debt. This is true especially if they're trying to live in California without having purchased property there before, say, 1988 or thenabouts. They're probably all in indefinite forbearance on their student loan debts, which is what used to be the case with me. Thus Bernie's proposal of mass forgiveness for student loans is apropos.
"the Democratic Party is not 'left'." -- Sabrina Salvati
Price lock
I don't believe Yang's UBI would help anything unless there's also a price lock put on certain things - especially rent. I can totally see every slumlord raising rent $500-$1000. Once the slumlords do that, the rest of the landlords would follow suit simply because they could. Then we'd be right back where we started from with the rich getting richer while the poor get screwed again. I've heard this argument against raising the minimum wage, but it's much easier for me to see happening with UBI because everyone would get it.
Now I'll admit that I've never read much about the UBI plan. It could already include something to prevent us from being gouged. But, if it doesn't, I believe it's just another plan to transfer wealth to the top.
Is it great yet?
@Pluto's Republic I think UBI is a cousin
I think UBI is a cousin of the GOP favorite "block grants to the states" approach or even Bush's approach to Medicare ("here's your healthcare allowance, senior, now you're on your own"). And the UBI proposal is doing it on the cheap: $12K a year puts an adult right at the poverty line depending on where they live. UBI is a simplistic solution to avoid having to remake society into something that supports the people.
There is a downside to guaranteed basic income that has
been written up some having to do with the inherent threat that once it is in place the elites can use it as cover and a shield to run amok. Something to consider.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
The problem with Yang's UBI...
is that he's funding it with a highly regressive VAT tax (which hits poor people the hardest), so regular taxpayers are basically getting the same cash back they paid out in higher sales tax.
What's the point of that? Why not just let everybody keep their own cash?
Also, Yang's proposal doesn't fix anything structurally about the bottom to top wealth transfer problem. In fact it makes it worse, because it gives credit card companies, casinos, and any other pug nosed debt collector types an easy pot of government money to garnish they couldn't otherwise tap.
Once the poor inevitably sign over their cash benefit to the debt vultures (and they will), UBI then simply becomes another form of perpetual corporate welfare paid for by VAT taxpayers with the so-called 'beneficiaries' as the conduit.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Still would like to see Warren at Treasury
instead of the usual Goldman-sachs top executive. I think she has a real grudge against the banks, but suspect that she is faux left on other issues. Riding herd on the banks is the best place for her.
Still prefer her to Biden for POTUS.
Prefer Biden for prison stripes.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Nah ...
I wouldn't worry about it. Most of us are veterans/refugees from that site so we know how not to behave. The simple fact that recs are anonymous makes a huge difference and there are no HRs. We're not big enough to attract DNC shills and, as far as I can tell, people aren't messaging each other about the need to gang up on some user who has strayed from orthodoxy.
Are you a Bootycrat, or a Klobucharista ?
Let your freak flag fly, argue your case, I'm sure you'll be treated respectfully.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
None of the above.
I was for Bernie in 2016 but haven't chosen anyone yet this time around. None of them, not even Bernie, are stirring my blood. I do like Tulsi Gabbard some, but she's probably not viable until 2024 after Trump's second term is over.
@edg It seems to me that
It seems to me that Gabbard is a Chauncey Gardener candidate where people see in her candidacy whatever they want to see. I did send her a donation after she pricked Harris's swollen ego and spotlighted Harris's hypocracy.
Tulsi is an important voice in the Dem debate.
She's the only one talking about regime-change wars and she is publicly calling for the truth about Saudi involvement in 9/11. That's why I support her.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
What Az said!
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
I think you refer to my question in another essay...
https://caucus99percent.com/comment/449396#comment-449396
To which I was directed to this article
http://advanceindiana.blogspot.com/2014/06/buttigieg-tells-newspaper-his...
I think questioning is helpful. Buttigieg is being propped up by corporate media so I'm suspicious. I think we need to ask the difficult questions. Like the fact he was in naval intelligence in Afghanistan working for the Drug enforcement administration.
Just as in the last cycle I asked about the Clinton arms deal for foundation donations. These are important issues that need publicizing not suppressing.
Don't participate in KOS but last time I was there evidence was the least of the concerns. This site is largely evidence based. I would suggest using evidence, most here are supporting Bernie or Tulsi. Exposing other candidates is not a bad thing from my view.
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
supporting scumbags is ok, too
meanwhile I just watched as much as I could take of last night's "SNL" Warren thing.. a strange mischaracterization, full of weird hipster statements that she'd never say, as if they couldn't find anything to satirize. Instead it appears to be an endorsement of sorts. It reminded me that I also can't stand "SNL".
But anyway, if anyone does like scumbag white boy (who might be a dope dealer...I don't know...I just read something about it) Pete Buttiegieg, then sure, go ahead.
all of them are flawed...
just like all of us. All we got is supporting the least flawed. Is that an agruement for the lesser of two evils? Not for me, I won't vote for a war monger regardless of party or whatever.
Not saying who other should support or not, just my own thoughts. Hope all is well with you and you're still enjoying your music. I still get a kick out of it, but play less than I once did (since I retired from the band).
All the best!
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
Retired? There Is no "retired"!
You'll be back!
you're right
I still do gigs with the old band but only local ones. It was the travel that burnt me out.
My friend Carl Jones wrote a good one about the travel. "Last Time on the Road"
Original song by Carl Jones that also appeared on the grammy award winning record "Unleashed" by the Nashville Bluegrass Band. The bluebird bus in the song refers to Norman and Nancy Blake's touring bus for many years.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwci8UrOQLU]
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty stream.”
SNL
SNL has deteriorated considerably since the John Belushi days, the late 1970s which were the only ones worth watching IMHO. Once John Belushi and Gilda Radner were dead, and Laraine Newman, Garrett Morris, Jane Curtin, and Dan Aykroyd went elsewhere, it was never the same again. As you say, altogether too often satire was trashed in favor of straight bashing or pseudo-endorsement. Yawwwn.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Indeed.
"SNL has deteriorated considerably since the John Belushi days"
Although I'd add Eddie Murphy and Dana Carvey to your list of the greats.
Chevy Chase
Chevy Chase, too.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axByUFSa7N8]
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
Bill Murray
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
evidence based
And please don't forget that critiques of Bernie and Tulsi are still welcome here -- and have oftener than not come from those candidates' own supporters! This is something one would never see at Kos, especially after the Ides of March Decree 2016.
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
There is one Tulsi supporter over at ToP
and she comes to her defense every time they rail against Tulsi. She sticks to the facts as far as I've seen, but she gets dawg piled on every time. But what is not funny as hell is what they say about Tulsi. Down right sexist, misogynistic and total lies about her. Everything she said about Kamala were Russian talking points don't you know? And every thing that Tulsi has said she is not or won't do goes right over their heads because they refuse to look to see what she actually is. But just an FYI if you're curious.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
Two things to consider.
[Note: I'm an Army and National Guard vet, so I have some understanding of how the military operates.]
Buttigieg was in naval intelligence in Afghanistan working for the Drug enforcement administration for two reasons: One, he was given a cushy short 6 month assignment because he's a mayor. It would be very bad publicity if a US Mayor were killed in combat. Two, they tell you where to go and you go. Other than on initial enlistment, you get very little say in where you're stationed and what your duties are.
The mayor of N Ogden was on his 8th tour of duty
when he was killed in Afghanistan. I believe he was in the national guard not regular military and he left behind 7 kids and his wife. The family is getting lots of support from the community, but still. Why the hell was he even there? But his wife said that he died loving what he was doing so there's that.
Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.
A sad event.
And it was an "insider" attack, done by someone they were supposed to be able to trust. As for number of tours, according to CBS News it was his second tour to Afghanistan and he also did two in Iraq, for a total of four.
I don't think so
For starters TOP is a shepherding site for the DNC. This site site anti-establishment.
Secondly, no one gets banned here for having an unpopular opinion.
I've said a few positive things about Warren (with huge reservations).
I haven't noticed many nasty comments, but then I don't read everything.
It shouldn't surprise you that Bernie is popular here. He was a major reason for the exodus from TOP.
Plus, he's the best major candidate in my lifetime.
Anti-establishment?
In a way, sure. I'm not sure I'd classify Bernie as anti-establishment, though. More like change the establishment around the edges. Nothing wrong with that. It's how things get done.
JtC says this site does not endorse any candidate or ask that anyone support a candidate or party. Coalescing around one particular candidate while trashing all others doesn't fit with that view. Peer pressure is real. I've refrained from posting some comments and essays about non-favored candidates because they go against the majority view. I've also noticed there are far fewer participating members than there used to be. There may be a connection.
Some of those who no longer
seem to participate were kind of run off, if you will, for expressing in many cases extremely anti establishment views - ie, that elections change nothing. Just my observation.
As far as the name calling or libel as you phrased it, you're right in that our entire discourse in this country has become much more crude and confrontational but that's been happening for decades and isn't merely a feature of 2020 or neo-liberal loving Democrats. It goes along with the relentless dumbing down too, the whole team sports mentality and the idea that one can "win" by voting their particular party into office when any rational look reveals that for the farce it is. As CTMS wrote in her essay today, an extremely hard habit to break for many of us, but once that habit is finally broken there is no going back.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
Pages