HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » cui bono » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »

cui bono

Profile Information

Gender: Female
Hometown: SoCal
Member since: Wed Nov 2, 2005, 01:57 AM
Number of posts: 14,533

Journal Archives

Yeah, well, apparently the new talking point is that it doesn't matter what someone did 50 years ago

I've seen that several times in the last couple days.

So then who cares who becomes president if their record means nothing? It's a bullshit talking point. One person I saw say it may be saying it out of anger, but I believe this whole attack on Sanders that has been going on since before the BLM incident is a calculated attempt to take him down on his strength. Swiftboating. Look at how rabid Hillary supporters keep going on about this issue with Bernie. Look at how those who are 'undeclared' in their support never go after Hillary about racial issues even though she ran an ugly race-baiting campaign against Obama. No wonder "the past doesn't matter" is the new talking point.

+1

replying so I can add to journal and find your post.


I responded directly to your post.

You abhor progressives. Got it. That was crystal clear from your last post. And that is the biggest problem. Centrists think they own the Dem Party and if we don't accept what you are willing to allow us we are called whiners. Well, the history of this country is full of rights that were won by those you think will never be satisfied. That's a good thing. As soon as you get complacent the corporatists come in and take things over. And the fight is far from over. Look at all the systemic racism/sexism/homophobia in this country. Should we settle for that? No! We keep fighting. Look at the income disparity. Should we settle for that? No! We keep fighting. That's what democracy is about. You want to sit back and be happy with a few bread crumbs, have at it, but don't chastise people who are continuing to fight for equality and justice for all and who continue to fight for our constitutional rights.

You tell us we will never be satisfied and then tell us we have to be part of some larger movement. We are part of a larger movement. But you resent us for it. I believe it's because you are fine with corporate/RW policy. Progressives are not. Progressives seem to never be satisfied because we have a Dem POTUS who is enacting/enforcing/FIGHTING FOR Republican corporate policy. Why should we be satisfied with that? We should not be and so we continue to fight for what is right for the American people, not for global corporations.

You don't have to beg us to join, we're here, you just happen to be ignoring us. You are so willing to defend Republican policies that we have to kick and scream to even get noticed. You yourself were defending the TPP. That is complete conservative/corporate policy. There is not one thing about it that smacks of the Democratic Party.

If you are going to let the term "woo" upset you enough to discount progressives and dismiss progressives as people who don't volunteer to campaign, etc, then you are doing exactly the opposite of what you claim you want to accomplish. You can't ask us to just fight for what you want, things like the TPP, you will NEVER get a progressive to fight for that. Centrist/RW policy is NOT okay.

We don't want you to beg us to participate - we ARE participating - we want you to stop working to enact centrist/Republican policies and start fighting for what the Dem Party used to stand for, the people. And stop telling us to STFU as Rahm did, and stop telling us we want too much. Fairness and equality and justice are never too much.

It's worse than pathetic. It is vile.

Trying to associate a pic like that to Sanders? She knows damn well that someone who glosses over that OP is going to think he had something to do with that pic.

Fucking disgusting.

Okay, wait... so you want to 'tattle' on Bernie supporters of DU?

You were the one calling Bernie supporters childish all over another thread.

Now, before I continue, I saw this OP on the Greatest Page so that's why I clicked on it. I did not come into the group looking for trouble.

I'll tell you something I see in here though. In the top 8 posts of this Hillary group are two that are complaining about Bernie supporters, this one plotting against them.

In the entire first page of posts in the Bernie group you don't find anything similar at all, they are all about Bernie himself, or something to do with him, but certainly not about Hillary supporters.

A couple weeks ago (I think around then) there was a negative post about Hillary supporters and it was locked and self-deleted and several Bernie supporters, myself included, asked in the OP (and I sent a pm to a host asking for the OP to be deleted/locked) to not do that. As I said, the OP was locked and self-deleted.

I realize the whole Bernie supporters are mean and childish is the new thing on DU, but we are not plotting as a group against Hillary supporters like this OP is. And when there was a negative post about Hillary supporters it was taken down due to the dislike of it, it was not cheered on as this OP is, or the one about Ghadaffi is. We aren't looking at this as a war between supporters as this group seems to based on these two well regarded OPs.

Also, I have had a personal experience with a very active Hillary supporter where they edited a post well after I had replied and they had replied to me again. It was a very dishonest thing to do, editing a post to make it seem that my response was completely wrong. I don't attribute that to all Hillary supporters though. I look at people based on their posts and actions on DU.

How about you do the same and worry about your own OPs and posts and don't look at this as a war between supporters and use this group to plot against the 'others'. To ask what you guys keep asking Bernie supporters.. is this the way you think Hillary would want you to act?

Yes. When I read your post it did not have a comma. You not mentioning that is dishonest.

You edited the post at 3:02pm. Well after your post of 2:42pm that I am now replying to in which you ask if I read your post.



That is very dishonest of you to then question whether I read your post or not, when the post that I read said "no criticism is healthy". You took the time to edit your "no criticism is healthy" post but didn't bother to edit your accusatory post to me. That's really bad form. Did you think I didn't know how to see the post had been edited? Did you think I would forget that there had been no comma before and that in fact you had posted "no criticism is healthy"?

Why would you not just say, "oops, I forgot the comma that's not what I meant to say"? The only reason I can figure is that you are purposely trying to make me look bad. Or after reading my post you changed your mind and didn't want to admit it. Either way, still bad form.

SMH

Sanders supporters are not the "rabid ultra left base".

Sanders supporters want what the majority of Democratic voters want. Sanders fights for what the majority of Democratic voters want.

Contrary to the contrived wisdom of the cognoscenti, the American majority is amazingly progressive ... and pissed off.

How progressive? It doesn't get covered by the corporate media (imagine that), but mainstream polls consistently find that big majorities of Americans are not meek centrists, but overt, tub-thumping, FDR progressives who are seeking far more populist gumption and governmental action than any Democratic congressional leader or presidential contender has dared to imagine. In recent polls by the Pew Research Group, the Opinion Research Corporation, the Wall Street Journal, and CBS News, the American majority has made clear how it feels. Look at how the majority feels about some of the issues that you'd think would be gospel to a real Democratic party:

65 percent say the government should guarantee health insurance for everyone -- even if it means raising taxes.

86 percent favor raising the minimum wage (including 79 percent of selfdescribed "social conservatives").

60 percent favor repealing either all of Bush's tax cuts or at least those cuts that went to the rich.

66 percent would reduce the deficit not by cutting domestic spending but by reducing Pentagon spending or raising taxes.

77 percent believe the country should do "whatever it takes" to protect the environment.

87 percent think big oil corporations are gouging consumers, and 80 percent (including 76 percent of Republicans) would support a windfall profits tax on the oil giants if the revenues went for more research on alternative fuels.

69 percent agree that corporate offshoring of jobs is bad for the U.S. economy (78 percent of "disaffected" voters think this), and only 22% believe offshoring is good because "it keeps costs down."

69 percent believe America is on the wrong track, with only 26 percent saying it's headed in the right direction.



Americans might not call themselves progressive -- but there they are. On the populist, pocketbook issues that are rooted in our nation's core values of fairness and justice, there's a progressive super-majority. It flourishes in red states as well as blue, cutting through the establishment's false dichotomy of liberal/ conservative.

It's also a pissed-off super-majority, for its views are treated with infuriating disdain by the whole political system -- including corporatized Democrats who minimize and trivialize the grassroots populist fervor. By routinely dismissing the boldly progressive views of the people as unworthy of consideration, much less action, the political elites are coldly dismissing the people themselves and saying, "You don't matter."
http://www.alternet.org/story/29788/what_i_want_for_christmas


This meme that people are attempting to have take hold, that Bernie is so far left he can't possibly get the votes is completely wrong. It is being used to justify getting behind a centrist candidate and it's not a good excuse. I don't know if Hillary supporters are actually scared of losing or if they just say they are to keep the party in the centrist slot, leaving the left empty, but either way it's just not accurate and it's a terrible way to behave in a democracy.

Democracies are supposed to be about the people exercising their choice of what they WANT, not what they think other people might want. The people want what Bernie Sanders is fighting for. Period. And if you're going to give up before you begin then perhaps a dictatorship suits you better. Fear is not conducive to a healthy and robust democracy.

And your analogy is dimply false. The "rabid ultra left base" is never heard from at all. Period. Even just the far left doesn't get heard from.

Bernie Sanders Fights for Women's Rights

There seems to be some confusion about Bernie's stance on social issues. This should help to start clearing things up:





No, pretty much the opposite really.

It's not "proving a point" it's actually exercising true democracy. If a political party wants their candidate to get elected then they should run someone who speaks to the people.

I agree with what you say about get out and get someone to run, but in our system money trumps the people's will. We see that over and over again. Look at the legislation that gets put up for votes, look at the secret trade deals that go on behind the scenes (TPP). That wouldn't happen if the people were allowed to have a good candidate and they won't be allowed that until money is out of politics. But how does that happen when the people that need to vote it out are beholden to big money?

There's a survey that Thom Hartmann has been referencing lately and I wish I knew who conducted it since I haven't found it by searching... it shows that Americans are actually progressive based on what they say they want when it doesn't have a party label attached to it. Too bad we can't get candidates who will actually implement these things. Instead they continually chip away at them.

At some point it makes no sense to continue to vote for the lesser of two evils. Not sure I will do that this time around. I certainly will not state that I will vote for whoever the Dem candidate is because then where is the incentive for the Dem Party to put up someone who actually will fight for the people. It would be nonexistent since they know we will just take what we are given.

Oh really.... you don't even know he is a self-described moderate Republican,

But I'm the one who is completely wrong?

I have to prove that to the apologists on here so many times I think I might just have to make an OP out of it and put it in my journal.

Here's a video where he says the words himself. If you have any trouble viewing it all you have to do is google "Obama moderate Republican" and you can find a lot of links where you can read about it:



That proves my original point right there but I can't let you get away with that disingenuous tactic of trying to make me have said something I never said at all. We know who employs this tactic on a regular basis and we know that it doesn't work except on the lowest information people with no critical thinking skills. If you don't want to deal with facts then I can't help you.

However, twisting my words as you did at the end does not win you an argument. It only makes you a bad debater.

I stand by exactly what I said, that no matter what his accomplishments he will never be a liberal.

You, however, chose to truncate my quote, you know edit it, in much the same way that Faux News does, in order to make it appear that I would be unhappy with Obama no matter what his accomplishments, leaving out completely that I said it doesn't make him liberal. Way to employ those Rovian/Faux News/GOP/Tea Party tactics. Like I said, bad debating. But that's worse, that's disingenuous and an attempt to swiftboat me. Nice going.

What you quoted from me and your fantastical interpretation of it, from your post:


"No matter what he's done as far as accomplishments..." And there we have it. It doesn't matter what he does, it's not good enough. Thanks for coming right out and saying it.


What I ACTUALLY said:


No matter what he's done as far as accomplishments, it does not show him to be a liberal when you add in all the negative/conservative/Republicanesque stuff he has done. Like I said, he's a self-described moderate Republican.


Slightly different, wouldn't you say?

In fact, your entire post proves the point I was making that you can make a "list" but when you ignore all the Republican actions he has taken you are not being accurate or fair. You are simply cherry picking. Do you think that a scientist would think your evidence is full and conclusive? Maybe. If they were the type that denies climate change exists.

No, you are the one who is completely wrong. You can surely see that now since I'm sure you've most certainly watched the video and heard him say what I said himself. You can call him what you like, doesn't change anything.

A rose by any other name...

You're welcome.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »