HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » BainsBane » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 37,655

Journal Archives

Powerful Evangelical Women Split From Male Church Leaders To Slam Trump

This is bigly.

Beth Moore doesn’t spent much time on politics.
The enormously popular evangelist—her sermons and conferences sell out arenas and printed bible studies are perennial bestsellers—is more likely to be found helping women understand the life of the Apostle Paul or tweeting about her husband, new granddaughter and two adorable dogs.

But something changed for Moore after Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for President of the United States, was caught on tape bragging about his ability to sexual assault women. When Trump said, “When you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything,” Moore had had enough.

“I'm one among many women sexually abused, misused, stared down, heckled, talked naughty to. Like we liked it. We didn’t. We’re tired of it,” Moore said. She also had a word about evangelical leaders still supporting Trump: “Try to absorb how acceptable the disesteem and objectifying of women has been when some Christian leaders don’t think it's that big a deal.”
Moore’s broken silence about the 2016 race—rooted in her own experience with sexual assault—signals a widening gender divide between evangelicals. Increasingly, moderate and conservative Christian women are speaking out about Trump’s brand of misogyny and divisiveness, and condemning support for the nominee or silence about him from male evangelicals. . . .

Beth Moore wasn't alone in her condemnation of Trump. Her comments sent ripples around the evangelical world and were seconded by Christian mega-speaker and author Christine Caine. Sara Groves, the Dove Award-Nominated Christian artist, told me, “Someone like Beth can go a long way in helping Evangelicals recognize these major blind spots.”


Clinton's best moment in the debate

in my opinion, was her effort to reassure our allies. "Words matter . . . "

At that moment, she towered above him. He was acting like a petulant child, while she was not only presidential, but acting as our President.

Here it is:

Who here works as hard as Hillary Clinton?

I've been crazed with work the last few weeks, and my schedule doesn't approach hers. I took Saturday to sleep. Clinton has no such option. She's been on the campaign trail, day in, day out, for nearly a year. I'm a good bit younger than Clinton, and I couldn't begin to keep up with her schedule. Trump hasn't worked nearly as hard on this campaign as she has. So she got a bit wobbly in the heat. Big deal. She is a human being. The human body is not invincible.

Anyone else love the DNC video?

I've watched it several times since the convention. I just wish I knew who everyone was.

"The Era of 'The Bitch' Is Coming"


If Hillary Clinton wins the White House in November, it will be a historic moment, the smashing of the preeminent glass ceiling in American public life. A mere 240 years after this nation’s founding, a woman will occupy its top office. America’s daughters will at last have living, breathing, pantsuit-wearing proof that they too can grow up to be president.

A Clinton victory also promises to usher in four-to-eight years of the kind of down-and-dirty public misogyny you might expect from a stag party at Roger Ailes’s house. . . .

Raw political sexism is already strutting its stuff. At Donald Trump’s coming-out party in Cleveland, vendors stood outside the Quicken Loans Arena hawking campaign buttons with whimsical messages, such as “Life’s a Bitch—don’t vote for one” and “KFC Hillary Special: Two fat thighs, two small breasts… left wing.” One popular T-shirt featured a grinning Trump piloting a Harley, grinning as Hillary tumbled off the bike so that you could read the back of Trump’s shirt: “IF YOU CAN READ THIS, THE BITCH FELL OFF.” . . .

It would be nice to think that this is all merely a heat-of-the-campaign thing—that if Hillary wins in November, the baser attacks will fade, and she will be treated with a smidge more respect. Fat chance. (Just ask Obama how that panned out for him.) “It will probably become even more overt the more power she attains because the more threatening she is,” predicted Farida Jalalzai, a political scientist at Oklahoma State University who focuses on gender. “People will have no problem vilifying her and saying the most misogynistic things imaginable.”

Just as Obama’s presidency helped bring unresolved issues about race into the mainstream political discussion, a Hillary presidency would likely do the same for issues like equal pay and child care. And while such discussions clearly need to be had, they pretty quickly can get heated. “Clinton will be walking a fine line,” said Leonie Huddy, a professor of political science at Stony Brook University. She will be a historic figure who brings a different perspective to the job. “But she is also going to be evaluated through the lens of, Is she just there for women? Maybe she will do something bad to men. There is a latent fear among men that their position in American society will decline further. So while there are a lot of guys on board for equalizing gender power, there are also quite a few who aren’t.”


This doesn't mean that failing to elect Clinton will save the country from sexism. Exposing and confronting social problems like gender and race inequality are essential to combatting them.

Polls are great, but elections are won on voter turnout

Don't be complacent. Volunteer to register voters and get the vote out. The Clinton campaign is coordinating with local Democratic parties across the country, so you can canvass and make calls for Democrats up and down the ticket at the same time.


The A Team

Makes an assist

Donations for War on Iran, Tim Canova

"Progressives" are all aflutter over donating to Tim Canova, the challenger for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz' House seat.

It's interesting to see how eager people are to contribute to someone who forcefully argues against the Iran Nuclear Deal and sides with Likud. He is so proud of his position that he posted an editorial celebrating it on his website:

Canova is a staunch opponent of the Iran nuclear deal, which Wasserman Schultz supports. "Iran never destroys its centrifuges, and it gets a $100 billion windfall at once," he laments. "Iran gets it all, and within weeks, if not days, Iran is testing ballistic missiles," he says, shaking his head. "Iran is a regime that can't be trusted." Wasserman Schultz, meanwhile, lost "a lot of credibility" among her constituents by voting for the agreement, Canova charges.

That peacenik Debbie. She just can't be trusted with all that peace-treaty approving she does.

Canova is very proud of his opposition to peace with Iran, as its prominence on his website reveals. That same editorial he posted distinguishes him from Sanders as someone who "knows what he's talking about."

For one, in contrast to Bernie Sanders, whose guiding ethos seems to be "Bash the Millionaires and Billionaires—Details TK," Canova actually knows what he's talking about. Although he's never held office, Canova is an expert on banking laws as a law professor at Nova Southeastern University in Ft. Lauderdale. He has been churning out scholarly works on interest rates, regulatory affairs, and loan practices for decades. (His fierce criticism of big banks is delivered with a scholarly mien quite unlike Sanders's street-corner shouting.) . . .

Canova also attributes Sanders's loss in the crucial New York primary to Israel. "He started off at saying 'I'm 100 percent pro-Israel.' But that was the last thing he said that was pro-Israeli."


It's quite astounding that many of the same people who cannot forgive Clinton for her vote on Iraq are now eager to donate to a candidate who opposes peace with Iran. Of course, without that peace treaty, the only alternative is war, which is exactly what Likud wants.

Keep sending those checks to ensure we get war with Iran. We just can't have peacenicks like Debbie in Washington.

I think there are a few reasons

1) The primary got very negative, and they decided to believe too much of the rhetoric.

2) There have been hundreds of millions spent by the GOP to try to destroy Clinton. There is the obvious right-wing propaganda and the all too successful efforts by the right to spread anti-Clinton propaganda produced for leftist consumption, created and generated to appeal to Democrats/liberals/progressives.

3) The media furthers the negative narrative about her so-called "dishonesty" and lack of "authenticity." This despite the fact that an examination of actual issues by fact checkers showed she was the MOST honest candidate in this primary in either party.

4) She's a woman trying to break into a wholly male world. Social Science literature demonstrates that people view women as less honest than men, tend to believe them less. It isn't a conscious decision to engage in sexism but rather the result of socialization. They don't even think about it. It takes honest reflection to think about ways in which we, both men and women, tend to devalue or undermine women in society. In seeking to rise where no American woman has before, she faces more of that than most.

We saw plenty of what you refer to during the primary. Many truly believe what they say, but they seldom have evidence for it. They don't think they even need evidence. They simply assume it to be true. I saw a response of yours to a post removed (which I didn't see) about money. The entire responsibility for campaign finance has been placed on Clinton individually. Some don't believe she is interested in changing current finance law, despite her policy positions showing otherwise. They also don't realize that the Citizens United case was about an anti-Clinton video. The victory for Citizens United meant that organization could continue to spend unlimited amounts of money attacking her. Of course the implications go beyond that one example to private political expenditures more broadly, but the lack of understanding of it shows how successful right-wing propaganda against her has been among those on the left.

I didn't used to like Clinton. I never for a second considered supporting her in 2008. My stated reason was the Iraq War vote, yet I was ready to support Biden, who likewise voted for the war. I didn't even think about the double standard. Since 2008, I watched her as SoS and started to think more critically about the criticism of her. I looked into her voting record vs. that of other candidates. I informed myself more in this election than any other. I realized a lot of what is said about her is unfounded. You will note that most Democrats/progressives who continue to be very critical of Clinton know very little about her policy positions or even most of her voting record. They simply project ills onto her and will attribute policy positions that are completely opposite of where she stands. I saw over and over against that they weren't even interested in finding out what her positions actually were. The reasons for that, I believe, lie in numbers 1-4 above.

Revolutions, social and political

There is an extensive body of literature on the history and theory of revolutions, both social and political. Theda Skocpol is a leading theorist on the subject:


A "social revolution" is both a change in state institutions (a political revolution) and a change in social structures. The American revolution was only a political revolution, not a social one, since it did little to change social structures. The Chinese revolution, on the other hand, was a social revolution; not only did the state institutions change, but the entire social order changed with it.

A social revolution occurs in two stages (which correspond to parts I and II of the book), and in each stage two structural variables determine what happens next. For more details about the four structural variables, see pages 280-281.

A Revolutionary Situation

In Part I, two variables cause a revolutionary situation. These two variables are jointly sufficient for a "social revolution" to occur. The key word is "sufficient": This is a deterministic theory. If both structural variables are in place, a revolution should always occur.

First, there must be a "crisis of state," often provoked by international factors, such as increasing economic or security competition from abroad. It is a crisis, not merely a challenge, because this is a challenge that the state cannot meet given its current institutional constraints. As a result, elites (and the army) become divided over what to do and loyalty to the regime weakens. This crisis of state creates the revolutionary situation.

Second, patterns of class dominance determine which group will rise up to exploit the revolutionary situation.

The result is a social revolution; the patterns of class dominance merely determine who will lead it.


Political revolution:

Social Revolution:

Storming of the Bastille, Paris, July 14, 1793

Celebration of the seizure of the presidential palace in Havana, Cuba, by the July 26 Movement

Political inspiration
: Inspiring people to get involved in politics, running for office at the local level. Fantastic! Potential to lead toward long-term reform.
Go to Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35 Next »