HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Algernon Moncrieff » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next »

Algernon Moncrieff

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Apr 20, 2014, 12:49 AM
Number of posts: 5,123

Journal Archives

Kweisi Mfume endorses Hillary Clinton for president (HRC Group)

"For decades, Hillary Clinton has demonstrated her commitment to fighting for Black and Latino communities in both deed and action,” Mfume said in a statement released by the Clinton campaign.

"From voting rights, to health care, to education, to reforming our criminal justice system and eradicating poverty the need for a proven and time tested leader is more clear today than ever before,” he said.


"The basic American principle of equal treatment under law is in many ways still under attack. We need a leader who has stood up and spent time working on our behalf when it wasn't popular. She has used her life to fight for others and not just to make promises. “

Mfume, 67, represented Maryland’s 7th Congressional District from 1987 to 1996, and led the NAACP from 1996 to 2004. He began his career in politics on the Baltimore City Council.


Link to Baltimore Sun article
Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Wed Feb 24, 2016, 01:02 AM (0 replies)

Clinton's Most Valuable Allies in South Carolina: the Moms of Black Lives Matter (HRC Group)

LINK to article at Mother Jones

They all described an intensive courtship by the Clinton campaign that began quietly, through back channels and outside the glare of the national media. Hamilton got her first meeting with Clinton after she promised on Facebook to shut down a Clinton rally with a protest in Milwaukee last spring. When the two met, they hugged for three minutes, and Hamilton cried on Clinton's shoulder. Reed-Veal met Clinton at a Congressional Black Caucus dinner. "She walked up, held my hand, and she said, 'What is it that you want?'" Reed-Veal recalled. She got a personal letter from Clinton afterward. Then she got a second letter, inviting her to a Democratic debate. After a Texas grand jury decided not to indict anyone for her daughter's death, she got a third letter from Clinton.

Clinton sealed the deal, they explained, when she met with the five of them last fall in a conference room in Chicago. It was a low-key affair. The candidates' staffers shooed reporters from the room before it began, and Clinton showed up with a notepad to jot down what she heard. They were told they had 30 minutes; the meeting lasted for two hours. "She knew which cases went to jail," Fulton said, when she told the story at the second stop of the day, a church in Sumter. "She knew specifically what happened in our tragedies. She knew that information and she knew because she cares. She cares. Not only does she care about victims of gun violence but she cares about women, she cares about African Americans. She cares!"

"We sat there and collaborated with her and her staffers," Reed-Veal recalled, sounding a little awed. "Our concerns are implemented in her policy. God is good! He was in the room. The Lord was was in the room! And Hillary was that mother, that grandmother, that sister."

That such an event happened at all is a testament to how far the Democratic landscape has shifted not just from 2008—when the Clintons cast doubts on the electability of Hillary Clinton's African American opponent ahead of the South Carolina primary and boasted of the then-New York senator's unique strength with white voters—but from the launch of the campaigns last spring. Neither Clinton nor Sanders talked about police violence, incarceration, or gun control in their announcement speeches last spring. It simply wasn't something Democratic presidential candidates felt they needed to talk about. But as they hit the home stretch in South Carolina, it has become a cornerstone of their platforms.
Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Wed Feb 24, 2016, 12:51 AM (2 replies)

So, DUers - What are we doing here in GD:P, and why are we doing it?

My question to all of us - at this point, what are we doing?

Earlier tonight, I conducted a highly unscientific survey of DUers, and in results that should surprise no one, over 95% of us have pretty well made up our mind on who we are voting for. So whenever we post about how great Hillary or Bernie is, we are officially just preaching to our respective choirs. True-to-DU-form, we make post after post after post about: how third-way Hillary is; Hilary's IWR vote; Bernie's love of the gun lobby; I - VT or D- VT. And I'm as guilty as any of us -- my intent is not to claim to be holier-than -thou here. But we are spending much energy pointing fingers and name calling against one another while ignoring our broad areas of agreement -- about women's rights; about the need to improve the ACA/move toward single payer; about keeping the next three SCOTUS judges from being clones of Sam Alito; about sane immigration policy; about some sense of racial justice in this country.

Another poster (Cali, I think) made a post basically saying (and I'm oversimplifying and paraphrasing) Hillary and Bernie supporters aren't speaking the same language. They just aren't interested in the same things. In a broad sense, I'd agree with that. We tend (again -- making a simplistic generalization) to have differing views on what we want in a President and from the party.

There's nothing wrong with enthusiasm for a candidate. Go Bernie! Go Hillary! However, However, it's pretty clear that both sides are getting on one another's nerves. I'm not a Sanders supporter, but I imagine Bernie supporters are tired of being told their candidate's chances are slim and his supporters are delusional. I am certain that Hillary supporters are really sick of hearing that our candidate is little-better than Ted Cruz.

So, if we've all made up our minds, fine. If we're all going to gloat and vent about primary and caucus results - fine. Here's where I'm coming from: in 2008, Hillary v. Barack got pretty acrimonious; however, we all agreed that the Bush policies had to end. We all got behind President Obama, and he won. It has not been a perfect Presidency, but it's been pretty good, especially considering the congressional headwinds and the mess he inherited in January 2009. I'm probably being overly pessimistic, but I just don' see that now. I see two sides that are pretty embittered with one another.

So I have no idea how the rest off the primaries play out. Will we pretty much know by Super Tuesday? Will this go until June? Whatever it is, I'd like to ask these questions:

If we can't come together on who should be President, can we set aside our differences to get Dems elected to the House and Senate?
Can we at least try to agree that either Clinton or Sanders would be an improvement over Rubio, Cruz, or Trump?
Can we be honest enough with ourselves to admit that both of our candidates, Bernie and Hillary, have some imperfections, drawbacks, and flaws?
Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Tue Feb 23, 2016, 02:43 AM (61 replies)

How made up is your mind for the Democratic caucuses/primaries??

I'm not asking who you are voting for. I'm asking if there is any point in anyone (at DU or outside of DU) trying to sway you.
Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Mon Feb 22, 2016, 08:02 PM (19 replies)

Skinner -- since you support HRC, can you be banned by the hosts of the Bernie Sanders group?

I realize this is like asking: If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so big that He cannot lift it?

..but seriously, can they ban you?
Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Mon Feb 22, 2016, 05:47 PM (2 replies)

If Clinton prevails in the Democratic Primary, Bernie’s supporters won’t necessarily flock to her

LINK:By Mike Weishar on February 22, 2016

Some people have claimed that if Hillary beats out Bernie for the nomination, progressives will stay home and leave Clinton out to dry. That’s possible, there are liberals who outright despise the Clintons, but this year, the same can be said for Trump. There are many conservatives who simply won’t vote for a guy who supports Planned Parenthood and a single payer health system.

That being said, Trump will certainly steal Bernie’s voters away from Clinton in the general election. There is no question. Probably more than any other party has taken from another in a while. Bigots/racists actually come from all political persuasions (some more than others) and in America, they are plentiful.

Look at Saturday’s example of Bernie supporters yelling “English only” at labor leader and Spanish interpreter Dolores Huerta. If people like that are supporting Sanders, they’ll have no trouble going to the other side after a Hillary victory.

Will these idiots be enough to eventually put Trump over the top? Who can say? What is certain is that no one has any idea what’s going to happen this year and anyone who says otherwise is a bigger liar than Ted Cruz.


"Quiet Mike" describes himself as "Progressive, Liberal, Informative and Honest'" I found the Sanders-to-Trump switch to be a somewhat startling take from someone that is arguing in the same piece that Sanders is the more electable candidate.
Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Mon Feb 22, 2016, 10:34 AM (156 replies)

Something the media is missing in the Trump SC win

I just saw an infographic of reasons people supported Trump.The biggest group was those who felt Trump "tells it like it is."

Think about that for a moment: Trump loudly proclaimed that GW Bush DID NOT KEEP US SAFE in the debates. IIRC he pointed out to Jeb that the towers fell on Dubya's watch. The Bush safety canard has been GOP holy writ for yers. Trump has seemingly destroyed the myth.
Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Sun Feb 21, 2016, 03:39 AM (6 replies)

The same story at DU after every primary & caucus

Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Sun Feb 21, 2016, 01:10 AM (1 replies)

Daily Cal: The Zoetrope Effect

Sanders’ puritanical liberalism is his most salient hurdle to success in office. It is also exactly why a vocal subset of my peers seem to like him. When UC Berkeley students belong to an institution where two-thirds self-describe as some version of liberal, we ought to regularly question what that designation even means. But too often, those who I encounter in the more liberal pockets of Berkeley do not, advocating instead, like blind zealots with unfocused beliefs, for high-minded progressive ideals.

By pledging their allegiance to broad, complicated dogmas, the most liberal of my friends avoid having to justify their position. Sanders’ elusive rhetoric and convincing idealism mirrors their own hazy political consciousness and, more importantly, affords them to not question the elements of the things they say they believe. By dint of the fact that my UC Berkeley peers and I are pursuing a college degree makes us a pragmatic subset of the population. Why, then, does our knowledge of the importance of realism seem to diminish when faced by unchecked progressivism? Why has my former pro-Hillary housemate suddenly denounced Clinton, in light of Sanders’ momentum, as “only slightly better than Ted Cruz?”

I laud the efforts made by Sanders to foster discourse about our economic and sociopolitical climate. But I also think that certain rhetoric can be dangerous, especially when its argument is rooted in a foundational illusion, and particularly when that illusion seems to dissuade otherwise contemplative students from sensibility. Mythology is almost always antagonistic to advancement. As such, activists ought to seriously question the stories that political candidates want us to believe in order to avoid harboring a culture of blind liberalism for the sake of liberalism.

Sanders personifies the utopian existence that energizes my peers’ general desire for a more accepting world. But millennials don’t love Bernie. They love the image projected by the zoetrope of his campaign: his role as visionary figurehead, the idyllic American vision that he ardently maintains, the simplicity and the nostalgia and the steadfast belief that life, in the end, is not nearly as complex as we’ve convinced ourselves to believe.


http://www.dailycal.org/2016/02/17/the-zoetrope-effect-2/
Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Thu Feb 18, 2016, 01:21 AM (0 replies)

Who would you nominate and why?

Maybe you want the best justice possible or maybe you just want GOP heads to explode.

Who would you nominate to replace Scalia?
What is their legal bacground (if you know)?
Why did you pick this person?
What do you feel are the odds of Senate confirmation?

IF YOUR PICK IS BARACK OR BIDEN: Who do you pick for the new Veep?

My shoot from the hip pick is Loretta Lynch because she's recently gone through a confirmation process and she has the legal chops as AGUS.

Eta - 50/50 on confirmation
Posted by Algernon Moncrieff | Sat Feb 13, 2016, 10:28 PM (5 replies)
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Next »